Category Archives: defense policy

Pocket Veto

Posted on by
Reply

This week, the House passed the National Defense Appropriation Act with enough votes that, if repeated, would override a Presidential veto.

President Donald Trump has said he’ll veto the bill because it doesn’t include repeal of Section 230, which confers immunity from publication-related liability on Facebook, Twitter, Alphabet, and a few others.

Now the bill goes to the Senate for passage, and then to the President.

Here’s the thing, folks. As I write this post, it’s 9 December. Congress recesses at COB 18 December.

If Congress doesn’t extend its session and not go on recess as currently scheduled, the President can simply not sign the bill into law, and it’ll be pocket vetoed with no opportunity for an override vote in each house.

Here’s what Article I, Section 7 of our Constitution has to say on Presidential vetoes [emphasis added]:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

We’re already inside those 10 days.

Dominate

Posted on by
Reply

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has what should be a resounding warning of the threat to our freedom represented by the People’s Republic of China in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.

Beijing intends to dominate the US and the rest of the planet economically, militarily, and technologically.

With particular reference to the US, dominate is a euphemism. The PRC intends political domination, also (as the example Ratcliffe supplies involving PRC pressure on an American Congressman illustrates), all of which is to say they intend to conquer the US, whether it formally occupies us or not.

The PRC already is dictating policy to nominally American entertainment and news companies, and it has gotten companies like Alphabet to refuse to do business with our Defense establishment in critical areas like artificial intelligence while enthusiastically doing business with the PRC government on…artificial intelligence.

The PRC has gotten Alphabet to censure search results in the PRC and Facebook and Twitter to censure communications in the PRC while getting Alphabet, Facebook, and Twitter to enthusiastically censure American citizens’ communications here in the US.

The PRC’s Confucius Centers at our colleges and universities actively indoctrinate students into the wonders of PRC communism while threatening those institutions’ management teams with removal of significant funding if they dare interfere.

This all is prior to and supportive of Ratcliffe’s characterization of the PRC economic war against us as rob, replicate, and replace.

This is a struggle for the United States’ existence as an independent polity.

Unfortunately, dangerously, with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s overt friendliness with the PRC and his disdain for the threat—they’re not a patch on our jeans, guys, and China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…. They’re not bad folks, folks … They’re not competition for us—it’s not at all certain that Biden would take Ratcliffe’s warning at all seriously, were he to be inaugurated.

And that’s not including his son Hunter’s…cozy relationship…with members of the PRC government.

Persons and the Census

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court this week is taking up a case that centers on that. At issue is the question of whether President Donald Trump’s Executive Order excluding undocumented immigrants from state population counts—from the census—is a Constitutional one.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters insist that “persons” in this context include illegal aliens.

“…inhabitants” at the nation’s origin meant people with a “usual” or “customary” residence in a state, which would include undocumented immigrants.

This is fallacious, as the WSJ‘s editors allude. Illegal aliens have no customary presence in any State—or territory. The illegality of their presence makes that condition not customary and entirely unusual, no matter for how long they’ve been able to evade the law.

Indeed, illegal aliens are, by their very illegality, every bit as transient in their States as any tourist. There is a critical difference, however: the tourist is here legally, and he’ll leave voluntarily at the end of his stay. The illegal alien is here…illegally…and he will be removed on detection, voluntarily or otherwise.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters also insist that the Court must rule their way because otherwise Progressive-Democrat-run States stand to lose representation in the House of Representatives. This, too, is fallacious. Any relative loss or gain of representation is an outcome of the census and associated redistricting, not of any court action, which action can only be to uphold existing (here, census or immigration) law.

Their argument also is a cynical one. States plainly shouldn’t have the representation they have now to the extent their representation is based on the number of illegal aliens present. Nor is it the case that only Progressive-Democrat-run States could lose representation. Republican States can find themselves in the same strait—see, for instance, Texas, which is carefully ignored in their argument.

The only persons who should be counted in this, or any, census are those who are here permanently: American citizens and legal immigrants.

Illegal aliens, though, are not census persons, for all that they are human beings.

Missile Defense and Nuclear Stability

Posted on by
Reply

An unsigned Bloomberg News article, carried by Newsmax, is pushing the panic button over an American successful ship-launched intercept of an ICBM in mid-course (i.e., above the atmosphere, but before warheads had been deployed).

The ICBM flying over the Pacific was an American dummy designed to test a new kind of interceptor technology. As it flew, satellites spotted it and alerted an Air Force base in Colorado, which in turn communicated with a Navy destroyer positioned northeast of Hawaii. This ship, the USS John Finn, fired its own missile which, in the jargon, hit and killed the incoming one.

A successful defense is somehow more dangerous than lying prostrate and helplessly undefended, though, according to BN. After all—and the news outlet makes this argument in all seriousness—

the new interception technology cuts the link between offense and defense that underlies all calculations about nuclear scenarios. Since the Cold War, stability—and thus peace—has been preserved through the macabre reality of mutual assured destruction, or MAD. No nation will launch a first strike if it expects immediate retaliation in kind. A different way of describing MAD is mutual vulnerability.

Wow.

And this:

[T]his month’s test was the first in which a ship did the intercepting. This twist means that before long the US or another nation could protect itself from all sides.

How terrible is that—that a nation should defend itself effectively enough as to make an attack against it unlikely.

Defense and offense are complementing duals of each other for the possessing nation, and an effective defense reduces the reliability and effectiveness of an enemy’s offense—which makes our defense the negating dual of an enemy’s offense. Unless, of course, outlets like Bloomberg News actually believe that the US, possessing a means of defending itself from an enemy’s attack, would itself initiate an attack on that enemy. But that would be BN projecting.

Bloomberg News‘ cynical panic-mongering notwithstanding, successful and effective defensive systems enhance nuclear stability rather than degrade it. A successful defensive system—which only needs to be partially successful, which can be imperfect—so complicates an attacking enemy’s success criteria as to make his attack less likely: he won’t achieve a first strike destruction of our nation, he’ll have to absorb our responding strike, and so he’s unlikely to strike at all.

It’s not that complicated.

A Start

Posted on by
Reply

But badly insufficient. The Trump administration is trying to form an ad hoc coalition of Western nations that would respond to the People’s Republic of China’s economic aggression. The effort would

create an informal alliance of Western nations to jointly retaliate when China uses its trading power to coerce countries, administration officials say. They say the plan was sparked by Chinese economic pressure on Australia after that country called for an investigation into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.
…
“The West needs to create a system of absorbing collectively the economic punishment from China’s coercive diplomacy and offset the cost.”
Under the joint retaliation plan, when China boycotts imports, allied nations would agree to purchase the goods or provide compensation. Alternatively, the group could jointly agree to assess tariffs on China for the lost trade.

Taking defensive measures is necessary, but it’s badly insufficient. This coalition needs also to be ready, willing, and able to take offensive action, action that would inflict far more damage and cost on the PRC than its own economic assaults would inflict. Tit-for-tat tariffs would be less than useless, they’d only be practice bleeding.

So far, though, “the West” other than the US has shown little backbone for facing down the PRC’s aggression, economic or otherwise. Sadly, too, Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden has shown little inclination to do anything that might upset the men and women of the PRC government.