Category Archives: defense policy

A Right to be Racist

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Biden administration’s farm loan relief program that the Department of Agriculture had set up to provide loan relief to black and brown farmers while explicitly excluding white farmers.

Recall further that

Judge William Griesbach found in an order issued Thursday [10 Jun] that the white farmers “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim” that the US Department of Agriculture’s “use of race-based criteria in the administration of the program violates their right to equal protection under the law.”

The Ag Department rejects that ruling:

We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers.

Here are Progressive-Democrats forcefully defending their self-created right to be racist in their governance of our nation.

This is despicable, and it needs to be remembered throughout the fall of 2022, and beyond.

Domestic Terror Threats

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and his administration have a new strategy—and specific (more or less) targets—for combating domestic terrorism. “Domestic terrorism” is defined by the NSC:

activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And

[D]omestic terrorists] espouse a range of violent ideological motivations [including] racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred, as well as anti-government or anti-authority sentiment. … exhort[] and target[] violence toward specific communities …. militias.

Who are Biden’s domestic terrorists [paraphrased by Fox News]?

White supremacy and “militia violent extremists” currently present the “most persistent and lethal threats.”

No mention of antifa, which assaults government facilities with a view to burning them down or otherwise destroying them. Antifa also routinely assaults others who object to their destruction, including police, civilians, anyone actually taking pictures or filming antifa persons or their activities, even journalists.

No mention of BLM, which freely riots, loots, burns down private businesses, especially targeting small mom and pops.

Biden made it explicit:

Domestic terrorism—driven by hate, bigotry, and other forms of extremism—is a stain on the soul of America….

Unless, of course, it’s antifa, BLM, and the like on the Left. They are exempted, their behavior excused.

Of course Biden—and his Party—won’t name antifa or BLM or the like as domestic terrorists, regardless of their activities intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion…by mass destruction.

Those entities are grassroots supporters of Party.

Coalitions, the G-7, and NATO

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial in which The Wall Street Journal‘s editors went on at length about President Joe Biden’s (D) meeting(s) with the leaders of the other nations of the G-7, there was some discussion about the G-7’s final communique, in which the G-7 had pretty words about the need do some things about some conditions and to do them together.

The subtext of those meetings, though, was this.

The nations of the G-7 want the coalition to act together, but they emphasize the “together” part while deprecating the “act” part. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has bought into that cynical vapidity.

Further, when Biden gets to Brussels, he’ll see most of the NATO member nations celebrating the United States being back. Back to being most of those nations’ NATO treasury and blood bank while they continue to decline to commit their own money and blood for mutual defense. Here, those nations emphasize “defense” while deprecating “mutual.” Unfortunately, the Biden administration will actively celebrate that version of “back.”

Unpleasant Signals

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Russian President Vladimir Putin’s promise to send “unpleasant” signals to the US because President Joe Biden hasn’t yet kowtowed sufficiently to him—Washington was not showing a readiness to discuss all issues at a bilateral summit next month [now this month] is how The Jerusalem Post dryly put it at the end of May.

The comments by Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, came a day after US President Joe Biden said that he would press Russian President Vladimir Putin to respect human rights when the two leaders meet in June.

Having embarrassed Biden—and our nation—quietly with the Colonial Pipeline/Nord Stream 2 fiasco, Putin now is bent on embarrassing Biden—and us—more publicly.

JBS Meats was the recent target of a “ransomware” attack that caused JBS to shut down some servers and interrupt meat production in Australia and the US.

Now, a couple of Cox Media Group television stations, one in Florida, the other in Pennsylvania, have been hit by a cyber attack, forcing them both off the air. Cox expects to have them back on the air “soon.”

I expect more signaling in the coming days. And I worry, given what Biden gave away in the aftermath of Colonial, what he’ll give away in response to these signals behind closed doors in Geneva when he meets with Putin in a week.

Patty-Cake

Posted on by
4

President Joe Biden (D) has an Executive Order out that, among other things, asks private industry pretty please to adapt to the continuously changing threat environment, ensure its products are built and operate securely, and partner with the Federal Government to foster a more secure cyberspace.

Clarion Intelligence Network Director Ryan Mauro has another idea, sort of.

Make no mistake about it, a defensive strategy towards the cyber threat is not going to work. There’s going to have to be an offensive strategy.

But he doesn’t go far enough, either.

It’s time for the US to do things like having its own Wikileaks, so that when Putin does something, guess what appears on the internet? A bunch of his own secrets, showing how corrupt he is—that will deter them.

No. That’s a mouse remonstrating with a hawk. The mouse insists the hawk’s ways are wrong. The hawk insists the mouse is lunch.

We need to make a serious response—rather, a serious collection of responses—to a cyber attack, which Mauro does correctly characterize as no difference, when you commit an attack, whether using a bomb or cyber strike.

No, our offensive response must be a sharp escalation—done faster than the attacker can respond—and across a broad spectrum. Our response must include a prompt cyber response that includes those secrets being exposed, but that also simultaneously shuts off electrical grids and penetrates and corrupts attacker national databases. Our response also longer-term penalties, even if they take some time to produce effect: immediately emplaced economic bars against government officials, oligarchs and their enterprises, and governments of the attacking nation or of the nation hosting the attackers. The response must continue: location of the equipment used to originate the cyber attack and the corruption of that equipment with malware (of which there is much on the dark net; no need to reveal our own malware capabilities).

The only real conundrum here is that our response must not be so all-out that it gives away our full capabilities before we’re in an actual war.