Tag Archives: foreign policy

Managing Sensibilities

Posted on by
Reply

But whose? Managing French sensibilities is never easy, The Wall Street Journal‘s editors open their editorial.

But what about Australian sensibilities? What about Brit sensibilities? What, above all, about the sensibilities of us average Americans?

I was under the impression that certain things had happened that hadn’t happened…I was under the impression that France had been informed long before that the deal was not going through. I, honest to God, did not know you had not been.

President Joe Biden (D) said that with an absolutely straight face to French President Emmanuel Macron.

Either Biden is lying through his teeth, or he has no control over what’s going on in his own Biden-Harris administration.

Either one alone demonstrates conclusively his unfitness for office. Both together….

How can Australians rely on this administration to say “G’day” and mean it, much less to maintain firm support for AUKUS? How can the Brits trust anything coming out of Biden’s mouth?

How can any American trust this administration regarding anything at all?

What Does This Say

Posted on by
Reply

…about Federal bureaucrats and their…managers? And no, I’m

not talking about a Deep State or an Administrative State.

The Biden administration on Wednesday issued a sweeping new order mandating that nearly all federal agencies patch hundreds of cybersecurity vulnerabilities that are considered major risks for damaging intrusions into government computer systems.

And

The new requirement is one of the most wide-reaching cybersecurity mandates ever imposed on the federal government. It covers about 200 known security flaws identified by cybersecurity professionals between 2017 and 2020 and an additional 90 discovered in 2021 alone that have generally been observed being used by malicious hackers. Those flaws were listed in a new federal catalog as carrying “significant risk to the federal enterprise.”

What does this say about the proactivity, the willingness to act on their own recognizance, of the bureaucrats running these agencies and of the bureaucrats responsible for IT in these agencies?

It gets worse.

A significant majority of the flaws being published on the DHS catalog are ones that weren’t covered under previous orders, a senior official said.

Where’s the initiative? The lack is as appalling as it is unacceptable. Waiting—needing—to be told what to do? Really?

These are people who Know Better and passive-aggressively obstruct actions and orders with which they personally disagree. They’re in the way and need to be terminated.

These are other people who are unable to make the office cultural change necessary. They’re also in the way and need to be terminated, albeit with more favorable rationales than that first category.

These are yet other people who’ve simply had their weak performance tolerated out of misguided efforts at being nice. They’re also in the way and need to be retrained—and terminated if the training doesn’t lead to improved performance.

But most of all, those office managers and IT honchos shouldn’t have had to be told to do this critical part of their jobs. They need to be replaced, and their replacements better vetted.

If cybersecurity officials at a certain agency fail to comply with a directive, DHS [for instance] can notify the agency’s senior leaders, who are then responsible for resolving the noncompliance.

This is entirely too slow. Those failing to perform need to be corrected promptly, and if necessary, terminated promptly.

Cybersecurity isn’t just a matter of national security. It’s a matter of national survival.

Success or Failure?

Posted on by
Reply

In a Just the News piece concerning how the People’s Republic of China is stealing our (and Japan’s, Republic of Korea’s, and European Union’s) technology and using it to build a military establishment that can defeat us and from that compel us to do PRC bidding, FBI Director Christopher Wray was quoted as testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security September a year ago,

I think I publicly acknowledged that the FBI now has over 2,000 counter-intelligence investigations related to China, by far the biggest chunk of our counter-intelligence portfolio, and we are opening a new Chinese counterintelligence investigation about every 10 hours.

2,000 investigations, with a new one begun every 10 hours. Wray was touting that as the level of effort the FBI is putting into the matter.

What it really looks like is the extent of the PRC espionage effort, especially since those cases and case-openings only represent what the FBI has detected. Those data seem, more accurately, to indicate the degree of success the PRC is having at stealing our data, and the lack of success we’re having in defending ourselves.

That failure is not all on the Federal government, either, for all the centrality of their role in our nation’s security. It’s also, in very significant part, on the managers of our private enterprises and their lack of effort—empirically demonstrated by how often and how easily they’re entered (72 new FBI cases every month, not all of which concern government penetrations)—in protecting their own data.

Wray’s claim does not describe any form of success at all. He describes failure, perhaps even lack of seriousness regarding the matter.

An EU Attack on National Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

Poland’s Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, is objecting to the European Union’s claims to overriding authority over its independent constituent nations, Poland in particular. In an open letter to the EU’s parliament, then in debate during the next parliament session, he said

…EU mission creep…would lead to a “centrally managed organism, governed by institutions deprived of democratic control.”

And then,

EU competencies have clear boundaries, we must not remain silent when those boundaries are breached. So we are saying yes to European universalism, but we say no to European centralism.”

Which argument for the sovereignty of the Union’s constituent nations was answered dismissively by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen:

Your arguments are not getting better. You’re just escaping the debate[.]

She then laid out three options by which the EU would seek to compel Poland’s acceptance of EU suzerainty:

  • first: a so-called infringement, where the European Commission legally challenges the Polish court’s judgment, which could lead to fines
  • second: a conditionality mechanism and other financial tools whereby EU funds would be withheld from Poland
  • third: application of Article 7 of the EU’s treaties. Under this, rights of member states—including the right to vote on EU decisions—can be suspended because they have breached core values of the bloc

Despite this,

Poland’s ruling nationalist Law and Justice party says it has no plans for a “Polexit[.]”

Maybe the party and the citizens should begin thinking about it.

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.