++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you are radical, insanely liberal and/or if you are a progressive Democrat, you probably will find it difficult to agree the COVID pandemic was a subtle way for those who hate this nation and wish to destroy it to take advantage of determining to what degree Americans would trade freedom for safety.
Obviously, there were also many conservatives, who might be patriotic and love America, but also were willing to trade freedoms out of exorbitant fear.
Rest assured, radicals won round one and will not forget what they observed/learned
So what were the results? We are still wearing masks and probably will for years. We were willing to allow restrictions on church attendance while other less "necessitous" institutions were allowed to remain open, ie bars etc. We closed schools and one governor literally panicked and killed thousands in nursing homes and will probably not pay for his vicious incompetence.
Knee jerk reactions resulted in millions of proprietors, of various businesses, to go bankrupt because of zealous imposition of questionable rules and regulations. Some politicians took advantage and disobeyed policies they imposed on others whose safety they were responsible for in order, in one instance, to get their hair done, ie. Madam Pelosi. Others took trips while demanding their own "charges" remain restricted etc.
While we remained in this heightened emotional state incidences occurred which afforded opportunities for radicals to riot, to destroy, to engage in theft, to outlaw books, and to engage in other obscene activities that curtailed freedoms and American's succumbed meekly and, in many instances, stood absolutely silent and submissive. As the pandemic persisted and negative statistics mounted, radicals successfully pressed for other constitutional violations involving reverse discrimination and racial allocations as well as alterations in school curricula which, if they are allowed to stand, will inculcate an entire generation of hateful and devisive/derisive messaging.
If this becomes the new moral our Republic will have been crippled.
++++
Three interesting articles from The HOOVER Monthly:
| The Hoover Institution Monthly Briefing on National Security Welcome to the Hoover Institution’s monthly briefing on national security. This month we look at the options available to the United States in its policy toward Taiwan; delve into the emerging discussion of China and digital currencies; consider the US stance toward Russia; and herald the accessibility of a private collection of rare, multilanguage twentieth-century newspapers and journals from Afghanistan as the US prepares for withdrawal from the region. What Are the Options for US Policy toward Taiwan? Many Hoover fellows are focused on the recent suppression of democratic values in Hong Kong by China and heightened concerns around Taiwan’s security. With Beijing undeterred in its “One-China” principle and its aggressive posture both in military readiness and political rhetoric, the future of the America’s “deliberate ambiguity” toward Taiwan is now in question. How US policy should respond to this increasing threat is examined in “The United States, China, and Taiwan—a Strategy to Prevent War.” The discussion, moderated by Senior Fellow Larry Diamond, focuses on a paper by Distinguished Visiting Fellow Philip Zelikow and Robert Blackwell. In it, they support a policy that would challenge a potential Chinese quarantine strategy by working with allies to deliver arms and supplies to Taiwan. Distinguished Fellow James Mattis advocates that the United States take steps to reduce miscalculations, engage in a sustained dialogue with Beijing’s leaders, and strengthen alliances, in particular the Quad, to counter China’s ambitions. Distinguished Visiting Fellow James O. Ellis Jr. explains that the US has not developed a force structure in the region strong enough to deter Beijing’s aggression. To the authors, he challenged the judgment of a publicly revealed deterrence strategy. In a Bloomberg article, Senior Fellow Niall Ferguson argues that “this ambiguity—whereby the US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent state but at the same time underwrites its security and de facto autonomy—remains an intolerable state of affairs” for China. Unlike Zelikow and Blackwell, who liken the Taiwan situation to the Cuban Missile Crisis (in reverse), Ferguson sees the United States playing a role similar to that of the United Kingdom in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Fellow Lanhee J. Chen, in an op-ed for CNN, discusses the considerations for US policy makers from both major parties if China were to take Taiwan by force and trigger a crisis in the Indo-Pacific. +++ Newest Arena for Global Power Competition Is Digital Currencies Lawmakers, economists, and national security strategists are giving increasing attention to the threats of digital payments to global power competition, financial systems, and data security. Senior Fellow Raghuram Rajan describes in “All Eyes on Digital Payments” the evolution of payment systems and the possible information gains for providers who “control all means of payment,” across not just banking but also e-commerce and social media. He highlights the introduction of data responsibility and risk concerns for public policy and argues that these will not be mitigated even if central banks enter the digital payment system. In an earlier piece for CNBC, Rajan discusses the role of private currencies and data responsibilities in global banking. In “Don’t Let China Mint the Money of the Future,” Senior Fellow Niall Ferguson explains how China is “pioneering a combination of digital currency and electronic payments.” China’s digital foresight could challenge America’s financial hegemony, a threat he feels the American monetary authorities are underestimating. “This new Chinese system not only defends the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] against the twin threats of crypto and big tech, while ensuring that all Chinese citizens’ transactions are under surveillance; it also includes an offensive capability to challenge the US dollar’s dominance in cross-border payments.” National Security Visiting Fellow Nadia Schadlow warns that “China’s dominance in fintech also promises to boost the CCP’s expansionist ambitions in another way, hardwiring other countries to China’s economy.” In the her piece for Foreign Affairs, she prompts the United States to get serious about alternatives to Chinese fintech. In a complementary article, Distinguished Visiting Fellow Kevin Warsh points out that China’s confidence in its “macroeconomic outperformance . . . [and] growing belief in the superiority of China’s economic governance model” opens a new front in the great power competition between the United States and China. Find more information on Hoover’s work on Global Implications of China’s Central Bank Digital Currency here. +++ Sizing Up the Russian Threat and the US Response The recent expansion of US sanctions on Russia indicate that times have changed, explains Senior Fellow Michael McFaul in an interview with NPR. “[Biden was] trying to signal, I'm willing to engage with you in mutual interest, as long as you knock off this belligerent, aggressive behavior against the United States. . . . [The Biden administration is] trying to contain and engage at the same time.” In a January article, “How to Contain Putin’s Russia,” McFaul advocates a new policy of containment and describes how the United States needs to think of Russia not as a declining power but instead as a country “with significantly more military, cyber, economic, and ideological might than most Americans appreciate.” Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson warns in “How to Start a War” that the Biden administration is sending confusing signals to global authoritarians: it is hard to back up a rhetoric of force when the US is also considering a decreased military budget. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In my view, when it comes to America and the Middle East, America has chosen to shift it's focus, from a strategic standpoint, to China from The Middle East. Though this is strategically understandable, since America basically lost two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, consequently, Israel has gained a small amount of freedom but Israel still has not been given America's blessing to finish the job regarding Iran, though they can and are prepared to do so.. Meanwhile, because Biden has less regard for a relationship with Israel, this administration will mistakenly persist, in all probability, allowing Iran to pursue its goal while concurrently harassing our ships etc. By focusing on China, Biden seems not to comprehend if you don't use force you lose and Biden using American force, against China, is out of the question. Furthermore, if our foreign policy is driven by human rights then why the criticism of Saudi Arabia and allow/give Iran and Palestinians a pass while removing the terrorist designation on the Huti's? Finally, if America is perceived tying Israel's hands, regarding, Iran the UAE and the Saudis will, out of necessity, fear and self survival, move closer to Iran. Biden has told Israel they have a right to defend themselves but what is that worth considering Biden's actions towards pacifying Iran? Lamentably, Biden's withdrawal from The Middle East, which was begun by Obama, and both continue sending a message they are willing to allow Iran it's goal, this places pressure on Israel to convince the UAE, Saudis etc. they are prepared to defend the region in America's absence/withdrawal. I hope I am wrong but this is the direction I believe events are heading and Biden is totally ignoring as are his advisors. Before Biden is out of The Oval Office I believe he will cause tragic diplomatic events. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | ||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment