Category Archives: defense policy

Joe Biden’s Defense Policy

Posted on by
Reply

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.

The People’s Republic of China and Private Economies

Posted on by
Reply

The government of the People’s Republic of China does not trust the people over whom it reigns. This is illustrated by its broad distrust of those folks’ private enterprise.

Xi Jinping, long distrustful of the private sector, is moving assertively to bring it to heel.

And

The government is installing more Communist Party officials inside private firms, starving some of credit and demanding executives tailor their businesses to achieve state goals.

And

The push is driven by a deepening conviction within the country’s leadership that markets and private entrepreneurs, while important to China’s rise, are unpredictable and not to be fully trusted.

Bringing the PRC into the World Trade Organization, engaging with the nation economically—even helping the nation economically—in order to enhance freedom and prosperity for the ordinary folks of the PRC was worth the try those 50 years, more or less, ago.

It’s clear now, though, and it’s been clear for some decades, that the government men of the PRC have no intention of enhancing that freedom of prosperity. Those men intend only to enhance their power domestically, to dominate neighboring nations, and to set the global world order, replacing not just us, but the West altogether.

Yet this is the PRC that Joe Biden wants us to cozy up to.

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.