Category Archives: foreign policy

Wasting Money

Posted on by
Reply

Or continuing the failed, but durable, Progressive-Democrat policy of paying governments in Mexico and nations south to pretend to curb their citizens from heading north to enter our nation illegally. Which is a waste of our taxpayer money, also.

The Biden-Harris administration is shipping another $20 million to Mexico and Central America

in aid for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees in the region—including money for healthcare, shelter, and legal aid.

But to whom is all that money going, really? It isn’t Brandon. And it isn’t any of those migrants and refugees—who aren’t all migrants or refugees, anyway, those not having left their nations. (Only those in Mexico might—might—fit either of those categories. Two things about that, though. The Mexican government doesn’t have to let them into Mexico, and to the extent Mexico has not granted permission, they’re not migrants or refugees there, either. They’re illegal aliens in Mexico.)

No, the money is going to the crooked officials of those governments. It’s going to them because the money is paid, for the most part, to those governments rather than directly to actual aid groups or to the “migrants” or “refugees.” The men and women of those governments then siphon off most of the money, whether as the middle man’s cut or as outright graft. Even money going directly to those aid groups gets siphoned off by those government persons as the vig, in various forms, those groups must pay in order to be allowed to exist.

If our government is going to spend those millions, they should be committed in large part to resealing our southern border: finishing the wall, reinvigorating our ICE and CBP agencies and immigration judges, reinstating our Remain in Mexico and related policies (not just yapping about them), reaccelerating our illegal alien deportation policies and mechanisms.

The rest of those dollars should be spent on legal immigration procedures: making it easier to enter our nation legally, making the process of getting permission to enter (or being denied permission) much faster, improving our vetting processes so those other two can be achieved safely.

Misconception

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox Business article purportedly explaining how the new international price-fixing tax agreement is supposed to work, there exists this misconception, or at least it would be a misconception in a free and free market collection of nations.

The deal is designed to target corporations that employ a litany of tactics to reduce their tax liability, often by shifting profits, and revenues, to low-tax countries, such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Ireland, regardless of where the sale was made. The practice by American and foreign multinationals costs the US tens of billions of dollars each year, according to the Treasury Department.

Of course, the practice does no such thing, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen demonstrates her monarchist that is Big Government I mean liberal blinders when she makes such a claim.

Since the money isn’t the government’s, its absence costs the government nothing. The practice does, though, save American consumers and other end-users tens of billions of dollars each year, primarily in the form of lower prices, but also in greater R&D and more innovation—which is lower prices later. The practice also generates more business activity, both from existing businesses and from more startups, which increases economic competition—which is lower prices both in the mid- and longer-term.

The practice also attracts businesses to the nations winning the tax race to the bottom, which increases economic activity in those nations, which increases jobs and citizen prosperity; and that increased economic activity also increases competition in those tax race winning nations—which reduces prices for those nations’ citizens.

And all of that increased economic activity produces increased revenues for the various governments, obviating the need for any sort of price-fixing tax agreement.

Only an illiberal—a modern-day liberal—could love higher taxes, bigger government, and the resulting increased government dependency.

“Candid and Professional”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Antony Blinken’s State Department negotiators said about the Taliban representatives at Doha, as the Biden-Harris met with them to beg for negotiate the safe passage for US citizens, other foreign nationals, and our Afghan partners, along with human rights, including the meaningful participation of women and girls in all aspects of Afghan society.

The discussions were candid and professional with the US delegation reiterating that the Taliban will be judged on its actions, not only its words.

Along with the willful ignorance—it no longer can be written off to naivete—of State and of Biden-Harris that the Taliban terrorists care about how they’re judged.

The Taliban…negotiators…may have conducted themselves in a structurally professional manner, but leaving aside that deliberate ignorance, it’s not something our government should be publicly praising in our enemies.

That just shows how desperate the Biden-Harris administration is to curry their favor.

Naivete

Posted on by
Reply

JCS Chairman Mark Milley wants to deepen the level of military-military communications between the US and Russia.

Army General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US and Russian militaries need to expand and deepen their communication and stressed that dialogue between the two adversaries could help de-escalate a future crisis.

Milley went on, paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal:

[A]dding to existing communication channels already in effect would help each side understand the other’s plans and moves.

He wants the same with the People’s Republic of China, also.

The problem with this tension-defusion concept is that it depends on the participants, in particular our DoD’s Russian and PRC counterparts, being truthful with each other. Why, though, should we believe that a military buildup opposite the Balkans or the Republic of China, is just a training exercise, just because the relevant Russian or PRC generals say so? Or why should they believe that about us?

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer really only works if the enemies aren’t armed to the teeth.

Ransomware Shame

Posted on by
Reply

Corporate executives openly confess that they would aid and abet ransomware criminals by paying them for their crimes.

  • 78% of C-suite executives claim that they would be willing to pay a ransom
  • 56% would be willing to pay over $100,000 to resume operations

That’s deliberately hanging a target on their enterprises.

And this…

  • 74% of executives with hybrid work environments believe their in-house IT and security teams lack the capability to defend against ransomware
  • 60% of executives believe their employees could not identify a cyberattack

…indicates that those executives aren’t even trying seriously to train their IT and security teams or their employees, or to enforce security measures by their work-from-home employees.

Worse than that, they actively cover up their crime enabling:

well over half (61%) of business owners admitted to concealing a breach

This willingness to reward hackers for their hacking not only endangers their own companies, it endangers other companies, as well, by making the crimes routinely lucrative—which these executives are smart enough to know.

That willingness to pay the fee-for-hacking-services aggregates into a threat to our nation’s weal and security. After all, where are the hackers so willingly rewarded located? In our nation’s enemies: 82% of the attacks come from within Russia and the People’s Republic of China, split evenly between the two.