Saturday, November 23, 2024
Facebook Instagram RSS Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 6

Pelosi Just Cancelled The State Of The Union Over The Border Wall She Refuses To Build

By
Gustavo
-
0

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has cancelled the president’s state of the union address until the government is re-opened. After rejecting invitations earlier in the week from the White House to negotiate on funding for border security, Pelosi sent a letter to the president implying he would not be welcome to address the American people.

In her letter sent on Wednesday, Pelosi cited security concerns as the reason for the delay. She lamented that Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security “have not been funded for 26 days now – with critical departments hamstrung by furloughs.”View image on Twitter

Senior law enforcement officials are responding to Pelosi’s letter by debunking her false reasoning. Secret Service is fully funded and began planning security for the joint address months ago.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) said there is nothing the president can do to change the speaker’s mind.

“Yep! The speaker is the one who invites the president to speak at a joint session, and she has said as long as government is shut down we’re not going to be doing business as usual,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said to CNN. “The state of the union is off.”

If things happen as Pelosi says now, it would mark the first time that an annual address will not be sent to Congress from the president since 1790.


Why Businesses Should Support The Trump Administration’s Pushback Against China

By
Gustavo
-
0

When Chinese President Xi Jinping’s autocracy asks Western companies to jump, the response is usually, ‘How high?’

What should Western companies do when threatened by the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? Should businesses promote appeasement of the PRC, or pushback? More broadly, is there a conflict between economic interest and the national interest regarding the PRC?

These are just a few of the questions indirectly highlighted in New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson’s new book, “Merchants of Truth.” She reveals the Times’ sensitivity to upsetting the Chinese over a story Beijing deemed damaging.

The offending Times article detailed how leaders in the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their family members amassed vast fortunes through their control over strategically important and highly lucrative sectors of the economy via a spoils system rife with bribery and other forms of corruption.

By Abramson’s account, facing pressure from Chinese officials outraged when asked for comment in advance of the story’s publication, the Times rightly published it. China pulled the story, blocked the Times’ China website, stopped issuing visas to Times reporters, and detained several staffers.

Times executives contemplated shutting the China site altogether, and later unsuccessfully pleaded with Chinese officials to reopen their site. Per a review of Abramson’s book:

[New York Times publisher Arthur] Sulzberger…traveled to China to urge government officials to reopen the site, but to no avail. And Abramson claims that Times vice chairman Michael Golden ‘wanted to close the Chinese site altogether.” When she objected, arguing that it would look like “we were bowing to the censors,’ she was ordered to cut in half the losses incurred by keeping the Chinese journalists employed while the sites were blocked…she claims she…decided to find the savings elsewhere.

Then Abramson claims that, ‘without her knowledge,’ the publisher drafted a letter with input from the Chinese embassy ‘all but apologizing’ for the original story. She brought the draft to a tense meeting with Sulzberger…When she showed him the letter, he ‘seemed startled that I had it and he kept saying, ‘I didn’t do anything wrong.’ He tried to slip the letter into his folder, but I snatched it back,’ she writes.

Of the letter, Abramson further claims Sulzberger “eventually agreed to reword it with input from her and then managing editor Dean Baquet. But for Abramson, the letter was ‘still objectionable,’ since it included language about being sorry for the ‘perception’ the story created…” According to Abramson, Sulzberger was eager to appease the Chinese government because its operation in China was at stake.

China’s efforts to stifle Western reportage are extensive, so such appeasement would not be surprising. Propagating the CCP message while suppressing anything or anyone that contradicts it and pulls the veil back on the ruling regime’s repression is a clear national effort.

This Is a Common Reaction from China

The Times disputes Abramson’s version of events, although only generally. But her account rings familiar. The Times’ alleged China browbeating is consistent with not only what its peers have experienced, but what Western companies in other industries have faced. China appears to have made a concerted effort to threaten corporations to get them to tow the CCP line, at least on matters that challenge the Chinese government narrative. Recall just a few examples from the last year.

In January 2018, Marriott International, the world’s largest hotel company, cowered at verbal attacks by Chinese government officials for having set a survey listing Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and Macau as distinct from China, and for an employee’s “like” of a tweet endorsing Tibetan independence using a corporate Twitter account.

Later, in November 2018, Marriott disclosed it was the victim of a massive hack of its Starwood reservation database, compromising the sensitive information of up to 383 million guests, including passport numbers, email addresses, and credit card data. According to reports, U.S. investigators believe the hackers were affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of State Security, its sprawling intelligence apparatus. This is not to suggest there is necessarily linkage between these events. The breach allegedly began in 2014. Marriott acquired Starwood in 2016.

Like Marriott, automaker Audi, fashion retailer Zara, and more than two-dozen other corporations faced a backlash from the Chinese government for individually listing sovereign territories that China considers its own in website dropdown menus or public presentations.

Also in 2018, Mercedes-Benz posted an anodyne quote from the Dalai Lama on Instagram: “Look at the situations from all angles, and you will become more open.” The Dalai Lama is a Tibetan leader. So, facing strong criticism from Chinese state media, Mercedes apologized, promising: “no support, assistance, aid or help to anyone who intentionally subverts or attempts to subvert China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

China Is Not Just Censoring, It’s Controlling

To its credit, the Times acted in a more principled fashion, at least in running its story, than can be said for many of these other firms. Regardless, what is clear is that when Chinese President Xi Jinping’s autocracy asks Western companies to jump, the response is usually “How high?”

Increasingly, China’s demands on foreign businesses are going beyond conforming to CCP political narratives, to demanding the CCP be empowered within businesses, through mandating CCP cells be embedded within foreign businesses, and potentially granting them control over operational decisions. None of this is to mention other “costs of doing business” with the ChiComs, such as forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

When the Trump administration highlighted in its National Security Strategy that China’s story over the past half-century disproved the theory that economic liberalization would lead to political liberalization, it was right. Ironically, it appears that firms from liberal nations are acting less liberally under threat from illiberal China.

Stated differently: The Chinese are changing us more than we changed them. Meanwhile, in return for the United States giving China entrée to the global trade and financial architecture largely built and defended by us, we have turned China into a hostile, expansionist, muscular world military and economic power—one that seeks to advance its interests and exert influence while acting with wide impunity, including on our own shores.

Don’t Just Act Scared, Act Smart

Firms understand that the risk to business is acute in angering Chinese authorities. At its most benign, China might fire off a tersely worded letter from a government official, or float a critical story in the media. But given that China has been willing to orchestrate catastrophic cyberattacks, and turn foreign citizens traveling in mainland China into effective hostages through so-called “exit bans”—with the potential for even more serious threats to life and limb—one can understand the fear.

Businesses want stability. It is natural that they would support a status quo that has seen the opening of massive Chinese markets to American enterprise, with all the attendant economic benefits. Fear and greed both dictate a desire not to upset the apple cart.

This view might explain both the unwillingness of non-media companies to stand against Chinese aggression, and the intense lobbying across a variety of industriesagainst the Trump administration’s China tariffs. It is likely not just the immediate economic impact of the limited tariffs that businesses disapprove of, but their belief that escalation could hurt their bottom lines in the medium-term.

But what of the long-term? And what of the national interest?

China Is a Grave Threat to America’s Interests

Through any of a number of core policy documents—see the National Security Strategyand National Defense Strategy), reports (see the U.S. Trade Representative’s 301 report on China and the Defense Departments Manufacturing and Industrial Base report) and public proclamations (see Vice President Mike Pence’s Hudson Institute address, Director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro’s CSIS address on “Economic Security as National Security,” former Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the Department of Justice’s “China Economic Espionage Initiative,” National Security Advisor John Bolton’s Heritage address on the Trump administration’s “New Africa Policy,” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s address on “Restoring the Role of the Nation-State in the Liberal International Order” and elsewhere)—the Trump administration has made it clear that America’s main competitor in the world is China, and that China increasingly poses a grave threat to America’s national interest requiring a comprehensive response.

This has been perhaps the most far-reaching and revolutionary policy shift under the Trump administration, although often overshadowed by the media’s narrower focus on “trade wars,” or the clash of personalities between Trump and Xi. That even the political establishment has started to come around to the Trump view that the U.S. must reorient its posture and policy towards China tells us something major has changed. But with few exceptions, the business establishment remains recalcitrant. Have American executives really gamed out the consequences of inaction and appeasement towards China?

Businesses are often more focused on the next quarter than the next decade, and most executives likely concern themselves with the rise and fall of nations only insofar as it immediately impacts their fortunes. They should read the tea leaves and recognize that the China status quo is already starting to prove untenable.

It provides a false sense of security. Continue on this path, and Western firms may one day wake up to a world in which China has disproportionate sway over the rules of international trade, controls global ports and waterways, dominates in telecommunications, and backs these strengths with a large military equipped with nuclear and asymmetric weapons, robust information warfare capabilities, and a pervasive intelligence apparatus. Have American executives really gamed out the consequences of inaction and appeasement towards China? What evidence do they have that dovishness will bear fruit, given its history on both tradeand beyond?

Businesses’ interests need not conflict with the national interest. Strong, dynamic, innovative businesses are in the national interest. The Trump administration’s policies have been geared towards juicing the U.S. economy while using tariffs as a form of leverage towards free, fair, and reciprocal trade, which would be vastly better for American businesses. But tariffs are merely one tactic in one dimension of what appears to be a multi-dimensional Trump administration effort to compete with the PRC.

The response to Chinese hostility should not be to cower, but to upend the Chinese status quo. In the face of a hostile, ascendant China that increasingly threatens America’s position in the world, businesses should get on board, or propose superior solutions. Ultimately, their interests—and the national interest—will demand it.


Gillette’s Latest Commercial Is An Anti-Man Dumpster Fire

By
Gustavo
-
0

The latest assault on men has been launched by Gillette in a long commercial in which the company equates masculinity with men behaving badly.

It begins with the question, “Bullying, the Me Too movement, and masculinity—is this the best a man can get?” The commercial is a diabolical failure from the beginning because it establishes a wrong premise—that masculinity itself is abusive.

No one who is critical of feminized messaging like this would argue that bullying and sexual harassment are to be tolerated. But to dump these sins on all men collectively and insist that they check their masculinity is an assault on the very nature of a man.

Even the assumptions behind the very real problems of bullying and sexual harassment are wrong. These are painted as absolutes, black and white paradigms in which any hint of bullying or sexual harassment as defined by feminists is wrong.

This is simply not the case. Rough play and, yes, boys being boys, is now categorized as bullying. Instead, boys are expected to behave like little girls, keeping their physical expression suppressed so they can be controlled for the comfort of feminized teachers and parents who think female energies are preferable to the more aggressive energies of boys.

Boys grow into men when they learn to navigate their own masculine natures, as strong, competitive, and powerful males. They aren’t the best they can be when their masculinity is neglected and forced into a feminine mold.

Likewise, everything a man does sexually is assumed to be predatorial in much of today’s Me Too climate. Flirting, the natural sexual tension between men and women, and male initiation are all suspect because the presupposition concerning a man’s motives is that they are abusive.

The message here is that masculinity can’t be trusted. As a new American Psychological Association report has stated, masculinity is the cause of all sorts of ills, including promiscuity, sexual abuse, mental illness, violence, and suicide.

While these are certainly very real pathologies, the assumption that masculinity is the cause is simply erroneous. These pathologies are not due to men being men or boys being boys; they are due to the neglect of masculinity and masculine self-control. They are the result of immorality, not the outworking of the very nature of man.

The commercial uses guilt messaging to make all men feel as if they are responsible for these behaviors, as if they are a blight on humanity and must be reconditioned away from their masculinity to be better human beings. If the purpose of this commercial is to boost the esteem of boys, this is certainly not the way to do it.

For men to be the best they can be, they need to embrace their masculinity and learn to express it with honor, nobility, and self-control. Yes, we want men to be respectful, good fathers, kind, and honorable. We want such behavior of women too! But that calls for a change of heart, not a change of our sexual natures.

The goal for people to be better behaved is not a bad one. Again, no one supports bullying or sexual violence, but to use male guilt and assumptions about masculinity to manipulate men to be something they’re not will result in only one thing—men no longer being men. That will cause more dysfunction, more anger, and greater loss for women, who need the complement of good, strong masculinity to be happy and complete.

New York Times Reveals FBI Retaliated Against Trump For Comey Firing

By
Gustavo
-
0

A Friday expose from the New York Times reveals that the FBI investigation of Trump for alleged treason was little more than retaliation against the president for lawfully firing an incompetent and ethically challenged FBI director.

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.

The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The Washington Post reported Mueller was looking into whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by insisting he was innocent of the outlandish charges selectively leaked by government officials to compliant media. Perhaps because such an obstruction investigation was immediately condemned as scandalous political overreach, that aspect was downplayed while Mueller engaged in a limitless “Russia” probe that has rung up countless Trump affiliates for process crimes unrelated to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and spun off various investigations having nothing to do with Russia in any way.

The latest Times report does provide more detail than these earlier reports, however, and none of it makes the FBI look good. In fact, it provides evidence of a usurpation of constitutional authority to determine foreign policy that belongs not with a politically unaccountable FBI but with the citizens’ elected president. More on that in a bit.

Criminalizing Foreign Policy Differences

Using leaked information and testimony from various former governmental officials, we learn that the FBI opened its aggressive, norm-breaking, and unconstitutionalinvestigation, supposedly into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” after he fired Comey and revealed how the agency was playing games with their spurious “Russia” probe.

The Saturday New York Times article appeared on page one, above the fold, with the almost laughable headline “F.B.I. Investigated if Trump Worked for the Russians.” The online version of the story was headlined “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” Nine paragraphs into the story, the reporters admit that there is and was literally “no evidence” to support the idea Trump worked for Russia.

The top of the article, however, immediately presented the FBI-friendly interpretation of the agency’s motivations as fact — without evidence and despite strong evidence to the contrary — saying the FBI began its investigation because they were “so concerned by the president’s behavior” rather than saying it was because they were “so concerned he’d continue to expose their behavior” or “so concerned he’d hold them accountable for their political investigations.”

The article accepts FBI spin that arguing for better relations with the nuclear-armed Russia “constituted a possible threat to national security” that could only be explained if Trump was “knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.” Because FBI officials personally opposed Trump’s foreign policy, and that of the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, the FBI was “suspicious” of him, we’re told. The reporters admit the reckless decision by FBI officials was “an aggressive move” that disturbs many former law enforcement officials.

The FBI never had a good reason to investigate Trump, according to information in the article, but even the justifications they use are erroneous. For example, all three items mentioned here are inaccurately framed and presented:

Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.

First, Trump never called on Russia to hack Clinton, despite repeated media claims to the contrary. Clinton had already destroyed her server, along with 30,000 emails she claimed were about yoga, while she was under investigation for mishandling classified information. Trump was highlighting that tons of hackers could have already accessed her insecure server when it still existed and, if they had, those emails should be released so that Americans would know what foreign governments undoubtedly already did. It was a way to highlight her reckless handling of classified information and the global security concerns of that.

Second, having a foreign policy different from those who seek conflict with Russia is neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. In fact, it’s a big part of why the American people voted for Trump. The American people get to determine who sets foreign policy, and they do so through elections. The FBI does not get to set foreign policy by running criminal and counterintelligence investigations to punish those who step outside their preferred approach. They have no constitutional authority to do that.

Third, even if the Republican Party had changed its convention platform regarding Ukraine, which it had not, that is also neither a problem nor any of the FBI’s business. It’s shocking and scandalous that the FBI thinks it should criminalize foreign policy disputes.

The FBI argues, without evidence, that the president needed to be investigated as a threat to national security. Keep in mind that the FBI did not act this way during the previous administration, when many of Barack Obama’s detractors argued his foreign policy was a threat to national security. They didn’t investigate collusion with Iran, or the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to the regime. Neither did they do such things with any previous president.

It’s good that they didn’t, because Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the authority to determine foreign policy to the president, not the director or acting director of the FBI. Harvard law professor and former Comey deputy Jack Goldsmith expands on this:

One danger in the what the FBI apparently did is that it implies that the unelected domestic intelligence bureaucracy holds itself as the ultimate arbiter—over and above the elected president who is the constitutional face of U.S. intelligence and national security authority—about what actions do and don’t serve the national security interests of the United States.

Criminalizing Lawful Hiring And Firing Decisions

The article says that the FBI was, unbelievably, discussing whether they could go after Trump because he asked if Comey was loyal. It does not mention that Comey promised his loyalty or the context of Trump’s question, which was rampant leaking by the FBI, Comey’s blackmail attempt before Trump was inaugurated, and obvious game-playing against him and his administration with the Russia probe.

The FBI ultimately decided to act when Trump told the truth and revealed some of their game-playing with the Russia probe. He wanted to send a letter to Comey in which he thanked Comey for telling him he was not a subject of the Russia investigation. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wanted him to hide that fact.

Rosenstein, it’s worth remembering, wrote the memo explaining why Comey was so bad at his job, a view that was completely confirmed by the inspector general’s report on the Clinton email probe. When Trump fired Comey, in part for his incompetent handling of political investigations such as those mentioned in Rosenstein’s memo, Rosenstein used that as the predicate to launch what became the special counsel investigation against Trump.

In any case, Trump told Rosenstein to tell the truth even if he wanted to keep it hidden. Rosenstein refused, irritating Trump, according to the New York Times. Trump told the truth to the American public — which Comey was later forced to admit under oath — that Comey had told him three times he was not under investigation.

According to the New York Times, by not going along with the FBI’s game — privately admitting to Trump that he wasn’t under investigation while publicly suggesting otherwise or leaking numerous snippets of information, selectively curated and framed to suggest he was — the FBI grew concerned that he was a Russian agent. Readers would be forgiven for thinking that makes no sense whatsoever and that it’s more plausible they were concerned their behavior against Trump would be exposed.

Their other justification for targeting their political foe was that Trump publicly flat-out said he didn’t like the game Comey was playing with the Russia investigation. They decided, we’re told, to interpret, or pretend to interpret, this as obstruction.

‘I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,’ he said. ‘And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’

Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. ‘I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,’ Mr. Trump added. ‘He’s the wrong man for that position.’

Angered by Trump’s critique of Comey’s double-dealing regarding the Russia probe, the FBI retaliated with an investigation.

While it’s not mentioned in the article, hours after Comey was fired, top FBI officials and paramours Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texted about the need to open a “case” against Trump they’d already been discussing in a “formal, chargeable way” and that it had to be done “while Andy is acting.” The texts also mention “Bill”–believed to be FBI counterintelligence head Bill Priestap–being in on the plot.

“Andy” is then-deputy director Andrew McCabe, who took over the bureau until Christopher Wray was confirmed as director in August 2017. McCabe was later fired for repeatedly lying under oath about just one of many of his rampant leaks to friendly reporters and is reportedly under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury. Strzok was also fired for his behavior, Page resigned, and Priestap announced his retirement last month. It is unclear which officials in the Department of Justice authorized the unconstitutional investigation into the president as a national security threat because he didn’t share their foreign policy views.

It was important for this group to launch the official investigation into Trump while McCabe was acting director because they reasonably understood it wouldn’t happen if an FBI director outside their control took over the agency. The opening of an investigation followed a pattern of shocking behavior by the FBI, including Comey telling Trump that there was information floating around about an alleged videotape showing prostitutes urinating on a bed while he watched (there is zero evidence that such a videotape exists or that the alleged event it memorialized ever took place).

Government officials leaked the fact of that briefing to CNN almost immediately, one of the key moments that got the outlandish Russia conspiracy story started. Even Comey admitted that his behavior looked a lot like a blackmail or extortion attempt, which he strenuously denied it was. The move backfired because Trump immediately realized the FBI was playing games. McCabe also launched an investigation of former attorney general Jeff Sessions, before Sessions recused himself from holding the FBI accountable for their handling of the Russia probe.

In sum, the framing of this New York Times article is either poorly conceived or outright disingenuous at every turn. Using the completely lawful and constitutional firing of the bumbling Comey as pretext for opening a criminal investigation into the president is a grand abuse of power by the FBI. Attempting to overtake the authority to determine U.S. foreign policy from the lawfully determined president of the United States is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

For one of the nation’s largest newspapers to suggest that this makes the president — and not the FBI — look bad actually validates two of Trump’s biggest complaints: the media are hopelessly biased, and there really is a “deep state” out to to overturn the 2016 election.

Why Trump Will Win The Shutdown Showdown

By
Gustavo
-
0

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have left themselves no fallback position. And that’s why they will lose. 

Compromise. It’s a word President Trump used several times yesterday. He is open to compromise. In this case, that means something short of the $5 billion he wants for a border wall. He’s open to taking less, perhaps in exchange for not applying the law to younger illegal immigrants. This is clearly the easiest way out of the current debacle. But it is something the Democrats, led by “No Wall” Nancy Pelosi, have said they will never support.

This is a problem. Democrats have backed themselves up against a, well, a wall. They have created a situation in which if they give even one dollar to Trump to build a wall, or fence, steel barrier, or whatever, they have lost the political fight. Pelosi, the great speaker of the House who gets things done, has left herself no leverage to get anything done. She could ask for almost anything in exchange for wall funding, but instead, she won’t budge.

Trump is channeling his inner Michael Corleone and telling Democrats that his offer is this: nothing, not even the price of the border wall, which he would appreciate Pelosi appropriating. So here we are.

We all like to knock and mock Trump’s braggadocio claims that he is the best negotiator ever. But in this case, he really has outflanked his opponents. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have painted themselves into a corner. They have said, “No funding for a wall.” They say this despite the fact that they have supported barrier funding in the past. So in essence they have given themselves no fallback position.

The Democrats have made this a zero-sum game. If Trump gets any money for the wall, he wins. That’s a really fantastic position for him. He can go on TV, whether in a controversial network roadblock or an appearance on the southern border, and say, “Hey, I’m up for a compromise.” Meanwhile, Chuck and Nancy have to slam the door shut on getting 800,000 federal employees back to work.

A president always has an advantage in a government shutdown. The executive branch speaks with a single voice, while Congress is divided between parties. Trump is clearly pointing to and offering a solution. The House Democrats aren’t. And their intransigence is highlighted by the fact that Republican members of Congress are calling them out.

The simplest and best solution to the current crises is for Democrats to give Trump a few billion dollars for the wall, get something back on minors illegally transported across the border, and then we all move on. But the new Democratic leadership has decided this can’t happen. They have drawn a line in the sand, “and across this line you will not…”

So here we are. What reason does President Trump possibly have to cave? You could point to the legitimately troubling stories of federal employees unable to pay the rent, as major networks have done, but as troubling as those stories are, can we really place the blame squarely on the one person who is open for a compromise?

Pelosi, perhaps feeling a bit bullied by leftists like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, made a grand announcement that there will be no compromise on the wall. Okay. Then what? Trump said he was willing to own the shutdown, and maybe he does, but what he took ownership of was a situation in which Democrats refuse to act. It accrues to his advantage.

If the government shutdown ends in the near future, which it well may not, it will only be because the Democrats fold on wall funding. There is no other way out. Pelosi made this a do or die situation. In all likelihood Trump will be willing to keep the government shutdown for the rest of his presidency. Is Pelosi up for that?

I tend to think she is not up. In fact, one problem Democrats face in a shutdown is that if the government gets shut down in the forest and nobody notices, does it make a sound? That is to say, maybe people will think, huh, perhaps the federal government is too big after all. And wouldn’t conservatives rejoice at that?

Pelosi will have to fold here. There is no benefit to Trump for folding, and plenty of benefit for her. She played it wrong. Fair enough: she can live to fight another day, but this time, on this fight, Trump is beating her soundly and will get his wall funding. It’s only a matter of time.

Disputes Over Taiwan, Trade, And Space Will Define U.S. Relationship With China

By
Gustavo
-
0

In 2019, Sino-U.S. relations will be defined by the trade war, potential reunification with Taiwan, and the escalation of the new space race.

Which country is more dangerous to travel to for Americans: Myanmar or Communist China? If you picked Myanmar, a country that has been in civil war since its independence in 1948, you would be wrong.

The U.S. State Department issued a level II travel advisory to China last week, which means Americans should exercise increased caution when travelling in China. That is the same warning level the State Department issued in a travel advisory for Myanmar. Don’t forget that the last time the State Department issued a travel advisory to China was in 1989, right after Chinese government brutally suppressed student protesters in Tiananmen Square.

What prompted the travel advisory this time? China has arrested 13 Canadian citizens recently, on trumped up charges, in retaliation for Canadian authorities’ December arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of China’s telecom giant Huawei. The U.S. Justice Department requested Meng’s arrest on allegations that she had violated sanctions against Iran by committing financial fraud. Now, the American government is working on extraditing Meng to the United States.

Since Meng’s arrest has ignited nationalist fever in China, with the Chinese government no doubt in a revenge mood, U.S. authorities are concerned that Chinese authorities may “prohibit U.S. citizens from leaving China by using ‘exit bans’” and “U.S. citizens may be detained without access to U.S. consular services or information about their alleged crime.” Given the enormous economic ties of the two countries, it’s extraordinary for the United States to warn against its citizens travelling to the second largest economy in the world.

China, of course, dismissed such warning as unjustified. But this represents a new low in the Sino-U.S. relationship. How much worse can the Sino-U.S. relationship get before it gets better? It depends on how the two nations address three top thorny issues: trade disputes, technology competition, and Taiwan.

On the Trade Dispute

As of January 10, there are only 49 days left until March 1, the deadline President Trump set at the last G20 summit when he would raise tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on about $250 billion worth of Chinese imports if the two countries fail to reach a trade agreement. Since December 1, China has made a few concessions, including announcing new punishments for intellectual property (IP) theft, lowering auto tariffs, resuming the purchase of U.S. soybeans, and stopping from publicly mentioning the ambitious “Made in China 2025” industrial and technology policy.

But if we examine more closely, few of these initiatives represent real progress. The new punishments for IP theft sound nice on paper, but we have been down this road many times. Since the 1990s, when President George H.W. Bush was in office, each time the United States complained about IP theft, China agreed to put some new laws on books.

Predictably, every new law was hailed as a major step forward. Yet IP theft has only gotten worse over the last three decades due to lack of enforcement. In 1992, the IP Commission estimated U.S. losses from such theft were about $225 million. In 2015, the estimated losses from such theft were in the range of between $180 and $540 billion.

Lowering auto tariffs doesn’t benefit U.S. automakers much because “the vast majority of vehicles in the world’s largest auto market are made there. China imports about 1 million cars a year – less than 5 percent of a market that totals an annual 27 million vehicles.” And ending mention of the “Made in China 2025” policy doesn’t mean China will stop making efforts toward the same goal.

Among all these initiatives, only purchasing U.S. soybeans has real and direct benefit to the United States. Even that, China did out of necessity. China is the largest soybean importer and there is no country other than the United States that can meet China’s demand.

All economic data out of China shows that the trade war with the United States has hit China hard: according to the Wall Street Journal, “factory activity [is] hitting its lowest level in nearly three years. Profits from big Chinese industrial firms also declined in November for the first time in three years.” Not to mention, “Chinese consumers have cut back, resulting in a slump in sales of cars and other goods.”

The United States isn’t immune to the negative impact of the trade war with China either. The American stock market saw its worst performance since 2008 and the worst December since 1931. Apple stock lost 10 percent of its value in one trading day after its CEO Tim Cooked blamed a sales shortfall as the result of slowing Chinese economy.

Jeffrey Gerrish, U.S. deputy trade representative, kicked off trade talks with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing this Monday. If the talks fail to make any progress, the Sino-U.S. relationship isn’t going to get any better.

On Technology Competition

The truth is that the trade talks aren’t only about trade––the real elephant in the room is the technology competition between the countries. Even if the United States eventually gets a Chinese concession to import more stuff from the United States, the United States won’t be able to either halt China’s technology advancement or contain China’s ambition to become a global tech leader.

Despite China’s economy slowing down, China continues to advance in technology development.

Only three days into 2019, China became the first country to successfully land a rover on the far side of the moon. The success of this mission has been a big boost to President Xi Jinping. It also symbolizes a new space race between the United States and China. Both nations compete to lead the new age space exploration, reminiscent of the race to the moon competition between the United States and Soviets during the cold war. The United States won the last space race against the Soviets, but can it win a new space race against China?

Compared to the Soviets, China has a much bigger and stronger economy. Chinese leaders took lessons from the Soviet’s downfall to heart. They plan China’s space ambitions in a meticulous manner. The lunar landing success is the result of years of planning, investment, and incremental successes. China already “launches more rockets into space than any other country — 39 last year, compared to 31 by the U.S., 20 by Russia and eight by Europe” and China spends “more on its civil and military space programs than Russia and Japan,” according to the Japan Times.

Even more impressive––but downplayed by western media––is that China launched a communications-relay satellite in June 2018, which was positioned 50,000 miles beyond the moon. Space Expert Deng Cheng of the Heritage Foundation said this kind of satellite is “expanding the volume of space” China can access, giving China greater ability to monitor other nations’ space assets. Whomever controls space will have control of what’s happening on earth, whether GPS technology, weather forecasts, military targets, and commercial pipelines.

Thus, even after China and the United States eventually settle their trade dispute, the technology competition between the two nations will continue to heat up.

On Taiwan

The future of Taiwan has become a heated topic since the beginning of 2019. Beijing has been alternating between a stick and carrot approach towards its goal of engulfing Taiwan. Last year, Taiwan’s pro-independence President Tsai Ing-wen and her ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) suffered great defeat in local elections and Tsai resigned as the head of DPP. DPP’s defeat was seen by some Taiwanese as a victory in Beijing’s “deliberate campaign to undermine and subvert our democratic process and create division in our society.”

Just when Beijing thought it was one step closer to peacefully reuniting with Taiwan, on New Year’s Eve, President Trump signed into law the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, which, to Beijing’s annoyance, includes increasing official exchanges between the United States and Taiwan and arm sales to Taiwan. Beijing sees this latest move as the United States throwing a lifeline to Tsai and the DPP.

In his New Year’s speech, President Xi proposed that a “one country, two systems” model––an approach Beijing used for Hong Kong––was the way for assimilating Taiwan, even though Hong Kong’s experience offers Taiwan no comfort. At the same time, Xi reiterated that he “makes no promise to renounce the use of force and reserves the option of taking all necessary means” to reunite with Taiwan.

He also said the military would target those seeking Taiwan independence and “foreign interference is intolerable.” Everyone understands that “foreign interference” is a code warning to the United States. Tsai responded that she would be open to talk only if Beijing would promote democracy and renounce the use of force against Taiwan.

It’s fair to say Beijing, Taiwan, and Washington are very far apart about Taiwan’s future. The issue of Taiwan remains the most likely issue that the United States and China may go to war over.

A new year brings new opportunities as well new challenges. Unless the two nations find a non-confrontational way to address these three thorny issues, the Sino-U.S. relationship may have to get worse before it has any hope of getting better.


Media’s Angry Response To President Trump’s Oval Office Speech Comes Up Short

By
Gustavo
-
0
President Donald Trump speaks from the Oval Office of the White House as he gives a prime-time address about border security Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2018, in Washington. (Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP)

The Democrats’ theme for the evening was ‘facts, not fear.’ Many major media also adopted the same theme.

A humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border must be addressed, President Donald Trump told the country last night in his first Oval Office address. His speech also addressed the flow of drugs and crime, the high rates of abuse associated with human trafficking, and the use of children as pawns to thwart laws protecting the U.S. border from illegal entry.

“This is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border. This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end,” Trump said, laying out a plan that includes drug-detection technology, increased border agents and immigration judges, $800 million in humanitarian assistance and medical support, legislative changes to ensure the safe return of children who enter the country illegally, and $5.7 billion for a “physical barrier” to help stop illegal entry.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer quickly responded to the address by saying there’s not really a crisis at the border. They told him that he should end the governmental shutdown, and said they could work on border security concerns in the months to come.

While pundits like to discuss who looked good and who looked bad in last night’s televised addresses, it’s worth pausing in appreciation of the various political leaders for taking part in the debate over national security and the extent of the problem caused by porous borders. Sometimes debates need to take place behind closed doors, but when competing ideologies are on display, it serves as a healthy public education about important issues that affect citizens’ lives.

The Democrats’ theme for the evening was “facts, not fear.” Many major media also adopted the same theme. The coordinated talking point began hours if not days before the speech even aired, with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota saying yesterday morning, “Fact-checkers are eating their Wheaties and getting extra rest since they will be working overtime tonight to separate fact from fiction on this border situation.”

As soon as the speech ended, White House press corps mascot Jim Acosta recited his rather groan-inducing rehearsed line that Trump’s address “should have come with a Surgeon General’s warning that it was hazardous to the truth.”

But when it came time to back up this talking point about factual inaccuracies, the media whiffed. Most of the alleged “fact” “checks” were instead critiques of opinions. Many critiqued things not included in Trump’s speech. And sometimes the “fact” “checks” dinged Trump for saying completely true things. Take the Washington Post, for instance:

The fact checkers at the Washington Post characterized this Trump claim, which they admitted was factual, as “misleading” because, and I quote, “this figure includes all types of crimes.” You can’t make it up.

Here are several other examples of the media botching their alleged fact checks.

Politico’s Fact Check Is So Bad It’s Almost Funny

Politico’s Ted Hesson did such a bad “fact” “check” that it’s almost impressive. Among the things he checked as “not true” was Trump’s contention that there’s a crisis on the border. I’m not joking.

To quote Michael Tracey, “Stop fact-checking normative claims and subjective, value-based assertions! It degrades the entire enterprise of fact-checking! Fact-checking is obviously needed, but not the bizarre new version invented by oblivious, self-satisfied journos!”

Even worse for Hesson, however, was his reasoning. He said it’s “not true” that there’s a crisis because the number of people caught crossing is below what it was during Obama. It’s as if he hasn’t heard a single administration official in recent weeks explaining that the reason why the Department of Homeland Security is burdened is not because illegal crossings are up in general, but because of the type of crossings, such as unaccompanied minors and family units from Central America that, due to our laws, can not be returned to their homes.

Hesson is apparently unaware that resources needed for dealing with the illegal crossings by single adult males from Mexico that may have dominated earlier years are completely different than those needed for family units who claim asylum status after being caught in the country illegally.

He also said it was wrong to say that “Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs” because most of the drugs come through legal points of entry. Well, Ted, that’s probably why President Trump said that part of his request from Democrats was for drug-detection technology.

Finally, Hesson said it was wrong to say that Schumer “has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” even though that’s absolutely true. Hesson’s reasoning makes no sense. He admits Schumer voted, for example, for the construction of nearly 700 miles of a physical barrier in 2006 but says Trump said that wasn’t enough. Therefore, Trump’s accurate claim that is not misleading is judged to be “misleading.” Again, I’m not joking.

NYT Fact Checks a Speech No One Gave

A New York Times article originally headlined “Trump Cites Misleading Statistics of Crisis And Crime Along Border” failed to explain what the misleading statistics were. Perhaps that explains why they changed the headline to “Trump Escalates Border Wall Fight in National Address.”

In a rather shrill opinion piece billed as straight news, Peter Baker claimed, without evidence, that describing the situation as a crisis “raised credibility questions.” Then he went on to slay strawmen and other items the president didn’t even mention.

He got the memo Hesson and other reporters clearly received suggesting that non-partisan reporters who are in no way taking the exact same side in the debate as Schumer and Pelosi talk about general border crossing numbers. Like these other reporters, Baker failed to mention the actual problems Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has described, including spikes in illegal drugs, a 25 percent increase in unaccompanied children last year, and a 50 percent increase in family units. As she has said, for the first time in history, family units and children comprise the vast majority of apprehension.

Baker also wrote the same non-sequitur about heroin entering through legal ports of entry. I don’t mean to be insulting, but did they even listen to the president’s speech before declaring it false? Here’s what Trump actually said, instead of what they imagined him to say:

Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border. More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War… The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things… The border wall would very quickly pay for itself. The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion a year — vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress…

Heck, here’s what Nancy Pelosi even admitted: “we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation.” Trump said he’s asking for “cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs” and Pelosi said, “we can install new technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming into our nation.”

How does it “raise credibility questions” to say these true things? And how are these true things countered by saying, as Baker does, “The majority of heroin enters the United States through legal ports of entry, not through open areas of the border”? Neither Trump nor Pelosi said that they did!

In the minds of many group thinking reporters, Trump only cares about a wall. But if they would actually read the proposal he sent to Congress on January 6, they could read that he seeks the following things in addition to 234 miles of physical barrier:

  • 75 additional immigration judges and support staff to reduce the immigration backlog,
  • 750 additional Border Patrol agents,
  • 2,000 additional law enforcement personnel and support staff to address gang violence, smuggling, trafficking, and the spread of drugs,
  • 52,000 detention beds,
  • $800 million to address urgent humanitarian needs,
  • $675 million for “Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology at inbound lanes at U.S. Southwest Border Land Ports of Entry” to “allow CBP to deter and detect more contraband, including narcotics, weapons, and other materials that pose nuclear and radiological threats”
  • statutory changes to permit in-country processing capacities for asylum processing

“Fact” “checking” the president by saying that “actually” the drugs are coming through legal ports of entry when that is precisely what Trump’s counter-narcotics plan says is “raising credibility questions,” but not of the president.

Finally, Baker brings up a State Department report on terrorism as a way to hit back at Trump’s Oval Office address, which is fine, except for the little problem that Trump didn’t mention terror in his address.

Mocking The Harming Of Children To Own The Cons

Here’s another media fact check from CNN:

Trump said, “Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States — a dramatic increase. These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs.”

No one is disputing that 20,000 children were illegally brought into the United States last month, nor that it’s a dramatic increase. The question is whether the use of these children as human pawns by coyotes and gangs is a problem.

To CNN, the “fact” “check” is to counter with a non-sequitur of “smuggled minors make up less than 1% of family apprehensions.” It doesn’t tell us how many of the 20,000 children were smuggled last month — maybe “only” fewer than 200.

But the “pawn” issue is so much more than smuggling. It’s about how our laws induce people to travel with children as an insurance policy that protects them if they’re caught. And yes, coyotes and gangs take advantage of these laws and respond accordingly. They may be bad guys, but they’re not stupid. Thanks to our laws, we’ve incentivized this use of children in illegal border migration.

Accidentally Claiming Trump Is Underplaying the Crisis

At one point, a media outlet was alleged to have made the following fact check:

According to this fact check, Trump was wrong to say that “One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico” because it’s actually as many as eight in ten. While Amnesty International’s numbers are truly horrifying to contemplate, the Department of Homeland Security told reporters that its numbers were from Doctors Without Borders.

Those numbers also showed that 17 percent of men are also sexually assaulted during the journey through Mexico. While both groups’ numbers are bad, their difference is a good reminder of the imprecision of many of these fact checks and why reporters should be cautious when calling other people liars.

The Importance of Keeping Calm

Checking facts is extremely important. It’s a vital function of journalism and one that was sorely missing for a good eight years of the Obama presidency. It’s not that journalists have over-corrected — a genuine return to fact-based reporting wouldn’t just be welcome but preferable. The problem is that they’re extremely confused about the difference between value assessments and facts. They also struggle with basic logic and reading comprehension.

Yes, we know that they’re out of their minds with rage about Trump. That’s a trait many others share, but it’s not a good trait for someone who is a journalist or charged with checking facts.

If reporters genuinely wanted to assess the truth of a given debate, they wouldn’t announce a shared campaign with Democrats, right down to the shared messaging of “facts, not fear.” They wouldn’t do such a horrible job of fact-checking a very difficult topic.

They would understand that a group of people who have failed to accurately cover — and in some cases people who completely botched — dozens of different angles on the immigration story are not in the best position to run “fact” “checks” of anyone else. And they’d do a far better job of fact-checking their ideological allies such as Pelosi, whose very first “fact” was not true.

But other than that, great job, guys.

Yes, Trump Might Be Able To Declare An ‘Emergency’ To Build His Wall

By
Gustavo
-
0

The question of whether the situation at the border is an emergency is probably more of a political issue for the first two branches of government than a legal issue for the third branch.

Recently, the New York Times treated us to an op-ed explaining, “No, Trump cannot Declare an ‘Emergency’ to Build His Wall.” The author, Bruce Ackerman, is a professor of law at Yale University, so this might seem like bad news for the president’s plans. Hopefully, if there is a wall, it’s founded on something sturdier than Ackerman’s logic—that if President Trump supports it, it must be wrong.

In general, without specific congressional authorization, a president cannot order the military to expend funds for a “major” construction project (see here, here, and here). This is because Congress jealously guards its authorities under Article I of the Constitution to appropriate and authorize expenditures. If the president is allowed to bypass Congress’s power to direct how the money is spent, it undermines Congress’s most important power under the Constitution.

You wouldn’t have known that from reading Ackerman’s article, however, which takes an irrelevant detour into the “Posse Comitatus Act,” which prohibits the military from being used to enforce domestic law. This has to do with using soldiers to police American citizens and is completely irrelevant to building a border wall.

It’s likely that President Trump is looking at 10 U.S.C. § 284 for authority to build the wall. That allows the Department of Defense to support other agencies of the federal government to counter drug activity and transnational organized crime, using such means as “Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”

Another law, 10 U.S.C. § 2808, allows the president to declare a national emergency and direct the U.S. military to undertake military construction projects using appropriated funds for military construction, including family housing, that has not already been obligated.

Ackerman compares declaring an emergency to build a border wall to President Harry Truman’s attempt to nationalize the steel industry in 1952. That effort was struck down by the Supreme Court. This comparison is ridiculous because that case involved the president seizing control of private property (i.e. privately owned steel mills).

In contrast, the government has already purchased much of the land needed for the border wall. In the early 2000s, the federal government condemned almost half the length of the 120 miles of the Rio Grande Valley in southernmost Texas. Thus, the federal government can build much of this fence on land that it already owns. The Truman-steel industry example is wildly inapplicable.

Ackerman then casually suggests that soldiers mutiny against any order to build the fence, arguing, “the law is clear.” He writes that millions of service members “would immediately be obliged to decide whether to obey President Trump.”

It’s irresponsible for a Yale Law professor to suggest the military pick and choose which orders to follow from the president. The day the military stops following orders from the president are the day the voters lose control of their government. The suggestion is particularly irresponsible because of his failure to acknowledge legal authority that could authorize such an action.

Is the situation at the border a “national emergency?” That’s debatable. The ideal outcome would be for the elected officials to resolve the matter through a non-emergency appropriation signed into law by the elected president. But the idea that the current situation at the border is an emergency is not far-fetched.

An estimated $64 billion in drugs are smuggled into the United States every year. In 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order declaring a “national emergency” finding that the “actions of significant foreign narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm that they cause in the United States and abroad, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” The order stood long enough for President George W. Bush to extend it in 2004.

My research did not isolate a particular legal standard for “a national emergency,” so it’s possible Trump’s critics could challenge his action in the courts as insufficient on that basis. There’s plenty of violence taking place on both sides of the border in connection with drug smuggling that Trump could cite to invoke the same justification used by Clinton and Bush.

If Trump is wrong, Congress, as Ackerman noted, would have “the right to repudiate it immediately.” Thus, the question of whether the situation at the border is an emergency is probably more of a political issue for the first two branches of government than it is a legal issue for the third branch.

Subsequent to Ackerman’s article, the New York Times published a more balanced article that gave a more honest treatment to the president’s potential authority to use DoD funds to build a border fence or wall. Quoting a professor from Syracuse, the New York Times wrote, “I think that it’s possible that the president could declare a national emergency and then rely on authority Congress has historically granted for exigencies to free up some funds to support constructing a barrier along the border.”

Should the president declare an emergency and then Congress vote to overrule the president, the legislation would still be subject to a veto. In other words, it would take a “two-thirds majority in both houses to override” the veto. Therefore, even according to the New York Times, President Trump is right: he can use his authority to build the wall on land that’s already owned by the federal government.

There is a very reasonable debate to be had about the dangers of giving chief executives broad “emergency” powers to circumvent the political process. This is exactly the reason Congress should take seriously the opportunity to address the issue directly, to maintain the precedent of limiting emergency powers to exceptional circumstances.

Can Democrats Claim/Explain Why The Border Wall Is ‘Immoral?’

By
Gustavo
-
0

The blanket opposition to any ‘wall’ has a number of logical and political inconsistencies.

“A wall, in my view, is immorality. It’s the least effective way to protect the border and the most costly. I can’t think of any reason why anyone would think it’s a good idea — unless this has something to do with something else,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently explained. Many other Democrats — almost all of them, in fact — claim to have, in addition to other reasons, some moral qualm about a border wall.

Whether or not the United States needs a wall — or even a pointed, slanted steel fence, for that matter — is a legitimate point of debate. I’m pretty ambivalent about the prospects of a barrier myself, and I oppose any unilateral emergency measures that allow the government to more easily take private land to make it happen. But the Democrats’ blanket opposition to any “wall” has a number of logical inconsistencies that expose a different kind of agenda.

For one thing, is a wall really the “least” effective way to protect the border? I keep hearing Democrats offering this talking point on cable news without pushback. I’m not sure our fact-checking guardians have jumped on this debatable contention, but I suspect there are numerous less effective ways to secure the southern border than putting up a giant partition. No rational person really believes that high vertical structures wouldn’t, to some extent, inhibit the movement of people.

It is true, as President Trump has claimed, that Israel’s security fence, erected after a deadly terror campaign against civilians in the early 2000s, has been effective. There was an immediate and precipitous drop in terror attacks inside Israel. And, as The New Yorker recently reported, “a razor-wire electric fence” along the border in Szeged, Hungary was all that was needed to stop refugees from flooding into the country. The European Union was angered that the Hungarians built the wall because it worked.

So it’s reasonable to believe that many Democrats simply don’t want a new wall because walls stop illegal immigration. They just won’t say the words yet. Take, for example, Rep. Adam Smith, the new chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who, echoing many other Democrats, claims that Trump’s campaign for a border wall is rooted in “xenophobia and racism.”

Even if we conceded for argument’s sake that the person driving this debate is xenophobic and racist, a barrier is meant to keep people from illegally entering the country from Mexico and Central America. Our immigration debate is ostensibly about the best way to secure our border and keep people — on both sides — safe.

How can one inanimate border fortification be more racist than another? Does Smith believe it’s functionally more racist to preemptively dissuade illegal immigrants from illegally crossing the border with a wall than to allow them to wander around in deserts and wilderness looking for water on their own?

Another Democrat, Rep. Eric Swalwell, recently offered what I am told is a non-parody tweet, which read, “’Mr. Gorbachev, put up a wall.’ Said no President.” It is true that when socialists run a country they typically are forced to build walls to keep people inside. It’s something Swalwell might keep in mind when he votes. It’s also, and unfortunately, true that the Berlin Wall was effective. Perhaps Swalwell is claiming that the physical structure, aesthetically speaking, sends an ugly message.

Despite the preoccupation with Trump, though, the idea of a wall on the southern border is neither new nor revolutionary. A wall was once a mainstream position that most of the Democratic Party leadership supported to various extents. It was one of the few items that could garner any consensus. Many politicians who’ve voted for walls are still serving in Congress today. As far as I can tell, no one with access has asked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer when and why a wall became immoral.

We already have around 700 miles of barriers.  Swalwell’s state California a 140-mile border with Mexico, about 105 miles of which is walled or fenced, including a giant fence that juts into the Pacific Ocean. Are those walls immoral and racist, also? If so, why don’t Democrats support tearing down these nefarious structures?

The notion that Democrats — who are ready to spend trillions on every newly concocted “right” — are hesitant to lay out $5. 7 billion is risible. If a wall were really ineffective, wouldn’t trade for legalizing younger illegal residents be a feasible and legitimate compromise? It’s more likely that the wall is a non-starter because 1: Democrats don’t want to sign off on a Trump agenda item — the political consequences would be too severe; and 2: Democrats’ leftward lurch has transformed moderate border security positions into “racist” stances.

We might not need a wall, but if a wall is inherently “immoral,” why isn’t a border or sovereignty also immoral? I’ve not heard a good explanation.

Watch Democratic Senate Candidate Phil Bredesen’s LIE, Staff Say He Would Oppose Kavanaugh

By
Gustavo
-
0
(Exclusive Coverage; Premium Rates Apply) attends Nashville Rising, a benefit concert for flood relief at Bridgestone Arena on June 22, 2010 in Nashville, Tennessee.

In an undercover video, campaign staffers working for Democratic candidate Phil Bredesen said he would have voted against Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court if he were elected to the U.S. Senate.

The video, released by Project Veritas on Thursday, shows several of Bredesen’s campaign staffers saying that the Democrat would have opposed Kavanaugh, even though he has publicly stated otherwise.

Bredesen is trailing behind his Republican opponent Rep. Marsha Blackburn. A recent CBS News/YouGov poll shows Blackburn is up by eight points. The poll was conducted before Taylor Swift posted her opposition to Blackburn on Instagram.

“He wouldn’t, but he said he would,” said Will Stewart, who is identified as a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign. “It’s all politics.”

“We don’t say that out of these walls,” Stewart said. “But here, of course, we talk about that. ‘Cause it’s so funny.”

When asked by the person filming the undercover footage if Bredesen would really vote for Kavanaugh, another individual assisting the Democrat’s campaign agreed that it was just a political move.

“Isn’t that gross?” said a man identified in the video as James Miller, who is identified in the video as doing voter protection for Bredesen’s campaign.

1...567...16Page 6 of 16
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS

© Website Created by Gustavo Frias