Fundamentally Transform America

That’s what ex-President Barack Obama (D) bragged was about to occur shortly before his 2008 election victory. He got a major step of that transformation when he nationalized roughly one-sixth of our economy with his nationalization of our health care coverage industry with his Obamacare.

Now the Progressive-Democratic Party is on the verge of finishing the transformation as they sit on the knife’s edge of a sweeping election victory next week. The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial headline lays it out:

[Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala] Harris has already endorsed President Biden’s plan to impose “ethics” rules on the Justices that would invite political harassment and compromise judicial independence. Now she won’t disavow packing the Court. She has called for Democrats, if they keep the Senate in November, to bypass the 60-vote filibuster rule, letting them enact such bills without even a modicum of compromise.

Those would be the final two straws in the destruction of our federated republican democracy form of government. It would be the institution of one-party rule, with the minority party not even a loyal opposition but merely irrelevant, and the conversion of our Supreme Court and of our Federal judiciary in general from its current status as an independent, coequal check on the power of the central government into a rubber stamp of Party decisions.

The WSJ editors aren’t given to hyperbole, and they’re not being hyperbolic in their closing paragraph.

Democrats are serious. They say Mr Trump is a threat to democracy and US institutions, while they’re pledging to restructure the judiciary wholesale. Do they notice the cognitive dissonance? Apparently not. But voters might.

That’s what’s at stake next week.

Paul Paints with a Too-Broad Brush

Former President and Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump is painting with too broad a brush with his blanket tariffs. Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul is painting with too broad a brush in his criticism of Trump’s tariff proposals.

Tariffs operate solely in the international trade arena, for all that they have domestic effects. Part of what’s not recognized by either man, although less so by Paul than by Trump, is that international trade has very little to do with economics and very much to do with foreign policy.

Paul is correct that protectionist tariffs are net detrimental to domestic economies. (I claim that protecting nascent industries with tariffs is beneficial, but only if they’re withdrawn when the nascent industries are better developed. The difficulty of withdrawing protectionist tariffs when they’re no longer needed, though, more than overwhelms that temporary benefit.) Trump is mistaken to push the blanket protectionist tariffs on all imports, including imports from friends and allies.

Paul’s China People’s Republic of China tariff example, though, illustrates his broad brush error.

Consider a [PRC]-made widget priced at 50 cents competing with an American-made version at $1. By slapping a tariff on the Chinese widget, raising its price to $2, American manufacturers have the freedom to raise theirs as high as $1.99. The consumer is left with no real choice but to pay more.

Reasonable men can debate the size of that tariff, but such a debate misses the essential fact that the PRC is an enemy nation bent on supplanting us in the world and dominating our foreign and domestic policy decisions. We have no business feeding the enemy nation’s economy. That alone argues for the high tariff and not settling for a countervailing one of merely 50 cents to make the imported price the same as the domestic one.

There’s more to this, though.

Consider [PRC]-made electronics. When tariffs are imposed on products like smartphones and laptops, as Donald Trump is proposing to do, American consumers end up paying higher prices. … [The PRC] accounts for more than 90% of US laptop and tablet imports.

Especially in the electronics industry—an industry that reaches far beyond consumer computers and cell phones into all types of communications devices, chip manufacturing, main frame assembly, data centers, artificial intelligence, and on and on—the national security risk of trading at all with the PRC is far too high to be mitigated with jawboning and pretty pleases alone. That risk, after all, runs to cyber espionage and insertion of sleeperware into our several network nodes, intellectual property and data theft, and including spyware and other malware on imported devices’ chips at the very least.

Tariffs set high enough to discourage imports from an enemy nation like the PRC are an entirely valid foreign policy move. That the tariffs might raise domestic prices is a cost of our national security, of our maintaining our independence of action.

One More Reason

For Israel to not trust the Biden-Harris administration.

The United States is investigating the unauthorized release of classified documents detailing Israel’s planned attack against Iran, The Associated Press reported.
The documents, attributed to the US Geospatial Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, note that Israel was still moving military assets in place to conduct a military strike in response to Iran’s blistering ballistic missile attack on Oct. 1. ….
The documents, which are marked Top Secret, were posted to the Telegram messaging app last week and first reported by CNN and Axios.

Supposedly, the Biden-Harris is investigating the leak, including how the data were obtained.

…whether it was an intentional leak by a member of the US intelligence community or by another method, like a hack….

Either way, this administration cannot be trusted with anyone’s secrets.

If the leak came from the administration’s intelligence community—I’m particularly suspicious, on the basis of no data whatsoever, of the NSA—that leaker should spend the rest of his life in prison, and this is would be yet another example of why the intelligence community needs a deep- and wide-reaching reform along with removal of managers from the mid-level on up to the political appointees, along with the cancelation of their security clearances once they’re no longer in government employ.

If the leak was the result of a hack job, it would be yet another demonstration of this administration’s disdain for matters relating to cyber security.

Hopefully, though, the Israelis already have learned the level of trustworthiness of this administration, and they shared false flag information in the expectation that Biden-Harris’ minions would leak them, or that they’d be hacked, and therewith mislead Iran regarding Israel’s actual plans.

Misleading Headline

And a misleading article. The headline summarizes the miss:

Israel Said It Was Aiming at Hezbollah. Its Strike Also Killed Dozens of Civilians.

And the lede, which in keeping with newsroom policy across the journalism guild, misleadingly calls the terrorist entity “militants:”

For years, a helpful, middle-aged man lived in the basement apartment of a seven-story residential building on a hillside. Some neighbors in Ain el-Delb said they knew that he was connected to Hezbollah, the militant group. But they said they didn’t think he was important enough to be an Israeli target.

Misleading because what these newsroom writers carefully chose not to mention, at any point in the article other than a passing reference to Israel’s “describing” the building as a headquarters, is that Hezbollah had secreted its facilities and terrorists in apartment building among those civilians, using them as shields. It’s those terrorists who are responsible for the extent of the civilian deaths. It’s those terrorists who maximized the extent of the collateral damage centered on those civilian deaths.

Yahya Sinwar is Dead

Israel got him in Rafah last Thursday, and the hue and cry in the press, in our government, and in the opposition in Israel is to move quickly to negotiate with Hamas to get hostages back. The “thinking” is that Hamas is running out of leaders to run the terrorist entity and that it’s in a severely weakened state and so ripe for negotiations.

This is badly mistaken.

For one thing, there remain tens of thousands of Hamas terrorists, and included among them are thousands of middle- and senior-level terrorist combat (to use the term loosely and metaphorically) leaders who can be moved up. Hamas also can hire leadership, if only into second echelon levels to get them trained up to Hamas’ methods, from outside: al Qaeda is still a going concern, Daesh is still a going concern, al Shebaab is a going concern. The Muslim Brotherhood continues.

For another thing, Hamas has no incentive for negotiating a release of the hostages they still hold. Releasing them, under any terms however favorable to the terrorists, takes away their last lever over the Israeli opposition. Nor does Hamas have any other incentive for the release: they don’t care about the hostages’ fate or their own; the terrorists only care about the destruction of Israel. One of their senior leaders (not Sinwar) has already promised to repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated, no matter the cost in Palestinian lives or their own.

No.

Hamas is in a weakened state, but that means it’s no time to let up. On the contrary, now is the time to pile on, for the IDF, and for the US to actively support the IDF with our own military forces. Let Hamas come to Israel with a wish to negotiate. It’s Hamas’ war, it’s on Israel to finish it on their terms, it’s on us to help them (France and the rest of Europe be damned) and it’s on Hamas to ask for negotiations. Or to suffer the fate it has promised Israel.