%20(1)%20(4)%20(1).jpg)
.jpg)
By Matt Vespa
+++
Defending American Democracy Requires We Start by Crushing the Public School Weirdos
+++
Flights Erupt in Cheers After Biden's Mask Mandates Are Struck Down
+++++
Oh how true:
From Rugged Individualism to Rancid Individuality
By Erick-Woods Erickson
There is an “analysis” piece at CNN from John Harwood, the progressive commentator who, like Jeffrey Toobin, CNN gives some veneer of objectivity to. It is actually kind of amazing. In it, Harwood laments that Biden is a victim of circumstance unable to control anything because everything is out of his control.
There's not much he can do to curb inflation.
There's not much he can do to stop migrants from reaching America's southern border. Or to reduce crime, or to make vaccine resisters get shots that would hasten the end of the coronavirus pandemic.
There's not much he can do to compel cooperation from defectors within his thin Democratic congressional majorities. There is nothing at all he can do to compel it from Republican adversaries who would rather aggravate than alleviate his burdens.
In other words, there's not much Biden can do about the heaviest weights depressing his political standing, which has remained stuck in the avalanche-warning zone for months. So his party faces the likelihood of a substantial November election defeat that hands the House and perhaps the Senate to the GOP.
Never mind that inflation is chiefly driven by energy prices. Biden could immediately bring down the price of a barrel of oil by announcing massive drilling expansions. Yes, he technically just opened up more federal land for drilling, but the devil is in the detail — he is going to up the costs of doing so while keeping regulatory hurdles in place that make it cost-prohibitive.
Regardless, just consider the mask mandate.
Joe Biden actually could have scrapped the mask mandate. The mandate serves no purpose anymore. Masks are not stopping the variants. The vaccines are reducing the variants’ impact. He could have scrapped the mandate, but now a Trump-appointed judge has ended the mandate.
He gets no credit. At least, if there is a resurgence, he can blame a judge.
Now, however, progressives are in a full meltdown about you and me not wearing masks on airplanes. We are living in an unending cycle of fear. Progressives expect you to wear an N95 mask in perpetuity after two years of no one ever mandating specifically N95 masks.
In 2009, the swine flu epidemic swept the globe. Several hundred thousand people died. Hospitals in the United States were overwhelmed. But many people had enough immunity from the regular flu that masks were not needed. We did not up end our lives. No one wore masks on planes.
In 2020, COVID hit and no one had natural immunity. Many more people died over several years. But multiple vaccines were developed. People developed natural immunity. And now COVID is far less impactful than it was just a year ago.
Immunocompromised people who are fully vaccinated and boosted will overwhelmingly survive COVID. My wife, who has lung cancer, got COVID a few weeks back despite being a cautious person and her COVID symptoms were far less severe than her reaction to the second dose of the vaccine. She was out of bed sooner from COVID than the vaccine. For comparison, a few years ago, she go the flu despite getting the flu vaccine and we had multiple trips to the ER and one ambulance trip.
The vaccine really works. The messaging that we cannot go back to a pre-COVID normal, internalized by a lot of progressives, always undermined the uptake of the vaccine. It really works and we should have been out of masks and back to offices far sooner.
I am not in the camp that thinks the government has perpetuated the pandemic to control us. I think the government internalized COVID-Zero and has spent two years trying to chart a path there. In giving up, the government fell back on security theater as it always does. The TSA screenings at the airport make you feel safe far more than they actually make you safe. Masks make some feel safe far more than they keep people safe.
Now masks are gone and progressives are howling mad about it, largely for the same reason they are mad when you “misgender” someone...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this the solution? Does China really want to invade Taiwan now? Seems they have no need at this moment and a delay would not change anything and might create better opportunities later..
+++
Deterring China: U.S. Should Arm Taiwan to the Hilt – Now
by Gordon G. Chang
Whether or not China plans to invade Taiwan now, it is time for the United States to ditch decades of misguided policy. Among other things, Washington should, on an emergency basis, begin arming the island with the weapons it urgently needs. Pictured: Taiwan Air Force pilots stand next to Mirage fighter jets at Hsinchu Air Base on January 16, 2019. (Photo by Sam Yeh/AFP via Getty Images)
"Wrong signals."
That is what the Eastern Theater Command of China's People's Liberation Army said on April 15, referring to Washington's encouragement of Taiwan. That day, the Chinese military sent fighter and bomber aircraft as well as frigates near the island republic.
China's exercises, said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian, were "a countermeasure to the U.S. negative actions recently, including the lawmakers' visit to Taiwan." Beijing, he said, would "continue to take strong measures to resolutely safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity."
As he spoke, six American lawmakers, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, and Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, met with Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen and other senior officials of the self-governing island. They arrived on a U.S. Air Force plane, a not-so-subtle signal to Beijing. The two-day visit was unannounced, "sneaky" in the words of China's Defense Ministry.
The Global Times, a tabloid controlled by China's official People's Daily, was even more direct. It said the drills were not only a "warning" to other lawmakers planning to visit the island but also went "beyond deterrence by preparing for potential, real actions that would resolve the Taiwan question once and for all when necessary."
"Real actions"? Whether or not China plans to invade Taiwan now, it is time for the United States to ditch decades of misguided policy. Among other things, Washington should, on an emergency basis, begin arming the island with the weapons it urgently needs.
The People's Republic of China reserves for itself the right to use force to annex the Republic of China, Taiwan's formal name. "Taiwan is a sacred and inalienable part of Chinese territory," the Eastern Theater Command declared in a statement. "There is no room for any foreign interference on the Taiwan issue."
Many analysts have surmised that the heroic Ukrainian resistance to Russian invaders has made China's invasion of Taiwan less likely. For various reasons, few if any outsiders know how the Chinese leadership in fact views the situation.
Unfortunately, Xi Jinping, the extraordinarily ambitious and bold Chinese ruler, may feel encouraged by recent events in Eastern Europe. As Wang Dan, a Tiananmen Square-era student leader, wrote late last month, "We should not expect rational decision-making from dictators and totalitarian regimes."
Xi could very well decide that the Ukraine war shows he now has a green light to invade Taiwan. After all, the United States, the 27 nations of the European Union, and Great Britain — combined, these 29 states had an economy more than 25 times larger than Russia's last year — could not exercise their power to deter Vladimir Putin, so Xi may feel they will similarly fail with regard to China.
Moreover, the sanctions placed on Moscow after the invasion were not comprehensive, and they are, incredibly, still not comprehensive. Xi, therefore, could believe that no nation would dare impose meaningful costs on his magnificent state.
Finally, Xi might think that Vladimir Putin's invasion has created enough chaos and distraction that others would be in no position to oppose his acts of aggression.
China's leaders give the impression they have been emboldened by recent events. As Kabul was falling last year, for instance, Beijing was pushing the point that the U.S. was incapable. The Global Times asked how America could stand up to mighty China when it could not even deal with the Taliban. The semi-official tabloid also stated this, referring to America: "It cannot win a war anymore."
Moreover, Communist Party propaganda talked about Taiwan as Kabul fell. In an editorial in August, the Global Times declared that once a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the island's defense will collapse in hours and the U.S. military won't come to help.
None of this is to say China will invade— there are many reasons why it will not — but nowhere is deterrence now more important than in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan, after the fall of Afghanistan and invasion of Ukraine, is considered around the world as the test of American credibility.
The United States for decades has had a policy of "strategic ambiguity," not telling either China or Taiwan what it would do in the case of imminent conflict.
Ambiguity worked in a benign period, but, especially after the Ukraine invasion, the world is no longer in a benign period. Chinese leaders say America no longer deters them. Washington has to take them at their word, which means the U.S. must now adopt measures once considered extreme. As American policymakers consider what to do, they must remember that three decades of misguided Taiwan policy have left them with no risk-free options.
To prevent a Chinese invasion, President Biden should publicly declare that America will defend Taiwan. In addition, the U.S. should work with allies Japan and Australia and offer a multilateral defense treaty to Taipei.
Moreover, as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo proposed last month while visiting Taipei, the U.S. should recognize Taiwan for what it is: a sovereign state.
Recognition of Taiwan would require a change in America's One-China Policy. Pursuant to that policy—often confused with Beijing's One-China Principle — the U.S. recognizes Beijing as the legitimate government of China. In other words, Washington has pronounced the Communist Party the winner of the Chinese Civil War. Nonetheless, America does not, like China's One-China Principle, accept Beijing's position that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic. The U.S. merely acknowledges that Beijing makes that claim.
The U.S. instead takes the position that Taiwan's status remains unresolved and that the resolution of the status must be peaceful, in other words, with the consent of Taiwan's people.
To make sure the resolution of Taiwan's status is peaceful, the Biden administration should start shipping weapons to Taiwan, especially long-range missiles that can hold China's regime hostage.
Moreover, America and friends, to back up their words, should base forces on the island.
Deterrence is the best guarantee of peace.
The United States did not send sufficient weapons to Ukraine before the February 24 invasion, thereby failing to maintain deterrence in Eastern Europe.
By openly bolstering Taiwan's defenses, Washington would be declaring that America was no longer afraid of offending Beijing. That is transmitting the "right signal" for Chinese leaders to ponder.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doubt Biden will listen because Obama advisors would be upset:
+++
Dozens of Former U.S. Generals and Admirals Warn against Iran Nuclear Deal:
Letter By Jimmy Quinn
Posted By Ruth King
Close to 50 retired military officers wrote that the new nuclear agreement the Biden administration is negotiating with Iran is likely to “instantly fuel explosive Iranian aggression,” in an open letter last week.
In the letter, coordinated with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, the group of generals and admirals said that the deal would help Iran’s nuclear program and support of terrorism, and linked the nuclear talks in Vienna to Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. negotiators have worked through intermediary countries in the Austrian capital to hammer out an agreement to reverse President Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord.
Although the two sides have repeatedly said that they are close to inking a final agreement, the U.S. seems to have balked at Iranian demands that the White House remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization sanctions list. The talks have remained stalled for weeks, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that he’s “not overly optimistic” that the U.S. and Iran can reach a final agreement.
Meanwhile, around 20 Democratic lawmakers have criticized the negotiations and the concessions which the administration is reportedly mulling, while Republicans have prepared a range of legislative options with which to torpedo the potential agreement.
While the administration has not ruled out the IRGC delisting, which would be an extraordinary capitulation to Tehran’s demands, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that a senior administration official told him that “President Biden doesn’t intend to concede on the terrorist designation.”
It’s also possible that the administration would find a workaround, by delisting the IRGC but maintaining another category of terrorist sanctions or keeping the FTO designation on specific IRGC units, to blunt potential criticism.
The officers noted in the JINSA letter that “Iran’s main terrorist wing responsible for the deaths of at least 600 American troops” could be one of the expected nuclear deal’s risks.
They also wrote that they oppose the deal on the grounds that it “could leave Iran twice as close to a nuclear weapon as the 2015 agreement,” weaken restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, and grant the country the ability to enrich uranium and to build a bomb.
Other problems with the deal, the officers added, include its expected omission of Iran’s ballistic-missile program and terrorist activities across the world, which Biden administration officials have said they want to address in a follow-on accord.
The JINSA letter’s signatories include General Chuck Wald, a former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and Vice Admiral John Bird, former deputy commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, among dozens of other senior officers.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should serve as a cautionary tale, they warned.
“In Ukraine, we are bearing witness to the horrors of a country ruthlessly attacking its neighbor and, by brandishing its nuclear weapons, forcing the rest of the world largely to stand on the sidelines,” they wrote.
The retired officers added that Russia “has played a central role in crafting” the expected deal, which they said “will enable the world’ leading state sponsor of terrorism to cast its own nuclear shadow over the Middle East.”
+++++++++++
The End of Russia’s Empire?
Moscow has a stake in the Ukraine war that is greater than Putin’s career.
By Walter Russell Mead
As Russia and Ukraine prepare for what could be the biggest tank battle in Europe since World War II, the future of Vladimir Putin’s war remains impossible to predict. Large-scale tank and artillery engagements in the flat open terrain of eastern Ukraine may favor Moscow, and the sheer weight of Russia’s military machine could force territorial gains, but other outcomes are possible. Ukrainian courage, tactical brilliance and access to Western arms and equipment could produce another string of humiliating setbacks for Russia.
The worst-case scenario for Mr. Putin would be for Russia’s war in Ukraine to end in a comprehensive military defeat, with the collapse of pro-Russian enclaves in the Donbas and Moldova and Ukraine’s integration into the West. Such a defeat would be more than a personal humiliation; it could be a career-ending setback for him. It would also deliver a psychological and strategic shock to Russia’s standing and self-image. The course of Russian history would change.
Russia would not be the first former empire to face a moment of historical reckoning. Spain’s 1898 defeat at the hands of the upstart Americans was a watershed moment in Spanish history. The global empire that had defined Spain since the voyages of Columbus had suddenly disappeared, and Spaniards began to question everything from the monarchy to the role of the church.
For Britain and France, their ignominious failure in the 1956 Suez campaign forced both countries to realize that they were no longer independent global powers. The glories of empire were over, and the two former superpowers began, painfully and reluctantly, to adjust to their new circumstances.
A decisive Russian failure in Ukraine could be Moscow’s Suez moment. If Russia fails to conquer the heart of Ukraine (western Ukraine is less of a concern in Russian historical mythology), Russians will be unable to avoid the conclusion that the empire of the czars, painfully assembled over many centuries and restored by Lenin and Stalin after the disasters of World War I, has irrevocably fallen. This will force the kind of deep introspection in Russia that other former empires have had to face. The consequences will be far-reaching.
Under the Romanovs, the communists and Mr. Putin, Russian political thought has been shaped by three beliefs: that Russia is different, that the difference is transcendentally important, and that it gives Russia a unique role in world history. Defeat in Ukraine would radically undermine confidence in these ideas, plunging Russia into an identity crisis with unpredictable political consequences.
The czars, commissars and Putinists all saw Russia as both unique and committed to a struggle against the West. For the czars, Moscow was the “third Rome” that would carry the torch of Christianity and civilization after the first Rome fell to barbarian invaders and the second Rome (Constantinople) fell to the Turks. For the communists, Moscow was the citadel of the global proletarian revolution, fated to annihilate the decadent bourgeois culture of the West. Mr. Putin and his acolytes see the world in similar terms, with Russia committed to a war of survival against Western decadence, soullessness and unbridled greed.
To hold its own in the unequal competition with the more developed West and to provide governance suited to its unique psyche, Russia, its rulers argued, needed to concentrate power at the top. Only someone as strong as Catherine the Great, Stalin or, his admirers maintain, Mr. Putin can enable Russia to prevail in its confrontation with the West.
Ukraine is the heart of the matter. With Ukraine under its thumb, Moscow sees itself as the greatest power in Europe. Without Ukraine, the dream that Russia can recapture the Soviet Union’s status as a superpower will die a bitter death.
Worse, perhaps, from the viewpoint of the “Eurasian” theorists and radical Russian nationalists who provide a veneer of legitimacy for Mr. Putin’s regime, a victory for Orthodox, Slavic and democratic Ukraine over despotic Russia wouldn’t only challenge the personal legitimacy of Mr. Putin. It would challenge the idea of Russian exceptionalism and fatally undermine the view that despotism is the form of governance best suited to the Russian soul.
As the war exposes the darkness inherent in Mr. Putin’s regime, and as atrocities abroad and repression at home impress the mark of Cain ever more deeply on its brow, it is impossible not to hope for a Russian defeat. Nevertheless, caution is in order. Mr. Putin and those around him know that in Ukraine they aren’t fighting only for an adjustment of frontiers. They are fighting for their world, and it may be psychologically impossible for them to accept defeat until every measure, however ruthless, and every weapon, however heinous, has been brought into play.
For Vladimir Putin and the people around him, the stakes in Ukraine are almost infinitely great.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
What I have been saying for years:
+++
The Navy’s Big Carrier Groups Are Sitting Ducks
Can the top brass admit how much we have spent on fleets that are now obsolete?
Your editorial “The Shrinking U.S. Navy” (April 5) focuses on the number of ships that the U.S. Navy is commissioning and retiring rather than their capability. The inconvenient truth is that our Navy has 12 carrier groups and all are now obsolete. The Chinese have developed an antiship ballistic missile (ASBM), the DF-21D, nicknamed the “carrier killer.” It has a range of 1,200 miles and can fly at speeds higher than Mach 5. During descent to the target, it can fly at Mach 10. That’s like launching one in Chicago and hitting the Statue of Liberty three minutes later.
We have no missile-defense systems that can counter the DF-21D. The Navy has a ballistic-missile-defense system, but the problem is it doesn’t work. Last year the Navy performed a test in which it tried to intercept two ASBMs. It couldn’t hit either one. This was a planned test—the Navy knew when the missiles were coming, from what direction and how many. Imagine a surprise attack on a carrier with 20 missiles incoming at the same time.
It is virtually impossible for our top Navy brass to admit that we have spent so much on carrier fleets that are now obsolete, but that is where we are right now. Rather than building more of the same, our Navy should transition to submarines that can launch drones and to small, fast boats that can launch torpedoes and missiles. That will be the naval warfare of the future.
Col. Colin Meyer, USA (Ret.)
Madison, Ind.
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
+++++
Will Republicans allow a radical Democrat to walk off with a Keystone Senate victory?
Democrats’ Risky Keystone Bet
Their Pennsylvania Senate frontrunner is like Bernie Sanders, but more belligerent.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Donald Trump stirred the Pennsylvania primary pot this weekend, with his controversial endorsement of TV doctor Mehmet Oz over David McCormick to succeed Sen. Pat Toomey. If the press won’t let that go, it’s in part because Democrats are in denial about their own consequential contest—one that goes beyond Senate control to the question of their party’s future.
That’s the primary on their side, between Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and Rep. Conor Lamb. It pits an all but untested, unapologetic progressive firebrand against a centrist with a proven track record of beating Republicans in the swingiest of states. And it speaks volumes that—for now—the uber-liberal is running away with it.
With a month to the state’s primary, Mr. Fetterman claims a significant fundraising advantage over Mr. Lamb and a substantial lead in the polls. The most recent poll this week, from Franklin & Marshall College, put him 24 points ahead of Mr. Lamb, 41% to 17%, with other candidates in single digits and 26% undecided.
The race represents a huge and risky bet by some national Democrats that a new breed of “populist” progressives can excite the base even as they also pull enough blue-collar white voters to win battleground states. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee worked hard in past primaries to put Lamb-like centrists on the Pennsylvania ticket, such as Katie McGinty (who barely lost to Mr. Toomey in 2016). But in response to pressure from Senate progressives, the DSCC is this time remaining neutra
This is mind-bending to state Democratic organizations that have been through the Pennsylvania ground wars. Everyone from the Philadelphia Democratic Party to a raft of powerful unions has endorsed Mr. Lamb. These are the groups that watched the former Marine and prosecutor win three elections in right-leaning Western Pennsylvania districts, including a special election in 2018 in a district that had gone by nearly 20 points for Mr. Trump.
The Lamb formula is a savvy combination of support for key party priorities and independence on issues that resonate with centrist Pennsylvanians. He’s pro-choice, favors Build Back Better and a federal voting takeover, and has even called for getting rid of the filibuster. At the same time, he’s in favor of fracking (a huge source of Pennsylvania jobs), has voted for more border security, and was one of three House Democrats who voted for a bill to make parts of the 2017 tax reform permanent.
Mr. Lamb’s problem is that he’s less well-known than Mr. Fetterman, who holds statewide office and has used the spot to cultivate a fascinating brand. The liberal is 6-foot-8, has a goatee and tattoos, and revels in gym shorts, Carhartt and blue-collar Keystone culture. He has a penchant for trolling Republicans as “simps” and trashing West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s attachment to the filibuster. While Mr. Fetterman grew up in Central Pennsylvania in affluence, he presents himself as the patron saint of the Rust Belt Working Joe.
This masks a Fetterman agenda that puts him squarely in the camp of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (whom he’s praised as a “luminary”) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (whom he endorsed for president in 2016). He supports Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports, gun control, climate “justice,” and a “de facto moratorium” on fracking. Perhaps a greater political problem in today’s environment, he’s spoken at defund-the-police rallies and made a priority of releasing felons from prison. Then there’s the 2013 incident in which, as mayor of Braddock, he pulled a gun on an unarmed black jogger.
Republicans are salivating to begin the attack ads. Mr. Lamb is openly campaigning on these Fetterman liabilities, and a super PAC supporting Mr. Lamb last month circulated polling data showing a precipitous drop in Mr. Fetterman’s support when respondents were presented with his agenda and record. State Democrats also worry the Fetterman pitch to Trumpian voters and the 2013 incident will turn off the urban minority and affluent suburban voters Democrats depend on.
As for the GOP primary, never underestimate the party’s ability to blow it—even to the extent of creating a Sen. Fetterman. Mr. Lamb’s supporters also note the large number of undecided Democrats and say he’s positioned to close the gap. But for the moment, the party looks likely to nominate a Bernie Sanders candidate in a state that barely backed Scranton native Joe Biden.
Nancy Pelosi first won her speakership in 2006 on the back of candidates who resembled Mr. Lamb; she actively recruited centrists who made the party competitive outside its elite coastal enclaves. But with each passing month, Democratic leaders fall further under the sway of a vocal progressive minority whose members care more about imposing an unpopular policy agenda than about winning elections. Look at Mr. Biden’s poll numbers, and look at Pennsylvania. Nominating Mr. Fetterman is a recipe for longer-term political peril.
+++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment