Login
There are four conditions for statehood; Palestine arguably meets one of them.
The most widely accepted definition of a sovereign nation is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which was adopted at the Seventh International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1933. The Montevideo Convention lays out the criteria for statehood, including a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. These criteria are widely accepted as the basic requirements for statehood in international law.
These criteria are widely recognized as the fundamental requirements for statehood in international law. Most countries and international organizations adhere to the principles laid out in the convention. Additionally, the criteria specified in the convention are commonly used by governments, legal scholars, and international bodies to determine the statehood of entities seeking recognition as sovereign states. Therefore, the definition provided by the Montevideo Convention is broadly accepted by the international community.
UN members recently voted to recognize Palestine. According to the UN Charter, “States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” However, as a member of the Security Council, the US exercised its veto power, preventing Palestine’s admission.
The United Nations (UN) does not have an official definition of statehood, as it is not explicitly defined in the UN Charter. Instead, the UN generally follows the criteria outlined in the Montevideo Convention. Additionally, the UN has three more requirements for membership.
In conclusion, Palestine is not a state. It meets possibly only one of the four criteria under the Montevideo Convention and one of the three criteria under the UN. Ultimately, the US can exercise its veto power. Pro-Palestine protestors need to read the requirements of statehood and understand that their outrage has been misguided.
The post Palestine Fails the Test of Statehood appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Biden’s inconsistent handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict is straining relations with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, the US’s primary ally in the Middle East. At the same time, the uncoordinated and conflicting policy decisions make the US appear weak, encouraging terrorists and adversaries in the region and around the globe. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) criticized Biden, stating, “President Biden has continued to embolden Iran through weak policies, allowing Iran to fund terrorist attacks against our allies.” Initially, the President pledged his support for Israel, but then later announced that he would pause the delivery of some US weapons and ammunition to Israel. Now, it seems that Biden is moving forward with a $1 billion arms sale to Israel.
President Biden said that he is frustrated with Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict, saying that too many civilians have died. He criticizes the Prime Minister for not using targeted enough attacks, thus resulting in more civilian casualties. On the other hand, according to Senator JD Vance (R-OH), Biden is withholding advanced US weapons which could be used to target more directly against Hamas, reducing civilian casualties.
A good example is Israel’s ability to conduct targeted attacks, such as the strike against a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, whom Israel assassinated in Syria last month. Not only were civilian casualties kept to a minimum, but several of his assistants, including another general, were also killed, dealing a significant blow to Iran’s ability to fight in the region.
There have been no serious demands from the White House for the hostages to be released, including the Americans. However, the president is on TV condemning Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza. Providing a view from outside of the United States, former senior British military intelligence officer Philip Ingram suggests that Hamas is watching and most likely feels that all they have to do is wait. Eventually, the support from the US and the world will wane, and Hamas will survive.
And if Hamas survives, the attacks will continue. Hamas leaders have publicly stated that they plan to commit future attacks similar to October 7th. Mr. Ingram has gone so far as to call Biden and the pro-Palestine protestors “useful idiots” because they are applying pro-Hamas pressure on Western governments without Hamas having to do anything.
Defenders of President Biden’s policies say that he is working from a position of lessons the US allegedly learned in Vietnam and Afghanistan. However, if the US had actually learned from Vietnam, the US would never have had to face the same situation in Afghanistan. In fact, if the US had learned from the French in Vietnam, the US would never have had to learn their own lessons from Vietnam. Given the US track record in the Middle East, it is illogical for President Biden to “micromanage” Israel’s war.
After the US let down the Afghanis and the Kurds, and now that there are widespread pro-Hamas and anti-American protests sweeping US college campuses, Netanyahu must be questioning President Biden’s commitment to US national security, much less Israel’s. A country so riddled with security threats, including open borders which are allowing terrorists, transnational crime, and narcotrafficking organizations to operate within the US, has no place telling Israel how to handle its own national security.
Netanyahu has his goals and objectives, and his strategy seems to be working. As of December, Israel claimed they were at the halfway mark in the war, and the IDF continues to make gains against the terrorists. Hamas began the war by killing 1,200 unarmed civilians. Now that they are being defeated, they are trying to tap out, to get the world community to come in and stop Israel. At the same time, Hamas is literally and figuratively hiding behind its own civilian population. Hamas does not wear uniforms, so even when Israel kills Hamas terrorists, the organization can claim that Israel is targeting civilians. Therefore, while it is unfortunate that innocent people are being killed, they were put in harm’s way by Hamas; consequently, defeating Hamas will sadly result in collateral damage.
The only way for peace is to defeat Hamas as a military organization. There is no way to defeat or eliminate the ideology, but by rooting out the commanders and military-trained battalions, Israel will be in a much better position. At the end of the day, the reason why Egypt and other Arab nations will not accept the refugees is that they also fear and hate Hamas. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is just concerned about making money. They have no time for terrorists. Consequently, if Israel is allowed to finish the job, decimating Hamas’s ability to wage war, the offensive will stop, the images and videos will fade from headlines, and the Israel-Gaza offensive will fade into the memory hole. At that point, it will be much easier for Israel and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other regional powers to normalize relations, creating an anti-Iran coalition and bringing greater stability to the region.
Senator Vance put it this way, “Our goal in the Middle East should be to allow the Israelis to get to some good place with the Saudi Arabians and other Gulf Arab states. There is no way that we can do that unless the Israelis finish the job with Hamas.”
The post Biden’s Disjointed Israel-Hamas Policy Costing Lives Present and Future appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Biden’s latest gaffe is that he insulted Japan and India by calling them xenophobic. But the US president has a history of insulting US allies and often demonstrates that he does not understand world affairs or the significance of the people he meets with.
When he was supposed to visit the UK last year on Good Friday, Biden chose Ireland over England, which upset Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. He also missed the coronation of King Charles III, which was a serious error considering the UK is the United States’ closest ally and has fought alongside us in nearly every conflict except Vietnam.
In February, he called Vladimir Putin a “crazy SOB.” Granted, Russia is not a US ally, but it is not normal behavior to hurl personal insults at world leaders. This is the sort of thing that makes it difficult to broker a peace deal in Ukraine. Similarly, Biden called Trump a clown and told him to “shut up.” The two are not friends, but with Biden at the helm, Democrats have lost the moral high ground. He also called a journalist from Fox News a “stupid son of a b-tch.”
When speaking at the G7, Biden mixed up Macron with Mitterrand, who died in 1996, and confused France with Germany. He told the leaders of the world’s richest countries, “And Mitterrand from Germany — I mean, from France…” When it looked as if the right-of-center candidate Giorgia Meloni would be elected as the new prime minister of Italy, Biden insinuated that right-wing candidates winning elections represent a breakdown in democracy. He warned, “You just saw what happened in Italy in that election. You’re seeing what’s happening around the world. The reason I bother to say that is, you can’t be sanguine about what’s happening here either.”
In March of this year, he insulted Hungary’s conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, stating that he “flatly doesn’t think democracy works and is looking for dictatorship.” Obviously, Orbán has never called for a dictatorship, but he has pushed back against unfettered globalism, prioritizing the needs of his country over the demands of the EU. A head of state prioritizing his own country sounds like a good idea, much like “America First”.
By far, the most egregious violation of diplomatic integrity has been Biden’s mishandling of relations with Saudi Arabia, the most powerful nation in the Middle East and one of the most vital regional allies of the United States. In 2019, during his campaign for the presidency, Biden called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state. He threatened, “We [are] going to, in fact, make them pay the price, and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.”
Three years later, when gasoline had hit record highs, he crawled to the Kingdom to beg them to increase output and bring oil prices down. Before leaving the US, he downplayed the significance of the meeting, telling reporters that he was not traveling to the Middle East for the specific purpose of meeting with the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but rather, that the two would both be attending a conference and might see each other casually. When the two met, rather than shaking hands, Biden offered the crown prince a fist bump.
If Biden were a social media influencer, then the fist bump would be considered a success because the image went viral. However, as the head of the most powerful nation on Earth, hoping to achieve diplomatic aims, it was a miserable failure that horribly offended the prince and the nation he represents.
One of the facts Biden forgets when he meets dictators or when he meets royalty is that they own everything. By contrast, the American president owns nothing—not even the limo he’s riding in or the house on Pennsylvania Avenue he lives in. Another point is that in eight months, or a maximum of four years and eight months from now, Biden will be retired, while dictators and royalty will continue to rule. They were there long before Biden became a signatory for the US government, and they will be there long after.
It would probably be easy for the man holding the most powerful position on earth to forget that he is a mere blip on the geopolitical timeline, but Biden seems to not even have considered this. He seems to actually believe that he, not the office, has the power.
Trump had been in the public spotlight since at least 1980. He was a self-made billionaire who regularly consorted with kings, queens, and heads of state, not as a public servant, but as an equal. This experience showed through in his handling of Putin, Xi Jinping, and the Saudis, as well as his ability to secure a meeting with Kim Jong Un.
Biden also seems to forget that the world is watching America through the internet. While speaking at a black college, he blamed white people. His habit of pandering to his audience makes him overlook the fact that those he insults are also watching. Like a campaigning politician, he wants to be able to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear in the moment and have it forgotten ten minutes later. But the world doesn’t work like that. Long before their meeting, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was well aware of Biden’s harsh remarks, labeling his country a pariah.
The Crown Prince was also aware that on that same trip to the Middle East, Biden shook hands with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while he only fist bumped the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.
It comes as no surprise that Saudi Arabia did not help Biden bring down gas prices.
In addition to not doing what the US wants them to do, several world leaders have snubbed Biden. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the U.A.E.’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan both declined to speak with Biden in March 2022. Similarly, Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador refused to attend the US-hosted Summit of the Americas that year because the administration had excluded Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Most recently, Jordan canceled the US summit with Arab leaders when Biden prioritized visiting Israel.
Whether casual or coincidental, Biden insults US allies, and now the US is involved in conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, while trying to maintain the defense of Taiwan and keep a lid on the chaos in Haiti. Additionally, the US is attempting to prevent Africa from collapsing under the re-emergence of ISIS and Boko Haram.
The post Foreign Policy Gaffes: Biden Insults US Allies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
In response to the US drug crisis which is claiming 200 American lives daily, the Biden Administration vows to cooperate with the Mexican government. A statement from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) regarding tackling Mexico’s cartels asserts, ‘In close coordination with the Government of Mexico and by leveraging President Biden’s Executive Order, we will continue to take aggressive action and exercise global leadership to strike drug trafficking organizations.'”
Taking down the cartels is crucial, given their involvement not only in narcotrafficking and money laundering but also in the surge of illegal immigration at the southern border, having gained control over the lucrative human trafficking trade. However, collaborating with the Mexican government won’t yield results. The White House statement is far from reality, given the firm grip of the cartels on the Mexican government. With escalating cartel interference in elections, prospects for change appear bleak.
Next month, Mexico will hold its general elections, but the cartels have made this year’s campaign season one of the bloodiest in history. Gisela Gaytan, a mayoral candidate from the small town of Celaya, was killed on the very first day of her campaign. Assassins shot her just after she descended from the podium, after pledging to combat cartel violence for her constituents. Magdalena Rosalez, who is running for Congress representing the same party as Gaytan, was asked by her party to abandon her campaign because of security concerns. The grim reality is that Gaytan’s murder, like most murders in Mexico, will remain unsolved and unpunished.
Democracy in Mexico is severely compromised by the cartels, whose influence has infiltrated the legislation, the judiciary, the military, police, and even the electoral process. In certain regions, the cartels handpick candidates and eliminate opposition through threats, violence, or murder. The situation is so extreme that in some elections, cartel-backed candidates run unopposed.
So far this year, approximately 30 candidates have been assassinated, with hundreds more intimidated into withdrawing from the race. Candidates face danger not only during public appearances but also every minute of every day. Consequently, 400 candidates have petitioned the government for security protection.
The cartels aim to install candidates in office who would align with their interests. Additionally, they seek to influence the selection of police chiefs, mayors, and other local officials. Furthermore, cartels are expanding their revenue sources by seizing control of municipal construction projects, including roads, schools, and hospitals.
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whom Biden is pinning his hopes on, denies assertions of violence even in Chiapas, a city synonymous with cartel rule. This is despite the fact that his own protege, presidential front-runner Claudia Sheinbaum, was recently halted and threatened by cartel gunmen.
In some parts of the country, cartels control access to towns, deciding who can enter or leave and what they can do while there. And the violence isn’t just limited to cities; even small towns like Maravatío, located in Michoacan with a population of only 80,000, have seen the assassination of three mayoral candidates. Two of the victims were from the same party as President Obrador, yet he denies that the electoral process is being impeded by violence.
In Chiapas, almost two dozen mayoral candidates from the PAN party have withdrawn from their races. According to a party member, while cartels previously influenced elections by buying off voters, they now resort to violence, either by killing candidates or forcing them out through threats.
The northern border, adjacent to the US, has long been notorious for its lawlessness and prevalence of crime and vice. However, the violence and crime are now spreading throughout the entire country. Historically, Mexico’s southern border was loosely guarded and relatively peaceful, but it has transformed into a transit point for Colombian cocaine smuggled through Guatemala. Today, Chiapas is one of the most affected states, where human trafficking, alongside narcotrafficking, has become a major source of income, with cartels aligning themselves with political parties. Numerous cartels operate in the region, including the two largest ones, the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartel (Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación or CJNG). Consequently, murders and disappearances have skyrocketed, with six political candidates among the recent casualties.
Biden is hoping that by partnering with the Mexican government, he can take on the cartels. This makes little sense given that the cartels control the Mexican government.
The post Cartels’ Grip on Mexican Elections: Government Will Not Stop Drugs to US appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Many Americans are weary of funding the Ukraine War. After seven decades of Europe depending on US defense and passing the costs onto US taxpayers, they’re reluctant to provide an additional $61 billion for Ukraine. Regardless of the validity, these sentiments align with Putin’s strategy, encouraging him as he waits for Ukraine’s funding to dwindle.
Congress recently approved $95 billion in military aid, dividing it among Ukraine, Israel, and other US allies. With most of the funds directed to Ukraine, this injection is intended to support the country until year-end. Ongoing discussions about funding underscore the reality that the conflict in Ukraine has transformed into a war of attrition, where the outcome will be determined by which side exhausts its resources—whether it’s cash, munitions, soldiers, or determination—first.
Russia, being notably larger and wealthier, possesses a substantial industrial base and abundant access to raw materials and gold reserves. However, Western sanctions, along with two years of battlefield losses, have taken a toll on Russia’s munitions supply and its ability to upscale manufacturing.
In contrast, Ukraine’s ability to sustain the conflict heavily relies on the commitment of the United States and its allies to maintain financial support. However, American fatigue is growing as they question funding a foreign war that many believe doesn’t concern them.
A panel discussion took place on May 10th at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) to explore the topic of Incoming Military Support for Ukraine and the repercussions of delayed funding. Underlying this discussion is the assumption that if funding were to stop, Ukraine would be lost.
Sam Green, Director for Democratic Resilience at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), pointed out that delayed funding has given Russia a significant advantage in its offensive. This has negatively affected Ukraine’s recruitment of new soldiers and complicated its future planning, as Kyiv remains uncertain about the timing, amount, and potential discontinuation of funding.
Another panel member, Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis, the former commander of the United States Second Fleet and NATO Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, astutely noted that funding Ukraine’s defense isn’t solely a US responsibility but should also rely on NATO’s support.
The Admiral’s point is echoed by many conservatives. Some insist on reallocating resources from the war effort to address domestic issues, especially securing the southern border. They argue that while Ukraine is important, it’s primarily a European concern and should be Europe’s responsibility. They point out Europe’s dependence on US protection since World War Two, neglecting to fund its own military and shifting the burden to American taxpayers. Contrary to certain media portrayals, Trump’s claim that the US covers 70% of NATO’s funding is accurate.
The recent aid package supplies the Ukrainian military with everything they need for a potential counteroffensive against the Russians, though its success remains uncertain. The Admiral emphasized the need for support to extend beyond funding to direct involvement in combat, wherever necessary. He stressed, “From a military standpoint,” it’s not just about money; “it’s about fighting alongside the Ukrainians.”
This sentiment confirms the concerns of many conservatives, who are already weary of funding a war they oppose. Now, there’s the added concern that they may be called upon to send their children into battle.
Nico Lange, a CEPA fellow who previously served at the German Ministry of Defense, addressed both of the admiral’s points. Firstly, regarding the prospect of someone other than the US funding the war, he expressed uncertainty about Europe’s level of support due to lack of unified leadership and urgency. Furthermore, Lange noted that Europe simply cannot match the $61 billion provided by the US.
Regarding the Admiral’s second point about conscription, Lange remarked, “For the Europeans, there is, I think, a looming discussion whether troops will be sent to Ukraine, some countries are open to this when it comes to training, maybe also helping on air defense, some are very stiffly resisting it, including my country, Germany.”
It appears that Mr. Lange suggests Europe is relying on the US to finance the remainder of the war. Furthermore, some Europeans are contemplating sending troops to participate in the conflict. While some oppose deploying their troops into combat, they are open to having their armies undertake support roles closer to the front lines.
Americans will recall that this is precisely how the US became entangled in the Vietnam War. It began with 900 observers and advisors in 1960 and concluded with 2.7 million Americans serving and 58,000 killed. If the White House were to ask Americans to fight in Ukraine, the war would become highly unpopular, and those against it would push hard for the US to pull out and stop funding altogether.
Russia started the war with a stockpile of old Soviet munitions, which it has almost completely exhausted. With many troops deployed, Putin now faces a shortage of workers for his munitions factories. Sanctions have also hindered Moscow’s ability to buy high-quality machine parts from the US and Germany, forcing them to rely on inferior Chinese-made components. Additionally, Iran is supplying Russia with drones, North Korea is selling them missiles, and China is reportedly providing money and non-lethal aid.
Pavel Luzin, a Non-resident Senior Fellow with the Democratic Resilience Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), suggests that Russian political and military leaders are playing a waiting game. Alongside efforts to produce or acquire weapons, they anticipate a reduction in Western assistance.
Moscow closely monitors US news and social media, observing debates surrounding ongoing support for Ukraine. This reinforces Putin’s belief that time is on his side—he simply needs to wait until Ukraine exhausts US funding and resolve.
The post Ukraine: A War of Attrition and Funding appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
As Israel prepares for the final push through Rafah, President Biden announced that he will pause the delivery of some US weapons and ammunition to Israel, which is a huge mistake. It will embolden Hamas. Until a few days before, he was using US taxpayer money and US military personnel to build a pier to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, while simultaneously providing weapons to Israel. Ironically, the US also halted funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the primary humanitarian agency operating in Gaza. Cutting funding to UNRWA was justified by the fact that some of its members were found to have been terrorists who participated in the October 7th attack on Israel. But now, Biden is giving aid, more or less directly, to Hamas.
Biden is playing both sides at the same time. It is a dangerous game, and it will win him nothing. Israel supporters hate him for it. And the pro-Hamas crowd is not going to be happy until he stops supporting Israel altogether, which will never happen.
In a recent survey, only 38% of voters believe the US is doing too much to support Israel, while 50% more voters trust Trump than Biden to handle the situation.
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has fought their way through to the final pocket of Rafah, which borders Egypt. The humanitarian crisis in Rafah is worsened by Egypt closing its border to keep out Hamas. With aid unable to enter through Egypt, Biden devised his nonsensical plan to airdrop aid to Gaza, helping Hamas hang on that much longer, prolonging the conflict and increasing civilian casualties.
Most of the world community is trying to stop Israel from carrying out its Rafah operation. Despite the unpleasant prospect of more destruction, Prime Minister Netanyahu believes he must push all the way through to destroy Hamas, as he sees it as the only path to peace for Israel. Biden’s decision to cut off weapons to Israel is not likely to halt the fighting. Netanyahu has emphasized that Israel will continue the fight with or without US munitions. However, without them, the conflict will continue and more civilians will die.
Furthermore, the US withholding military aid could lead to an increase in casualties for another reason. It may embolden Hezbollah to launch an attack, recognizing that Israel will be forced to prioritize its remaining munitions against multiple threats.
Ironically, if Hezbollah were to enter the conflict, the US is likely to become directly involved. Israel remains the US’s most important ally in the Middle East, and this alliance won’t be altered by the Israel-Gaza conflict. If the US ends up deploying troops or conducting targeted airstrikes and artillery barrages against Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, it would seem absurd if the Biden administration still refused to provide Israel with weapons. Additionally, it’s improbable that liberals would acknowledge and appreciate his restraint.
An unforeseen consequence of this conflict is that Palestine is closer to international recognition now than at any time in history. So far, 144 countries have voted to grant Palestine statehood. The Israeli ambassador to the UN has said that granting statehood to Palestine, with no mention of the October 7th massacre, would be like handing a reward to the Nazis for the Holocaust. Fortunately, the US blocked the resolution on Palestinian statehood.
The UN later voted to grant Palestine expanded rights and privileges; however, the US again vetoed. President Biden stated that the US would not agree until Israel had been consulted and until details such as “boundaries, security, and the future of Jerusalem” had been agreed upon. The president’s stance aligns with the US position of the last 75 years, which is also supported by most American Conservatives, but it has put Biden at odds with liberals. Nonetheless, there is no chance that liberals will vote for Trump. Therefore, in reality, Biden is taking no electoral risk.
Biden bailed on Afghanistan. Hopefully, he will not abandon Israel. Legally, he is not permitted to completely forsake Israel and is obligated to defend Israel at the United Nations. The Kirk-McCain Bill prohibits the US from contributing to U.N. agencies that grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority or the Palestine Liberation Organization. Consequently, if a U.N. agency were to grant full membership to a Palestinian state, the United States would be required to halt funding to that agency, which could encompass both dues and voluntary contributions. The US ceased funding to UNESCO in 2011 when it granted Palestine full membership.
Netanyahu believes that allowing the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to push through Rafah will terminate Hamas. However, many US military experts say it will not, as Hamas and its leadership would be cowering in tunnels and hiding among the civilian population. On the other hand, preventing Israel from attempting to do so would severely damage US-Israeli relations. It would also reinforce a message propagated by Russia and China, that the US is an unreliable partner. Additionally, it would embolden Hamas and Hezbollah, and demonstrate weakness on the part of the US.
Whether the Rafah operation succeeds in decimating Hamas or not, it needs to be attempted. Israel and the US have already employed a limited response strategy against Hamas and other Iran-backed terror groups for the past 70 years, with no discernible effect. Maybe an extreme response is what is needed. Also, a full-scale military operation might yield additional benefits.
The post The Debate over the IDF’s Rafah Operation and Joe Biden’s Interference appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has just released its new book, “An America First Approach to U.S. National Security,” edited by Fred Fleitz, former Trump Administration National Security Council Chief of Staff. It features sections on the largest security threats facing the country and the world, as well as the policies recommended by key members of the Trump Administration on how to address them. There are sections on the ongoing China threat, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Hamas attack on Israel. It also addresses the southern border, as well as military policy.
The new book explores the America First approach to national security, highlighting successful elements from the Trump administration while pointing out foreign policy failures under Biden. It emphasizes the need to implement America First policies to counter the numerous threats currently facing the country. The editor hopes that the book will serve as a guidebook for a second Trump administration, helping the incoming president avoid the missteps of the early part of his first term when he seemed unprepared to address foreign policy issues.
One of the book’s authors, Lt. General (Ret.) Keith Kellogg, former Chief of Staff and Executive Secretary of the National Security Council, asserts that the country is at a foreign policy crossroads and must decide which way to go. One option is to follow the failed foreign policy of the Biden Administration. The other is the America First policy of Donald Trump, which has been proven to be successful.
Critics often misinterpret the phrase “America First.” General Kellogg clarified that “America First foreign policy is not isolationism. America First does not mean America alone.” Morgan Ortagus, another of the book’s authors and a former spokesperson for the Trump State Department, echoed this sentiment, stating that while America First prioritizes U.S. interests, it does so through active engagement with the global community. She emphasized the importance of the U.S. strengthening its global position by forming strong alliances.
General Kellogg and Mr. Fleitz suggest that the Ukraine conflict is a tragic outcome of Biden’s incompetence and chaotic foreign policy, arguing it wouldn’t have happened under Trump. While Putin prefers Biden for his predictability, Trump and his supporters see this as a sign of weakness. The book acknowledges the war’s divisive nature among conservatives and Americans on America’s role and global stability. Nonetheless, they propose a way forward to protect American interests and resolve the conflict.
They predict that Ukraine will begin losing ground as the conflict drags on. Consequently, Kellogg and Fleitz recommend that additional military aid to Ukraine must be conditional on Kyiv’s agreement to enter into peace talks with Moscow. They believe that it will be difficult to get Ukraine and its supporters to agree to give up territory; however, they see this as the only way to stop people from dying.
One recommendation is that as part of the negotiation with Putin, there could be an agreement to delay Ukraine’s NATO entry for many years. Meanwhile, this doesn’t prevent Washington from entering into bilateral defense agreements with Kyiv. This approach would achieve the dual goals of ending the war and ensuring Ukraine’s safety in the future.
The China section, featuring Steve Yates, former National Security Advisor on China to Vice President Dick Cheney, and Adam Savit, the Director for the China Policy Initiative at AFPI, outlines a strategy to counter China’s malign influence while rendering CCP policies irrelevant to average Americans. Measures include prohibiting Chinese nationals from purchasing land within a 50-mile radius of US government buildings. The book highlights China as the foremost national security threat, echoed by the Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community, the FBI China Threat Report, and the Department of Defense’s Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China report. It emphasizes China’s aim to challenge US hegemony across economic, military, diplomatic, technological, and even space and underwater domains. Recommendations include banning TikTok and CCP-affiliated apps, as well as imposing visa restrictions on Chinese students and researchers.
The Middle East section, penned by Ellie Cohanim, former Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the United States Department of State during the Trump administration, emphasizes that peace in the region hinges on reasserting American strength. Cohanim highlights President Trump as one of the most pro-Israel presidents in history, reaffirming the historical commitment of the United States to support Israel as its key ally in the region. Israel’s significance to U.S. interests lies in intelligence sharing, defense cooperation, and safeguarding American interests in the Middle East. The book proposes providing Israel with a laundry list of advanced military equipment and billions of dollars in military aid to finish the conflict with Hamas.
In the section on the current state of the military, Robert Wilkie, former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Undersecretary of Defense, stated that the Biden Administration has lowered physical fitness standards and undermined the morale of the United States military. He also accuses the White House of squandering tax dollars promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.
Regarding border security, former Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf, AFPI’s Executive Director, Chief Strategy Officer, and Chair for the Center for Homeland Security & Immigration, along with Rob Law, the Director of the Center for Homeland Security and Immigration and Senior Editor at AFPI, assert that the US cannot be considered a sovereign state unless the border is secure. They maintain that the Biden Administration currently has sufficient resources to promptly secure the border, halt human trafficking, and combat drug cartels.
For most conservatives, The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) new book, “An America First Approach to U.S. National Security,” will come across as a wish list of foreign policies aimed at ensuring national security and upholding the country’s global standing.
The post AFPI’s New Book Outlines the National Security Plan for a Second Trump Presidency appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Biden administration wants to protect the public from “predatory credit cards.” He is also trying to fight the inflation he created through reckless spending and borrowing by demanding companies earn lower profits. It is dangerous to allow the government to decide what qualifies as predatory or what rate of profit or interest is enough for private companies. Price controls always result in shortages, loss of income, and lower standards of living for the majority of the population. If you need proof, look at Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or the old Soviet Union.
This administration claims to have “forgiven” $1.2 billion in student loan debt. But the debt has not been forgiven; it will just be paid by people other than the borrowers, the taxpayers. Paying this debt incentivizes more reckless borrowing to fund majors that do not translate to a job. The government paying for student loans removes the supply and demand factor from university tuition prices, which will continue to rise. Other than the Covid lockdowns, this is about the most destructive economic policy of the Biden White House.
An administration with so little grasp on how the economy works should not be making decisions about credit cards.
Biden is right that poor people pay higher rates for credit. The annual effective rates for payday loans are 15% to 30%, title loans 300%, rent-to-own furniture up to 60%, high-risk credit cards over 24%, pawn shops 20% to 24%, credit card cash advance 17.99% to 29.99%, and cash advance apps up to 28%.
One way that consumers, in a free country, can avoid these high interest rates is by not borrowing—a solution that requires no legislation or government regulation. The fact that people agree to borrow at such high rates suggests that they truly need the credit. And if a lower-rate option were available elsewhere, they would likely take it. Ostensibly, there is no cheaper option for them. Therefore, if these sources of credit were driven out of business by government price controls, poor people would have no access to credit.
When Biden describes lenders as “predators,” he is wrong. There is no such thing as predatory lending. People with low credit ratings pay higher rates because of the high probability that they will default. The credit cards that are sent to poor people and students, unsolicited, have high interest rates attached to them because the target audience has no credit, poor credit, or so much debt that other issuers will not lend them more money.
Biden claims that by capping the credit card late fee at $8, he has somehow added $10 billion to the economy. He is most likely under the misapprehension that by capping the fee, he is enabling people to spend the difference. His error, however, is that whether the money goes to the credit card company or stays with the cardholder, it will be spent in the economy. However, if it is paid to the credit card company, they will have even more money to loan out, which will have a multiplier effect in the economy.
Similar to the rationale about high interest rates, people can avoid the high late fee by paying their bills on time. And this solution would require no legislation or regulation.
No one likes paying fees. However, fees help keep prices down. With the late fee capped at $8, the additional money the bank would have earned on late fees will now be added to the service fees for all bank customers, even those who pay their bills on time.
Biden keeps talking about wanting to pass legislation prohibiting nuisance airline fees. But if the government made a law tomorrow that airlines could no longer charge $50 for luggage, ticket prices would go up by $50. However, with the current system, some people can avoid the $50 fee by not checking luggage. If airlines were prohibited from charging different passengers different prices, then everyone would wind up paying the additional $50 in their ticket price, even those without checked baggage.
The term “price discrimination” has a negative connotation in common parlance, but actually, it is the fairest and most efficient way to price anything, including credit. Examples would be toll roads charging more during rush hour or movie theaters charging more on Saturday night than on Wednesday afternoon. Those who are willing to pay the higher price for the prime time can do so, while people who want to save money can use these services during unpopular times.
The same is true for credit. The banks must be free to determine who is and is not creditworthy and to calculate what amount of interest or fees they would require in order to lend to that individual. And the customer is free to decide where or if to borrow based on their willingness to pay the price demanded. This is the essence of a capitalist system: that there are numerous buyers and sellers, and each is free to agree or disagree to accept the deal.
If the government limited the interest rates and fees that credit cards and other lenders could charge, then poor people would not be able to obtain credit.
Just like the order kiosks that replaced workers in municipalities with a $17 minimum wage, this is one more example of the socialists hurting the very people they were allegedly trying to help.
The post Biden’s Latest Credit Card Gambit Shows He Has Little Grasp of How the Economy Works appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Within weeks of the Hamas attack on Israel, charities aligned with Hamas had already received $260 million in donations.
Over the years, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Islamic extremist groups have relied on Iran, known as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, for financial support. They employ various illicit means, including kidnapping for ransom, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and extortion, to generate funds. Additionally, Hamas benefits significantly from funding through charitable organizations, some of which are led by Hamas members or supporters. Moreover, they receive financial backing from development grants offered by Western NGOs and governments.
Since the 1980s, Islamic extremist groups have exploited the charitable sector for funding, with registered charities and nonprofit organizations in the US and UK channeling funds to extremism in various countries. The UK’s Commission for Countering Extremism found that Islamist groups took advantage of COVID-19 lockdowns and aid to expand their networks, while Western countries redirected resources from counterterrorism efforts to COVID relief.
Support is sometimes indirect, with Western-based charities serving as conduits, redirecting aid money to terrorists. Another avenue for funding is through educational, health, or other organizations under Hamas control. These sources pose challenges for authorities as they often dissolve, change names, reopen, and resume funneling money. Additionally, funds are frequently transmitted through registered banks in masked transactions or via unregistered banks or cash.
Some of the charities accused of funding terrorism include Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), KinderUSA, and Human Appeal. IRW, which operates in 40 countries as a humanitarian organization, has been removed from the charities pages of numerous global media outlets, and banks like HSBC have closed its accounts. In 2020, the EU Parliament discovered links between IRW and Islamic terrorist organizations. Consequently, IRW has been banned in Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Bangladesh. Senior members of IRW have posted antisemitic content on Facebook, as well as support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite these allegations, the UN has continued to fund Islamic Relief.
Many charities currently supporting terrorists were originally established to fund the Mujahideen, who fought to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Afghanistan plunged into civil war, marked by clashes between various Mujahideen factions and the collapse of central authority. Amid this instability, some Mujahideen factions transformed into or aligned with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Notably, prominent Qataris have been identified by the US Treasury for aiding the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatari charities have also raised tens of millions of dollars for Hamas over the past two decades.
Americans, whether knowingly or unknowingly, have also contributed funds to Al-Qaeda, with some of these transactions being processed through money service businesses (MSBs). Individuals in the United States have been arrested for providing financial support to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda, through charitable donations intended to aid widows and orphans. Additionally, Americans have faced indictments for transferring cryptocurrency to a terrorist group known as al-Nusra Front (ANF), which operated in Syria and Lebanon.
Terrorist financing has evolved from exploiting legitimate charities and establishing fraudulent ones to leveraging various online funding methods, including crowdfunding and online fundraisers. These groups also seek financial support from donors, whether knowingly or unknowingly, who contribute to their cause. Following a Hamas attack on Israel last October, supporters worldwide quickly established crowdfunding platforms to solicit charitable or humanitarian donations for Gaza. The US Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an independent inter-governmental body combating money laundering and terrorist financing, has found evidence of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Qaeda utilizing crowdfunding.
Terrorist organizations have increasingly turned to cryptocurrency and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) to transfer funds anonymously across international borders. The US Treasury Department has designated a Gaza-based VASP called Buy Cash Money and Money Transfer Company, which has been found to fund Hamas and other terrorist groups.
To counter terrorism funding, the Department of Justice and the FBI established the Financial Review Group (FRG), an inter-agency organization that includes the CIA, DEA, elements of the Treasury Department, and others. The FRG has frozen millions of dollars flowing to various terrorist-linked charities, including Al-Barakaat, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation. Additionally, numerous individuals associated with these organizations and their funding have been arrested.
In the United States, Canada, the UK, and the European Union, Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization, making funding Hamas a criminal offense. Authorities have the power to shut down organizations that raise money for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. These regulations should apply to any organization supporting designated terrorist groups. By this reasoning, the UN could be implicated for its support of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). Similarly, one could argue that the Biden administration and other governments are also complicit for providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, which flows directly to Hamas.
The post Middle East Charities Funding Terrorism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Chinese interest in the Middle East boils down to a single word: oil. China has investments in the Middle East and encourages countries to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as well as the expanded BRICS grouping. However, all of these economic and diplomatic efforts stem from a single source: China is the world’s largest importer of oil, and Beijing wants to ensure an uninterrupted and cheap supply of energy.
China has become the world’s largest consumer and importer of oil. At the same time, Xi Jinping’s vision for the People’s Republic is to surpass the US economically, militarily, and diplomatically by the year 2049. To do this, China needs unfettered access to cheap energy.
Energy plays such an important role in China’s economic rise that oil and coal consumption, as well as emissions rates, are used by China analysts as proxy measures for the general health of the Chinese economy. When energy consumption or pollution increases, the factories are churning out products, exports are up, and Beijing is raking in the cash it needs to develop more advanced weapons.
The trajectory of both the Middle East region and global affairs underwent a significant shift in the 1970s when an agreement between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia effectively gave rise to the petrodollar.
Under this agreement, Saudi Arabia committed to pricing oil in dollars and persuading other OPEC members to follow suit. In return, the US not only became a major buyer of Saudi oil but also pledged military protection, including stationing US troops within Saudi territory, as well as selling the Kingdom advanced weaponry. This arrangement served the interests of both nations, particularly given Saudi Arabia’s hostile relations with many of the countries in the region, particularly Shia-led Iran.
A lesser-known advantage Saudi Arabia gains from its agreement with the US is the privilege of purchasing US debt before it is available to other global investors. This arrangement enables the Kingdom to invest its surplus petrodollar revenues in US Treasury securities preemptively, avoiding potential price increases that may occur when other buyers enter the market. The United States, for its part, benefits from a stable source of financing.
Now that the US is no longer the most important customer in the Middle East, China sees an opening to co-opt the region, displace the US, and become the prominent geopolitical force in the region.
The ability of the US to maintain its influence in the Middle East has always hinged on its relationships with key countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). However, two pivotal players have consistently shaped US policy in the region: Saudi Arabia, with its significant oil production, robust economy, and formidable military; and Israel, a non-Muslim, non-Arab nation boasting stable governance, economic strength, and military prowess. Iran, with its large population, powerful military, and capacity to sway regional politics, has also emerged as a major influencer, for good or for ill.
Beijing attempted to present itself to the Middle East and the world as a peacemaker by brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. If Beijing could convince Saudi Arabia that there was no threat from Iran, the Kingdom would no longer need US military protection. Additionally, since China is now the largest purchaser of oil, it would be easier for Beijing to convince Saudi Arabia to trade in yuan rather than dollars.
Additionally, as China inches up the scales of global power, it would be in a position to convince UN members to vote to remove sanctions on Iran. This would be welcomed news to Tehran and would provide China with a stronger, although subservient partner.
The real diplomatic hat trick in the Middle East would be for the US or China to get Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel on the same side. The successful alignment of the three would redefine power balances and alliances in the Middle East and beyond. The country that manages to broker such a historic agreement would ascend to a level of hegemony unparalleled in modern geopolitics.
And Trump was off to a good start with the Abraham Accords, getting two out of three. Unfortunately, his term came to an end, and the Biden Administration allowed the whole region to catch fire once again.
China and Saudi Arabia have steadily increased their level of cooperation, and now the Kingdom has become a BRICS member. Iran is economically dependent on China, as Beijing is one of the only countries willing to flout international sanctions, becoming the largest purchaser of Iranian oil. Over the past decade, Beijing has worked to build closer ties with Israel as well as attempting to broker peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Never missing an opportunity for propaganda, Beijing blamed its inability to implement a two-state solution on US meddling and warmongering.
The Israel-Hamas conflict appears to be a turning point in China’s strategy for its relations with the three key countries. Iran, because of its role in supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, is being further ostracized from the US-led order and pushed toward Beijing.
China has not given up on courting Saudi Arabia; however, so far, the Kingdom sees no benefit in dropping the US dollar, the currency to which the Saudi Riyal is pegged and in which the majority of its oil profits of the last fifty years are invested. And no country, not even the Philippines under Duterte, has ever become so disillusioned with the US that they would allow Chinese troops on their territory.
Xi Jinping probably recognizes that he cannot negotiate a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. It seems that he has decided, instead, to cut his losses with Israel. Beijing already has a “Strategic Partnership” Agreement with the Palestinian Authority and has hinted that it would be the first country to recognize and normalize relations with an independent Palestine. By no longer trying to include Israel in its list of friends, China hopes to gain the support of the entire Muslim world. He is letting go of one country in exchange for 49 others.
The post China’s Interest in Gaza: Trading Israel for the Rest appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Court documents showed Kandic had multiple responsibilities, including recruiting foreign fighters (ISIS photo)
On January 4, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) called for worldwide targeting of Jews and Christians, which it later claimed resulted in 610 people wounded or killed in 110 attacks across 12 countries.
Avril D. Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate panel, “The threat from ISIS remains a significant counterterrorism concern,” while noting that the majority of its attacks have been carried out by “parts of ISIS that are outside of Afghanistan.”
The main body of ISIS is active in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, but it is also absorbing other groups. In the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf has been the primary terrorist organization.
However, in 2014, a faction of Abu Sayyaf pledged allegiance to ISIS, and in 2016, a new branch was formed called ISIS-East Asia or ISEA-Philippines. ISIS also has affiliations with groups in West Africa, including factions of the Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram.
An ISIS faction, the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), has been rising in infamy and is believed to be responsible for the Moscow concert attack, as well as an attack in Iran that killed 100 people. Director Haines warns that ISIS-K may be ready to launch attacks in the U.S. and the West in as little as six months.
Established in 2015, ISIS-K comprises mainly fighters from Central Asia, along with members of the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Its prominence escalated into a global jihadist organization after the Taliban seized control of the Afghan government in 2021. Named after “the Khorasan” territory, encompassing Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Central Asia, and Iran, ISIS-K aims to establish a caliphate there. It receives funding from ISIS in Syria and anti-Taliban sources in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and ISIS-K are both Islamist groups, but they have significant ideological differences. ISIS-K follows a much stricter and more violent interpretation of Islam. They see the Taliban as insufficiently extreme and have clashed with them for control of territory and influence.
Both groups seek control of Afghanistan and its resources. ISIS-K considers the Taliban’s rule as illegitimate and aims to overthrow them. This competition for power prompts some Afghans to support ISIS-K in opposition to the Taliban.
Additionally, some former Taliban members, who either disagree with the group’s leadership or perceive them as not radical enough, join or support ISIS-K. The group also exploits local grievances against the Taliban, such as perceived corruption or heavy-handed rule, to garner support.
The Taliban has been fighting against ISIS-K in Afghanistan but has been unable to eradicate the group, which is also active in Pakistan and Iran. ISIS-K has been implicated in a number of thwarted terrorist plots in Europe. Members of ISIS-K networks have been arrested in Germany and the Netherlands.
ISIS-K claimed responsibility for an attack on a Roman Catholic Church in Istanbul, resulting in one fatality. The Turkey attack highlights the observations of some terrorism experts, indicating that ISIS-K has predominantly relied on inadequately trained individuals, with many of their attacks either failing or being thwarted.
However, the group is progressively gaining experience and augmenting its capabilities through the integration of other terrorist organizations. Conversely, if ISIS-K is indeed accountable for the Moscow and Iran attacks, it signifies them as one of the most lethal terrorist organizations currently active. Both of these attacks demonstrate a significant level of planning and competence.
ISIS-K’s recruitment strategies have proven notably successful, which is evident in its rapid growth. The group targets disenchanted Muslims across South and Central Asia, capitalizing on various local grievances such as poverty, government corruption, or ethnic tensions. These grievances are woven into a singular narrative, attributing blame to external forces or weak local governments while positioning ISIS-K as the sole solution.
They employ sophisticated online propaganda, often tailored to specific regions. ISIS-K emphasizes sectarian divisions, particularly targeting Shia Muslims, to stoke anger and fuel their narrative of oppression against Muslims.
This propaganda utilizes social media and messaging apps to disseminate their message and glorify violence. They also distribute publications in local languages to reach those who may not be active online. The group provides a sense of belonging and purpose to the marginalized or isolated. They exploit feelings of hopelessness and promise an opportunity to combat perceived injustices.
ISIS-K detests Jews, Christians, Shia Muslims, Iranians, and even terrorist organizations that it deems not extreme enough, like the Taliban. Essentially, if you exist and are not a member, ISIS-K hates you and wants to kill you. With wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and looming threats from Iran, China, and Russia, the resurgence of Islamic extremist terrorism and ISIS-K presents yet another threat for America to deal with.
The post ISIS-K: The New Variant appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat, was recently implicated for accepting a $600,000 bribe from an oil company in Azerbaijan. He is being charged with working as an agent for a foreign entity while a U.S. government official because he lobbied Congress on the company’s behalf. The bribe was tied to a money laundering scheme that cycled through a bank in Mexico. Cuellar is also being accused of attempting to weaken US money laundering rules, particularly those that would hurt Mexican banks. Frighteningly, Cuellar is the leading Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
Cuellar being coopted by foreign forces is a serious national security concern. Sadly, this is just the most recent case of a foreign entity or foreign government buying influence with elected officials in the US.
Last year, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, along with his wife, was charged with accepting bribes from corporations in Egypt.
In 2013, the government-owned State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) provided $750,000 for 10 members of Congress and 32 staffers to go on a junket to Baku, the country’s capital. In addition to the all-expense-paid luxury trip, the invitees also received thousands of dollars in gifts. Among the beneficiaries of Baku’s largesse were three former top aides to President Obama.
Apart from the obvious violation of ethics and the public trust, there was a national security angle to this trip as well. At that time, SOCAR was partnered with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and they needed the US to provide exemptions from US sanctions against Iran.
In 2020-2023, Utah lawmakers became the targets of investigation when it was found that they had accepted paid trips to China and later pushed legislation that would benefit the PRC. Similar allegations were made against two Utah lawmakers who accepted trips to Qatar.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) poses the greatest and most persistent threat to US national security. Additionally, China has deep pockets, and the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is actively engaged in co-opting American officials. As far back as 1997, the FBI warned Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and five other members of Congress, that the PRC was targeting them for illegal campaign contributions funneled through foreign corporations.
The granddaddy of all foreign influence scandals involves the Biden family. In 2013, Hunter Biden traveled to China with his father, who was then vice president. On that trip, Hunter and a Chinese banker, Jonathan Li, formed a state-backed private equity fund, Bohai Harvest RST (BHR Partners). Chinese government shareholders controlled 80% of the company.
In the spring of 2014, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma. At that time, his father was leading US policy efforts toward Ukraine. Hunter Biden was paid $1 million per year, and there are allegations that his father received some of the money.
In 2015, BHR partnered with the Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) to purchase an American technology company, Henniges, which manufactured dual-use components with military and civilian applications. Perhaps BHR’s most concerning investment was in China General Nuclear Power Company (CGN), a state-backed nuclear firm.
Companies controlled by Hunter Biden entered into several deals with Chinese entities, including China’s state-owned banks and other companies that had ties to the CCP. He was paid at least $4.8 million, and once again there were allegations that Joe Biden benefited from these transactions. While proving definitively that money flowed to the president may prove difficult, Hunter’s activity — funding dual-use technology, aviation, and nuclear projects in cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — raises significant national security concerns.
Some US officials make trips to foreign countries that appear unnecessary, lacking clear justification or mandate from their roles. While not directly accused of corruption, these trips seem to stretch beyond their duties and may run counter to US foreign policy objectives. Additionally, these travels, funded by US taxpayers, raise concerns about potential corruption or undisclosed agreements. This was the case with California Governor Newsom, who recently visited China; New York Mayor Eric Adams, who went to Mexico, as well as Greece and Qatar; and New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, who had trips scheduled for Dubai and Kenya. San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed also visited China, as did Menlo Park City Councilwoman Kirsten Keith.
The post Growing Trend of U.S. Politicians Co-opted by Foreign Governments appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Hamas and the pro-Palestine rioters in the US laying siege to campuses are terrorists, by definition, not freedom fighters. They both target civilians with violence and threats of violence to bring about political change.
There is an old saying: “The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is victory.” The idea being that the victor gets to write the history and can convert terrorists to heroes. A similar saying is, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The meaning here is that terrorist or freedom fighter is a matter of perspective, and that if you were trying to gain your freedom, you would see the terrorists as freedom fighters. Both of these sayings are wrong, however. Terrorism is a malign methodology, which can be directed at a variety of goals from achieving independence to bringing about Armageddon, or preventing deforestation. The ends do not justify the means, and they certainly do not change the nature of terrorism.
One of the problems with terrorism is that it lacks a single, universally accepted definition. In the US, various federal agencies, intelligence agencies, law enforcement, state and city governments, and courts all operate on differing definitions of terrorism. On a global level, foreign countries and international organizations also have differing definitions of terrorism.
The academic consensus definition of terrorism is one of the most widely accepted, and it incorporates the primary elements present in most other definitions of terrorism used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Terrorism involves the use of violence or the threat of violence against civilians or non-combatants. The goal of these violent actions is to achieve political, ideological, or religious objectives. Terrorists seek to intimidate or coerce the government or society into altering policies to better suit the terrorist organization. Finally, terrorism is usually committed by non-state actors.
By the above definition, the American colonists who fought against the British would be freedom fighters, not terrorists. The reason is that they targeted British soldiers, not British civilians. The colonists formed a new national government and created a uniformed army. Consequently, it could be argued that they were not non-state actors.
The 9/11 terrorists, by contrast, did not wear uniforms, were non-state actors (arguably), and specifically targeted civilians. Furthermore, the civilians they targeted had no authority to enact the political changes the terrorists demanded. If US soldiers had targeted British government officials—civilians with decision-making authority—this may not have met the definition of terrorism because the colonists would be attacking the people in power to make decisions. The 9/11 terrorists, by contrast, were hoping to influence those who could make decisions by killing those who could not.
The October 7th Hamas attack on Israel was terrorism because it almost exclusively targeted civilians and those civilians had no ability to change government policies.
There is another saying about terrorism which helps to define its goals and separate them from the goals of a freedom fighter: ‘Terrorism is a few people dying and a lot of people watching.’ In the American Revolution, the colonial army wanted to defeat the British army. Their goal was not to terrorize or wound soldiers in order to coerce the British government. The September 11th attacks in the US and the October 7th attacks in Israel were clearly intended to strike fear and were not intended to significantly cripple the army or to win a military victory.
While some may claim that Hamas are freedom fighters because they want Gaza to be independent of Israel, they qualify as terrorists because the methods they use match the definition of terrorism. They intentionally kill civilians. They also use rape and the taking of hostages. Furthermore, the Hamas Covenant calls for the annihilation of Israel and the Jews, which again, does not match the definition of a freedom fighter. The US colonists never had the elimination of Britain and the British as a goal.
The pro-Palestine protestors are supporting terrorism while also engaging in activities that qualify as terrorism. They have laid siege to universities, threatened and intimidated Jewish students and civilians while calling for death to all Jews. Calls to action are not protected under free speech, and if they are directed at a specific ethnic group, can be considered hate speech. In this case, the intent of these calls is to alter policy; therefore, they should be considered acts of terrorism. The protestors have also engaged in violent confrontations with the police, all in the name of bringing about a change in Israel’s domestic policy.
Under US law, it is illegal to provide material support to terrorists. Consequently, anyone funding these protests should be held accountable. The professors seen linking arms to prevent the police from entering the campus and arresting the protestors should be charged with obstruction of justice, RICO, and aiding terrorism.
The post Let’s Be Clear on What We Are Witnessing: Terrorists, Not Freedom Fighters appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Pro-Palestine protests have broken out on university campuses across the United States. Some have turned violent, while others have resulted in the destruction of public property. Many have laid siege to public buildings, and there have been repeated instances of crowds chanting antisemitic or even genocidal slogans.
The pro-Palestine protesters have been compared to the anti-Vietnam War protestors by their supporters. But other than the fact that they are protesting, the two groups share little similarity. Several fundamental differences are: they are not championing women’s rights or minority rights; they are not protesting for peace, the US is not at war in Gaza; Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. And these kids are not in danger of being drafted.
The hippie protestors in the 1960s were closely aligned with the Civil Rights movement, fighting for women’s rights and minority rights. The pro-Palestine mobs, however, are protesting in favor of a system where women have almost no rights. Additionally, there are 1.9 billion Muslims and only about 16 million Jews. So, they are protesting in support of the majority, not the minority.
Some of the anti-Vietnam protestors felt war was morally wrong, so they wanted peace, as reflected in songs like, “All that we’re saying, is give peace a chance.” Representative Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., mistakenly characterized the pro-Palestine protestors as wanting peace. She said, “Contrary to right-wing attacks, these students are joyfully protesting for peace and an end to the genocide taking place in Gaza.” But this is a misrepresentation. The pro-Palestine protestors do not seem to have a peace agenda. Furthermore, a lot of them are calling for violence against Jews and Israel, shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.
Even if a few of them use the word “peace,” they aren’t really calling for peace. They just want Israel to stop defending itself.
One of the main reasons that the hippies opposed the Vietnam War was because of the draft. The college students of that era were draft age and stood a good chance of being conscripted and sent to fight in Vietnam. However, the US has not had a draft since 1973. These kids are not in danger of being sent to war.
The connection between the anti-Vietnam War protests in America and the Vietnam War was direct: America was in a war, and the young people wanted America to no longer be in that war. The pro-Palestine protests, on the other hand, seem to have a less logical connection.
Hamas attacked Israel and killed 1,200 civilians. Israel finally had enough and is decimating Gaza. So, liberal college students in the USA shut down their universities, broke the law, threatened people, damaged property, preached antisemitism… The connection is difficult to see.
According to a PBS interview with protestors at UCLA, they want the university to be transparent about its ties to Israel. This raises an important difference between the 60s and now: the hippies were protesting against the Vietnam War. These kids are protesting against Israel, against a country. And although many of them wouldn’t admit it, the reality is that they want Israel to no longer exist.
The students are demanding that the university “divest the endowment from corporations that profit off of Israel.” Basically, they want the university to give back donor money and ostensibly raise tuition. And the corporations are likely to be American corporations. This seems incredibly far removed from the war in Gaza.
A UCLA professor explained that protesters wanted “transparency in their universities’ relationships with Israeli institutions.” A professor at Columbia University said that they wanted “an academic boycott of Israeli institutions via the cancellation of the Tel Aviv Global Center and dual degree program.” So, the boycott with Israel would not be limited to financial ties but academic and cultural as well. There is a big difference between Vietnam protestors wanting the US to stop fighting the war in Vietnam and the pro-Palestine protestors wanting the US to stop engaging with Israel.
On a cultural note, a glaring difference is that the anti-Vietnam protest movement gave birth to some of the greatest music ever recorded: Creedence Clearwater Revival, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, Buffalo Springfield, Jefferson Airplane, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. Hamas tunes, by contrast, are not quite as catchy.
One similarity might be the possibility of terrorism. The anti-Vietnam War movement led to the birth of groups like the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), Black Liberation Army (BLA), Red Army Faction (RAF), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Today we are looking at Antifa, but given the connection with Palestine, Islamic extremist terrorism is also possible, ranging from Hamas to the PLO, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.
The post Pro-Hamas Protestors: All They Are Saying is Give Jihad a Chance appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Xinhua, Chinese state media, ran the headline, “U.S. police brutality against student protesters exposes hypocrisy on free speech.” The article begins with, “As the world watches in horror at the footage of U.S. police viciously suppressing student protests.” Chinese state media is providing daily coverage of the protests, painting the US as authoritarian and the police as evil. Many of the articles have the number of arrests in the title, such as “Over 100 arrested at UT-Austin amid pro-Palestinian protest.”
In light of the fact that there are no First Amendment freedoms in China, it is ironic that Beijing is outraged that “Peaceful student demonstrators were framed by armed police and U.S. media as ‘perpetrators’ deserving ‘crackdown.’” Peaceful student demonstrators would be quickly subdued and shipped off to camps in China or killed, as happened at Tiananmen Square.
China was publishing these articles while Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Beijing, but he raised no objection. Even US politicians and business leaders are succumbing to China’s will, either wittingly or unwittingly.
This all has the feel of the US-USSR Cold War and the Vietnam era when liberals were protesting in favor of the Vietcong and the Khmer Rouge. The difference was that during the Vietnam War, the government was largely in favor of America.
The blocs of the new Cold War are China-Russia-Iran vs. the US and the West. However, in addition to proxy armies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Beijing is weakening our country from within. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) subsidizes the companies making fentanyl precursor chemicals and exporting them to Mexican drug cartels. By doing so, the PRC is killing 150 Americans a day, physically destroying the nation.
China is also using media campaigns, disinformation, online campaigns, and indoctrination to undermine the West from the inside. Amplifying liberal narratives about drug legalization or decriminalization, China is able to convince Americans that drugs and overdoses are normal. The liberal solution of handing out free Narcan is a good example of reducing deaths while failing to address the fact that a large swath of the population is destroying themselves slowly.
The climate agenda is another narrative Beijing encourages the left to push. China is happy to see Europe and the US adopt green restrictions, which make their products more expensive, while China, the world’s largest consumer of coal, continues to increase emissions year on year, so they can undercut the world’s exports. An added bonus is that by getting the rest of the world to stop using coal, China gets coal at a discount. Additionally, China manufactures solar panels and EV batteries, which are too polluting to produce in Europe. So, by pushing the climate agenda, China makes a market for their own exports.
Beijing follows around behind Washington, playing the role of “the friend of the friendless.” After the US pulled out of Afghanistan, Beijing accepted the credentials of the Taliban’s ambassador. Afghanistan is sitting on about a trillion dollars’ worth of rare earth minerals, and China is likely to be the country that gets to extract them.
By supporting Iran, which in turn supports the Houthis, China is disrupting global shipping. Coincidentally, the Houthis have agreed not to attack Russian and Chinese ships. Global shipping is getting more expensive, while China’s shipping remains cheap.
Blocs are forming globally, and at the same time, a fifth column is growing within Europe, Canada, and the US among the liberal left. The pro-Palestine protester, woke mobs, and leftist outrage are all promoted and amplified through social media accounts tied to Beijing and Moscow to incite discontent and division.
Among all of the many ironies is the concept of Queers for Palestine, given that homosexuality is outlawed in many Muslim-majority countries and may even be punished with the death penalty. The fact that China and Russia are posing as friends to the Muslim world, despite Putin’s two wars in Chechnya and crackdowns in Dagestan, as well as the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, and don’t forget China’s genocide of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Another irony is that the same liberal women who believe they have the right to kill a baby because “my body, my rules” are protesting in favor of a system where they would have no rights at all. Additionally, Muslims are also against abortion, which is illegal in many Muslim countries. Even the way that many of the female protesters are dressed, or the fact that they are outside without a male member of their family, would land them in sharia jail in some Muslim countries. And of course, protesting against the government would be prohibited in those countries as well.
China didn’t mastermind every strife and debate in America; however, Beijing is watching closely. It utilizes social media and other forms of influence to latch onto, promote, or amplify those issues that work best for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
As for the Middle East, Beijing has normalized relations with the PLO. They are poised to recognize whatever government emerges in Gaza, and at this point, it suits Beijing to align with Iran and just have Israel and the US out of the way. By undermining the US, weakening our people and our unity, by encouraging us to fight amongst ourselves, Beijing is getting the heavy lifting out of the way before the shooting starts.
But if the propaganda campaigns are successful, and it certainly seems that they will be, indoctrinated Americans, Europeans, and Canadians will give Beijing everything they want, without a shot being fired.
The post China Supports Pro-Palestine Protests on US Campuses appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Many Americans are concerned that over 150 of their fellow citizens overdose on fentanyl every day, but do they ever stop to think about how this shift to fentanyl negatively affects the lives of opium and cocaine growers in Latin America? This seems to be the question being asked by human rights groups, and as always, the blame and the cost are put on the United States.
Fentanyl makes better business sense for the Mexican cartels compared to opium. It can be easily manufactured using chemicals sourced from China. Highly potent and compact, fentanyl is easy to transport and distribute. Unlike opium, its production is not affected by weather conditions, making it a more reliable option. Additionally, fentanyl labs can avoid detection and eradication efforts, unlike poppy farms, which are easily spotted by authorities using drones.
The decrease in demand for opium has resulted in a drastic drop in prices. Opium, which previously fetched $64 an ounce, is now trading for $9.60 an ounce. According to a Guatemalan poppy grower interviewed by the New York Times, “Poppies used to help a lot of people make ends meet.” The report further states, “Now.. the steep decline in poppy prices inflicted so much economic pain that ‘before the money runs out, people depart for the United States.’”
Apparently, the price of coca leaves used to manufacture cocaine is also declining, affecting 200,000 Colombian households that depend on the drug to make a living. Rights groups are focused on these people, missing the larger point that Latin American governments should be taking care of their people and that they should never have reached a point where a large percentage of the population is dependent on the drug trade.
According to the Congressional Research Service, “criminality related to drug trafficking has replaced political and regional conflicts as the primary source of citizen insecurity in the Americas.” Now, a drop in drug prices is adding to the hardship.
Across Latin America, governments fail to address their own economic and social problems or curb crime, often blaming the US instead. Some advocate for the legalization of hard drugs, mistakenly believing it will solve all their issues. They argue that drug legalization in the US will lower prices, weakening cartels and reducing violence in Latin America.
However, evidence from marijuana legalization and hard drug decriminalization in parts of the US shows increased drug use and overdoses. Moreover, because legal drugs are taxed, tested, and certified, illegal drugs remain cheaper, and the criminal gang-controlled illegal drug market persists unchanged.
Meanwhile, from Mexico to Colombia, corruption among law enforcement, courts, and politicians is facilitating the drug trade. Legalizing drugs in the US or Latin America will not resolve these countries’ issues.
Even with the decline in drug prices, opium continues to be cultivated in the poorest, mountainous region of Guatemala, where mature plants are processed into gum. This gum is then transported across the border to Mexico, where cartels refine it into heroin for distribution in the United States. And the US continues funding drug eradication programs because local governments are either unable or unwilling to control the cartels.
Since the 1970s, the US has allocated billions of dollars to Latin American governments to combat drug production and smuggling. American taxpayers fund the provision of weapons, training, equipment, and vehicles to local security forces. In Guatemala alone, the US is granting $10 to $20 million annually in aid to the military and law enforcement. With this funding, Guatemala succeeded in eradicating 7 acres of opium farms in 2023, down from over 2,000 acres in 2017.
The US was also financing aerial spraying of herbicides in drug-growing regions. However, human rights groups sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to cease funding these programs. They argued that such actions convey “a message of cruelty and callousness with which the United States should no longer be associated.”
The villagers in Guatemala are complaining that spraying and other eradication efforts are stripping away their livelihoods. Lucky for them, Guatemala still acts as a transit country for cocaine smuggled from the Andes and for fentanyl precursor chemicals from China. Given that the US is footing the bill for everything else, it’s surprising that no one has suggested having the US finance a retraining program for displaced opium farmers, teaching them to smuggle other drugs into the United States.
The post Guatemalan Poppy Farmers Suffer as Fentanyl Overtakes Heroin in the US appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
High unemployment plus high inflation equals stagflation. This is Bidenomics in action.
The White House and mainstream media can spin the unemployment numbers any way they want, but spin doesn’t change the reality; things are bad. The official unemployment rate is 3.8%, up from 3.5% last year. Meanwhile, under Biden, as much as 25% of the jobs created are government jobs. That is at least double what it should be for a free-market, capitalist country. Despite this boom in taxpayer-funded government job creation, employment fell again last month by 50,000 jobs. This year, about 1.8 million full-time jobs have disappeared.
Ironically, the workforce participation rate has been falling under Biden. This means that even though a greater percentage of the population has decided to give up and no longer look for a job, there still aren’t enough jobs for those who want to work.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023 ended with 4.2 million Americans reporting that they were working part-time jobs for economic reasons, which was an increase of 333,000 from the previous year. This includes people whose hours have been cut from full-time to part-time. The jobs report showed that the number of part-time jobs is growing, while the number of full-time jobs is decreasing.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics defines employment as any individual aged 16 or older who has worked as a paid employee for at least one hour per week. Consequently, the number of unemployed individuals wouldn’t change if someone who previously held a full-time job with benefits, earning $124,000 annually, transitioned to working just a single hour per week at a fast-food establishment for $7.25 an hour without benefits. Following this logic, the White House could claim it created a job when a single part-time position is added to the economy.
Bidenomics has magically transformed full-time jobs into part-time jobs and private sector jobs into public sector jobs. And that will not grow the economy or make people’s lives better.
Another achievement of Bidenomics is inflation. Biden was able to grow that number much higher than Trump ever did. During the four years of the Trump administration, the highest average inflation rate was 2.4%, which occurred in 2018, and the lowest was in 2020 when inflation dropped to 1.2%. Biden scored a high of 8% in 2022 and is currently running at about 3.5%.
While 2024 so far has been better than 2023, which hit an average of 4.1% inflation. At the same time, inflation has been rising month on month. So, we may get back to 4% at some point soon.
The reason why the Trump economy was so amazing is that he had low inflation, low unemployment, and low interest rates—a trifecta that is almost impossible to achieve. Normally, a high inflation rate results in a low unemployment rate and vice versa. So, the government has to balance between job creation and inflation, and the Federal Reserve regulates inflation by raising or lowering the interest rates. However, Trump was able to deliver low unemployment and low inflation while keeping interest rates below 1%.
As of last month, the Federal Funds Rate was at a 23-year high of 5.25% to 5.5%. At that rate, it is no wonder that job creation is low; however, there should be no inflation. But even with this decade’s high interest rate, inflation is rising and employment is falling. And this condition matches the definition of stagflation.
The reason why stagflation is such a scary monster is that it defies most of the tools the Fed has in its arsenal to regulate the economy. The Fed can raise interest rates to fight inflation, but that will cause unemployment to rise. Alternatively, the Fed can cut interest rates to create jobs, but that will cause inflation to rise.
In an election year, a sitting president may want to cut interest rates in order to create the illusion of growth, and this is exactly what Democrats are calling for. In fact, even the Fed has said it might cut interest rates if that would give Biden a boost for the election.
Nearly all countries around the world have some type of central bank. Many of them are government-owned, while others are private. The US Fed is not owned by the government. As such, it is meant to be independent of government influence, making monetary policy decisions based on mathematical and economic models, irrespective of politics. However, this year, the Fed has admitted that they may change US monetary policy to influence the election. Not only would this be a violation of the public trust, but it would also be detrimental to the economy.
The Federal Reserve Chairman who played a key role in curbing the stagflation of the 1970s was Paul Volcker. And the way he did it was by aggressively raising interest rates, which peaked at 20%. The high interest rates caused a great deal of hardship, but that is what it took to tame 10 years of high inflation and high unemployment.
If the Fed cuts interest rates to help Biden in the election, we could be looking at several more years of skyrocketing inflation and rising unemployment.
The post Inflation and Unemployment Rising: Stagflation Likely appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The US and Russia are already embroiled in a de facto proxy war in Ukraine. Now, with the escalating conflict in the Middle East, US foreign policy goals clash with Russia’s, effectively opening a second front. While it’s clear both Washington and Moscow pursue self-interest, their objectives and methods diverge significantly.
Both undertake military interventions and endorse proxy armies in the region. The distinction lies in Russia’s covert military involvement in the Middle East and Africa, primarily through private military companies (PMCs) like the Wagner Group. The US, however, overtly sends uniformed troops to the area. Russia’s PMCs have a notorious history of severe human rights violations, including rape, murder, and torture, leading to their designation as transnational terrorist organizations.
Another contrast in the policy objectives of the two countries lies in their motivations. While it’s often argued that the US only goes to war for oil, this assertion doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Firstly, the US is among the nations with the largest proven oil reserves globally and is effectively energy independent.
Moreover, the US has participated in numerous conflicts in regions with minimal oil resources. For instance, during World War II, the US didn’t take on Japan and Germany because of their oil. Since 1945, the US has been involved in conflicts spanning Greece (1947-1949), Korea, Haiti (1959), Vietnam, Central America, Kosovo, Croatia, and many other countries. The most significant recent wars fought by the US were in Afghanistan, which lacks significant oil reserves, and Iraq, which is oil-rich. However, even in Iraq, the US didn’t seize control of the oil fields. The fields remain the property of Iraq, while they are operated by international companies, with China expanding its share.
Moscow’s interventions in the Middle East and Africa, on the other hand, are primarily driven by a quest to secure resources and strengthen the Russian economy. While the US typically backs the UN-recognized leader of a nation, the Wagner Group aligns itself with whichever strongman or dictator commands valuable resources such as gold, diamonds, or oil, funneling the proceeds back to Moscow through clandestine shell companies.
The U.S. typically ties its economic and military assistance to conditions aimed at enhancing democracy and human rights within a country. While one could argue that these conditions serve U.S. interests, they also contribute to the betterment of people’s lives.
Because Russia neglects human rights and democracy in the countries where it intervenes militarily, Moscow provides diplomatic and military backing for nefarious regimes such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libyan strongman Khalifa Haftar, or the coup leaders in the Sahel region of Africa. As a consequence of Russia’s support for these dictators, the standard of living and quality of life for the average citizens in these countries sharply decline.
Another contrast between US and Russian intervention lies in the aftermath: when a country aligns with Russia, it often severs ties with the West, as seen in the coup belt of Africa. This termination of Western influence not only hinders potential political and social transformations but also designates Russia as the principal export market, thereby reducing resource prices and exacerbating poverty.
On the other hand, countries aligning with the US effectively align with the EU, G7, and the world’s wealthiest and most developed nations. This alignment enables them to engage in international trade, access funding from traditional lenders like the IMF, World Bank, and Paris Club, and receive aid from Western sources.
Moscow and Washington have cooperated on counterterrorism issues, related to Islamic extremism, but once again, the motivations are different. Putin was quick to join US counterterrorism initiatives after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, however, he was doing so, to cover for his war against separatists in Chechnya and Dagestan. Moscow’s alleged interest in counterterrorism is just the next step in a long history of repression and war against Russia’s domestic Muslim population.
Countries in the Middle East and Africa face a choice between the US and Russia as their counterterrorism and security partner. While the US seeks to balance counterterrorism efforts with maintaining relations with other Middle Eastern nations, Russia takes a different approach by indirectly supporting terrorism through its backing of Iran, which in turn supports Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Russia provided Hamas with weapons taken in Ukraine and has sold weapons to authoritarian regimes all over Africa. Moreover, due to human rights violations committed by Moscow-sponsored groups, Russia has been labeled a state sponsor of terror by the EU Parliament.
Additionally, in response to the Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea, Russia obtained an agreement wherein the Houthis would refrain from attacking Russian vessels. In contrast, the US response involved forming an international coalition to prevent the Houthis from targeting ships of any nation.
The two countries have markedly different approaches to arms control. While the US collaborates with the international community to prevent states like North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Russia takes a contrasting stance by providing technology to Iran that could advance its nuclear ambitions. Russia also purchases missiles and drones from Iran, as well as assorted munitions from North Korea, despite international sanctions prohibiting such arms trade. Moreover, supplying Iran with the means to develop nuclear weapons is banned, but Russia declared last year that it no longer felt obliged to adhere to UN restrictions.
Russia maintains its position on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and has consistently vetoed interventions against dictators and despots. Recently, Russia vetoed a resolution aiming to ban nuclear weapons from space. This aligns with Russia’s track record of vetoing resolutions related to nuclear proliferation as well as interventions in the Middle East.
While critics may argue that the US seeks to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the world to maintain its military supremacy, it’s undeniable that a world without nuclear-armed states like North Korea and Iran would be significantly safer than the alternative presented by Russian policies. Moreover, in the Middle East, a scenario where the region’s UN-recognized and democratically elected leaders, supported by the international community, aren’t embroiled in endless conflicts against Russian proxies would undoubtedly lead to greater stability, prosperity, and, most importantly, the well-being of the Middle Eastern population.
The post US vs. Russia in the Middle East and Africa: Clash of Policy Agendas appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Antonio Graceffo Reporting from the Burma border
In the heart of Burma, where tens of thousands have sacrificed their lives, and millions have been displaced by the ruthless attacks of the junta forces, ethnic resistance armies, and people’s self-defense forces fight to establish a federal democracy with equal rights for the 135 ethnic minorities.
Sadly, misguided conspiracy theories about the 2021 elections and the ensuing military coup have cast a shadow over the noble efforts of those fighting for democracy. These groundless allegations have unfortunately led many Americans to mistakenly perceive the pro-democracy camp as villains, falsely accusing them of attempting to steal the election. Such misconceptions not only undermine the legitimate struggles of pro-democracy forces but also deter Americans from supporting the rebels or taking a more proactive stance against the junta.
On November 8, 2020, Myanmar witnessed its second consecutive democratic election. In a landslide victory, the pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), secured re-election.
However, in February 2021, the military staged a coup, annulling the elections and detaining Aung San Suu Kyi along with prominent members of the party, including parliamentarians.
The most prominent conspiracy theory suggests that Burma utilized Dominion voting machines, alleging that Aung San Suu Kyi manipulated the machines to secure her victory. Some conspiracy theorists have even linked the Burmese election to the U.S. election, portraying the junta as the “good guys” in this narrative.
Firstly, Myanmar did not employ Dominion voting machines. Instead, they relied on paper ballots placed in wooden boxes, with approximately 80% of polling stations lacking electricity, let alone internet access. Secondly, aside from several very small ethnic minority parties that garnered minimal votes beyond their local regions, the election featured only two major parties: the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), backed by the military.
The people held a deep disdain for the army and harbored great admiration for Aung San Suu Kyi. It defies logic to suggest that after enduring a decades-long civil war to overthrow the army, they would then elect the very institution they sought to depose.
In 2021, following her arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi faced a range of charges leveled by the military junta. These accusations included illegally importing walkie-talkies, violating COVID-19 restrictions during the 2020 elections, and breaching a natural disaster law. The junta, albeit belatedly, asserted irregularities in the electoral process. However, international observers confirmed that while certain issues arose, such as ethnic minorities being denied voting rights due to lack of identification, there was no evidence of fraud. Furthermore, those unable to cast their votes would likely have supported Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. These charges were widely perceived as politically motivated and aimed at undermining her and her party.
A broader conspiracy alleges that Aung San Suu Kyi was involved in a nefarious alliance, purportedly collaborating with figures such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The conspiracy extends to suggest that American Democrats stood to gain from Aung San Suu Kyi’s victory, with the term “deep state” frequently invoked in this narrative. Such claims border on absolute madness. In my interviews with numerous rebel soldiers, leaders, and civilians displaced by the junta, none were aware of any deep-state connections or the notion that they were somehow working for the Clintons. Their common sentiment revolved around their disdain for the junta’s violence and torture, all while longing for a democratically elected government.
Regarding the connection with Hillary Clinton, it’s important to note that the American Secretary of State regularly undertakes visits to numerous countries, with one of their key responsibilities being to advocate for democracy and monitor elections worldwide. Consequently, the Department of State releases reports evaluating the integrity of elections in various nations and the overall status of democracy globally. In this context, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi before the 2015 elections holds significance, marking Myanmar’s inaugural democratic election, which saw Suu Kyi’s party secure a significant victory. Similarly, following Suu Kyi’s decisive win in the 2020 elections, then-Secretary Pompeo promptly issued a congratulatory message to Myanmar, acknowledging it as a pivotal moment in the country’s democratic progression.
Some of the more informed conspiracy theorists assert that Aung San Suu Kyi’s popularity waned between the two elections, pointing to the Rohingya genocide as evidence of her mismanagement of the country.
What actually occurred is that, prior to the 2015 election, the generals revised the constitution, allocating certain parliamentary seats as appointed positions. While the NLD secured the majority of democratically elected seats, the military maintained veto authority. Consequently, Aung San Suu Kyi found herself unable to pass any legislation without the army’s approval.
When news of the Rohingya genocide received sudden coverage in the international press, many Americans pointed fingers at Aung San Suu Kyi. To be fair, she did make controversial statements at the International Court of Justice, deflecting blame from the government. Some interpreted this as a shrewd political move to steer clear of conflict with the military, enabling her to stay in power and aid the country. While external observers often viewed this as complicity, she retained her popularity in Burma.
What I personally observed was a transition from unwavering support for Aung San Suu Kyi to a more pragmatic stance of choosing the better of two options. Many ethnic minorities, who previously revered “The Lady,” began to view her as preferable to military rule but recognized her imperfections. However, the crucial constant remained: nobody was willing to vote for the army.
The genocides targeting numerous ethnic groups have persisted long before Aung San Suu Kyi’s electoral victory and continue even as she remains imprisoned. Over one million Rohingya still languish in internally displaced people’s camps (IDP) within Burma and in dire refugee camps in Bangladesh. Neither Aung San Suu Kyi, Dominion, Hillary, Barry, nor Dizzy Joe played any part in the Rohingya genocide.
The people of Burma have been sacrificing their lives for 70 years to overthrow the military regime and establish a federal democracy. They are not affiliated with the deep state, nor are they in collusion with the Clintons or any external forces. They are simply individuals who seek an end to the government’s violence and the destruction of their villages. Moreover, they yearn for peace and the fundamental right to vote.
The post Undermining Burma’s Freedom Fighters: Debunking Harmful Conspiracy Theories appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
There are no anti-LGBTQ rules or policies in schools, and no anti-LGBTQ laws at the state or federal level.
What activists label as “anti-LGBTQ” are rules and laws that say “everyone” or “every student” must adhere to certain requirements or prohibitions.
President Biden and Vice President Harris have touted their pro-LGBTQ rights stance. The issue with discussions about LGBTQ rights, or other minority rights, is that LGBTQ and other minorities already possess full rights under the law. Consequently, enacting legislation or policies that specifically name LGBTQ or other groups is extending them additional rights while restricting the rights of people not named in the legislation.
In a report titled “20 states passed anti-LGBTQ legislation,” the Point Foundation, a foundation dedicated to empowering LGBTQ students, published a list of anti-LGBTQ laws identified by the American Civil Liberties Union. An examining the list, however, suggests that none of these laws or rules prevent LGBTQ students from participating in education, sports, or activities.
One example of allegedly anti-LGBTQ rules identified in the list is “11 bills include language prohibiting transgender and nonbinary or other gender-diverse students from joining sports teams that align with their gender identity.” These rules do not prevent LGBTQ students from participating in sports. They only stipulate that girls play sports with girls and boys with boys. A boy who identifies as a girl and changes his name to Sally would be allowed to play sports with other boys.
“Nine bills allow staff at schools to deadname and use the wrong pronouns for students.” This is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. Students at schools are called by their legal names. And this is true for all students, regardless of orientation. If a boy named Tyler wants to be called Loretta, he will need to change his name legally. And if the teacher accidentally calls him Tyler, the student can remind the teacher that his legal name is Loretta now. If it really gets to be a problem, a complaint can be filed. But current legislation addresses all of this.
Forcing people to use specific pronouns is a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against forced speech.
“Six bills specifically prohibit students from using bathrooms that align with students’ gender identities.” Correct, all students have to use the bathroom according to their birth gender. It is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. It applies to everyone.
“Two bills allow parents to remove any materials they personally deem inappropriate from classrooms or schools.” In addition to not mentioning LGBTQ, this statement accurately describes how parents have the right to influence their children’s education. In the US, there is no federal curriculum and there are very few federal requirements in schools. For the most part, each state has its own Department of Education responsible for setting education standards, curriculum frameworks, and assessment policies. School districts, which are typically organized at the county or municipal level, have considerable autonomy in determining curriculum, instructional materials, and educational programs. Local school boards, composed of elected representatives, usually parents, make decisions on behalf of the community regarding school policies and practices.
“Two laws forbid staff and administrators from addressing sexuality or gender in schools.” Once again, there is no mention of LGBTQ. Apparently, parents in those districts do not want sex taught in school. That is their choice, and parents are allowed, under US law, to influence what is taught in local schools.
“Two laws require staff and administrators to out their students’ sexuality.” This is an exaggeration. Some districts have rules requiring school staff to inform parents if a child is identifying as trans. This is not an anti-LGBTQ rule. It just says that parents have a right to know what is happening with their children.
“One law specifies that no speech, including anti-LGBTQ hate speech, is restricted on campuses.” This rule is not anti-LGBTQ. It is pro-free speech.
“A law that removes funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, which commonly supports LGBTQ students.” This law is not anti-LGBTQ. It is anti-DEI programming.
From the list provided by the Point Foundation, it seems there are no laws or rules that are anti-LGBTQ. Examining problems faced by LGBTQ students in the GLSEN National School Climate survey on LGBTQ students, it appears the chief complaint among LGBTQ students is that other students do not accept them. And this is something that legislation cannot change. Additionally, the list of harassment and bullying complaints did not demonstrate that LGBTQ students were harassed or bullied at a greater rate than other students.
The GLSEN National School Climate survey on LGBTQ students states, “Most LGBTQ students have experienced harassment and discrimination at school.” However, this harassment does not appear to have been the result of school rules but rather fallout with classmates. The survey reports that 85 percent of LGBTQ students “experienced verbal harassment based on a personal characteristic.” And while this is unfortunate, every kid who ever attended school experienced “verbal abuse based on a personal characteristic.”
The survey doesn’t specify “verbal abuse because of being LGBTQ.” So, this includes the LGBTQ kid who was teased along with the fat kid, tall kid, awkward kid, late bloomer, early bloomer, weird kid…the kid who was too into dinosaurs or Dungeons and Dragons, or the kid who always wore a bowtie.
The survey also said that “Due to feeling unsafe or uncomfortable, nearly a third (32 percent) of LGBTQ students missed at least one day of school in the last month.” The question here is, were they actually unsafe, or did they feel that way? If they felt unsafe because of school policies requiring them to play sports in their birth gender, be called by their birth name, or parents being allowed to remove materials they found objectionable from the school, perhaps they just need some encouragement. But legislation won’t help.
The post LGBTQ Rules Are Still Confusing to Many appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Liberal drug laws and government-funded interventions to make drug use safer normalize drug use and fuel the drug crisis.
Last year, 112,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, and American taxpayers are funding the crisis. Millions of dollars in Biden’s $1.9 Trillion pandemic Relief Bill went towards funding so-called “harm reduction” programs, which help people use drugs more safely but do not encourage them to stop using. This year, Biden-Harris allocated $39.4 million toward the President’s Unity Agenda, which includes harm reduction programs.
Meanwhile, a congressional committee discovered that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been subsidizing the companies that provide the precursor chemicals to Mexican drug cartels, who manufacture fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other drugs, which they smuggle through the Southern border. So, American taxpayers are not only funding the drug crisis but also funding China.
A backlash among liberals against the “war on drugs,” which they consider a racist failure, has caused a number of jurisdictions to take the opposite approach, liberalizing or decriminalizing drug use. Some have intentionally increased access to alcohol by allowing to-go sales and lowering taxes. Tax revenue has been one of the arguments Democrats use when trying to convince Republicans to legalize and tax marijuana, which is now legal in at least 37 states. But now, even those taxes are being removed because they were preventing some people from obtaining drugs.
Rather than trying to convince people that sobriety is the better way, liberal drug and alcohol programs have shifted their focus toward “harm reduction,” which seeks to mitigate the public health risks of drug use without stigmatizing users or requiring them to stop. By definition, removing the stigma means normalizing. It also nullifies the deterrent effect for first-time users who will believe that they can use drugs and still be a productive member of society, despite the evidence to the contrary.
As part of harm reduction, there has been increased funding for the distribution of Narcan and other overdose reversal medications, as well as programs that provide sterile drug paraphernalia and teach people how to use drugs safely “without requiring them to stop or reduce their use.”
Narcan is now available without a prescription, and last year, approximately 22 million doses were distributed in the US and Canada, at taxpayer expense. Narcan and other interventions only decrease the number of deaths, not the number of overdoses, which is many times higher.
Overdosing has been made “safer” by these drugs. They do not resolve the drug crisis. Even worse, by decreasing the number of deaths, the interventions allow the problem to disappear from the front page. Deaths remain on people’s minds; addiction doesn’t. Removing the lethality also removes the deterrent for young people.
The Democrats are disinterested in stopping drug use, so by legalizing drugs, they can claim to have reduced crime. In many American cities, irrespective of the law, progressive prosecutors refuse to prosecute what they consider low-level drug crimes.
A good example is the state of Oregon, which voted in 2020 to liberalize drug laws, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of even hard drugs. The measures were passed by the Democrat-led legislature, and the police stopped arresting offenders. Instead, officers gave users a ticket and a slip of paper with a phone number they could call to get into a treatment program. Records show that Portland police handed out 7,000 of these slips, but only a few hundred users ever made the call.
Marijuana was already legal in Oregon, so tax money from marijuana was put towards treatment programs. Three years later, the drug crisis in Oregon was worse.
Advocates for liberal drug policies argue, “the criminal justice system didn’t effectively treat addiction.” They also said it disproportionately harmed people of color. By ceasing drug arrests, they hoped to be able to decrease the racial disparity among prisoners. Decriminalization also brought down the crime rate by no longer counting drug offenses. However, other forms of crime increased, perpetrated by people trying to get money for drugs.
Before decriminalization, Portland’s violent crime rate was below the national average. By 2022, Portland saw a record number of homicides. This dropped off a bit in 2023, and there were claims that other crimes dropped as well, but traffic fatalities increased to record levels, while shoplifting arrests increased by 88%. Portland’s property crime rate is higher than the national average and rose steadily until 2023, when it came down slightly. But it is still higher than pre-drug legalization. And most predictably, from 2019 to 2022, the rate of opioid deaths increased by 241%.
While many sources claim that overall crime rates have dropped in cities that legalized drugs, the statistic is misleading. This is evidenced not only by Oregon, but also by other municipalities that decriminalized drugs or liberalized enforcement and have seen an increase in drug use, overdoses, and certain kinds of crime. This has been true in Seattle, where the claim was that overall crime was down, but there was an increase in homicides and auto thefts.
San Francisco has seen an increase in drug-related crimes, as well as the prevalence of dealers and violence. Crime is up in New York, where the liberal governor wants to deploy the National Guard to keep order in the subways. Philadelphia is now known as the capital of the Xylazine zombie drug crisis, and Los Angeles is a fentanyl hub, experiencing rampant shoplifting, theft, and an increase in property crime.
One way that the statistics are being misrepresented is that many of these cities are claiming a decrease in violent crime in 2023, and this may be true, but only because 2022 experienced a severe spike in crime. This may have been the final effects of lockdowns and COVID restrictions which, in some cases, were not completely eliminated until the middle or end of the year. However, in most cases, the 2023 numbers are not lower than 2020 or pre-drug-liberalization figures.
No matter how they try to spin it, drug usage and deaths are up. In 2020, 27 million Americans reported being drug users, including marijuana, opioids, or amphetamines. Last year, the number climbed to 37.3 million. About 10% of Americans now have problems with alcohol abuse, and 6% are drug addicts. Most heartbreaking, nationwide, 22 teens are dying each week of drug overdoses.
The post Narcan and Liberal Drug Policies Worsening Drug Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The man who transformed El Salvador from one of the most dangerous countries in the world to one of the safest, President Nayib Bukele, is despised by liberals.
When he won reelection in a landslide, liberal media outlets ran headlines stating that democracy had ended in El Salvador and that the country had become a one-party state. However, El Salvador is not Cuba.
Bukele did not eradicate opposition parties, nor did he imprison them or seize control of the press. Instead, he delivered on his promises. He made the country safe by locking up criminals.
President Bukele claimed that his country went 365 days without a murder. And while the exact number has been called into question, it is an indisputable fact that the country now has the lowest murder rate it has seen in 30 years, plummeting by 70%, and now stands at only 2.4 per 100,000 in 2023, making it the second lowest in the Americas, just behind Canada.
In 2022, after a gang war resulted in the deaths of 87 people over a period of just three days, Bukele took action against crime. He constructed the country’s largest prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or CECOT), with a capacity for 40,000 gang members. And he began filling it.
Out of gratitude for restoring peace in the country, voters reelected him with 85% of the vote. Human rights groups, who live in safe, wealthy Western nations, have criticized Bukele for violations of the rights of suspects.
But the logic is flawless. Only gang members have gang tattoos. If anyone else gets a gang tattoo, they will be killed by the gang. The same is true for tattoo artists.
They would be killed for giving gang tattoos to non-gang members. Additionally, part of the initiation to joining a gang is to commit a serious crime, often murder. Once they become a member, their full-time job is to commit crimes. So, logically, anyone with a gang tattoo is a gang member and has committed crimes.
In the U.S., it is not a crime to be affiliated with an organization, even a criminal one. To secure a conviction, there would need to be proof that the person committed a specific crime.
However, that system, while acceptable for a high-trust society, was being exploited in El Salvador, where repeat offenders and murderers were being set free by crooked judges and jailers.
So, Bukele decided to let logic prevail, arrest the gang members, and put them in prison. He was more concerned about the rights of street vendors, business owners, school children, working people, and ordinary citizens than he was about the rights of violent criminals.
The state of emergency he declared in 2022, and has renewed several times since, suspends the constitutional rights of the gang members and bypasses the corrupt courts and justice system, which had allowed the criminals to reign for decades. Since then, 75,000 gang members have been arrested, and 7,000 have been released.
According to reported data from human rights groups, since 2022, there have been 78,000 arbitrary detentions. This is likely because they consider nearly all of the arrests to be arbitrary detentions.
The rights groups are also upset that “approximately 102,000 people are now deprived of their freedom in the country,” disregarding the fact that these people are criminals.
Additionally, they are upset that the prisons are overcrowded by 148%, which is absolutely true. The prisons are not pleasant, and a sane person would avoid going there by not committing crimes.
They also lost sleep over 235 deaths in state custody. There is no mention of how many of these deaths represented prisoners being killed by other prisoners, nor have they stopped to consider that five times that number of innocent people would have died during the same time period if these gang members were not in prison.
Rights groups have claimed that Bukele’s New Ideas party winning 58 of 60 seats in the country’s legislature has turned the country into a one-party state, with a “dangerous” concentration of power.
They are missing the point that the country had a fair election and the people were free to vote for the horrible system they had before, or law and order, which is now making their lives livable again. And they chose the latter.
According to Gabriela Santos, director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Central America (IDHUCA), “Bukele’s popularity underlines how some Central American countries have struggled to launch sustainable democratic models.”
Again, there appears to be no flaw in El Salvador’s democracy. The critics just do not like the way the vote turned out. Santos went on to say that countries never recovered their democratic principles “in the aftermath of civil conflicts between left-wing guerrillas and U.S.-backed right-wing authoritarian regimes.”
There is no indication that the people voting for Bukele had any connection to the US or to right-wing regimes.
Liberals are claiming that there is a frightening move toward fascism in Latin America because 2 of 32 countries now have a president who is not a socialist. The other bright spot is President Javier Milei in Argentina, whom the liberals also hate.
He is cutting the government down to size, waging a war on debt and waste. He told school children that abortion is murder. He is pro-gun and is considering deploying the military to take on the gangs.
The shocking lesson we can all learn from El Salvador is that if you arrest all of the bad guys and keep them in jail, and if those who remain free are made to believe that crime has consequences and jails are horrible places, the streets become safer, and people can live their lives.
The other takeaway here is that if a president is tough on crime and wants to cut government spending and improve the lives of citizens, the liberals attack him.
It is also incredibly condescending that liberals in Europe or the US or elsewhere believe that 85% of Salvadorians do not know what is best for their country and voted for the wrong person.
The post 365 Days Without a Murder: Why Liberals Hate El Salvador’s President appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The investigation by the Select Committee on The CCP’s Role in the Fentanyl Crisis reveals that the CCP subsidizes PRC companies producing fentanyl precursor chemicals for export, thus knowingly exacerbating the US drug crisis.
In his State of the Union Address on March 7, 2024, President Biden acknowledged Fentanyl as one of the most significant threats confronting the United States. The president’s assertion aligns with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Annual Threat Assessment for 2024, which identifies fentanyl as the second-largest threat, following terrorism. The report also states that DHS expects “illegal drugs produced in Mexico and sold in the United States will continue to kill more Americans than any other threat.”
According to a DHS Fact Sheet regarding the State of the Union Address, the fentanyl crisis “originates with China-based entities that manufacture and distribute the chemicals used to produce the fentanyl fueling American overdose deaths.” The CCP manufactures 98% of the global supply of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl. The select committee not only uncovered CCP subsidies for fentanyl but also for numerous other synthetic and illicit drugs.
The DHS Fact Sheet provides additional details, stating that “DHS participated in the development of a new Counternarcotics Working Group with China to disrupt the manufacture and flow of illicit synthetic drugs.” Given the emerging evidence of CCP’s direct involvement in the fentanyl crisis, this initiative appears ironic and likely ineffective in halting its spread.
In 2023, the US House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act, which amends the Fentanyl Sanctions Act. The latter calls for sanctions against Chinese entities as “foreign opioid traffickers” if they produce, sell, finance, or transport synthetic opioids or precursors.” It is evident that numerous government agencies, along with Congress and the White House, recognize fentanyl as one of the most pressing issues facing the US, responsible for the most American fatalities. They all acknowledge China as the source. Despite this consensus, the president continues to pursue efforts to ‘work with’ Beijing rather than directly holding the CCP accountable.
US law enforcement entities have reported informing their Chinese government contacts about the companies manufacturing and exporting fentanyl, yet the CCP has not taken any action. The Bill specifies that Chinese entities could face sanctions if they “fail to take credible steps to prevent opioid trafficking, including through cooperation with U.S. counternarcotics efforts and know-your-customer procedures.” It appears that the CCP is now subject to sanctions, given its lack of cooperation with US law enforcement and failure to halt the fentanyl flow.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a warning in 2017-2018 through a report titled ‘TACKLING FENTANYL: THE CHINA CONNECTION,’ identifying China as the source of the fentanyl crisis. However, to date, the White House has not held the CCP accountable.
The CCP denies any knowledge of or culpability in the problem. Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the PRC embassy in Washington D.C., stated in an email, “It is very clear that there is no fentanyl problem in China, and the fentanyl crisis in the United States is not caused by the Chinese side, and blindly blaming China cannot solve the U.S. own problem.” These are not the words of a government willing to cooperate. It is astounding that this statement came from an official CCP source, just weeks after the President’s State of the Union Address where he claimed his administration was working closely with the CCP on this issue.
The PRC Embassy’s statement underscores the folly of the Biden administration’s continued belief that they can work with the CCP to stop fentanyl and to fix a number of other global issues caused by the CCP, everything from China trade cheating to threats against Taiwan and the Philippines, to Beijing’s support of Russia in Ukraine, and ongoing support for Iran and the legitimization of Hamas. Given the CCP’s active involvement in these activities, it’s evident that Xi Jinping is aware of and likely orchestrating them, suggesting they won’t simply stop.
The CCP: An Enemy, Not a Competitor or Partner
The US Intelligence Community (IC), in its Annual Threat Assessment, and the Department of Defense (DoD) in its China Military Power report, both identify China as the primary threat to the US. Both reports from the IC and DoD elaborate on how the CCP’s strategy involves a whole-of-government approach known as Military Civil Fusion (MCF), which utilizes for-profit private entities across various industries and fields to further the state’s policy objectives. Evidently, this strategy extends to the chemical industry, which is being exploited to harm Americans and undermine American society through the distribution of deadly and illicit drugs.
Given that US intelligence and defense authorities are unequivocal about the CCP’s intent to supplant the United States, it is illogical to believe that the two countries can cooperate or that the CCP will take steps to improve America’s position.
The manufacture and distribution of chemicals in China is regarded as a sensitive domain, tightly regulated by the CCP, requiring permits and government approval for manufacturing or exporting. This implies that the CCP was aware of the production and export of fentanyl precursor chemicals. Now that the Select Committee has uncovered not only the CCP’s awareness but also its subsidization of the manufacture and export of fentanyl precursors, it becomes evident that the CCP is endorsing this activity and actively contributing to the deaths of Americans. With two hundred Americans dying of fentanyl overdoses every day, the CCP is killing as many Americans as the 9/11 terrorists, every two weeks.
Up to this point, the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act of 2023 has only cleared the House and has not been signed into law. Should it become law, it appears that the entire CCP would be deemed in violation. Regrettably, although the media, the public, and some congressional representatives express outrage over the recent revelations, it seems improbable that the Biden administration will undertake meaningful action against the CCP.
The post Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Subsidizing the Fentanyl Crisis appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Vaunce News 