Another Reason

…to toss the elites and reassert the sovereignty of We the People.

In a Christmas Eve interview with the New York Times, [Dr Anthony, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases] Fauci acknowledged he had offered a lower estimate of the level of herd immunity necessary to stop the COVID-19 pandemic because he thought Americans would be discouraged by hearing his true thoughts on the issue.

And

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75%,” he told reporter Donald McNeil. “Then, when newer surveys said 60% or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

And this:

At the outset of the pandemic, Fauci…advised against wearing face masks, telling the public that doing so was unnecessary unless an individual was showing symptoms of COVID-19.

When pressed in June on why he had initially argued against masks, Fauci said that the public health community was “concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply.”

Lying to us “for our own good.”

It’s time to remove these…persons…from office and from other positions of influence.

National Independence and Military Capability

Joe Biden (D) has strange ideas regarding this relationship, expressed most plainly in his plans for our nuclear weapons arsenal.

Mr Bidens campaign pledge to narrow the role that nuclear weapons play…stating that their “sole purpose” should be to deter or respond to a nuclear attack.

Biden is willing to have us forced to surrender after being beaten in a conventional or cyberwar, rather than have nuclear weapons available or usable to preserve our existence—and that of our friends—as independent, unconquered polities.

Mr Biden has said that he wants to extend the New START treaty with Russia….

Because extending a nuclear weapons treaty with an enemy nation that routinely violates treaties with us is a good idea. It’s especially sensible after he unilaterally disarms us doctrinally.

No. Neither Biden nor his handlers can possibly be that naive; this can only be a deliberate weakening of our military security. Gives new meaning to Biden’s push for international “cooperation.”

Missiles based in underground silos have long been considered a destabilizing system by arms-control groups….

No, what’s destabilizing is surrendering military superiority—cyber, conventional, or nuclear—to our enemies.

Progressive-Democrats and Religious Freedom

Progressive-Democrats want to vastly curtail, if not eliminate altogether, religious freedoms. You recall those—the core part of our 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

The Secular Democrats of America PAC, an arm of the Progressive-Democrat movement, counts the Trump administration’s actions to advance religious freedom a national security threat. Moving radically beyond merely eliminating our national motto because it dares mention God, this crowd denounces our national heritage and our belief in ourselves as a Christian nation (which is a distortion of theirs; we actually hold ourselves to be a Judeo-Christian nation).

In a 28-page list of “recommendations” this crowd sent to Progressive-Democrat President-Elect Joe Biden, they included the following:

  • withhold federal funds from any faith-based organization perceived as discriminatory on the basis of religion
  • repeal non-medical exemptions based on religious grounds
  • mandate inclusion of non-religious advisors at all faith-based gatherings at the White House
  • Biden (apparently personally) should discourage politicians from using the words “God” and “country” while speaking

So, this part of the Progressive-Democratic Party wants Government to tell religious organizations they are not allowed to practice their religion and receive the same government funding other organizations get. Government must heavily deprecate religious practices.

This crowd also insists on dictating what speech an elected official might use and who he must have in his meetings: “elected official” because there’s no reason to believe this demand, once acceded to, won’t spread far from the White House.

Biden has chosen not to comment on these recommendations. His considered silence smacks of agreement with it. If Republicans don’t hold the Senate, it’ll be a long four years of destruction.

Joe Biden’s Defense Policy

In the context of commenting on Biden’s selection of retired Army General Lloyd Austin to be his Secretary of Defense should he become President, James Carafano wondered what Biden’s defense policy actually would be.

We know very little about what kind of defense policy a Biden presidency will deliver. The issue hardly came up on the presidential campaign trail. … The nomination of Austin doesn’t give us much of an answer.

I disagree. I think we’re pretty clear on what Biden’s defense policy will be.

This is the man who opposed the killing of bin Laden.

This is the man who decried the killing of Soleimani.

This is the man who wants to rejoin the Iranian nuclear weapons development deal.

This is the man who wants to rejoin the Paris Climate business, a business that will do grave damage to our economy while explicitly favoring the People’s Republic of China economy.

This is the man who insists the PRC is no competition, is “not a patch on our jeans,” whose Government and Party personnel “are not bad folks, folks.”

The Biden defense policy will be one of abject appeasement and a continuation of Obama’s retreat.

A Misunderstanding

This time by Europe’s nations. The annual China-EU CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue is a secretive congregation of 40 chief executives, top officials, and academics from Europe and the People’s Republic of China, and it was quietly canceled last month. Europe’s organizers rejected the PRC’s attempts to ban from attending anyone who dared criticize the PRC.

So far, so good.

The misunderstanding is this:

…difficult balance Europe is trying to strike between safeguarding business interests and upholding democratic values….

Those aren’t opposing interests that must be “balanced”—traded off one against the other—in order to achieve some sort of supposed optimum. They are synergistic interests, each of which potentiates the other.

But they’re far more than that, too. Each is a Critical Item for the other; if either doesn’t exist, the other cannot exist.

Democratic values provide the necessary economic framework for enhancing business interests. It is those democratic values that are at the core of liberty, in this context particularly of private property rights. John Adams recognized private property ownership as necessary for individual safety, security, and happiness. Adam Smith wrote roughly contemporaneously of the necessary role private property holds in achieving national prosperity. Hernando De Soto wrote of the criticality of private property rights to individual liberty and to the prosperity of the nations in which free peoples reside. Absent these values, the only interests that get enhanced are those of a few oligarchs and those populating the government reigning over that economy.

Business interests from within that economic framework feed back into those democratic values by increasing the economic prosperity not only of business owners, but of business’ employees and of the nations’ consumers (keep in mind, too, that employees are themselves consumers). It’s a direct feedback loop: all parties to a voluntary exchange—a business interest as carried out within that democratic framework—are made better off than they were before the exchange since each gains something of value to him that he did not have before. This applies for business-business exchanges, business-employee exchanges, business-consumer exchanges.

The feedback loop is an extended one, also. As businesses produces what consumers want, more gets consumed, which produces funds for more production, more hiring, more innovation, more of what consumers want—and greater prosperity for all participants however indirectly they participate. And, as Adams recognized, that greater prosperity enhances individual freedoms.

Europe’s prosperity—and its freedom in the face of aggressively acquisitive nations like the PRC and Russia—depends on those nations clarifying their misunderstanding.