Category Archives: defense policy

Coverup

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) was squirreling away classified documents in the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement while he was sitting in our nation’s Vice President chair. The Penn Biden Center is hosted by the University of Pennsylvania, a university with close funding ties to the Communist Party of China. It turns out that now-President Biden’s administration—in particular, his Attorney General Merrick Garland (D)—had known about this for some time (I’m eliding the fact that Biden himself has known about his classified document squirreling for the several years since he started it and has chosen to not disclose that).

Just two weeks earlier, Biden’s lawyers disclosed to government lawyers on November 2—just six days before the midterm elections—that they had found sensitive government documents with classified markings inside an office that Biden used at the Penn Biden Center think tank in Washington after he left office as Barack Obama’s vice president.

Two weeks earlier: Garland had announced on 18 November that he had named a special prosecutor to investigate former-President Donald Trump’s (R) handling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

The Biden administration covered up Biden’s mishandling of classified documents until after the mid-term elections. It’s only coming out now because Biden’s mishandling can no longer influence the mid-terms, and it’s only coming out now in an effort to dilute its impact on the Presidential election in two years.

This is another example of the way Progressive-Democrats reign over our nation.

Rules and Defense Spending Cuts

Posted on by
Reply

The House—in particular, the majority Republicans—along with too many so-called defense journalists are having trouble with a rule that potentially leads to defense spending cuts, a particular anathema in today’s environment of a Russia at war and a People’s Republic of China threatening war.

However, the fact is defense spending has always been vulnerable to cuts, particularly by the Progressive-Democratic Party and its predecessor Democratic Party. The proposed rule just makes the potential explicitly stated. But it does not mandate defense spending cuts; it mandates spending cuts in one (or more) places if there are to be spending increases in other places. Quoting from the proposed rules:

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability. Subsection (a)(1) replaces current “pay-as-you-go” requirements with “cut-as-you- go” requirements. The provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to a special order of business which directs the Clerk to engross the measures together after passage for purposes of compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for addressing “emergency” designations.

And

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of $2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10 fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net increases in direct spending shall be determined based on estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the Budget.

And

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills. Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

There’s nothing in there that mandates cuts in defense spending. All spending, though, needs to be up for discussion in light of the current Progressive-Democratic Party-driven economic condition of our nation, as Freedom Caucus Founder, Congressman Jim Jordan (R, OH) has pointed out. That I—and lots of others—disagree with not continuing to increase defense spending in these parlous times simply means that we need to make our case instead of relying on inertia to carry it. And refreshing the case is entirely good.

In the event, the rules package was passed without significant change.

The rules as proposed can be read here.

Functionally True

Posted on by
Reply

Former President Donald Trump (R) said Thursday that President Joe Biden (D) has sided with the Mexican drug cartels regarding Biden’s No Southern Border policy (my term).

Fentanyl, heroin, meth, and other lethal drugs are pouring across our wide open border, stealing hundreds of thousands of beautiful American lives, and it’s happening like never before in our history. Children are being left without parents. Families are being ripped apart. Communities are being decimated. Our neighbors and fellow citizens are having their entire worlds destroyed.

And

The drug cartels are waging war on Americans, and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels. In this war, Joe Biden has sided against the United States and with the cartels.

Regardless of his intent, though, Biden hasn’t just given a free path to the cartels. He’s also, functionally, given permission to the People’s Republic of China to supply the cartels with the raw materials for making fentanyl.

One More Instance

Posted on by
Reply

…of NATO’s European members, especially its central and western European members, shying away from honoring their commitments to NATO—and to their mutual defense generally.

When France wanted to send Leclerc tanks to bolster the defenses of NATO ally Romania in September, fellow alliance member Germany opposed trucking them across its highways. The problem wasn’t peace protesters or political opposition. It was the heavy French tank-transporters.
The flatbeds’ weight on each axle exceeded the legal limits for most German roads, said government authorities, who proposed a route that Paris deemed unacceptable. Instead, France sent the tanks by rail, delaying the shipment.

And

The EU invests billions of euros annually in transportation infrastructure, but has rarely made military mobility a concern.

And

Retired General [ex-CG United States Army Europe, Ben] Hodges says national regulations remain too onerous and governments aren’t sufficiently focused on the problems. “Until I see money being applied to it and real changes, we’re not going to get this fixed,” he said.

Logistics is where wars are won or lost. Neither the combat skills and courage of the soldiers, nor their equipment or technological advantages, matter if they can’t be supplied and resupplied. Even those central and western European government men and women understand that.

They just don’t care.

He’s Right

Posted on by
Reply

Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov says it’s…silly (my term)…to negotiate with the Russian barbarians while they’re still inside Ukraine.

“There’s no way to have conversations with them; you can’t talk with terrorists,”…citing Russia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure during a brutal winter. The war will not end, he continued, until the Ukrainian forces “turn everything back—all the territories.”

And

“Everything will be linked once again, including Crimea,” Danilov said. “Not one meter will be left for the taking of the enemy.”

Indeed. How is it even possible to negotiate with an entity whose first and only goal is the utter dissolution of your nation?

Readers of this blog know the peace terms I’ve been advocating for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to require.