Happy Father's Day. Excuse Me For Pointing Out The Ironic Past Record of Democrats and Hillary when It Comes To Russia. Outflanked?

Dagny may appear in an ad.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friend and fellow memo reader makes it clear where he stands: "Dick,

Call me a cynic but all signs point to Comey’s leak to a cowardly and complicit press of his personal “memo to self” had as its stated purpose orchestrating the appointment of a “special prosecutor,” probably one already known to be a very good friend of Comey, just as he’s now known to have orchestrated numerous events before.  Anyone who thinks this will be a truly independent investigation under Robert Mueller is either 1) sound asleep, 2) willfully ignorant or 3)naïve to the point of being dangerous to himself or others. We now know Comey’s a master puppeteer in Washington manipulating others, usually to his own benefit but, as well, covering others a*****, e.g., most recently Loretta Lynch. The guy’s a sleaze ball who, along with Loretta Lynch, had become  effectively an arm of the Democratic National Committee. Prove to me I’m wrong!

E-"

About a month ago I wrote a very brief review of : "Reviving Ophelia."  It is a book about the sexual revolution which all female adolescents now face.  I thought the article by McGurn  linked well. (See 1 below.)

The happiest of Father's Day's to all my father friends.  Along with your wives you make the bed-rock of what is left of our nation's fractured family foundation.

+++++++++++

The Democrat's cheesy collusion arguments continue to resemble like they were  made in Switzerland. After today the scoreboard show strike two.

They are looking more pathetic with the passing of each testifier before the Senate Intelligence Committee as they pursue hypocrisy.

How long they will be able to keep their charade going remains to be seen but , I suspect, at some point they will begin to shoot themselves in their feet.

Americans know Russia interfered in our election but they are more interested in making sure we have secure borders, Islamic terrorists are kept away from our shores, the economy recovers so that jobs are available and the dream of being in the middle class is revived. They also would like to feel more secure about their out of pocket health insurance costs, no doubt would like to see our military rebuilt and yes, some tax relief/simplification would be a plus.  Finally, they would like to see government spending come under control so their earned benefits would be there when they retire.

Consequently, it would appear most citizens do not share the Democrat's agenda which is to smear Trump and throw sand in the gears of his administration because they cannot swallow the fact that he is president.

What is even more ironic is these same Democrat Dwarfs derided Romney when he said Russia was our greatest enemy and now they have become so concerned about Russian involvement in our elections etc.  When did Democrats ever worry about Russia.  They have always been the anti-military party.  They have always favored weakness over strength.

 I didn't hear them criticizing Obama for allowing Russia to attain a beach head in the Middle East, I don't hear them railing at Clinton for her re-set failure and ill gotten gains for her Foundation as a result of authorizing a Russian Company to purchase one quarter of our nation's uranium.  (See 2 below - said with a straight face.)

While I am on my horse, what about the fact that Sessions testified but Holder, Rhodes, Rice and Powers, among other Obama appointees, refused to even appear before Congressional Committees or provide requested documents.

What hypocrisy but, of course, pardon me for raising facts that are long past. (See 2a and 2b below.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like Romney,I believe China is one of our greatest enemies and I fear they are outflanking us in the South China Sea. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++

Dick

+++++++++++++++++++

1) Dad Meets the Sexual Revolution

A politically incorrect Father’s Day guide to sex, masculinity and daughters. By William McGurn

This coming Sunday, in homes across the nation, millions of American men will awake to the arrival of breakfast in bed. Prepared and served by their children, these Father’s Day repasts convey appreciation as well as contributing to the general bonhomie of the day to come. But as he sips his coffee from his “World’s Greatest Dad” mug, even the most obtuse father has to ask himself: Have I been the man my children deserve?

For dads with daughters, the question can be particularly disquieting as we contemplate a sexual revolution that has lost sight of any boundaries. In theory it’s all gloriously empowering. But for those who regard human sexuality as a profound gift, and la différence as a key to appreciating this gift, it’s astonishing how judgments that would have been elementary to our great-great-grandmothers today elude the most privileged and well-educated.

Just one example, from a news story that made national headlines about two years ago. At Stanford, two grad students were cycling across campus when they noticed a young man sexually engaging a woman who wasn’t moving. In the cozy surrounds of a campus dumpster.

The young man was a member of the Stanford swim team. He was sentenced to six months for sexual assault and released after serving half his time. The coverage suggests the issues are complicated. But are they?

For young men: Does it require a Stanford degree to know that sexual contact with an unconscious woman is a line a man does not cross? As for being drunk himself, if he had no notion he might be doing something wrong, why did he make a run for it when the cyclists interrupted him?

For young women: This may sound impolitic, but loving moms and dads say it anyway. What happened here is a lesson in the vulnerability of women not in control of themselves because they are drunk.

The straw-man rejoinder is that this suggests the woman was “asking for it.” To the contrary, this is a refusal to allow ideology to deny a fact of life. The physical reality is that a woman’s inebriation removes a critical barrier to assault and humiliation.

The great fraud of our age, of course, is that consent and contraception are all a woman needs to have sex the way a man can. Certainly birth control and its backstop (abortion) permit women to enjoy a sexual relationship without the fear of an unwanted child. But seldom does anyone ask whether an unwanted pregnancy is the only unfortunate consequence a consensual sexual relationship might bring.

This father wonders. I know any number of accomplished women who are not prudes, who want to be more than someone’s Tinder swipe and who are looking for full and worthy partners. When these women relate the reality of modern courtship—how so many first dates end with the man making clear that not jumping into bed with him means no second date—let’s just say “empowering” is not the first word that comes to mind.

In a 2014 piece for the Weekly Standard, Heather Mac Donald noted that when the social default for unmarried sex was “no,” the woman didn’t have to explain herself. “No” was sufficient. The irony is that this default meant the woman held most of the cards when it came to deciding whether a relationship would become sexual.

Today, Ms. Mac Donald notes, the default has become “yes”—and the woman who resists is both on her own and on the defensive. For men, of course, this has been a most welcome shift. And no doubt for some women, too.

Then again, if all women are yearning for is strings-free sex, why does it seem to require so much alcohol? Might one answer be the loneliness that comes from giving fully of yourself in the hope of finding intimacy—and in return getting only intercourse?

Already I hear the chorus rumbling. Mansplaining! This guy’s a dinosaur! Get woke!

Perhaps. Then again, most dads accept that part of the job is a willingness to be the unfashionable one; that is, to love enough to speak unpopular truths when the world cheats your children with fifty shades of grey. For all the complaints about “toxic masculinity,” genuine masculinity seems hard to come by. Surely the greater male dysfunction of our time is perpetual adolescence, and a culture that encourages the man-child.

So this Father’s Day, looking over the three greatest blessings in his life, this dad pines for the day when we might again speak honestly and openly about the profound differences between male and female sexuality, when the heart might be taken as seriously as the orgasm—and when young men pursuing young women might even rediscover the marvelous possibilities of moonlit summer evenings.

++++++++++++++++++++++

2)

Russian Ambassador To Israel: We Do Not Consider Hamas And Hizbullah To Be Terrorists At All

Russian Ambassador to Israel Alexander Shein said, in a June 9, 2017 interview with the Israeli Russian-language Channel 9 TV, that Russia did not consider Hamas and Hizbullah to be terrorist organizations, since they have not carried out attacks in Russian territory or against Russian interests abroad.

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, click here.

Interviewer: "Let me ask you quite a painful question regarding Russia's attitude toward Hamas and Hizbullah. Let me ask you: Do you in Russia understand that from our perspective, Hamas and Hizbullah are terrorists, who are no different from ISIS? They carry out terror attacks and fire missiles at Israel – and let me remind you that we have many Israelis with Russian citizenship – yet Moscow continues to conduct a dialogue with them."

Alexander Shein: "We do not consider these organizations to be terrorist. True, they are radical organizations, which sometimes adhere to extremist political views. Let me explain why we do not – and can not – designate them as terrorist organizations. Russian law – the Supreme Court, following an appeal by the prosecution – defines terrorist organizations as such when they intentionally conduct acts of terror in Russian territory, or against Russian interests abroad – installations, embassies, offices, or citizens. You equate ISIS [with Hamas and Hizbullah], but we think this is wrong."

Interviewer:  "I do equate them, because when rockets were fired at Tel Aviv a few years ago, and people were forced to run for shelter, it was indiscriminate [fire], which did not distinguish between Russian, Israeli, or other passports. They all faced the same rocket fire. So what is rocket fire if not an act of terror or of war?"

Alexander Shein: "Of course we condemn such fire."

Interviewer: "That's all you can say? There are bad terrorists and good terrorists?"

Alexander Shein: "No, we do not consider them to be terrorists at all." [...]

2a) Obama and Holder Lied – Brian Terry Died

By Daniel John Sobieski

As liberal McCarthyism continues searching for Russian monsters under Trump administration beds, it might serve us well to remember the Obama administration scandals, for which there were no special prosecutors appointed, no grand juries convened, not even a leaked memo to the New York Times via a friendly professor at Columbia University.

A few years ago, President Obama called the scandals swirling around his administration “phony scandals”. As The Hill reported in 2013:

“With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball,” Obama said in an economic address at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill...

 Obama on Wednesday did not specify which controversies were “phony,” but the administration has been attacked over National Security Agency surveillance programs leaked to the public, the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, the Department of Justice’s seizing of media phone records, and last year’s attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Phony scandals are those that do not have a smidgeon of evidence of a crime, like alleged Trump collusion with the Russians or obstruction of an investigation that was never stopped or even slowed down. Phony scandals do not produce body bags as the Obama administration produced in Benghazi and during Operation Fast and Furious -- the Obama administration’s gun-running operation in which it armed Mexican drug lords and cartels with heavy weapons for which the U.S. Border Patrol had no match or protection. That gun-running operation led to the murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

On Wednesday, in the shadow of the Russia investigations and the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey, the House Oversight Committee produced a fact-laden report documenting the collusion between the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama and Mexican drug cartels and the obstruction of justice by Attorney General Eric Holder in this, er, “matter”. As Fox News reported:

Members of a congressional committee at a public hearing Wednesday blasted former President Barack Obama and his attorney general for allegedly covering up an investigation into the death of a Border Patrol agent killed as a result of a botched government gun-running project known as Operation Fast and Furious.

 The House Oversight Committee also Wednesday released a scathing, nearly 300-page report that found Holder’s Justice Department tried to hide the facts from the loved ones of slain Border Patrol Brian Terry – seeing his family as more of a “nuisance” than one deserving straight answers – and slamming Obama's assertion of executive privilege to deny Congress access to records pertaining to Fast and Furious….

 Terry’s death exposed Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) operation in which the federal government allowed criminals to buy guns in Phoenix-area shops with the intention of tracking them as they were transported into Mexico. But the agency lost track of more than 1,400 of the 2,000 guns they allowed smugglers to buy. Two of those guns were found at the scene of Terry's killing.

 “More than five years after Brian’s murder, the Terry family still wonders about key details of Operation Fast and Furious,” the committee’s report states. “The Justice Department’s obstruction of Congress’s investigation contributed to the Terry family’s inability to find answers.”

That executive privilege was even -- we are not making this up -- extended to cover Eric Holder’s wife. The extent of the coverup and the obstruction of justice in Fast and Furious is mindboggling. The statute of limitations has not run out and perhaps it is time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate those, President Obama and Eric Holder, who are arguably guilty of criminal negligence in the death of agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican nationals. As former ATF agent John Dodson wrote in 2015 in the Washington Times:

A political firestorm erupted when it was revealed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as part of a program dubbed “Operation Fast and Furious,” had provided Brian Terry’s murderers with the weapons used to take his life.

 The details of Operation Fast and Furious in the nearly five years since the Terry murder have been documented through congressional investigations, committee hearings and Office of the Inspector General reports revealing government retaliation against whistleblowers, lies, stonewalling, cover-ups, email and document scandals, President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege, and the first-ever citation for contempt of Congress levied against a sitting U.S. attorney general.

Brian Terry’s mother, Josephine testified to the extent pf the coverup, lies and obstruction by the Obama administration and Eric Holder before the House Oversight Committee on June 6, 2017. Her statement reads, in part:

16. From the moment a bullet was fired from one of those Fast and Furious guns, from the
moment that bullet entered Brian’s body, and ended his life -- Brian’s government, my
government, your government -- began to hide the truth.  
17. One of ATF’s Fast and Furious leaders dismissed Brian’s death by saying, “You have to
scramble a few eggs to make an omelet.”  
18. That man has since been promoted by ATF and given awards by the Justice Department. 
Did you know that?
19. ATF and DOJ made sure that all those involved were given new jobs or allowed to retire
with their government pensions and benefits.
20. No one was punished or prosecuted.
21. When I pay my taxes and when you pay yours, we are funding the comfort of those who
helped murder my son.
22. We know that Brian encountered bad people the night he was killed.
23. We know there was a gun battle.
24. We know Brian was shot and killed.
25. We know the gun used to kill him was fired by a drug trafficker.
26. We know the gun was put in the murderer’s hands by our government.
27. But, there is so much more that we don’t know.
28. I need you to have overturned President Obama’s executive privilege order that hides
many of the of facts from Operation Fast and Furious.  
29. I need you to ask President Trump to keep the promise he made to my family on his
campaign trail and let you see those documents.
30. Only one possible motivation remains for all of those involved who have covered-up
Operation Fast and Furious.  
31. That is to conceal their own shame and disgrace; quite possibly their crimes.  

The operative word here is “crimes.” Real crimes, not fantasy crimes as in the” Russia, Russia, Russia” Democrat witch hunt. More interesting than the Comey memo would be the release of all the documents withheld under the Obama administration’s claim of executive privilege. President Trump should revoke the claim of executive privilege in Fast and Furious and grant the Terry family both closure and the truth as they have requested:

In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Robert Heyer, a cousin who oversees the foundation named for agent Brian Terry, said it is "time for the dirty little secrets of Fast and Furious to be exposed."

 "We urge the Trump administration and the Department of Justice to revisit the claim of executive privilege," Heyer added in his written statement. "The American public deserves to see the documents previously sealed by executive order, and for those documents to be turned over to congressional investigators."…

 Although many key documents are still missing, the report says, new records show Justice Department administrators sought to cover up the Fast and Furious scandal while viewing Terry's family members as a "public relations nuisance" rather than victims.

ATF agent Dodson has long tried to reveal the truth about Fast and Furious and the running of deadly weapons to Mexican drug lords. Investors Business Daily editorialized on Dodson’s attempt to spread the truth on the Obama administration’s effort to supply Mexican drug lords with semiautomatic weapons:

ATF Special Agent John Dodson is a national hero who in 2011 blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration's gun-running operation to Mexico.

Testifying before Congress, he disclosed that his supervisors had authorized the flow of semiautomatic weapons into Mexico instead of interdicting them, weapons that found their way into the hands of Mexican drug cartels with deadly results.

 Dodson has put his intimate Fast and Furious knowledge into a book titled "The Unarmed Truth." It provides the first inside account of how the Obama administration permitted and helped sell some 2,000 guns to Mexican drug cartels, guns used in the murder of two federal agents and hundreds of Mexican citizens.. …
 The operation was exposed when Brian was killed in December 2010 by an illegal immigrant working for the Sinaloa Cartel near Nogales, Ariz., just 10 miles from Mexico. Two Fast and Furious weapons were found at the murder scene.

 Two such weapons also were used to murder Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico on Feb. 15, 2011, came from suspects who were under ATF watch but not arrested at the time…


"Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated," Dodson, then attached to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) Phoenix office, testified before Rep. Darrell Issa's House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on June 15, 2011.
 "Rather than conduct enforcement actions, we took notes, we recorded observations, we tracked movements of these individuals for a short time after their purchases, but nothing more," Dodson testified.
 "Knowing all the while, just days after these purchases, the guns that we saw these individuals buy would begin turning up at crime scenes in the United States and Mexico, we still did nothing."

The Obama administration has done its best to hide the truth about Fast and Furious, with AG Holder arguably lying to Congress about his knowledge and involvement and repeatedly saying he “didn’t get the memo.” American citizens and Mexican nationals to this day are in jeopardy from criminals using weapons the Obama administration funneled to them. As Fox News reported about Mexican drug kingpin “El Chapo”:

A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

 A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car or, as it was intended, take down a helicopter…
 Federal law enforcement sources told Fox News that ‘El Chapo’ would put his guardsmen on hilltops to be on guard for Mexican police helicopters that would fly through valleys conducting raids. The sole purpose of the guardsmen would be to shoot down those helicopters, sources said.

As for Holder’s claim that he wasn’t in the loop, Investor’s Business Daily noted the paper trail indicated otherwise:

Somewhere, Scooter Libby must be scratching his head. He was indicted and convicted simply because his recall of when a meeting occurred differed from others. He didn't lie about a gun-running operation that led to the deaths of two American agents and at least 200 Mexicans.

But Attorney General Eric Holder did, according to memos obtained by CBS News and Fox News.

 They show Holder lied to Congress on May 2, 2011, when he was asked about when he knew about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Fast and Furious gun-running operation. He told House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa he was "not sure of the exact date, but I probably learned about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks."

Holder learned of the operation as early as July 2010 in a memo from the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center informing him of an operation run by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force out of the Phoenix ATF office, under which "straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug cartels."

So Eric Holder knew about Fast and Furious months before Brian Terry’s murder. He not only knew about it, he even bragged about it to Mexican officials during a trip to Mexico:

A 2-year-old video shows a high Justice official saying "the president has directed us," including the attorney general, to speed up Project Gunrunner and the offshoot that got a border agent killed…

 The video shows Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, who would resign nine months later after less than a year's service, telling reporters at a Department of Justice briefing of major policy initiatives to fight the Mexican drug cartels.

 "The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels," Ogden begins, "and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration's comprehensive plan."
 At the president's direction, Ogden said, the administration's plan included DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "increasing its efforts by adding 37 new employees in three new offices, using $10 million in Recovery Act funds and redeploying 100 personnel to the Southwest border in the next 45 days to fortify its Project Gunrunner," of which Operation Fast and Furious would be a part.

As we have noted, Attorney General Eric Holder himself gave a speech to Mexican authorities in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, taking credit for Gunrunner as well as Fast and Furious for himself and the Obama administration.

Holder told the audience: "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner."

Project Gunrunner was the precursor for Fast and Furious. The cartel member who actually pulled the trigger of the gun that killed Brian Terry has been captured and will get his final justice. Eric Holder, whose department knowingly and willfully put the murder weapon in his hands while running guns to Mexican drug cartels, has not. But that may change under the new sheriff in town. As the respected gun news website AmmoLand reports:

The brother of a slain Border Patrol agent says Donald Trump has promised answers about the Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” program leading to Brian Terry’s death.
Kent Terry met with Trump, and says the presumptive Republican nominee will use his authority to act if he’s elected president, Terry said in a Twitter post Tuesday.
“Mr. Trump said ‘It's a shame Fast and Furious started and shame on them for what they are doing about it,” Terry explained to this column, referring to an event at a community college in Michigan (see photo).  “When I become president I will open the books on Fast and Furious and Brian. God bless your family Kent.’
“Then at end of campaign speech when he got off stage he remembered me again,” Terry elaborated. “First time in Brian's death I honestly believe Mr. Trump will get answers.”

Final justice will happen when Eric Holder and Barack are held accountable for their lies on Fast and Furious, the withholding of documents under the guise of “executive privilege’, something even extended to Holder’s wife, and the entire coverup on why Brian Terry had to die. Eric Holder has never been prosecuted for his contempt of Congress citation in this matter. Attorney General Sessions, call your office. President Trump, keep your promise.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

2b) Lying liars

Trump’s accusers are snared by their own deceit

By Cal Thomas 

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“I’ll never lie to you.”

— Jimmy Carter, the 1976 presidential campaign.

All politicians lie, because they are human and all humans lie. The question before us is this: If President Trump lied to FBI Director James Comey, should that “lie” lead to impeachment? Did he obstruct justice when he allegedly “hoped” that Mr. Comey would not pursue an investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn? Many Democrats think so. Most Republicans do not.

Mr. Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Mr. Trump lied about him after his dismissal. The assertion was based on what the president said of him (“a real nut job”) and on his belief that Mr. Comey misled the public about the alleged lack of support among Mr. Comey’s FBI colleagues.

Mr. Trump’s newly hired attorney, Marc Kasowitz, returned fire. Speaking at the National Press Club, Mr. Kasowitz effectively accused Mr. Comey of lying about his recollection of a private dinner at which, according to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump said, “I need loyalty.” Mr. Kasowitz accused Mr. Comey of “leaking” privileged communications to the media, which Mr. Comey admitted he did for the purpose of obtaining a special counsel to investigate Russian influence in the 2016 election.

Recordings of the Comey-Trump meetings would clear this up. The president has suggested they may exist and Mr. Comey said he would be happy to have them released. They should be, but even if they corroborate Mr. Comey’s recollections, House Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said recently that he still believes there is no “credible evidence that there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.” Everyone seems to agree that the Russians “attempted” to interfere, but no one claims that attempted interference affected the outcome. Hillary Clinton lost and so did Democrats — at all levels across the country. They need to get over it and figure out why.

The word “hypocrisy” was invented for such moments. The left is suddenly aghast about lying, but was fine with Barack Obama’s numerous lies, from “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” to Benghazi, “Fast and Furious,” the “red line” in Syria and the list goes on. Let’s not even get started with the Clintons. They’re serial liars.

Media reaction swiftly followed Mr. Comey’s testimony. The New York Times and The Washington Post seemed to favor Mr. Comey. A Wall Street Journal editorial even said Mr. Comey “should have resigned if he believes what he now says.” Charles Hurt, editorial page editor of the conservative Washington Times, summarized his view of Mr. Comey’s testimony: “The only verified leaker exposed: Jim Comey. The only person we know is not and never was under investigation for ties to Russia: Donald Trump. The only person exposed for trying to influence an election: [Obama attorney general] Loretta Lynch. The only paper accused of publishing fake news: The New York Times. The only person who attempted to obstruct justice: Loretta Lynch and probably Bill Clinton.”

Even the reliably liberal Chris Matthews of MSNBC said: “The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers, you might say, is that somewhere along the line in the last year the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians … to affect the election in some way. And yet what came apart this morning was that theory.”

Do I wish the president would conform just a little to the traditions most Americans expect of a White House occupant? I do. But for me and many other conservatives, policy overcomes deportment. Last week the president nominated 11 solid conservatives to federal benches. His policies on border security, repealing and replacing Obamacare, cutting taxes and reforming the tax code, strengthening the military, among others, are why he was elected.

Democrats have nothing, other than more of the same failed policies, which have contributed to their recent election losses. They are banking on undermining the president by accusation and insinuation.

The major media — which Mr. Trump regard as the mother of all liars — are in bed with his Democratic critics, while dismissing the lies of Democrats past and present. And that’s no lie.

• Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist. His latest book is “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America” (Zondervan, 2014).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)O

Outflank China in the South China Sea

By Lieutenant Brett Wessley, U.S. Navy

utflank China in the South Throughout the history of warfare, the advantage has constantly swung between offense and defense, with new technologies and innovative tactics displacing old doctrines and war plans. The defensive advantage of the Greek phalanx was outmaneuvered by the skilled Roman legion. Improvements in fortifications and armor led to castles and iron-clad knights, until the invention of gunpowder made them obsolete. Rapidly maneuvering infantry assaults were favored until the trenches and machine guns of World War I made them suicidal. The French investment in the Maginot Line proved worthless in the face of a combined-arms Blitzkrieg around its flank. In all these examples, the common denominator is that one side’s tactical advantage spawned new ways of military thinking among its opponents, eventually degrading that advantage or reversing it completely.

At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union faced a dilemma. The United States possessed a large and experienced navy that enabled it to project power overseas, particularly with aircraft carriers. The Soviet Navy lacked a history of excellence in maritime power projection (see the Russo-Japanese War), and Soviet leadership recognized it did not have the resources to compete with the U.S. Navy. Instead, they focused on a strategy of “sea denial”—building submarines, naval mines, and antiship cruise missiles to mitigate the advantages of the maritime opponent. Though the Soviets did not use this term, the modern concept of antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) was born. ¹

As students of Soviet naval doctrine, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Navy (PLAN) have adopted an A2/AD approach to the United States in the Pacific (Chinese military strategists term the concept “counter-intervention doctrine”). ² Following the success of the United States in Operation Desert Storm and advancements in precision strike by air and naval assets, China’s military strategy focused on preventing a similar scenario from playing out near its shores. Although China has drastically increased its navy’s blue-water capabilities over the past decade, the PLAN currently has no intention of facing the U.S. Navy in the open ocean. Recent developments in the South China Sea reveal the challenges the United States will face in any future conflict and the role naval intelligence must play to accurately assess the threat and provide creative and effective solutions.

New Challenges in the South China Sea

China has attempted to turn the South China Sea into a modern version of “no man’s land” in the event of war with the United States. If the U.S. Navy decides to sail into the teeth of China’s near seas defenses, it can expect:

• Antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and antiship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) designed with carrier strike groups in mind as targets.

• Surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), as part of sophisticated integrated air defense systems (IADS), deployed on coastlines and islands and aimed at limiting U.S. airpower.

• Sophisticated and dispersed radar and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, based on land, at sea, in air and space, designed to locate and track U.S. military assets through imagery and signals intelligence (SIGINT).

• Short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles capable of targeting U.S. bases in Guam, Japan, and South Korea.

• Electronic countermeasure (ECM) jammers and counter-space weaponry leveraged to blind navigation, precision-strike, and C4ISR systems.

• Modernized submarines and a sophisticated naval mine inventory, presenting a credible subsurface threat. ³

China’s natural geographic advantage and growing military strength may enable Beijing to achieve escalation dominance over the United States in a future conflict in the South China Sea. China has many coercive options available to intimidate opponents without tipping a conflict into actual war (consider the use of “maritime militias”—fishing boat fleets leveraged to swarm and harass opposing military or civilian maritime forces—as one example of military operations other than war to enforce its claims). ⁴ The Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) supports these maritime militias, and just over the horizon, the PLAN waits to reinforce Chinese military presence, should the U.S. Navy or another foreign power attempt to intervene.

Attacking the Enemy’s Strategy

“Theory, therefore, demands that at the outset of war, its character and scope should be determined on the basis of political probabilities. The closer these political probabilities drive the war toward the absolute, the more the belligerent states are involved and drawn into its vortex, the clearer appear the connections between its separate actions, and the more imperative the need not to take the first step without considering the last.”– Clausewitz, On War, p. 584 (emphasis added).

The strategic dilemma facing the United States vis-à-vis China is that our strengths lie toward the absolute end of the spectrum of warfare, whereas China’s are concentrated in the domain of limited war or conflicts beneath the threshold of war. As military strategists, if we plan for war in a vacuum, we are cheating ourselves. China has shaped its strategy in the South China Sea to fit its carefully constructed “facts on the ground” and A2/AD operational concept. Knowing that an absolute war between the world’s top two economic powers—both of whom possess nuclear weapons—approaches the unthinkable, China has positioned itself to escalate beyond what the United States will find acceptable.

China’s rejection of the 12 July 2016 ruling by The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration, and rejection of internationally accepted norms through its pursuit of the nine-dash line encompassing the entire South China Sea, are blows aimed at the rules-based system supported by the United States since the end of World War II. ⁵ While the U.S. Navy may continue to sail through the South China Sea, China will continue to develop its illegally occupied and manufactured islands. Natural resources, ranging from oil reservoirs to vast fisheries, will be exploited by Chinese state-owned corporations and protected by the PLAN and CCG. Beijing will expand its military advantages in the South China Sea by extending the range of ASCMs and SAMs and establishing airfields across the Spratly and Paracel Islands and at Scarborough Shoal. ⁶Further incremental gains by China in the South China Sea, whether by seizing additional territory from competing claimants or reclaiming additional land features, will be a continuation of its incremental strategy used since 2012. ⁷ Over time, China will consolidate political gains through sheer inertia of the unchallenged status quo, diplomatically pointing to facts on the ground while its economic weight provides incentives for regional powers not to challenge its claims.

So what is the Clausewitzian “last step” the United States must consider in its approach to resolving the crisis in the South China Sea? This is where naval intelligence can help meet the challenge posed by China’s A2/AD strategy and help identify areas where the United States can impose costs on China’s pursuit of regional hegemony. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John M. Richardson captures this sentiment in the “Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority,” stating that the U.S. Navy “will deter aggression and enable peaceful resolution of crises on terms acceptable to the United States and our allies and partners” (emphasis added).

To borrow a concept from Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, the way forward for the United States is “to attack the enemy’s strategy.” ⁸ By raising awareness of China’s actions in the South China Sea and enabling regional nations to invest in asymmetric capabilities for maritime defense, the United States can turn the tables on China’s A2/AD strategy and leverage geography and international partnerships to maintain freedom of navigation.

Outflank A2/AD

Increase Maritime Domain Awareness. The vast size of the South China Sea has worked to China’s advantage, obscuring its maritime movements and land reclamations, which often were in violation of international law. Although China has successfully coerced nations within the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) bloc—particularly Cambodia—to refrain from condemning its maritime claims, the 12 July 2016 ruling by The Hague has emboldened several countries to stand up for their sovereignty. ⁹ An issue facing Southeast Asian regional claimants, however, is the fractured status of their maritime domain awareness. With disjointed and limited funding going toward maritime domain awareness, the regional claimants’ ability to act in unison is hampered by a lack of historical and real-time intelligence in the South China Sea. How can a nation effectively call out China on disruptive maritime behavior if it cannot effectively see beyond its coastline?

Whether monitoring aggressive coercion by maritime militias and illegal maritime law enforcement or the seizure and development of contested land features, the ASEAN bloc needs to have a common picture of what is going on in the maritime domain. ¹⁰ Coastal surveillance radars, maritime law enforcement patrol craft, and maritime patrol aircraft can all play roles in maintaining awareness of China’s actions in the South China Sea. Commercial imagery satellites also can help regional powers identify illegal land reclamation. Singapore’s Information Fusion Centre (IFC) could serve as a model for ASEAN cooperation on maritime domain awareness, and U.S. Navy engagement could help with providing best practices for maintaining a common operational picture (COP) across the maritime domain. ¹¹

Although defense budgets for Southeast Asian nations have grown in recent years, ASEAN nation militaries combined spent just $38.2 billion in 2014 (compared to $165 billion spent by China in the same year). ^12,13 A way around this disparity in spending is to leverage technology. The cost of ships and aircraft necessary to maintain an active presence in the South China Sea can be offset through investment in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Basing UAVs at coastal airfields or forward locations in the South China Sea could enable regional nations to keep eyes on Chinese PLAN and civil maritime activities and provide shareable intelligence to assist with an accurate COP. Partnership with the United States would provide regional nations with a wealth of experience for both operating and exploiting UAV operations and maintaining awareness of activity in their backyards.

Improve Regional A2/AD Capabilities. Just as China pursued asymmetric strategies to counter U.S. advantages in net-centric warfare and precision strike, regional ASEAN nations would be best served exploiting asymmetric advantages against China. China will continue to outspend the combined efforts of Southeast Asian nations, and it is unrealistic to expect that the regional militaries will contend conventionally with China in direct conflict or below the threshold of war. Investment in A2/AD capabilities is the most effective way to deter China from continued infringement of territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea.

Investment in coastal ASCMs and IADS would reduce China’s ability to operate unimpeded in the waters off the Philippines and Vietnam—the two nations that had maritime territory forcibly seized by China. If entering into a regional conflict, China could attempt to establish local maritime and air superiority in the South China Sea; opposing regional navies and air forces would be challenged to leave their ports or airfields. ASCMs and IADS deployed adjacent to contested maritime claims would reduce the operational benefits of China’s militarization of the South China Sea, and China likely would struggle in suppressing land-based maritime and air defenses (particularly if it were simultaneously engaged in hostilities with the United States). Instead of the South China Sea being a no-man’s land for U.S. Navy and allied forces, Chinese possessions at Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands would be denied to the PLAN and People’s Liberation Army Air Force.

The regional nations’ investments in maritime domain awareness would provide real-time targeting information for defensive antiship cruise missiles and air defenses. A functioning A2/AD system relies on ISR assets for finding, fixing, and finishing its targets, but the same investments in peacetime maritime intelligence could be leveraged in war. Regional nations could leverage relationships with the United States for help honing their proficiency in operating their A2/AD systems.

Expand Intelligence Sharing with Key Partners. The United States benefits from strong intelligence sharing with key regional partners—namely Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. Historical bilateral alliances are important, but moving into the multilateral dimension is central to affirming international treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). The security of the entire region is imperiled by an aggressive China ignoring international norms. The ability of nations to share intelligence would build confidence and advance regional maritime domain awareness. If the nations of the Indo-Pacific are not seeing the same national security realities, the confusion among their policies and decision makers will play to China’s advantage.

India is critical to counterbalancing China’s actions in the South China Sea. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the U.S. Congress last year and in his speech stressed the importance of security ties between the U.S. and India. ¹⁴ India’s “Look East” foreign policy emphasizes engagement with Southeast Asian countries bordering the South China Sea, and China’s aggressive expansion in the region threatens India’s ties to the East. In addition to expanded basing agreements and joint development of defense technologies, talks are under way to increase intelligence sharing between the United States and India. Moving this relationship forward will increase India’s standing as a regional stakeholder and add to the voices calling for adherence to international law and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

Although the relationships between several ASEAN nations and China could make it difficult to increase intelligence sharing with the United States, select partnerships with regional nations could improve the United States’ strategic position. The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia all are claimants in the South China Sea and face similar challenges with an aggressive China. Individually tailored intelligence-sharing agreements with these states, along with continued development of bilateral naval ties, could provide an opportunity for increased intelligence collection in the South China Sea and assist regional stakeholders to better understand the sovereignty challenges posed by China.

Maintain Maritime Superiority

Changes in technology lead to changes in tactics, and understanding operational consequences is the primary concern of military strategists. Running into the teeth of an enemy’s defenses represents a lack of creative thinking—what was true at the Somme is true in the Pacific. On a macro scale, the United States can overcome the challenges posed by China’s A2/AD strategy in the South China Sea by outflanking China through regional engagement.

China’s aggressive actions have alienated ASEAN bloc members and isolated Beijing on the international stage. The geography of China’s near seas may enable its counter-intervention doctrine, but it also can be used against it. Improving maritime domain awareness across Southeast Asia, increasing the defensive A2/AD capabilities of territorial stakeholders, and establishing new intelligence-sharing agreements with and among regional partners will lay the groundwork for maintaining maritime superiority in the South China Sea. Naval intelligence will play a key role in all these endeavors. Operationalizing information in the South China Sea—whether for maritime awareness or targeting purposes—will be necessary to outflank China’s designs on the region.

---

1. Robert C. Rubel, “Command of the Sea: An Old Concept Resurfaces in a New Form,” The Naval War College Review, Autumn 2012, vol. 65, no. 4. www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e7dabb3b-333d-4af1-8eb3-b98d311c470d/Command... .

2. Cortez A. Cooper, “Joint Anti-Access Operations: China’s ‘System-of-Systems’ Approach,” 27 January 2011, www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/2011/RAND_CT356.pdf .

3. Peter Dutton, Andrew S. Erickson, and Ryan Martinson, “China’s Near Seas Combat Capabilities,” U.S. Naval War College Review, February 2014, www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/China-Maritime-Studies-Institute.aspx .

4. Professor Andrew Erickson, “China’s Maritime Militia,” Midrats Podcast, 9 July 2016, www.cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2016/07/chinas-maritime-militia-on-midrat... .

5. Katie Hunt, “South China Sea: Court rules in favor of Philippines over China,” CNN, 12 July 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/asia/china-philippines-south-china-sea/ .

6.“Airpower in the South China Sea,” The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 29 July 2015, https://amti.csis.org/airstrips-scs/ .

7. Robert Haddick, “America Has No Answer to China’s Salami-slicing,” War on the Rocks, 6 February 2014, warontherocks.com/2014/02/america-has-no-answer-to-chinas-salami-slicing/.

8. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 3: “Offensive Strategy.”

9. Ben Otto, “Southeast Asian Bloc Finds Unity on South China Sea Dispute,” The Wall Street Journal, 25 July 2016, www.wsj.com/articles/southest-asian-bloc-finds-unity-on-south-china-sea-... .

10. Natalie Sambhi, “China to Indonesia: Thanks For All the Fish,” War on the Rocks, 22 March 2016, warontherocks.com/2016/03/china-to-indonesia-thanks-for-all-the-fish/.

11. “Fact Sheet: Information Fusion Centre (IFC),” Singapore Ministry of Defense, 13 February 2015, www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/2014/apr/04apr... .

12. Zachary Abuza, “Analyzing Southeast Asia’s Military Expenditures,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 May 2015, www.cogitasia.com/analyzing-southeast-asias-military-expenditures/ .

13. “What Does China Really Spend on its Military?” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2015, chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/.

14. William Mauldin, “India’s Narendra Modi Emphasizes Security Ties in Address to Congress,” The Wall Street Journal, 8 June 2016, www.wsj.com/articles/indias-narendra-modi-emphasizes-security-ties-in-ad... .

Lieutenant Wessley is a 2009 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy currently assigned to the U.S. Pacific Command. His previous tours included Naval Special Warfare Development Group and Amphibious Squadron Six.

This article appeared originally at U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings Magazine.