U.S. Citizen With No Legs, And 30 Million Other Americans: Where’s Our $1,400?

29 03 2021

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

In an article entitled “Stimulus checks: Payment blockage resolved for nearly 30 million Social Security recipients,” Denitsa Tsekova has written at Yahoo!Money:

The blockage of nearly 30 million stimulus checks for Social Security and other federal benefits recipients has been resolved after the Social Security Administration sent relevant files to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on Thursday morning, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.

“We are gratified that the SSA leadership finally recognized the urgency of the moment and acted swiftly on our ultimatum,” members of the committee said in a press release on Thursday. “Now the IRS needs to do its job and get these overdue payments out to suffering Americans.”

The delay affects Social Security recipients and other beneficiaries who did not file their 2019 or 2020 taxes or did not use the IRS ‘Non-Filer’ tool for direct payments. The IRS is now working on updating the information for the rest of the eligible federal benefit recipients. The IRS did not respond to a request by Yahoo Money on exact timing of the delayed payments.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and other Democrats blamed Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, for the delay.

“The delays imposed by Commissioner Saul defied congressional intent and imposed needless anxiety and pain on taxpayers,” the lawmakers said.

A total of 127 million payments worth $325 billion — more than 70% of the $450 billion earmarked for stimulus payments — have been disbursed as part of the first two batches of the latest stimulus direct payments. More batches of payments will be issued in the coming weeks as direct deposits or as mailed checks and prepaid debit cards. The majority of the third round of stimulus checks will be directly deposited in Americans’ bank accounts.

This round is $1,400 per eligible individual plus a $1,400 bonus per dependent. Around 158.5 million households are expected to receive a payment under the new stimulus deal, according to the White House.

Here’s more of what you need to know about the third round of stimulus checks.

Who gets a stimulus check?

Under the latest amended bill, a single filer making up to $75,000 will receive the full payment, while those earning up to $80,000 will get a reduced amount. Joint filers making up to $150,000 will get the full $2,800, while those earning up to $160,000 will receive a smaller amount. Previously, the phase-out thresholds were $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for joint filers in the House version.

Eligibility will be based on your most recent tax return and your adjusted gross income. For the third round of checks, the IRS will use your 2019 or 2020 tax return to determine if you qualify for the direct payment.

Social Security beneficiaries, Disability Insurance beneficiaries, Supplemental Security Income recipients, Railroad Retirement Board beneficiaries, and Veterans Administration beneficiaries all are eligible for the payment even if they didn’t file a 2019 or 2020 tax return.

Eligible taxpayers who used the IRS Non-Filer tool for the first round of checks will be treated as providing returns and will also receive payments.

Additionally, Americans who qualify for the stimulus payment and have dependents will get an additional $1,400 per dependent. The bonus can be claimed for college students, disabled adults, and other adults who are dependents. Previously, parents or guardians could only claim the bonus for child dependents under 17.

Deceased people may also receive a payment. Checks will go to all eligible taxpayers who were alive as of Jan. 1, 2021.

Who doesn’t get a check?

Those without a Social Security number and nonresident aliens — those who aren’t U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals and don’t have a green card or have not passed the substantial presence test — are not eligible for the direct payment.

Married taxpayers who file jointly where one spouse has a Social Security number and the other doesn’t will get one $1,400 payment, in addition to $1,400 for any child with a Social Security number.

Taxpayers with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) aren’t eligible for the payments.

How will the government send you the stimulus check?

The IRS will use the direct deposit information you provided from the taxes you’ve filed for 2019 or 2020.

You may be able to use the IRS’ Non-Filers tool to provide your information like the first round. But so far, the IRS has not announced whether that tool will be available if this stimulus bill is passed.

The tool was for eligible U.S. citizens or permanent residents who had gross income below $12,200 ($24,400 for married couples) for 2019 and weren’t required to file a 2019 federal tax return.

If you have no direct deposit information on file or if the account provided is now closed, the IRS will mail you a check or pre-paid debit card instead.

If you received no payment and you think you’re eligible or you got the wrong amount, you’ll be able to claim it on your 2021 tax return.

How can I track my payment?

Americans can now check the status of their third stimulus check using the IRS’s online tracking tool ‘Get My Payment.’

The tool allows Americans to follow the scheduled payment date for either a direct deposit or mailed payment. It’s an online app that works on desktops, phones, and tablets and doesn’t need to be downloaded from an app store. To use the tool, you need to provide basic information:

Social Security number or Individual Tax ID Number (ITIN)

Date of birth

Mailing address

The tracking tool will no longer show the status of the first or second round of stimulus checks — the $1,200 payment under the CARES Act and the $600 payments under the December $900 billion stimulus deal. To find the status of those previous rounds, you must create an account.

If your payment is delivered by direct deposit, the tool will show when the direct deposit is expected to be made or when it was delivered along with the bank account it went into.

If you receive the message “Payment Status Not Available,” the IRS may not have processed your payment yet or you may not be eligible for a payment.

Will I get the dependent bonus for a newborn?

If you had a baby in 2021 and meet the rest of the eligibility criteria, you can claim the additional $1,400 per child when you file your 2021 taxes.

If you had a child in 2020 and your return has been processed, you should automatically get the additional payment. If you haven’t yet filed your 2020 taxes or they haven’t been processed by the IRS by the time the payments are issued, you can claim the dependent bonus on your 2021 taxes

Do you have to pay back the stimulus check?

No, you don’t have to pay it back. It also doesn’t reduce any refund you would otherwise receive.

“No, there is no provision in the law requiring repayment of an Economic Impact Payment,” the IRS website said about the first round of checks.

If your income dropped in 2020 compared with 2019, you may now be eligible for the payment or a bigger payment if you have already filed your taxes and they have been processed by the IRS.

If your payment is too high based on your 2020 income and you still haven’t filed your 2020 taxes, you’re not responsible for paying back the difference.[2]

Despite the assertion made in this informative article, approximately 30 million Americans have not received their $1,400, and the blockage has not been resolved.  Many if not most of these Americans are senior citizens who barely exist on their Social Security retirement and other similar benefits.  They are suffering greatly, with some on the edge of giving up, if not committing suicide.  China’s deadly Coronavirus has devastated their lives: physically, psychologically and economically.[3]  They were hanging by a thread already, and now this.  Many don’t have money for food, shelter, medical care or the like.  Many are living day-by-day, hour-by-hour at best.

A few examples of the comments beneath the Yahoo!Money article tell the tale:

•   “I’m a US natural born citizen receiving the smallest possible amount of Social Security since I lost both legs in 1998.  I got married in 2003 and disability was no longer available to me.  Since becoming separated in September of 2019, do you think that money is available to me, now?  You would think it is.  Nope… and no I never received any stimulus check. Not the first second or third so far” (Jamye)

•  “‘The IRS did not respond to a request by Yahoo Money on exact timing of the delayed payments.’  Why not???? Are they mentally challenged???  In the mean while, the first two checks went out without a problem and ‘they’ obviously had the information needed.  What did they do with that information???  Lose it??  I am angry with this whole system.  Repubs, Dems, it doesn’t matter any more.  I am sick and tired of all of them.  My mere existence is at stake and they are playing games with each other” (chrisw)

•  “First one came relatively fast, the second even faster, but yet here I sit still waiting on 3/25/21 and no clue when.. Tho my landlord is seriously tired of waiting, and I’M HUNGRY..Having a fixed income does have its drawbacks, specially for food costs..” (Nobody)

•  “I remind you that we all could have gotten the 2000 dollars in december but Pelosi blocked it to get more pork in the system. 1.4 trillion extra” (Russell)

•  “If this had happened under Trump, Pelosi would be screaming her head off.” (Retired_LC)

•  “I think 2022 would be a great time to show this administration exactly how SS recipients feel about this obvious slight!!!!” (Hamster Fodder)

With all due respect to those who might blame the Trump administration, the fact is that the legislation was proposed and enacted by the Biden administration and the Democrats, which is where the buck stops.  Having spent most of my professional career working in and with the U.S. Congress, I have seen many administrations come and go, and transitions take place.  Even before presidential elections, staff members of the challenging candidate are assigned to the major federal agencies to coordinate such transitions and make sure they run smoothly.  Certainly after the 2020 elections, this took place; and it surely took place when the Biden administration took office and fashioned the new legislation that included the $1,400 payments.  Thus, there is no excuse for “glitches,” and for the nonpayment of those who arguably need the money most—just to survive.

Some of the readers of this article might argue: “Why is this important or relevant to me?  The $1,400 payments are peanuts, and do not affect me at all.”  The answer is that the Biden administration is fashioning follow-on legislation[4]; and if the $1,400 payments can be denied, or postponed, so can the benefits of their future legislation.

 

 

© 2021, Timothy D. Naegele

_____

 

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see, e.g., Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://money.yahoo.com/stimulus-checks-payment-blockage-resolved-for-nearly-30-million-social-security-recipients-183112988.html (“Stimulus checks: Payment blockage resolved for nearly 30 million Social Security recipients”)

[3]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note] 

[4]  See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9411849/Biden-roll-COVID-relief-April-separate-4-trillion-infrastructure-package.html (“Biden will roll out another COVID relief plan in April on top of $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Jen Psaki reveals”)





Race Relations In America Have Gone Berserk

16 03 2021

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Americans of all colors, ethnic backgrounds and religious preferences owe the present tragic state of affairs to the un-American racist and anti-Semite Barack Obama.  Indeed, If one person could be singled out for having exacerbated race relations in the United States, it is Obama who has torn our great nation asunder.  

He has done far more than any President in our great nation’s history to sow racism, strife and discord.  And he has done this at a time when China’s Coronavirus has killed or hurt so many Americans, physically, psychologically and economically.[2]  Aside from trying the destroy the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump from Day One—which is treason—Obama has produced a racial divide that may take years if not generations to heal.

Obama should be in prison today, for his many crimes.  Indeed, this was all predictable if Americans had read his book, “Dreams from My Father,” before he was elected to national offices.  It sets out his racism explicitly and in his own words, which have withstood the test of time.[3]

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written an article entitled “Who and What Killed George Floyd?” as follows:

Friday, as the jury was being empaneled for the trial of fired police officer Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis City Council voted 13-0 to approve a record $27 million civil settlement with the family of George Floyd over his death in police custody.

The jury will not likely miss this message sent by the city fathers:

I.e., an atrocity was perpetrated by our police, and we are admitting our responsibility and doing our duty by offering these reparations for Floyd’s cruel and unjustified death and the suffering visited on his family.

Most Americans who saw the nine-minute tape of Chauvin with his knee on the neck of George Floyd as he pleaded, “I can’t breathe,” will probably concur with the charge of criminal culpability of Chauvin.

Yet, over the months, new facts and factors have emerged.

George Floyd was not choked to death. He was not asphyxiated. He was not killed by Chauvin’s knee on the side of his neck. An autopsy showed Floyd’s neck muscles were not even bruised.

Floyd died when his heart stopped. Yet, he was already suffering from an enlarged heart with constricted arteries, one of five of which was 90% blocked and two others were 75% blocked.

An autopsy found heavy concentrations of fentanyl in Floyd’s system and traces of methamphetamines. If Floyd had collapsed and died in the street while being wrested into the squad car, his death would have been attributed to a drug overdose and a bad heart.

Also, a videotape of the minutes prior to Floyd’s being put on the pavement, his neck under Chauvin’s knee, shows Floyd crying, repeatedly, “I can’t breathe,” while resisting the two rookie cops trying to put him in the patrol car.

Moreover, there is testimony from those with Floyd when he was stopped for passing an allegedly phony $20 bill, that he had passed out in the car before the cops arrived. And the arresting cops claim he was foaming at the mouth before being restrained.

In short, Chauvin’s defense attorneys will likely make a credible case, backed by evidence, that Floyd’s death was not caused by the knee on his neck but by the battered condition of his heart, the near-lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, and his anxiety and panic at being arrested and fearing, as he wailed, that he was going to be shot.

The prosecution will counter-claim that Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck, and the two other cops sitting on him, precipitated the stopping of his heart.

But the prosecution faces other questions.

How could Chauvin, who arrived late to the scene, know Floyd was a drug addict with a serious heart condition and a large amount of fentanyl in his system, before using the restraint technique of sitting on him and putting a knee on the side of his neck?

What was Chauvin trying to do when he arrived to see two rookie cops trying to cope with a powerfully built, six-foot-four-inch, 220-pound man violently resisting arrest?

Did Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s neck to kill him? To torture or injure him? Or did he use the technique to restrain him?

Prosecutors will contend that the knee on the neck was criminal assault, a felony that caused Floyd to black out and his heart to stop?

But that raises another question:

Is placing a knee on the side of the neck an outlawed or a prohibited procedure for police to use to restrain a suspect violently resisting arrest, as a chokehold is in some precincts?

Or is it a procedure some police use legally at times?

Chauvin was clearly familiar with the technique. Had he used it before without injury to a suspect?

In a motion to dismiss the charges he himself faces in the death of Floyd, former police officer Thomas Lane included 30 pages of Minneapolis PD training materials including information on the “maximal restraint technique.” Lane included a photo of an officer with a knee on a suspect’s neck, similar to the hold used by Chauvin.

In preparing for the trial of Chauvin, Minneapolis has fortified, with concrete barriers, fences and razor wire, the courthouse where it will be held. Understandably, for any acquittal of Chauvin, or conviction on a lesser charge than murder, could trigger a riot like those that plagued the city through the summer of 2020.

And if a mob does take to the streets in Minneapolis, as it did all last summer, the national reaction will be telling.

How does one accurately describe a crowd that gathers outside a courthouse to demand, on the threat of a riot, a verdict of guilty?

And should a riot occur — and violent protests in Louisville, Seattle and Portland over the weekend seem to point to another such long hot summer — may we expect our new national leaders (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer) to denounce the mob and stand up unequivocally for the rule of law?[4]

The thugs, slugs, hoods and mongrels of “Black Lives Matter,” Antifa and other far-Left groups have burned our cities; killed or hurt innocent Americans including our police; and destroyed black and other businesses.  Instead of being coddled or embraced by Joe Biden and his Democrats, they should be put down like rabid animals.

America’s blacks constitute less than 14 percent of our population.[5]  Yet, turn on TV any given day, and one might think that they are the dominant group in our population. This overcompensation permeates and distorts our society; and it is creating anger and revulsion among non-blacks.  Rather than improving race relations, it is exacerbating them.

Preferences have been given in academics, which the voters of far-Left California have rejected.[6]  On men’s professional football and basketball teams, there are very few white players.  When the football players take a knee as our flag is saluted and/or our national anthem is played, more and more of white America tunes out and refuses to watch. And when this occurs, they are branded as racists by the Democrats and the Left.

But it must never be forgotten that the Democrats gave us slavery, and perpetuated it after our Civil War with the KKK, segregation and later Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs that destroyed black families and consigned them to economic servitude.  Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans ended slavery.

Many on America’s Left do not want inclusion or equality; they want racial preferences, which would distort the United States forever.  Of course the idea of reparations is patently absurd, but it has become the mantra for many on the Left.  Like Barack Obama, they hate America and believe its history is fundamentally flawed and racist.

Unlike the first black to serve in the U.S. Senate after Reconstruction, Edward W. Brooke—who came from a loving family, and served as an Army officer during World War II—Obama came from a broken family.  He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.  And on some level, he hates the United States, its history and its values.[7]

Lastly, as I have stated previously:

I believe in this country, and I believe in Americans of all colors, faiths and backgrounds. The United States is the only true melting pot in the world, with its populace representing a United Nations of the world’s peoples. Yes, we fight and we even discriminate, but when times are tough—like after 9/11—we come together as one nation, which makes this country so great and special. Also, all of us or our ancestors came here from somewhere else. Even the American Indians are descended from those who crossed the Bering Strait—or the “Bering land bridge”—according to anthropologists.[8]

I believe this fervently.  All of us are equal in the eyes of God.

 

 

© 2021, Timothy D. Naegele

_____

 

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see, e.g., Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note] 

[3] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/barack-obama-is-responsible-for-americas-tragic-racial-divide/ (“Barack Obama Is Responsible For America’s Tragic Racial Divide”) 

[4]  See https://buchanan.org/blog/who-and-what-killed-george-floyd-142867 (“Who and What Killed George Floyd?”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/american-blacks-constitute-less-than-14-percent/ (“American Blacks Constitute Less Than 14 Percent”)

[6]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16 (“2020 California Proposition 16”)

[7]  See supra n.3.

[8] See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”) (quoting http://www.philstockworld.com/2009/10/11/greenspan’s-legacy-more-suffering-to-come/ and http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/2951-ilene/31177-interview-with-timothy-d-naegele





War With China?

12 03 2021

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Pat Buchanan—an adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, and a former GOP presidential aspirant himself—has written an article entitled “Is a Cold War II with China Inevitable?” as follows:

Today, the four premier leaders of The Quad — the U.S., Australia, India and Japan — conduct their first summit, by teleconference.

The Quad, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is an informal strategy forum of the major Indo-Pacific democracies that some wish to see evolve into an Asian NATO to contain China, as NATO contained the Soviet Union for 40 years of Cold War.

Next week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan meet their Chinese counterparts midway between Beijing and Washington — in Anchorage, Alaska.

The Chinese are said to have sought out the two-day meeting since before the inauguration of Biden.

And understandably so. For while the Chinese are hoping for a reset of relations after a troubled last year with the Trump administration, leaders of both U.S. parties — to compensate for decades of congressional indulgence of Beijing —suddenly seem to be on their muscle.

Consider. During the transition, the Biden foreign policy team gave a war guarantee to Manila to fight alongside the Philippines in any clash with the Chinese over disputed rocks and reefs in the South China Sea.

Tokyo was informed that its mutual security treaty with the United States that dates to the 1950s covers the uninhabited Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. But Beijing also claims these islands as her own.

On the eve of his taking office, Blinken said he agreed with Mike Pompeo’s view that China’s brutal repression of the Uighurs in Xinjiang constitutes “genocide” and crimes against humanity. That latter charge is what the Nazis were hanged for at Nuremberg.

How can the United States send athletes to the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, if the Chinese are still crushing Hong Kong and committing crimes against humanity in western China that compare to the worst Nazi crimes of World War II?

Testifying before Congress this week, four-star Admiral Phil Davidson, retiring commander of the Indo-Pacific, called for new defensive missiles to protect Guam against Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 missiles. China calls these missiles “Guam killers.”

The admiral also called for the U.S. to develop intermediate-range missiles that can be fired from Guam and allied territory closer to China. Describing the need for offensive missiles to hit Chinese targets, Davidson said, “If I can’t score some runs, I can’t win the game.”

Addressing Taiwan, Davidson said:

“Over the past year, Beijing has pursued a coordinated campaign of diplomatic, information, economic, and — increasingly — military tools to isolate Taipei from the international community and if necessary compel unification with the (Peoples Republic of China.)”

Chinese warplanes have lately flown in formation toward the island of 25 million, which Beijing claims as its national territory — a claim President Nixon seemed to concede in the Shanghai Communique after his Peking summit of 1972.

“Our commitment to Taiwan is rock-solid,” was how the Biden State Department answered China’s aggressive moves.

If we don’t establish rules of the road for U.S. and Chinese ships and planes in the East and South China Sea and Taiwan strait, how do we indefinitely avoid the kind of collision that could turn into a shooting war?

In this widening and deepening confrontation, China is not backing down. She makes no apologies for the crackdown in Hong Kong or the concentration camps of the Uighurs. She continues to stonewall about how the coronavirus escaped from Wuhan to kill 500,000 Americans and many times that number worldwide.

Meanwhile, Chinese bombers, fighters, warships and patrol boats approach closer and closer to planes, vessels and territory of America and her friends and allies. Nor has China surrendered a rock or reef or shoal in the South or East China Sea.

Last week, Blinken called China the “biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century,” the only country able “to seriously challenge the stable and open international system.”

And in America, whatever your political party, “standing up to China” seems to be a winning posture. But where is all this going? Where does all this end?

Beijing is not apologetically but proudly Communist. It believes its system has been proven superior in this century. It does not believe in an equality of ideologies, religions or peoples. It openly rejects American democracy as a failed and failing system, and rejects any suggestion of American primacy in creating a “rules-based international order.”

And if it continues to grow in real and relative terms for the next two decades as it did in the last two decades — given that China has four times the population of the United States — it could emerge not only as the dominant power in Asia and the Indo-Pacific but in the world.

And what can we do to assure that does not happen — short of a war that could be disaster to us both, as World War II was for the British as well as the Germans.

How do we decouple from a country that provides necessities of national life — such as pharmaceuticals — for our people?[2]

I beg to differ with Buchanan.  The United States and the American people have been at war with China ever since it launched the deadly Coronavirus, inadvertently or as a bioweapon.  As my Coronavirus article stated clearly and unequivocally—leaving aside governmental entreaties and diplomatic niceties—Americans and other global consumers must boycott anything and everything from China, until it is brought to its knees economically.  Nothing less will suffice.[3][4]

Lastly, is the Biden-Harris administration leading us to a shooting war with China?  Will we boycott the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing?  Time will tell.  

 

 

© 2021, Timothy D. Naegele

_____

 

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see, e.g., Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://buchanan.org/blog/is-a-cold-war-ii-with-china-inevitable-142861 (“Is a Cold War II with China Inevitable?”)

[3]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please clickon the link to the left of this note] and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/20/can-we-coexist-with-asias-communists/ (“Can We Coexist with Asia’s Communists?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/coexistence-with-china-or-war/ (“Coexistence With China Or War?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/the-coronavirus-must-become-chinas-chernobyl-hastening-the-collapse-of-its-evil-regime/ (“The Coronavirus Must Become China’s Chernobyl, Hastening The Collapse Of Its Evil Regime”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/why-should-the-world-trust-china-ever-again/ (“Why Should The World Trust China Ever Again?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/25/china-infects-the-world-then-lies-and-blames-america/ (“China Infects The World, Then Lies And Blames America”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/expert-warns-quarantine-process-failed-as-china-stands-ready-to-crash-world-economy/ (“Expert Warns Quarantine Process Failed, As China Stands Ready To Crash World Economy”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/china-is-americas-enemy-and-the-enemy-of-free-people-everywhere/ (“China Is America’s Enemy, And The Enemy Of Free People Everywhere”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That”) and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8957019/China-used-secret-microwave-pulse-weapon-Indian-soldiers.html (“China ‘used secret microwave pulse weapon to cook Indian soldiers alive’ and force them into retreat in Himalayan border battle”) 

[4]  See also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2021/03/03/trump-begins-his-triumphant-return-to-the-white-house/ (“Trump Begins His Triumphant Return To The White House”) and https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-cpac-speech-2021-b1809208.html (“Donald Trump CPAC speech 2021 – read the full transcript | The Independent”) and https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-cpac-2021-speech-transcript (“Trump CPA speech transcript”)

 





Trump Begins His Triumphant Return To The White House

3 03 2021

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Donald Trump is continuing his quest for a second term in the White House, which was clear from his speech at the 2021 CPAC conference in Orlando, Florida.  You can watch it by viewing the video below, or by reading the transcripts of his speech.[2] 

In his first major speech since leaving the White House, President Trump covered a broad panoply of major issues—some of critical importance—facing the American people and the United States in the months and years ahead.

In watching or reading his speech, one must realize that a political speech—much less one delivered to national and international audiences—is constructed differently than most written documents. Lines are repeated; phrases are included for emphasis; and such speeches are often “folksy,” for the lack of a better term.

Bearing that in mind, the major issues discussed by President Trump included:

• “[W]e’re in the middle of a historic struggle for America’s future, America’s culture, and America’s institutions, borders, and most cherished principles.  Our security, our prosperity, and our very identity as Americans [are] at stake, like perhaps at no other time.”

• “For the next four years, the brave Republicans in this room will be at the heart of the effort to oppose the radical Democrats, the fake news media, and their toxic cancel culture.  Something new to our ears, cancel culture.  And I want you to know that I’m going to continue to fight right by your side.  We will do what we’ve done right from the beginning, which is to win.  We’re not starting new parties.  They kept saying, he’s going to start a brand new party.  We have the Republican party.  It’s going to unite and be stronger than ever before.  I am not starting a new party.  That was fake news, fake news.”

• “We will save and strengthen America.  And we will fight the onslaught of radicalism, socialism, and indeed it all leads to communism. . . .  We all knew that the Biden administration was going to be bad.  But none of us even imagined just how bad they would be and how far left they would go.”

• “[Biden is] not okay with energy.  He wants windmills, the windmills.  The windmills that don’t work when you need them.

• “Joe Biden has had the most disastrous first month of any president in modern history. . . .  Already the Biden administration has proven that they are anti-jobs, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-energy, anti-women, and anti-science.  In just one short month, we have gone from America first to America last. . . .  There’s no better example than the new and horrible crisis on our Southern border. . . .  When I left office just six weeks ago, we had created the most secure border in [U.S.] history. . . .  It’s amazing considering that the Democrats’ number one priority was to make sure that the wall would never, ever get built, would never, ever happen, would never get financed.  We got it financed.  We ended catch and release, ended asylum fraud, and brought illegal crossings to historic lows.  When illegal aliens trespass across our borders, they were properly caught, detained and sent back home.  And these were some rough customers. . . .  It took them [and] the new administration only a few weeks to turn this unprecedented accomplishment into [a] self-inflicted . . . national security disaster by recklessly eliminating our border, security measures, controls, all of the things that we put into place.  Joe Biden has triggered a massive flood of illegal immigration into our country, the likes of which we have never seen before.  They’re coming up by the tens of thousands. . . .  We can’t afford the problems of the world, as much as we’d love to.  We’d love to help.  But we can’t do that.  So they’re all coming because of promises and foolish words.  Perhaps worst of all, Joe Biden’s decision to cancel border security has single-handedly launched a youth migrant crisis that is enriching child smugglers, vicious criminal cartels, and some of the most evil people on the planet.  You see it every day, just turn on the news. . . .  Under my administration, we stopped the child smugglers.  We dismantle[d] the criminal cartels.  We greatly limited drug and human trafficking to a level that nobody actually thought was possible.  And the wall helped us a lot.  And we protected vulnerable people from the ravages of dangerous predators.  And that’s what they are dangerous, dangerous predators.  But the Biden administration has put the [vile] coyotes back in business and it has done so in a very, very big way.  Under the new administration, catch and release has been restored.  Can you imagine? . . .  You catch them, you take their name, they may be killers.  They may be rapists.  They may be drug smugglers.  You take their name[s] and you release them into our country.  We did the opposite.  We not only didn’t release them, we had them brought back to their country.  Illegal immigrants are now being apprehended and released along the entire Southern border, just the opposite of what it was two months ago.  They weren’t coming because they couldn’t get in.  Once they think they can get in, they’re coming.  And they are coming at levels that you haven’t even seen yet, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions they’ll be coming.  The Biden administration is now actively expediting the admission of illegal migrants, enabling them to lodge frivolous asylum claims and admitting them by the thousands and thousands and thousands a day, crowded together in unsanitary conditions, despite the ongoing economic and public health crisis, COVID-19, or as I call it, the China virus.  There’s no masks. . . .  No social distancing, no nothing, no nothing.  And together, and it’s sad actually. And it’s sad for them.  And it sad for our country, what the Biden administration is doing to push young migrants into the hands of human traffickers and coyotes is dangerous, immoral, and indefensible, hard to believe it’s happening.[3]  Biden has failed in his number one duty as chief executive enforcing America’s laws.  This alone should be reason enough for Democrats to suffer withering losses in the midterms and to lose the White House decisively four years from now.”

• “[Biden] revoked the executive order cracking down on deadly sanctuary cities.  He has effectively ordered a shutdown of ICE, halting virtually all deportations, everyone, murderers, everybody, no more.  Let’s not [restrict] our law enforcement professionals.  And they are great professionals.  You have many of them represented here today, from conducting almost any immigration enforcement of any kind.  The Biden policy of releasing criminals into the US interior is making America into a sanctuary nation where criminals, illegal immigrants, including gang members and sex offenders are set free into American communities.  They have no idea who’s coming up.  And remember with the caravans, these countries, not only the three of them, but many, many countries all over the world.  They’re not giving us their best and their finest, because they’re intelligent. . . .  Remember I said that. I said that a long time ago. . . .  And we turned out to be 100% correct.  Biden’s radical immigration policies aren’t just illegal.  They’re immoral.  They’re heartless.  And they are a betrayal of our nation’s core values.  It’s a terrible thing that’s happening.  The Republican party must hold Joe Biden and the Democrats accountable.  They ripped up the diplomatic agreements we negotiated with Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to shut down illegal immigration.  They got a fortune, they got paid $500 million a year.  When I came into office, those countries were refusing to take back illegal alien gang members, including MS 13, the most vicious probably of them all.  No matter where you go in the world, MS 13, they do things that even the worst don’t think about.  So I asked how much do we pay these countries?  How much do we pay them? . . .  [A]pproximately $500 million a year.  It’s a lot of money.  I mean, it’s peanuts compared to the way other countries rip us off, but that’s a lot of money.  I said, ‘Okay, we aren’t going to pay them anymore because they wouldn’t take back the criminals.’  And this was true with the Obama administration.  It was true for many, many years.  So we’d catch a murderer.  We’d want to bring them back to Guatemala, or Honduras, or El Salvador.  They wouldn’t take them back.  ‘No, we don’t want them.’  We’d fly them in.  They wouldn’t let the plane land.  We’d bus them in.  They wouldn’t let the buses get anywhere near the border. . . .  And it worked out great.  So now they accept the people and [] we ultimately got along very well with those countries, those three countries and many countries throughout the world, because they respected us again.  They didn’t respect us.  They couldn’t believe what they were getting away with.  But now, Joe Biden has wrecked this great deal, wrecked it.  And they’re already doing what they were doing before and they’re taking the money.  And that’s just a small portion of what’s going on.   To top it all off, the Biden people are pushing a bill that would grant mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens while massively expanding chain migration.  That’s where you come in and everybody comes in, your grandmother, your father, your mother, your brother, your cousins.  They come in so easily.  So, so crazy.  So crazy.  It even requires that the US government provide . . . taxable funded lawyers, lawyers, everybody need[s] a good lawyer?  You can’t have one.  They get the lawyers. . . .  The Democrat immigration bill is a globalist corp.  You take a look at the corporatist, big tech attack on hardworking citizens of every race, religion, color, and creed.  And Republicans must ensure that it never is allowed to become federal law, which is what they want to do. . . .  Border security is just one of the many issues on which the new administration has already betrayed the American people.  [Biden] didn’t talk about this stuff.  I debated him.  He wasn’t talking about this.  What he signed with those executive orders, they weren’t things that were discussed. . . .  The press refused to ask the questions.  And when I asked the questions on television, on the debate, Chris Wallace, in this case, and others refused to let him answer.  They refused to let them answer the questions.  Maybe we could have found something.”

• “Or if the media did its job, which they don’t, [their] callous indifference to working family is equally clear when it comes to the critical matter of getting America’s children back to school.  And they must get back and get back right now, right now, crazy.  Terrible.  Terrible.  The Biden administration is actually bragging about the classroom education they are providing to migrant children on the border.  While at the same time, millions of American children are having their futures destroyed by Joe Biden’s anti-science school closures.  Think of it.  We’re educating students on the border, but our own people, children of our citizens, citizens themselves are not getting the education that they deserve.  There’s no reason whatsoever why the vast majority of young Americans should not be back in school immediately.  The only reason that most parents do not have that choice is because Joe Biden has sold out America’s children to the teacher’s unions.  His position is morally inexcusable.  You know that.  Joe Biden has shamefully betrayed America’s youth.  And he is cruelly keeping our children locked in their homes, no reason for it whatsoever.  They want to get out.  They’re cheating the next generations of Americans out of the future that they deserve.  And they do deserve this future.  They’re going to grow up and they’re going to have a scar.  It’s a scandal of the highest order.  And one of the most graven acts by any president in our lifetimes.  It’s the teacher’s union, it’s the votes and it shouldn’t happen.  And nobody has more respect for teachers than I do.  And I’ll bet you, a lot of the people within that union, they agree with everything I’m saying.  Even the New York Times is calling out the Democrats.  The mental and physical health of these young people is reaching a breaking point.  Tragically, suicide attempts have skyrocketed and student depression is now commonplace and at levels that we’ve never seen before.  The Democrats now say we have to pass their $1.9 trillion boondoggle to open schools, but a very small part of it has to do with that.  You know where it’s going . . . , it’s going to bail out badly run Democrats, that is so much of it.  But billions of dollars for schools remain unspent from the COVID relief bills that were passed last year.  So on behalf of the moms, dads, and children of America, I call on Joe Biden to get the schools open and get them open now.  They’re a great thing to do.”

• “When I left office and we’re very proud of this because this was something that they said could not be done.  The FDA said it, everybody said it.  Any article you read said it couldn’t be done.  It would be years and years[.]  I handed the new administration what everyone is now calling a modern day medical miracle.  Some say, it’s the greatest thing to happen in hundreds of years, two vaccines produced in record time with numerous others on the way, including the Johnson and Johnson vaccine that was approved just yesterday.  And therapeutic relief also, if you’re sick, we have things now that are incredible.  What has taken place over the last year under our administration would have taken any other [President] at least five years.  And we got it done in nine months.  Everyone says five years, oh, five years.  Can you imagine if you had to go through what all of the countries of the world who are now getting the vaccine or soon will be getting it from various companies, but can you imagine if all of those countries had to go through what they’ve been going through over the last year?  You’d lose hundreds of millions of people.  I pushed the FDA like they have never been pushed before.  They told me that loud and clear.  They have never been pushed like I pushed them.  I didn’t like them at all, but once we got it done, I said, I now love you very much.  What the Trump administration has done with vaccines has in many respects, perhaps saved large portions of the world.  Not only our country, but large portions of the world.  Not only did we push the FDA far beyond what the bureaucrats wanted to do.  We also put up billions and billions of dollars, 10 billion to produce the vaccines before we knew they were going to work.  It was called a calculated bet or a calculated risk.  We took a risk because if we didn’t do that, you still wouldn’t have the vaccines.  You wouldn’t have them for a long time.  So think of that, we took this bet.  We made a bet because we thought we were on a certain track, but you’d be starting to make them right now.  It’d be a long time before you ever saw [them].  It takes 60 to 100 days to manufacture and inspect new doses.  And that means that 100% of the increased availability that we have now was initiated by our administration.  100%.  In fact, the director of National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, he’s Fauci’s boss, actually, I think he’s a Democrat too, by the way, recently said that our operation warp speed was absolutely breathtaking and that the Trump administration deserves full credit, which we do.  And as conservatives and Republicans, never forget that we did it.  Never let them take the credit because they don’t deserve the credit.  They just followed now, they’re following our plan, but this has been something that they really call, they call it an absolute miracle.  Joe Biden is only implementing the plan that we put in place.  And if we had an honest media, which we don’t, they would say it loud and clear.  By the time I left that magnificent house at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, almost 20 million Americans had already been vaccinated.  1.5 million doses were administered on my final day alone.  1.5 million in a day.  Yet Biden said just a few days ago that when he got here, meaning The White House, there was no vaccine.  He said, there’s no vaccine.  Oh, good.  Say it again, Joe.  Now I don’t think he said that, frankly, in a malicious way.  I really don’t.  I actually believe he said that because he didn’t really know what the hell was happening.  Never let them forget.  This was us.  We did this.  And the distribution is moving along, according to our plan.  And it’s moving along really well.  We had the military, what they’ve done, our generals and all of the people, what they’ve done is incredible.  But remember, we took care of a lot of people, including, I guess on December 21st, we took care of Joe Biden.  Cause he got his shot.  He got his vaccine.  He forgot.  It shows you how un-painful all that vaccine shot is.  So everybody go get your shot.  He forgot so it wasn’t very traumatic obviously, but he got his shot and it’s good that he got his shot.”

• “Last year, I predicted to you that the extremism, corruption and incompetence of the Biden administration would be literally unprecedented in American history.  Unfortunately he has proven me 100% right.  Already as president, Biden has urged Congress to pass legislation shredding your Second Amendment.  Your Second Amendment is in far bigger trouble than you [know], and for four years I fought like hell to save your Second Amendment.  And we saved it 100%.  We saved it.  He signed an order to conduct politically correct far left indoctrination trainings in every department of the federal government, including the US military after I had terminated these horrible things that were being preached to our military and he wants it to go forward.  It’s insane within his first few hours Biden eliminated our national security travel [bans] on nations plagued by terrorism.  His first priority was to open our borders to un-vetted travelers from Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and many other countries where strict vetting cannot occur.  Countries that have tremendous problems.  Countries with tremendous terrorism problems.  We did [have] a travel ban.  It was a real achievement.  We told those countries, sorry, straighten out your act.  We don’t want people coming in where they had an ideology or a problem.  We just couldn’t have it.  And it was incredible, how it worked was incredible.  And he terminated it.  We had to get it approved.  It went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.  We got it approved and he terminates it.  In addition, he’s already increased refugee admissions by nearly 10 times, but in effect, it’ll soon be hundreds of times as millions of people flow up through our soon to be open borders.  And by the way, the border patrol and ICE, these are some of the great heroes of our country.  These are incredible people.  I got to know them very well.  Your families still cannot go out to eat at local restaurants.  But Joe Biden is bringing in thousands upon thousands of refugees from all over the world.  People that nobody knows anything about, we don’t have crime records.  We don’t have health records.  What are they bringing in with them?”

• “When I left office, we had virtually ended the endless wars, these endless wars, they go on forever. . . .  I would go to Dover and I would see caskets, coffins coming in.  I’d see the parents and the wives and husbands.  I would see the kids.  Endless wars, 19 years in Afghanistan.  We have it down to almost nothing left and I hear they might want to go back in.  Iraq, remember I used to say, don’t go in, but if you’re going to go in, keep the oil, well, we went in and we didn’t keep the oil.  We had made historic peace deals in the [M]iddle East.  Like nobody thought were even possible with not a drop of bloodshed.  And by the way, not one American soldier has been killed in Afghanistan in over a year.  Think of that.  Not one.  Those troops have largely come home.  At the same time, the new administration unilaterally withdrew our crippling sanctions on Iran, foolishly giving away all of America’s leverage[] before negotiations have even begun.  Leave the sanctions [to be] negotiated.  Does anybody understand what I’m saying here?  Are there any good business people?  You don’t have to be a good, are there any bad business people?  They took off the sanctions.  They took off the sanctions.  They say, well, we’re going to not have any sanctions.  Let’s negotiate a deal.  I don’t know, Matt Schlep. I don’t think you would have done that, do you think so, Matt?  I don’t think so. Mercedes wouldn’t have. . . .  I will tell you something and I said it, had we had a fair election, the results would have been much different and we would have had a deal with Iran within the first week.  They wanted those sanctions off.  [Biden] took them off for nothing, for nothing.  Now you watch how tough they negotiate.”

• “In another horrendous surrender he agreed to get back into the World Health Organization.  For approximately $500 million a year, which is what we were paying.  When I withdrew from the WHO and you know the whole story with that, they called it badly.  They really are puppets for China.  They called and they wanted us to stay in.  I said, how much are we paying[,] approximately $500 million?  How much is China paying a much larger in terms of population country[?]  Sir, they’re paying $39 million.  I say, why are we paying 500 million and they’re paying 39?  I could tell you why.  Because the people that made the deal are stupid, that’s why.  And I had no idea how popular it was.  I didn’t even know if I would be able to politically, because people were so happy when I did get out, but I said, so if we went in, we could get it for 39 million, which is what China [is paying], not 500 million, which is what we were stupidly paying.  And they said, we can make a deal, we want you to go in, we can make a deal.  Okay, and I decided not to do it, but we could have had it for 39.  We could have had it for the same as China.  And they decide now to go back into the World Health Organization and pay 500 million. . . .  [W]hat the hell is wrong with them?  No, no, this is just emblematic.  It’s a tremendous amount of money, but compared to trillions, it’s not, but it’s a tremendous amount of money.  Why would China pay 39 million?  And we’re paying almost 500 million.  Why?  So we could have made the same deal that China had 39 million.  And they just say, we’re going back in.  We’re going back into the World Health Organization.  They go back in, they pay 500.”

• “It is so sad, just like the Iran and the World Health Organization, Joe Biden put the United States back into the very unfair and very costly Paris Climate Accord without negotiating a better deal.  They wanted us so badly back in.  I’ll tell you they wanted us.  I was getting called from all of the countries.  You must come back into the Paris Accord.  I said, tell me why, give me one good reason.  First of all, China doesn’t kick in for 10 years, Russia goes by an old standard, which was not a clean standard . . . , but we get hit right from the beginning[.  It] would have cost us hundreds of thousands and millions of jobs.  It was a disaster, but they go back in, I could have made an unbelievable deal and gone back in, but I didn’t want to do that.  Surrendering millions of jobs and trillions of dollars to all of these other countries, almost all of them that were in the deal.  So they have favorable treatment, we don’t have favorable treatment.  And [Biden] just said, we’re going back in.  To go back in, they wanted us so badly, you could’ve negotiated, if you wanted to go back in which frankly, we have the cleanest air, the cleanest water and everything else that we’ve ever had.  So I don’t know why we have to.  What good does it do when we’re clean, but China is not and Russia is not an[d] India is not.  So they are pouring fumes, you know the world is actually a small piece of the universe, right?  They’re pouring fumes and we’re trying to protect everything and building products for three times more than is necessary.  No, they could have made a great deal.  If they were going to go back in, that’s fine.  But they could have made a great deal . . . , instead of just saying we’re back in.  These people.  And in one of his first official acts, which was incredible, because again, he talked about energy.  He never said he was going to do this.”

• “[Biden] canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline destroying not the 8,000 or the 9,000 or the 11,000 jobs that you hear.  But 42,000 great paying jobs on just about day one, right?  He never talked about that during a debate because he wouldn’t have gotten away with it.  Well, he would have, because they cheated so much. . . .  No, but that was not a topic of conversation.  Remember fracking, you can frack.  Oh, we love fracking.  During the primary no fracking.  As soon as he got through that, he said, no, of course everybody can frack.  No fracking.  You wait till you see what happens with your gasoline.  Wait till you see what happens and we cannot let this stuff continue to go on.  One of my proudest accomplishments as president was to make America energy independent, the United States became the number one energy superpower on Earth.  Number one.  Became number one.  Bigger than Saudi Arabia, bigger than Russia by a lot.  We left them all in the dust.  They were all in the dust.  But if the Democrats have their way, we are heading from energy dominance to energy disaster.  That’s what’s happening.  You have to see what’s going on.  Everything’s being closed up.  It’s a disaster.  The blackouts we saw in California last summer and all the time and the windmill calamity that we’re witnessing in Texas.  Great state of Texas.  We love Texas, but it’s so sad when you look at it, that’ll just be the start.  How bad is wind power.  So I talk about it all the time at CPAC, right?  We went to CPAC.  Remember last I said, we’re going to watch the president, well, Alice, the wind isn’t blowing.  I don’t believe we’ll have any electricity.  I remember we would kid, but I wasn’t actually kidding.  It’s such an expensive form of energy.  It’s so bad for the environment.  It kills the birds.  It destroys the landscapes.  And remember, these are structural columns with fans on them.  They wear out, and when they wear out all over the country, you see them, nobody takes them down.  They’re rotting. They’re rusting, how this is environmentally good for our country.  And it costs many, many times more than natural gas, which is clean and can fuel our great factories.  Wind can’t do that.  And solar, I love solar, but it doesn’t have the capacity to do what we have to do to make America great again, sorry it just doesn’t have it.  Under the radical Democrat policies, the price of gasoline has already surged 30% since the election.  And we’ll go to $5, $6, $7 and even higher.  So enjoy that when you go to the pump and they’ll say that’d be about $200 to fill up your van.  Remember they used to go to the little small vans.  They got away from the big ones that everybody wanted.  They went to the small ones.  Well, you know what?  Probably a good investment.  As long as these guys have their say because you know, it’s a shame what’s happening.  Energy prices are going to go through the roof.  And that includes your electric bills.  That includes any bill having to do with energy, our biggest cost.  We will now be relying on Russia and the middle East for oil.  And they talk about Russia, Russia, Russia.  What’s better than what this guy has done for Russia.  I had oil where they were actually paying you to take it.  Okay.  Remember they were going to give you 37 a barrel, but you had to take it away.  You had free oil almost for a period of time and one way I was proud of it, but we also had to save the energy industry and it worked out well.  And I dealt with Russia and Saudi Arabia and they cut back on production and we got it back up.  But now it’s going the opposite because now they are taking this incredible energy independence away from the people of our country.  And you’re going to see costs go like you have never seen them go before.  It’s a very sad and very stupid thing that they’re doing.  The Biden policies are a massive win for other oil producing countries and a massive loss for the United States and our great citizens[.]

• “Joe Biden and the Democrats are even pushing policies that would destroy women’s sports.  A lot of new records are being broken in women’s sports.  Hate to say that ladies, but got a lot of new records, they’re being shattered.  For years, the weightlifting, every ounce is like a big deal for many years.  All of a sudden somebody comes along and beats it by a hundred pounds.  Boom.  Now young girls and women are . . . being forced to compete against those who are biological males.  It’s not good for women.  It’s not good for women’s sports, which worked so long and so hard to get to where they are.  The records that stood for years, even decades are now being smashed with these.  Smashed.  If this is not change[d, ] women’s sports, as we know it will die.  They’ll end, it’ll end.  What coach, if I’m a coach, I want to be a great coach.  What coach, as an example, wants to recruit a young woman to compete, if her record can easily be broken by somebody who was born a man.  Not too many of those coaches around, right?  If they are around, they won’t be around long because they’re going to have a big problem when that record is we’re [zero] and 16, but we’re getting better.  No I think it’s crazy.  I think it’s just crazy what’s happening.  We must protect the integrity of women’s sports so important. . . .  And I don’t even know, is that controversial?  Somebody said, well, that’s going to be very controversial.  I said, that’s okay.  You haven’t heard anything yet.”

• “As you can see, the early weeks of the Biden administration have [been] nothing less than, they’ve been a catastrophe for American workers and for American families, the task of our mission.  And for us, it’s our movement.  As I said, a movement like has never been seen, I think we could probably say, never been seen anywhere in the world.  And nobody’s ever seen a movement like this.  I’d grow up and I’d watch somebody who came in second in New Hampshire or first in Iowa and that was the end.  And they became famous for the rest of their lives.  We won the election twice.  I mean, think about it, twice.  The task for our movement and our party is to stand up to this destructive agenda with confidence and with result[s.  T]he future of the Republican party is as a party that defends the social economic and cultural interests and values of working American families of every race, color, and creed.  That’s why the party is growing so rapidly and is becoming a different party.  And it’s becoming a party of love.  You have to see outside the streets.  I mean, there’s such love.  The flags.  Amazing.  That’s right now, it’s a party that’s incredible.  The people, the spirit, and there are, as you probably heard a little while ago, I mean, there’s more spirit now than there’s ever been, including even before the election, more spirit now than we’ve ever seen, because people are seeing how bad it can be.  And again, I want to thank Rush and Catherine, because what he did to get the word out has been incredible.  Some people are irreplaceable as Sean Hannity would say and he said Rush is irreplaceable, but his spirit lives on.  And that’s something that we need and we love.  Republicans believe that the needs of every citizen must come first.  In fact, America must come first. []  They don’t put it first.  Over the past four years my administration delivered for Americans of all backgrounds like never before, like never before.  We built the strongest economy in the history of the world, raised wages and achieved the lowest African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American unemployment rates ever, ever, ever recorded.  It was so great for everybody of all backgrounds that even after the China virus, we are leading the world.  Nobody’s even close.  We’re leading it in the comeback.  Our economic comeback has been incredible.  That’s because the financial and economic foundation we built was so strong, that unlike other countries who are having a hard time, we didn’t break.  We came roaring back, and now our stock market and your 401(k)s are again at record levels, higher than ever before, actually.”

• “Many people have asked, ‘What is Trumpism?’  A new term being used more and more.  I’m hearing that term more and more.  I didn’t come up with it.  But what it means is great deals, great trade deals. Great ones, not deals where we give away everything, our jobs, our money, like the USMCA replacement of the horrible NAFTA.  NAFTA was one of the worst deals ever made, probably the worst trade deal ever made, and we ended it.  A lot of people forget, we ended it.  Now we have the USMCA-Mexico-Canada.  It’s incredible what it’s done for our farmers, who are doing fantastically.  Did you see grain prices and grain sales are at an all-time high?  Wheat, all-time high.  So many elements of farms and farmers, and they love me.  Remember, it’s going to be very close in Iowa.  Well, it wasn’t close.  We won in a landslide, Iowa, because our farmers know, and they put up with it, and we did a lot of work with the tariffs and all these things that we had to do to get it.  Now the farmers are doing great, but they’re setting records.  It means low taxes and eliminating job-killing regulations, Trumpism.  It means strong borders, but people coming into our country based on a system of merit.  They come in and they can help us, as opposed to coming here and not being good for us, including criminals, of which there are many.  It means no riots in the streets.  It means law enforcement.  It means very strong protection for the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.  It means support for the forgotten men and women who have been taken advantage of for so many years.  They were doing great.  They were doing great before that horrible thing from China came in and hit us, and now they’re starting to do really well again.  If you think about it, we built the economy twice.  We built it then, and then like every other country in the world, it went down, and then we built it again.  Now it’s higher in many ways, certainly in the stock market, it’s higher in many ways than it was before.  That’s because of the foundation, and no country comes even close to competing with our comeback.  It means a strong military and taking care of our vets, but a strong military, which we have totally rebuilt.  We have rebuilt it.  Our military has never been stronger than it is today.  It was tired.  It was depleted.  It was obsolete.  Now we have the best brand-new equipment ever made, and it was all produced right here in the USA.  Isn’t that nice?  We take care of our vets.  We had a poll recently just before leaving office.  The vets had a 91% approval rating for the way we took care of them.  That’s the highest number in the history of the polls, the vet polls.  On top of all of that, we have even created the Space Force, the first new branch of the United States military in nearly 75 years.  The mission of the Democrat party is to promote socialism.  They want to promote socialism, ultimately leading, unfortunately, to communism, and that will happen.  If you look at Venezuela, you look at some of these countries, that’s why some of our biggest supporters are from South America, Latin America, because they’ve seen what goes on with all of this cancel culture, and you can’t speak, and let’s cut them off and let’s not give them words.  The mission of our movement and of the Republican party must be to create a future of good jobs, strong families, safe communities, a vibrant culture, and a great nation for all Americans, and that’s what we’re creating.  [The Democratic] party is based upon unvarnished disdain for America, its past and its people.  You see that happening.  It’s horrible the way they treat the legacy of our country, the culture of our country.  Our party is based on love for America and the belief that this is an exceptional nation, blessed by God.  We take great pride in our country.  We teach the truth about history.  We celebrate our rich heritage and national traditions.  We honor George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and all national heroes, and of course, we respect our great American flag. . . .  [D]uring some of the rallies, especially the latter rallies, where we set records.  We had 56 unbelievable packed rallies, and nobody’s ever had anything like we had.  We started hearing, ‘We love you.’  I asked somebody, because we really liked Ronald Reagan.  He was a great President.  We had others, but I said, ‘Did anybody ever say that to Ronald Reagan or to any of our great . . . ”  [A]nd to the best of all of these political professionals’ knowledge and pollsters’, nobody’s ever heard that chant before, Matt, so it’s an honor.  Believe me, it’s an honor.  It’s a great honor.  It’s a great honor.  When you think about, we love you, you say that about, I hate to say it, am I a politician?  I don’t know.  Maybe I’m a politician.  I hate to admit it, but that’s really… It’s an honor that you would say it.  We believe in patriotic education and strongly oppose the radical indoctrination of America’s youth.  It’s horrible.  We are committed to defending innocent life and to upholding the Judeo-Christian values of our founders and of our founding.  We embrace free thought.  We stand up to political correct[ness], and we reject left-wing lunacy, and in particular, we reject cancel culture.  We know that the rule of law is the ultimate safeguard.  We affirm that the Constitution means exactly what it says, as written[. . . . ]  They want to change it.  They want to get rid of it, frankly.  We believe in law and order.  We believe that the men and women of law enforcement are heroes who truly deserve our absolute support.  We don’t defund the police.  We are not defunding the police.  We believe in standing up to China, shutting down, outsourcing, bringing back our factories and supply chains and ensuring that America, not China, dominates the future of the world.  That’s what’s going to happen.  By the way, we took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China during my administration, hundreds.  They never gave us 25 cents.  It was a one-way street.  We took in hundreds of billions.  During negotiations, they would say, ‘Look, the one thing, we don’t want any more of these tariffs, these tariffs.’  Those tariffs, we took in so much money, and what happened is, they became competitive.  What happened with people, they wouldn’t go to China.  They’d build a lot of it back in our country.  They would make it here instead.  In addition to that, we were taking in billions and billions and billions of dollars from China.  But in all fairness to China, we made a trade deal with them.  This was prior to COVID.  Once COVID happened, I no longer cared so much about the trade deal, because what happened with that was just disgraceful.  But that’s one of the things, that’s one of the reasons that right now our farmers are doing so good.  I used to tell China, ‘Look, look, go and get a lot of wheat. Get a lot of different things, all of the things we just talked about, you better go out and do it, because this country has not been treated fairly by you for many, many years, many, many years.’  We used to lose $504 billion trade deficit with China, 504, not million.  $504 million is a lot, right?  You know that through the World Health Organization.  Now take 504 million and make it $504 billion, we had deficits with China.  It was absolutely insane that this could keep going.  It’s amazing that you still have a country left.  The people that did this to our country, they should be ashamed of themselves.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Companies that leave America to create jobs in China and other countries that have ripped us off for years should not be rewarded.  They should be tariffed, fined and punished.  They should not be rewarded.  That’s what the Biden administration is doing.  But of course, as you know, they have a very close, personal relationship with China, so I don’t expect much to happen.  It’s a shame, because it really is a threat.  It’s a tremendous economic threat.  Thank God we’ve rebuilt our military, but it’s a tremendous economic threat.  Never forget it.  These are the convictions that define our movement today and must define the Republican party in the years ahead.  Very simple, it’s really quite simple, isn’t it?”

• “Another one of the most urgent issues facing the Republican party is that of ensuring fair, honest and secure elections.  Such a disgrace, such a disgrace, such a disgrace.  We must pass comprehensive election reforms, and we must do it now.  The Democrats used the China virus as an excuse to change all of the election rules without the approval of their state legislatures, making it therefore illegal and had a massive impact on the election.  Again, you have to go to the legislatures to get these approvals.  This alone would have easily changed the outcome of the election at levels that you wouldn’t have even believed.  Even with COVID, even with all of the things, the numbers are staggering.  We can never let this or other abuses of the 2020 election be repeated or happen again, can never let that happen again.  You see what’s going on.  We’ve been set back so greatly with other countries and with the world.  We need election integrity and election reform immediately.  Republicans should be the party of honest elections that can give everyone confidence in the future of our country.  Without honest elections, who has confidence?  Who has confidence?  This issue is being studied and examined.  But the reality is you cannot have a situation where ballots are indiscriminately pouring in from all over the country, tens of millions of ballots.  Where are they coming from?  They’re coming all over the place, where illegal aliens and dead people are voting, and many other horrible things are happening that are too voluminous to even mention, but people know.  I mean, it’s being studied, and the level of dishonesty is not to be believed.  We have a very sick and corrupt electoral process that must be fixed immediately.  This election was rigged, and the Supreme Court and other courts didn’t want to do anything about it.  If you just take that one element where they didn’t go through legislatures, it’s illegal. You can’t do it.  It’s in the Constitution.  They didn’t have the courage, the Supreme Court.  They didn’t have the courage to act, but instead, used process and lack of standing.  I was told the President of the United States has no standing.  It’s my election.  It’s your election.  We have no standing.  If you’re think of it, we had almost 20 states go into the Supreme Court so that we didn’t have a standing problem.  They rejected it.  They rejected it.  They should be ashamed of themselves for what they’ve done to our country.  They didn’t have the guts or the courage to make the right decision.  They didn’t want to talk about it.  You had the case led by the great State of Texas.  18 states went in, ‘You don’t have standing.  Oh, let’s not talk about it.’  They didn’t have the guts to do what should be done, and that’s on top of all of the other forms of cheating.  But this is the most basic of all, they would have local courts and local politicians change the rules, in some cases, a day or two before the election.  This should never be allowed to happen to another presidential candidate or presidential race, should never be allowed to happen.  Today I want to outline the steps that we must take to have an election system in this country that is honest, fair and accurate.  We need one election day, not 45, 30, one day like it’s been.  The Republicans don’t get this and the other things I’m going to say, that you should, like the Supreme Court, be ashamed of yourselves.  One day, one day, and the only people that should be allowed to vote by mail are people that can be proven to be either very sick, or out of the country, or military where they can’t do it.  One day.  They have millions and millions of ballots sitting around all over the place for long periods of time.  Gee, I wonder what happens with those ballots?  I wonder what happens?  It’s common sense.  It’s a disgrace.  It’s an absolute disgrace.  There should be a legitimate reason for someone to vote absentee, has to have a reason.  We should eliminate the insanity of mass and very corrupt mail-in voting.  We must have voter ID, voter ID.  To get into the Democrat National Convention, when they had the convention, you needed voter ID.  You needed an ID card.  You couldn’t get in unless you had an ID.  So many people told me you can’t get in that place.  You need ID.  Nobody had ID.  You need voter ID.  They know that.  There’s a con job.  They’re conning everybody.  They know that.  They know the wall was good.  They knew the wall would work, but they didn’t want to have it, because we wanted it.  I made one big mistake in the wall.  I should have said, ‘We will not have a wall.’  Then they would have said, ‘Let’s build a wall.’  I made a big mistake.  I made a big mistake.  I’m sorry.  It took us a year and a half extra.  Because of that mistake, we will not have a wall.  ‘We need a wall immediately,’ said Chuck Schumer.  We need universal signature matching.  They want to pass a bill where you don’t have to match signatures, where signatures don’t mean anything.  Now they know it, just like with the wall, just like with voter ID, when you need to go into anything that’s Democrat run, you need it.  But for voting, which is our most sacred institution, you don’t.  They don’t want to let you have it.  There should be a 100% requirement to verify the citizenship of every person who votes, and there must be a chain of custody protections for every ballot, every ballot.  You saw what happened in Detroit and Philadelphia and many other places, swing states mostly, all over, but swing states mostly.  You saw what happened?  You saw what was going on.  You saw that more people…  You take a look at the votes.  When you have more votes than you have people, that’s a problem, right?  Is that a problem?  We have a little problem adjusting in Detroit.  We seem to have more votes than we have people, a lot more votes, an election-changing number.  We’re not talking about a number where you catch…  No, these are election-changing numbers.  In Pennsylvania, they had hundreds of thousands of more votes than they had people voting.  What’s that all about?  What’s that all about?  Cheating, they say.  Yeah, I’d say so.  In the history of our country, and it has taken place for years in Pennsylvania, in Detroit and various other places, but there’s tremendous, never like this, because they used COVID as a way of cheating.  That’s what happened, and everybody knows it.  Hundreds of thousands and millions of ballots, they used it as a way of getting what they’ve wanted for many years, and the Republicans have to do something about it.  They’d better do something about it.  Our election process is worse than that, in many cases, of a third-world country.  You know that.  You saw what was going on.  Even if you consider nothing else, it is undeniable that election rules were illegally changed at the last minute in almost every swing state, with the procedures rewritten by local politicians… you’re not allowed to do that… and local judges.  They want more time.  They want this.  They want that.  All done by local politicians or local judges, as opposed to state legislatures as required by the Constitution of the United States.  These are numbers that are massive.  These aren’t little numbers.  These are numbers that in each state is a transformative number.  It changes the outcome of the election, and it’s not close.  Regardless of your political views, this should concern you as a constitutional matter.  The Supreme court, again, didn’t have the guts or the courage to do anything about it, and neither did other judges.[4]  Democrats even admitted in Time Magazine, which is I would say on the liberal side, that they couldn’t…  They couldn’t hold it in.  They had to brag about it, because what they did, they had a brag about it.  They couldn’t do it.  You got to read this story.  It’s a disaster.  It’s a disaster for our country that we can allow something so corrupt to happen.  Read that article.  I really encourage you.  You read that article.”

• “Yet all of the election integrity measures in the world will mean nothing if we don’t have free speech.  That’s where we’re at now.  If Republicans can be censored for speaking the truth and calling out corruption, we will not have [a] democracy, and we will have only left-wing tyranny.  We can do this.  We can do this.  We’re smarter than they are.  We’re tougher than they are.  For some reason, we just don’t . . . get it done.  We let them attack our businesses, and we don’t attack their businesses.  I believe your numbers are bigger than their numbers, but you’re nicer than they are.  You’re not as vicious as they are.  In the past, we would debate.  I would have it.  I’d debate.  You’ve seen me for many years.  They’d throw something.  I debate.  They debate.  Who knows who wins.  People go.  They vote.  They see what happens, but they would have an idea.  They would disagree.  The public would hear it.  The debate and discourse would take place, and then somebody would make a decision.  You would win.  You would lose.  The public would make up its mind.  But now there is no debate, because they refuse to allow our side to even speak or be heard. . . .  They don’t want [to] debate, because we have easy victories in a debate, very easy victories.  It’s is called common sense.  It’s called other things, but it’s called common sense.  So they don’t want a debate.  The time has come to break up big tech monopolies and restore fair competition.  Republicans, conservatives must open up our platforms and repeal section 230 liability protections.  And if the federal government refuses to act, then every state in the union where we have the votes, which is a lot of them, big tech giants, like Twitter, Google, and Facebook should be punished with major sanctions whenever they silence conservative voices.[5]  And governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and in Texas and in other States are doing this.  If they do what they’re doing, Florida, and that legislation will pass.  And Texas and others will have tremendous power to do what’s right and what’s fair.  We have no time to waste, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress are racing to pass a flagrantly unconstitutional attack on the first amendment and the integrity of our elections known as HR 1.  Do you know what HR 1 is?  It’s a disaster.  Their bill would drastically restrict political speech, empower [] the federal government to shut down decent [speech].  And turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan political weapon.  In addition, it virtually eliminates voter ID requirements nationwide, effectively ends all registration deadlines.  Can you believe this?  Requires States to give ballots to felons, automatically registers every welfare recipient to vote, and puts unaccountable unelected bureaucrats in charge of drawing congressional districts.  That’s going to be a lot of fun.  This monster must be stopped.  It cannot be allowed to pass.  Now more than ever is the time for tough strong and energetic Republican leaders who have spines of steel.  We need strong leadership.  We cannot have leaders who show more passion for condemning their fellow Americans than they have ever shown for standing up to Democrats, the media, and the radicals who want to turn America into a socialist country.  Instead of attacking me and more importantly the voters of our movement, top establishment Republicans in Washington should be spending their energy in opposing Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and the Democrats.  I’ve said to some of them, I said, ‘You know, during the Obama years, and now during Biden, if you spent the same energy on attacking them, you’d actually be successful as you do on attacking me, in many cases.’  The Democrats don’t have grandstanders like Mitt Romney, little Ben Sasse, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Pat Toomey, and in the house, Tom Rice, South Carolina, Adam Kinzinger, Dan Newhouse, Anthony Gonzalez.  That’s another beauty.  Fred Upton, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Peter Meyer, John Katko, David Valadao.  And of course the warmonger, a person that loves seeing our troops fighting, Liz Cheney.  How about that?  The good news is in her state, she’s been censured, and in her state, her poll numbers have dropped faster than any human being I’ve ever seen.  So hopefully they’ll get rid of her with the next election.  Get rid of them all.  Democrats are vicious.  Remember this, it’s true.  Democrats are vicious.  He said evil, well, there is evil there, but they’re vicious, they’re smart, and they do one thing.  You got to hand it to them.  They always stick together.  You don’t have Mitt Romney’s in the group. They always stick together.  Fortunately, for the Republican party, the Democrats have horrible policies like open borders, sanctuary cities, defunding the police, and the ridiculous, totally ridiculous green new deal.  So, they stick together, they’re smart.  They’re vicious, they got everything going, but their policies are no good.  So hence, we have, congratulations, the Republican party.  After this, they may not stick with those policies.  We have to be careful.  No, their policies are horrible.  Think of it, defund the police.  How did that work out?  But if Republicans do not stick together, the rhinos that we’re surrounded with will destroy the Republican party and the American worker, and will destroy our country itself, the rhinos, Republican in name only, but the Republican party is united.  The only division is between a handful of Washington DC establishment political hacks, and everybody else all over the country.”

• “I think we have tremendous unity.  When you look at the crowds outside that want your seats so badly, they will take your seat in two seconds.  They want your seat.  Congratulations.  Congratulations on getting in by the way.  I’m very impressed.  And that’s why I’m announcing that I will be actively working to elect strong, tough and smart Republican leaders.  Speaking of that, I heard Jim Jordan did a great job.  Right?  Thank you.  I heard that from Mark Meadows.  I heard it, oh, there he is.  Look at that. Hi Jim.  I heard you were great.  In fact, I hated to follow you.  I want to follow other people.   I could name them too.  I like to follow other people.  I heard you were great.  Thank you Jim, very much.  Jim Jordan.  A great, great athlete.  People don’t know he was a great wrestler, tremendous numbers of victories.  He was a champion.  He was college champion for a long period of time.  He’s a winner and a leader and he doesn’t play games.  He likes to win.  He likes to win.  And we have a lot of people in our party that like to win Jim, right?  But I heard you were great, thank you very much.  But we want Republican leaders who are loyal to the voters and who will work proudly for the vision that I’ve laid out today.  And what is it?  So simple, right?  So simple, military, law and order, great trade deals, great education.  So simple.”

• “I don’t, does anybody get it?  What are they doing?  Does anybody get it?  It has just been stated that President Trump’s endorsement is the most powerful asset in politics.  Do you believe that?  Who would’ve thought that was going to happen?  Who would have thought that’s going to happen, Jim?  In last year’s congressional primaries, 120, listen to this, it’s crazy. 120 of 122 candidates I endorsed won, 120.  That’s almost as good as Jim’s wrestling record.  And the two that lost were beaten by people claiming to be more Trump than their opponent.  So I like those two people very much also.  In the Senate, I was undefeated in endorsements with a record of 21 and 0, my endorsement of Mitch McConnell, at his request[. . . . ]  Now, he made a request.  He asked for my endorsement, brought him from one point down to 20 points up, and he won his race in the great state, and actually the great Commonwealth of Kentucky.  And he won it very easily.  And I said, ‘I wonder if I’m doing the right thing here.’  But you know what?  I did what I did.  But he went from one point down to 20 points up very quickly, immediately actually.  And he won his race.  And if you compare that to his other elections, I’m sure you’ll see something interesting.  But you know what?  We got a Republican elected.  And now we have to use Republicans to take care of the election frauds and all of the other things that are happening that shouldn’t be allowed to happen in our country.  It’s very simple.  Because of my efforts campaigning, we had huge gains in the House, and I helped keep many senators in their seats, and they will admit it, so that it’s now 50/50, instead of Republicans being down anywhere from eight to 10 seats.  And they’ll admit it, we’d be down eight to 10 seats if I didn’t campaign.  We held rallies for some of the senators that were down.  And nobody talks about that.  Nobody wants to talk, the press doesn’t talk about it.  With me at the top of the ticket, not a single Republican member of Congress lost their race for the first time in decades.  We won 26 of 26 toss up races.  Toss up. . . .  Those are races that could go any way.  We were expected to lose 25 seats, and instead we won 15 seats, and almost, oh, why couldn’t we have done a couple of more, almost cost crazy Nancy her job.  We’ll do that the next time around.  I received almost, listen to this number, because you know, the fake news doesn’t ever talk about these numbers.  I just heard this one for the first time.  I received almost 1.5 million more votes than all of the Republican House candidates combined.  So how the hell is it possible that we lost?  It’s not possible.  I got more votes.  I got more, which is me, when I say I, I’m talking about we.  We, we got more votes than any incumbent, any incumbent president in the history of our country, almost 75 million votes.  And that doesn’t include the votes and ballots they threw out.  If you include them, you’ll see numbers that are much different.  We did even better in the second election than we did in the first, you know I won the first?  And we won the second, we did much better.  Sort of strange, right? . . .  Well, we did much better the second time.  Oh, you did?  Really?  What a disgrace, what a disgrace to our country.  I got over 11 million, very close to 12 million more votes than we got in 2016.  And I was told by John McLaughlin that if you, the great pollster, that if you get to, we had 63 in 2016, 63 million.  Sir, if you get to 66 million, you have it made.  We got to almost 75 million.  Then what the hell happened?  What happened?  What happened when they closed all of the counting booths?  What happened at 3:00 in the morning?  What happened at 3:02 in the morning?  What happened?  No president has ever lost an election after carrying Florida, Ohio, and Iowa.  And I won them all.  And I won them by a lot.  By a lot.  I won 94% of the primary vote, no incumbent president who received more than 75% of the primary vote has ever lost an election.  I had a record number, and no president has ever, ever, and we’re talking about a much lower number than we got, has ever lost an election.  Thanks to my coattails, thank you.  We have to have a sense of humor.  Thanks to my coattails, democrats failed to flip a single state legislature.  Think of it, or a legislative chamber, because Republicans came out to vote for me.  Now they say it differently.  The press, the fake news spins it differently.  They say, ‘Despite how well they did, Trump didn’t win.’  That’s such a lie.  And many legislators, many legislators told me, they said, they were going to lose their race.  It wasn’t going to happen. And then what happened is one in particular told me from a great swing state, said, ‘You know, I thought I was going to lose my position, lose my race.  And I went out with my wife the night before the election.  And I saw all these Trump signs and the American flags and the spirits on the streets.’  I said, ‘You know, darling, I think we’re going to win.’  He said, ‘But you were far, far, far more popular than me.’  They do lots of polls.  You were way, way ahead of me, sir.  And the next day I was right.  He said, he won the election by a lot, and you lost the election.  And sir, it’s not possible that you lost, because you got a lower number than I did. And you were so far ahead of me.  You’re the person that brought everybody out to vote.  And I happen to agree with that 1,000%.  [N]ever forget that conversation.  He couldn’t believe it.  And I’ve heard it from more than one.  And in November, 18 of 19 bellwether counties, you heard about the bellwether counties?  18 of 19 bellwether counties that have correctly predicted every presidential election election for decades.  Many decades, voted for Trump, not for Biden.  And it was a shocker to those people that go for the stats.  It was a shocker.  They voted for Trump, 18 of 19 voted for Trump.  There’s never been anything like that.  And yet did Biden win?  No.  If you want to help us take back the future of our country, go to DonaldJTrump.com.  I don’t do this.  I’ve never done this, but it’s time that we have to put forces together, because these people with their big tech and their fake news media right back there, okay?  And you know, when you talk about election, they . . . probably have them going, because they also care about ratings.  But when they talk about election, they turn off the cameras.  You know why?  It’s a very sore subject, okay?  They don’t like that subject.  There’s only one way to contribute to our efforts, to elect America first Republican conservatives, and in turn to make America great again, and that’s through Save America, PAC, and DonaldJTrump.com.  So go out there and do whatever you can because we’re going to help a lot of great people.  We know the right people to help.  We need your help to win, and to fight big tech and the radical left and the DC establishment.  We need to save your second amendment, which is under siege.  We need to help protect funding for our military and for our great vets.  And that’s what we’re doing.  As we discussed earlier, we’re in a struggle for the survival of America as we know it.  This is a struggle.  This is a terrible, terrible, painful struggle.  The path ahead will not be easy, but we will win.  We are going to win.  Ultimately we always win.  And when we do, history will show that this was the moment when we could have given up, when we could have despaired.  But instead, we chose to keep on pushing forward.  The greater the challenge and tougher the task, the more determined we must be to pull through to triumph.  We have to have triumph.  We have to have victory.  With the talent and dedication of everyone here today, and you have tremendous, not only dedication, tremendous talent in this room.  I know many of you.  That is exactly what we will do.  We will go on to victory.  We will summon the spirit of generations of American Patriots before us, like those heroes who crossed the Delaware, conquered the Rockies, stormed the beaches, won the battles, and tamed the unknown frontiers.  We will persist, and we will prevail.  We’re tougher than they are.  We’re stronger than they are.  Together, in the coming years, we will carry forward the torch of American Liberty.  We will lead the conservative movement and the Republican party back to a totally conclusive victory.  And we’ve had tremendous victories.  Don’t ever forget it.  With your help, we will take back the House.  We will win the Senate.  And then, a Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House.  And I wonder who that will be?  I wonder who that will be?  Who, who, who will that be?  I wonder.  Standing before you today, I am supremely confident that for our movement, for our party, and for our country, our brightest days are just ahead.  And that together we will make America prouder, freer, stronger and greater than it ever has been before.  Thank you CPAC, God bless you, and God bless America.  Thank you all.  Thank you.”

What President Trump did not mention explicitly—and understandably so, because he must get back in power first—are (1) the need to crush China economically, because it unleashed the deadly Coronavirus pandemic on the world, which has created so much suffering physically, psychologically and economically; (2) the need to crush Facebook, as the leading suppressor of free speech in the nation, so it becomes a hollow shell of what it is today; (3) the need to close our borders tight, and eject the illegal aliens who take jobs from Americans that are desperately in need of work to survive; (4) the Democrats gave us slavery, and tried to perpetuate it even after our Civil War through the KKK, segregation and later Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs that destroyed black families and consigned them to economic servitude; and (5) the thugs, slugs, hoods and mongrels of “Black Lives Matter,” Antifa and other far-Left groups have burned our cities, killed or hurt innocent Americans including our police, and destroyed black and other businesses, yet the Democrats have routinely praised and coddled these insidious groups.

 

Trump at CPAC 2021

 

© 2021, Timothy D. Naegele

_____

 

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see, e.g., Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-cpac-speech-2021-b1809208.html (“Donald Trump CPAC speech 2021 – read the full transcript | The Independent”) and https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-cpac-2021-speech-transcript (“Trump CPA speech transcript”)

[3]  See, e.g., https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9317541/At-12-people-dead-multiple-vehicle-crash-California.html (“At least 15 dead and 12 injured after Ford SUV ‘with 27 immigrants crammed inside’ crashes into a gravel truck near the Mexican border in California”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/the-high-tech-lynching-of-donald-trump/ (“The High-Tech Lynching Of Donald Trump”) (see also the comments beneath the article)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2021/02/25/facebook-is-engaged-in-criminal-censorship/ (“Facebook Is Engaged In Criminal Censorship”)

 





Facebook Is Engaged In Criminal Censorship

25 02 2021

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

One of the many byproducts of the Democrats’ rigging of the 2020 elections, and the “defeat” of Donald Trump, is that there will be no limits in the foreseeable future to unconscionable political censorship by Facebook.[2]  There is no legal recourse now except to sue Facebook, its principals and employees (including its Chinese nationals), which would cost an arm and a leg.  And in all likelihood, some Liberal judge—or the lawless “Justices” of our Supreme Court[3]—would decide against the plaintiff.  The cost of litigation alone is prohibitive, which means that as a practical matter it would be an exercise in futility, in all likelihood. 

I have friends who have been brutally censored by Facebook, and banned from the Website for weeks if not months.  I laughed about it, until it happened to me.  Now I can appreciate fully what political censorship by American Websites is all about, and why it must be stopped.  Otherwise, we may witness what George Orwell described in his prescient “Animal Farm,” where all of the animals were equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals—and their freedoms were desecrated.[4]

In my case, Facebook’s censorship began “innocuously” last year, but it came to a head on February 22, 2021, when the cross-referencing of my posting at another Website served as the basis for a 7-day “expulsion” from Facebook.  A friend in New York has been “banned” for longer than that; and the next step for Facebook’s “minders” was to ban him from the Website entirely.  Thus, they accomplished their goal of effectively intimidating and silencing him.  I have not agreed with everything that he says, but he is very intelligent and articulate; and his voice is important today and always.  So is that of every American.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to our wonderful Constitution prevents the government from making laws that would abridge the freedom of speech.[5]  However, “Section 230” or 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(2) provides “‘Good Samaritan’ protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services [such as Facebook] in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.”[6] The elimination of this law is long overdue.

I have appealed twice to something called the “Oversight Board,” alleging “Gross And Unconscionable Political Censorship” and “My Comment Should Be Allowed Under Freedom Of Speech.”  In both cases, the response was “Not selected for review.”  Are the only alternatives (1) to shut down Facebook completely, (2) to repeal Section 230, or to (3) boycott Facebook and other Websites that abridge Americans’ cherished freedom of speech?  Clearly, China’s Communist rulers in Beijing are loving this, which moves them that much closer to global domination by the end of this decade.[7]

 

© 2021, Timothy D. Naegele

_____

 

[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see, e.g., Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/is-google-becoming-microsoft-or-worse/#comment-14975 (“Has Amazon Joined The Ranks Of Google And Facebook In Despicable Leftist Censorship?”)

[3]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2021/02/23/finally-clarence-thomas-opens-his-mouth/ (“Finally, Clarence Thomas Opens His Mouth”) and https://www.newsmax.com/politics/clarence-thomas-election-law-scotus-voter-fraud/2021/02/22/id/1011008/ (“Justice Thomas Blisters Court on Rejecting Election Cases”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/the-high-tech-lynching-of-donald-trump/ (“The High-Tech Lynching Of Donald Trump”) (see also the comments beneath the article) and https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/supreme-court-rejects-trump-effort-to-shield-tax-records-from-ny-prosecutors.html (“Supreme Court rejects Trump effort to shield tax records from NY prosecutors”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/the-u-s-supreme-court-is-a-tragic-pathetic-joke/ (“The U.S. Supreme Court Is A Tragic, Pathetic Joke”) and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9287073/Supreme-Court-says-Manhattan-prosecutors-Donald-Trumps-tax-returns.html (“Trump calls NY’s Democrat DA Cy Vance a ‘headhunter’ as he slams SCOTUS ruling that forces him to hand over tax returns in fraud probe – calling it ‘a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our country’”) and https://www.nysun.com/national/justice-thomas-in-a-fiery-dissent-illuminates/91427/ (“Justice Thomas, In a Fiery Dissent, Marks Need for Election Reform”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2021/01/13/the-day-america-died/ (“The Day America Died?”)

[4]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”)

[5]  See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (“First Amendment to the United States Constitution”)

[6]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 (“Section 230”)

[7]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2021/01/13/the-day-america-died/ (“The Day America Died?”)





Finally, Clarence Thomas Opens His Mouth

23 02 2021

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

See https://www.newsmax.com/politics/clarence-thomas-election-law-scotus-voter-fraud/2021/02/22/id/1011008/ (“Justice Thomas Blisters Court on Rejecting Election Cases”)

Too little, too late.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/the-high-tech-lynching-of-donald-trump/ (“The High-Tech Lynching Of Donald Trump”) (see also the comments beneath the article) and https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/supreme-court-rejects-trump-effort-to-shield-tax-records-from-ny-prosecutors.html (“Supreme Court rejects Trump effort to shield tax records from NY prosecutors”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/the-u-s-supreme-court-is-a-tragic-pathetic-joke/ (“The U.S. Supreme Court Is A Tragic, Pathetic Joke”) and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9287073/Supreme-Court-says-Manhattan-prosecutors-Donald-Trumps-tax-returns.html (“Trump calls NY’s Democrat DA Cy Vance a ‘headhunter’ as he slams SCOTUS ruling that forces him to hand over tax returns in fraud probe – calling it ‘a continuation of the greatest political Witch Hunt in the history of our country’”) and https://www.nysun.com/national/justice-thomas-in-a-fiery-dissent-illuminates/91427/ (“Justice Thomas, In a Fiery Dissent, Marks Need for Election Reform”)

Because of one man and his cowardice—Clarence Thomas—millions of Americans have lost faith in our elections, our system of justice, and in the United States itself. And China’s Communist rulers in Beijing must be salivating. Their goal of global domination by the end of this decade seems more realistic than ever.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2021/01/13/the-day-america-died/ (“The Day America Died?”)

 

 

© 2021, Timothy D. Naegele

 


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see, e.g., Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com





Biden Is Brain Dead

8 08 2020

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The first time that I came into contact with Joe Biden was when I had just left the U.S. Senate in January of 1973.  I attended his first committee hearing before the Senate Banking Committee—where I had served as a staff attorney, before heading the staff of the late Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts.[2]

In a very real sense, it was a tragic occasion because one month before—on December 18, 1972—Biden’s first wife Neilia and their one-year-old daughter Naomi were killed in an automobile accident while Christmas shopping in Delaware:

Neilia Biden’s station wagon was hit by a tractor-trailer truck carrying corn cobs as she pulled out from an intersection. Biden’s sons Beau and Hunter survived the accident and were taken to the hospital in fair condition, Beau with a broken leg and other wounds, and Hunter with a minor skull fracture and other head injuries.  Doctors soon said both would make full recoveries.  Biden considered resigning to care for them, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield persuaded him not to.[3]  

Yet that day in the Senate, Biden was courageous and all smiles; and his colleagues in the Senate welcomed him graciously, as a newly-minted U.S. Senator.

Thereafter, I attended many Senate hearings, as I had when I worked there.  However, it seems that I will always remember that one day.  Biden was doing his best—and life had to go on.  Many if not most of us might have gone into near- or complete-isolation following such a tragedy; and I admired Biden after that.

I came to the Senate as a Democrat, having been raised in a devoutly-Republican family, where giants like Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur—and Richard Nixon—were lionized.[4]  Indeed, my mother had a framed photo of Pat and Dick Nixon on our living room table.

Fast forward to my post-Senate beliefs, and I had seen enough not to believe in either political party, so I became an Independent and have been one ever since.  I learned that the Kennedys were the very worst of American politics[5]; and Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the tragic Vietnam War, in which friends of mine were killed for nothing.

Indeed, when I left the Senate, I concluded that the Democrats were “evil” but smart, while the Republicans were “Neanderthals” and dumb.  I have never changed that opinion.

Joe Biden went through “vanity” hair transplants, just as one of my Senate “heroes” Bill Proxmire did[6]; and I did not pay much attention to Biden until Barack Obama picked him as a running mate.  Also, I have not paid much attention to the scandals surrounding Biden and his son Hunter, or to claims of Biden’s womanizing—which are “standard fare” in Hollywood, Washington and other power centers of this world.

While I have commented about Biden sporadically[7], the issue before the American people now and in the days and months to come is whether he has the mental capacity to be President of the United States.  These are not normal times, with the Coronavius sweeping the world and people dying—or at least being hurt and perhaps never recovering (e.g., economically).  And there appears to be no end in sight, with the virus’ “state sponsor” China seeking global domination.[8]

It goes without saying that Americans of all colors, religions and political persuasions cannot have a President who is “asleep at the switch,” quite literally.  And Biden has endured multiple brain operations, which may have affected his mental capacities in ominous ways.[9]  Our enemies globally are not stupid; and they have vast intelligence apparatuses that follow everything important that happens in our great nation.

Needless to say, they are not “missing a beat” in diagnosing Biden’s mental condition, which may be why it is reported that China wants him to succeed Donald Trump as our President.[10]  An “incapacitated” Joe Biden may be just what they want and need to advance their plans globally, and change the United States’ trajectory forever.

Lastly, it is worth repeating what I wrote almost twelve years ago about the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen’s magnificent work:

In the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all” — and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.[11]

Perhaps before the 2020 presidential campaign has run its course, one little child will express the belief that Joe Biden is “brain dead,” or certainly very close to it.  Lots of Democrats know this already, but are too afraid (or ashamed) to acknowledge it publicly. 

 

Biden

 

© 2020, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30 ; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/edward-w-brooke-is-dead/ (“Edward W. Brooke Is Dead”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/the-brooke-amendment-and-section-8-housing-revisited/ (“The Brooke Amendment And Section 8 Housing: Revisited”)

[3]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Family_deaths (“Joe Biden, Family deaths”) (footnotes omitted)

[4]  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower (“Dwight D. Eisenhower”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur (“Douglas MacArthur”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon (“Richard Nixon”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/john-f-kennedy-the-most-despicable-president-in-american-history/ (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History”) (see also the extensive comments beneath this article) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/ronald-reagan-and-john-f-kennedy-a-question-of-character/ (“Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy: A Question of Character”)

[6]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents/#comment-1800 (“When A Giant Named Senator Bill Walked Through Washington”)

[7]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/26/american-blacks-constitute-less-than-14-percent/#comment-24781 (“Biden’s Basement Strategy: Just Say Nothing”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/24/should-barack-obama-be-executed-for-treason/#comment-21003 (“Barack Obama, The Clintons And The Bidens”)

[8]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/04/chinas-goal-is-global-domination-and-it-must-suffer-the-soviet-unions-fate/ (“China’s Goal Is Global Domination, And It Must Suffer The Soviet Union’s Fate”)

[9]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/05/the-millennials-may-never-forgive-biden-and-the-democrats/#comment-23417 (“Biden Is In A Steep Mental Decline”)

If Biden chooses California’s Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate, it may simply compound the Democrats’ problems.

See, e.g, https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/it-is-time-for-trump-supporters-to-fight-back/#comment-21650 (“Down And Out: Willie Brown’s Ho Is Gone”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/29/it-is-time-for-trump-supporters-to-fight-back/#comment-23415 (“Willie Brown’s Ho Is A Total Hypocrite) 

[10]  See https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/07/politics/2020-election-russia-china-iran/index.html (“Intelligence community’s top election official: China and Iran don’t want Trump to win reelection, Russia working against Biden”)

[11]  See Timothy D. Naegele, Viewpoint: Greenspan’s Fingerprints All Over Enduring Mess, American Banker, October 17, 2008 (http://www.naegele.com/documents/GreenspansFingerprints.pdf); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”)





Of Course Colleges Are Dinosaurs

6 08 2020

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

As I wrote almost twelve years ago about the Danish author Hans Christian Andersen’s magnificent work:

In the fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid. The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all” — and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.[2]

The grand swindle of a college education is being exposed for all to see too, as a result of the deadly Coronavirus pandemic that China unleashed on the world—which will not run its course until the end of 2021, at the earliest.[3]

As I wrote nine years ago in an article entitled “Are Colleges Dinosaurs?”:

The exorbitant costs associated with college educations have been rising for a long time now

America’s Middle Class is being priced out of colleges for their kids; and many parents are questioning whether college is worth it, and whether they can afford it.  This is true to an even greater extent when it comes to graduate schools, such as law schools.  As more and more Americans face economic problems during the balance of this decade, which will be true of their counterparts abroad as well, many will find that undergraduate college educations and graduate schools are luxuries that they cannot afford.  Many families will be doing whatever they can just to survive. . . .

Certainly in the case of State-supported schools, where budgetary pressures are dictating that their expenditures be slashed, the twin pincers of parents who cannot afford to send their kids to these schools, and declining budgets, may break the backs of such schools.

Another old friend of mine, who covered Washington for many years as a talented and insightful political and economic reporter and editor, told me recently that colleges are effectively dinosaurs and relics of the past, like newspapers and newsweeklies in this Internet age.  The educational institutions of the future will be online—or so my friend believes—which cost a fraction of what “bricks-and-mortar” educational institutions cost today.  The kids now are computer literate like no generation of the past; and the idea of learning online is second nature to them.

Why spend money on college tuitions and campus living expenses, and professors’ salaries and the infrastructure of college campuses, when everything can be done online for a fraction of the cost?  Why have professors repeating essentially the same lectures year after year, when such lectures can be taped once and shown again and again on YouTube? Why not eliminate “redundancy” and have the best professors teaching students online nationwide, and eliminate the costs of multiple professors?  Why allow “teaching assistants” (or “TAs”) to educate our kids, when the professors are paid to do this?  Why not eliminate colleges and graduates schools in wholesale numbers—just like libraries and book stores are closing or becoming “bookless” because everything is online?

The bottom line with respect to whether education shifts to the Internet might not be a function of conscious decisions by educators or parents: pure economics in America and globally will determine the results.  Falling governmental tax revenues will dictate drastic cuts like never before; and declining personal incomes and home values and foreclosures, and other family sacrifices, will result in changes to personal life styles that will affect the way educational programs are perceived and delivered worldwide. [4]

What was not mentioned in the article itself, but was discussed in comments beneath it, is the fact that student loans have kept the colleges, universities and graduate schools alive financially, all the while saddling the students and/or their parents with massive student debts that must be serviced and cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

As if to echo what I wrote, the UK’s Economist has an article entitled “The absent student,” which states:

In the normal run of things, late summer sees airports in the emerging world fill with nervous 18-year-olds, jetting off to begin a new life in the rich world’s universities. The annual trek of more than 5m students is a triumph of globalisation. Students see the world; universities get a fresh batch of high-paying customers. Yet with flights grounded and borders closed, this migration is about to become the pandemic’s latest victim.

For students, covid-19 is making life difficult. Many must choose between inconveniently timed seminars streamed into their parents’ living rooms and inconveniently deferring their studies until life is more normal. For universities, it is disastrous. They will not only lose huge chunks of revenue from foreign students but, because campus life spreads infection, they will have to transform the way they operate. . . .

Yet the disaster may have an upside. For many years government subsidies and booming demand have allowed universities to resist changes that could benefit both students and society. They may not be able to do so for much longer.

Higher education has been thriving. Since 1995, as the notion spread from the rich world to the emerging one that a degree from a good institution was essential, the number of young people enrolling in higher education rose from 16% of the relevant age group to 38%. The results have been visible on swanky campuses throughout the Anglosphere, whose better universities have been the principal beneficiaries of the emerging world’s aspirations.

Yet troubles are piling up. China has been a source of high-paying foreign students for Western universities, but relations between the West and China are souring. Students with ties to the army are to be banned from America.

Governments have been turning against universities, too. In an age when politics divides along educational lines, universities struggle to persuade some politicians of their merit. President Donald Trump attacks them for “Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education”. Some 59% of Republican voters have a negative view of colleges; just 18% of Democrats do. In Britain universities’ noisy opposition to Brexit has not helped. Given that the state pays for between a quarter and a half of tertiary education in America, Australia and Britain, through student loans and grants, the government’s enthusiasm matters.

Scepticism among politicians is not born only of spite. Governments invest in higher education to boost productivity by increasing human capital. But even as universities have boomed, productivity growth in the rich-country economies has fallen. Many politicians suspect that universities are not teaching the right subjects, and are producing more graduates than labour markets need. Small wonder that the state is beginning to pull back. In America government spending on universities has been flat in recent years; in Australia, even as the price of humanities degrees doubles, so it will fall for subjects the government deems good for growth.

There are questions about the benefits to students, too. The graduate premium is healthy enough, on average, for a degree to be financially worthwhile, but not for everybody. In Britain the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has calculated that a fifth of graduates would be better off if they had never gone to university. In America four in ten students still do not graduate six years after starting their degree—and, for those who do, the wage premium is shrinking. Across the world as a whole, student enrolment continues to grow, but in America it declined by 8% in 2010-18.

Then came covid-19. Although recessions tend to boost demand for higher education, as poor job prospects spur people to seek qualifications, revenues may nevertheless fall. Government rules will combine with student nerves to keep numbers down. Last month the Trump administration said new foreign students would not be allowed to enter the country if their classes had moved online. Sydney, Melbourne, UNSW and Monash, four of Australia’s leading universities, rely on foreign students for a third of their income. The IFS expects losses at English universities to amount to over a quarter of one year’s revenues.

The damage from covid-19 means that, in the short term at least, universities will be more dependent on governments than ever. The IFS reckons that 13 universities in Britain risk going bust. Governments ought to help colleges, but should favour institutions that provide good teaching and research or benefit their community. Those that satisfy none of those criteria should be allowed to go to the wall.

Those that survive must learn from the pandemic. Until now most of them, especially the ones at the top of the market, have resisted putting undergraduate courses online. That is not because remote teaching is necessarily bad—a third of graduate students were studying fully online last year—but because a three- or four-year degree on campus was universities’ and students’ idea of what an undergraduate education should look like. Demand for the services of universities was so intense that they had no need to change.

Now change is being forced upon them. The College Crisis Initiative at Davidson College says that less than a quarter of American universities are likely to teach mostly or wholly in person next term. If that persists, it will reduce the demand. Many students buy the university experience not just to boost their earning capacity, but also to get away from their parents, make friends and find partners. But it should also cut costs, by giving students the option of living at home while studying.

Back to the mortarboard
Covid-19 is catalysing innovation, too. The Big Ten Academic Alliance, a group of midwestern universities, is offering many of its 600,000 students the opportunity to take online courses at other universities in the group. There is huge scope for using digital technology to improve education. Poor in-person lectures could be replaced by online ones from the best in the world, freeing up time for the small-group teaching which students value most.

Universities are rightly proud of their centuries-old traditions, but their ancient pedigrees have too often been used as an excuse for resisting change. If covid-19 shakes them out of their complacency, some good may yet come from this disaster.[5] 

Amen to all of this.  The only caveats that I have about effectively “gutting” colleges is that many students fool around with their online classes, and do not take them seriously; and hence, they run the risk of learning little or nothing.  And missing from a totally-online education is the social interaction that a college campus and environment provide.  Lastly, at least in America, college sports provide much-needed relief from the pressures of everyday life, which have increased dramatically—and beyond all reckoning—because of the Coronavirus. 

 

Dinosaur(2)

 

© 2020, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele, Viewpoint: Greenspan’s Fingerprints All Over Enduring Mess, American Banker, October 17, 2008 (http://www.naegele.com/documents/GreenspansFingerprints.pdf); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes (“The Emperor’s New Clothes”)

[3]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/08/04/chinas-goal-is-global-domination-and-it-must-suffer-the-soviet-unions-fate/ (“China’s Goal Is Global Domination, And It Must Suffer The Soviet Union’s Fate”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/are-colleges-dinosaurs/ (“Are Colleges Dinosaurs?”) (footnotes omitted)

[5]  See https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/08/08/covid-19-will-be-painful-for-universities-but-also-bring-change (“The absent student”); see also https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/08/08/covid-19-could-push-some-universities-over-the-brink (“Uncanny University”—”Covid-19 could push some universities over the brink”—”Higher education was in trouble even before the pandemic”—”Covid-19 has put immense pressure on all universities. But the problems are about to get particularly severe for those in America, Australia, Canada and Britain that have come to rely on international students to fill their coffers.  . . . Even before the pandemic, many such universities worried about worsening relations with China, the biggest source of international students.  . . . Academics, used to tricky questions, now face an existential one: how will universities survive with many fewer students in them?  The problem is that campuses make an excellent breeding ground for the virus, and students travelling across the world are a good way to spread it.  A study by researchers at Cornell found that, although the average student at the university shares classes with just 4% of their peers, they share a class with someone who shares a class with 87%. The potential for the rapid spread of the disease was shown by the arrival of recruits at Fort Benning, an American army base. When 640 arrived in spring, just four tested positive. A few weeks later, more than a hundred did. According to the New York Times, some 6,600 covid-19 cases can be linked to American colleges.  . . . The risk is that, beyond the lecture hall, youngsters will ignore many restrictions. In July the University of California, Berkeley reported an outbreak involving 47 covid-19 cases, with most traced to parties in the fraternities and sororities. At the time, administrators urged students to keep gatherings to below 12 people, to hold them outside, to stay at least six feet apart and to cover their faces; they have since announced that all classes will be online and only 3,200 of the university’s 40,000 students will be allowed to live on campus.  . . . In America an estimated one postgraduate in three was studying fully online last year, up from one in five in 2012.  . . .  [I]n America, New York University is home to the most international students with 19,605; in Britain, University College London is, with 19,635.  The experience of either city—with all the possibilities of exploration and romance which urban life brings, even under semi-lockdown—cannot be replicated through video calls in a parental living room.  . . .  [E]ntry restrictions currently prevent students from getting to lots of countries. Since February all Chinese visitors have been banned from entering Australia. Pilot programmes to fly in groups of a few hundred students were abandoned when the local case count rose. Currently Canada will not let in students who did not get a visa before March. Some Indian students are allowed into America, but Chinese ones are not. Both would be welcome in Britain, so long as they quarantined for a fortnight.  . . . If the pandemic drags on, if a vaccine is not forthcoming or if the economic climate becomes particularly bad, then things will get bleaker still. Politicians will have bigger things to think about than protecting universities. The first two decades of the 21st century were ones of extraordinary growth for universities in many countries. That golden age is over”)





China’s Goal Is Global Domination, And It Must Suffer The Soviet Union’s Fate

4 08 2020

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

China launched the deadly Coronavirus—as a bioweapon or inadvertently—with so much suffering globally; and like Adolf Hitler’s “Thousand-Year Reich” and the Soviet Union, it must pay with its very existence.  Nothing less will suffice.[2]

Michael Doran (a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.) and Peter Rough (the former director of research in the office of George W. Bush, and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.) have written a seemingly-exhaustive article for the Tablet about China’s role in the future, which is worth reading in its entirety:

American policymakers have long assumed that Chinese and American goals in the Middle East are largely complementary. Beijing, so the prevailing wisdom holds, is fixated on commerce, with a special emphasis on oil and gas. “China’s strategy in the Middle East is driven by its economic interests,” a former senior official in the Obama administration testified last year before Congress. “China . . . does not appear interested in substantially deepening its diplomatic or security activities there.” According to this reigning view, China adopts a position of neutrality toward political and military conflicts, because taking sides would make enemies who might then restrict China’s access to markets.

This oft-repeated shibboleth ignores clear signs that China is very actively engaged in a hard-power contest with the United States—a contest that the Chinese occasionally acknowledge and are capable of winning. In 2016, Xi Jinping toured the Middle East for the first time in his capacity as president of the People’s Republic of China, visiting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran. Chinese propaganda hailed the trip as a milestone. The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a white paper on its Arab policy, the first of its kind. “We will deepen China-Arab military cooperation and exchange,” the paper read. “We will … deepen cooperation on weapons, equipment and various specialized technologies, and carry out joint military exercises.”

The following year, in 2017, the Chinese navy opened a naval base in Djibouti, the first overseas base it has ever established—a tacit renunciation of the traditional Chinese credo of noninterventionism. Djibouti sits on the southern end of the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, which guards the passage to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal from the Gulf of Aden. On the northern end, only 18 miles away, lies Yemen.

China is advancing on the Middle East with ruthless determination, because the region is of more vital interest to China than any other, aside from the Western Pacific. Indeed, China is actively working to oust the United States from the Middle East—a reality that the American strategic community would overwhelmingly prefer not to recognize, but one that is nonetheless becoming glaringly obvious.

Don’t believe us? Ask the Uighurs, the brutalized people of Xinjiang province, which the Chinese government is actively colonizing by moving in millions of ethnic Han Chinese. The lucky among the Uighurs, who number some 11 million in total, are trapped in an inescapable web of surveillance and oppression. The unlucky ones, numbering perhaps 1 million, are interned in ideological indoctrination camps where they are exploited as slave labor, tortured, and, according to recent reports, subjected to forced sterilizations.

What motive can China have for its ongoing torment of a small ethnic minority, which brings Beijing an ongoing avalanche of negative publicity in the West? Xi’s policy flows, the experts tell us, from Beijing’s fear of terrorist and separatist movements among the Uighurs, who are a Turkic Muslim people with ethnic and religious ties to their neighbors and to Turkey. Whatever the validity of this analysis, it misses the strategic vector, which again points directly to the Middle East.

Xi’s signature foreign policy achievement is the Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion program that invests in infrastructure projects across the world designed to funnel resources back to a hungry China, thereby creating a global Chinese sphere of interest. The jewel in the crown of the Belt and Road Initiative is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor—a multibillion-dollar program to build highways, rail lines, and pipelines from the port of Gwadar on the Indian Ocean to Xinjiang, the Uighur heartland. The northern terminus of the corridor is Kashgar—a Uighur city which, with cameras in every crevice, is likely the most surveilled metropolitan area in the world. China is crushing the Uighurs, in other words, because their territory sits athwart China’s critical overland supply routes.

How determined is China in its advance toward the Middle East? Determined enough to commit genocide.

The assumption of compatibility between Chinese and American interests in the Middle East is the residue of an otherwise defunct strategic belief system. Call it “harmonic convergence.” From Presidents Nixon to Obama, American leaders mistakenly assumed that globalism would transform China into a kinder, gentler communist power.

This theory began with the basic recognition that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faced extraordinary pressure to grow its economy to create jobs for an exploding population. By necessity, therefore, Beijing had no choice but to accept several core components of capitalism, chief among them the flexibility that only decentralized decision-making can provide. As China decentralized its economy, so the thinking went, a new middle class would rise and demand more say over government policies. Full-blown democracy might not ensue, but relations between rulers and ruled would become ever more consensual and transactional. The iron laws of market economics would transform the CCP from a tyrant into the largely benign technocratic manager of a giant outsourcing park for Apple and Nike.

Harmonic convergence is a materialist theory of history, a capitalist analogue to Marxism. It assumes economics to be the main driver of human affairs, and it sees the “liberal international order” as the product of the immutable laws of political economy—universal laws that would shave the rough edges off communist China just as they had shaped Europe, America, Australia, Japan, and South Korea into modern liberal states. For decades, successive American presidents from both political parties worked to integrate the economies of China and America, turning them into conjoined twins.

The dynamics on which harmonic convergence focused were real enough. But the theory’s exclusive focus on economics blinded American leaders to countervailing factors—cultural, political, and demographic—of equal or greater weight. Culturally, China sees itself not as one country among many, but as a great civilization that is central to humankind. Politically, the CCP has proved more capable than anyone ever dreamed possible of adapting single-party rule to the demands of a modern economy. Thanks, in part, to the rise of new technologies, the CCP now manages to efficiently surveil 1.4 billion people, permitting them latitude in their economic affairs while ruthlessly policing their political life and social interactions.

CCP oppression of the Chinese people would be troubling but manageable if China were a middling actor on the world stage. But size matters. In 2010, Chinese foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, stormed out of an international conference in protest over U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s criticism of aggressive behavior by the Chinese military in the South China Sea. He subsequently justified his rage with this terse observation: “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.”

China resents the efforts of the United States to defend and support “small” countries in order to sustain an international order China had no say in creating and whose values—liberalism, democracy, free speech, free and transparent markets—it sees as daggers aimed at the CCP’s continuing rule. Beijing is therefore determined to break the liberal capitalist mold that the West built for it, and its heft gives it the power to succeed.

Of late, some analysts have taken to identifying the source of China’s hostility to the West as “communism.” Though anachronistic, the term is not entirely inaccurate. To be sure, no one in China still believes in the hidebound tenets of Marxist economics. Still, the CCP continues to rely on the one-party state structure and the traditional communist party tools of repression, subversion, and ideological warfare—including, to name just three, the secret police, a global system of front organizations and espionage networks, and a colossal propaganda machine—to advance nationalist ends.

In foreign policy, the CCP remains dedicated to international revolution. The new world they envision, however, is not a Marxist paradise but one in which China will replace the United States as the dominant power in a Sinocentric world order.

In achieving this goal, China’s leaders see business and scientific research as subordinate branches of the national security apparatus. The “Made in China 2025” initiative, which the CCP unveiled in 2015, envisions near-complete Chinese independence from foreign suppliers, especially in next-generation high-tech industries, with the goal of transforming China into the undisputed leader in the fields that will drive global economic growth in the coming decades.

The idea of supplanting the United States as the motor of high-tech innovation is integrally connected to the second track along which the CCP is moving: military modernization and expansion. Although reliable numbers are difficult to come by, between 2000 and 2019, China’s defense budget is estimated to have increased more than fivefold, from $43 billion to $266 billion—a sum that exceeds the combined defense budgets of Russia, Israel, Great Britain, and France. While Beijing’s immediate goal is to gain superiority over the United States in the Western Pacific, its long-term aim is to develop, within three decades, a fully expeditionary military, one capable of projecting power to the four corners of the globe with state-of-the-art weaponry matching or surpassing the firepower of the United States, and one trained in tactics designed to neutralize existing American advantages.

The third track of China’s strategy is political: to make the world more hospitable to the CCP’s single-party state. The new security law for Hong Kong, issued in late June, reminds us that as China grows in stature, it is becoming more aggressive and expansionist and hostile to democracy, not less. The CCP routinely uses front groups to organize expatriate Chinese communities and mobilize them in support of Beijing’s goals. It forces foreign companies operating in China to toe its ideological line in their own homes, and exploits Chinese businesses, universities, and research institutes to infiltrate Western institutions and companies.

In this context, the Middle East presents Beijing with a unique mix of threats and opportunities. On the threat side of the ledger is the fact that around half of China’s oil imports either originate in the Persian Gulf or flow through the Suez Canal. In addition to oil and gas, many of the other resources that feed China’s economy wind their way to ports such as Shanghai or Guangzhou only after passing through Middle Eastern choke points, where they are vulnerable to interdiction by the United States.

On the opportunity side for China, the Middle East is not only the source of much-needed oil, it is also home to the Jewish state. In terms of population, Israel is miniscule, but it is a cyber superpower, a global leader in artificial intelligence, and a spectacular innovator of next-generation weaponry. What China’s heavily bureaucratized one-party state lacks in the capacity to innovate and solve real-world technical challenges quickly, Israel has in spades—along with a unique ability to see inside and understand the capacities of the American techno-military complex. Jerusalem could play an indispensable role in helping Beijing achieve both its “China 2025” goals and its military modernization efforts—if it were not sheltering under the protective umbrella of the United States military.

“The World Island” is the name that Halford Mackinder, the father of modern geostrategy, gave to the single landmass created by the three interlocking continents, Europe, Africa and Asia, whose point of intersection we call “the Middle East.” The power that dominates the World Island commands the globe. The economic lifelines of not just China but also much of the world crisscross the region. Today, the United States military guarantees those lifelines, ensuring American global preeminence. If the era of American primacy in the Middle East were to end, the global balance of power would shift dramatically toward Beijing.

Last June, Rear Adm. Heidi Berg, director of intelligence at the U.S. Africa Command, drew public attention to the problem of the harassment of American forces at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti—the only permanent American base on the continent—by their new Chinese neighbors. The Chinese, she explained to reporters, were working to “constrain international airspace” by barring American aircraft from flying over the Chinese military base, deploying drones that were designed to interfere with U.S. flight operations, and flashing military-grade lasers at American pilots, causing minor injury to their eyes. On more than one occasion, Chinese soldiers have also attempted to infiltrate the American base.

From Beijing’s point of view, hard-power competition with the United States in the Middle East is a direct extension of the military contest in the Western Pacific. In the event of war between China and its Asian adversaries, Beijing intends to deny the United States the ability to operate militarily within “the first island chain”—the string of archipelagos stretching from the Kuril and Japanese Islands in the north, southward through Taiwan and the Philippines, and terminating in Borneo. These islands—America’s unsinkable aircraft carriers—hem in China from the east, turning the Asian behemoth into a peculiarly landlocked country.

To date, Beijing has had no means of breaking out to the sea. But China’s new route through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean changes all that. Beijing calls it the “China-Pakistan Economic Corridor” (CPEC), because Americans, whose thinking is steeped in harmonic convergence, drop their guard when they hear the word “economic.” In reality, the Pakistan-China relationship is a military alliance in all but name, directed at India. The corridor will terminate on the Indian Ocean at Gwadar, where a port is currently under construction with generous help from the Belt and Road Initiative.

While Beijing is now presenting Gwadar as an entirely commercial venture, upon completion it will certainly become a military base, which will assist Beijing in flanking India. CPEC will also shorten and harden China’s supply lines. Gwadar will serve as a transshipment hub for oil and natural gas and other raw materials that will flow overland through pipelines to Xinjiang, then on to points farther east in China.

To put the strategic import of the China-Pakistan link in quantifiable terms, the total distance from China to the Persian Gulf is over 5,000 nautical miles, through waters that, in time of war, will likely be impassable. By contrast, the distance from the Persian Gulf to Gwadar is less than 600 nautical miles.

The strategic advantages of this base-to-be will transform it into the most lustrous pearl in China’s growing “string of pearls”—the network of entrepôts along the sea lanes of communication that stretch from Hong Kong to Djibouti and Port Sudan on the Red Sea. With the exception of Djibouti, China presents these positions as commercial hubs—but at least some are clearly dual-use facilities that will be openly militarized whenever Beijing is ready to unsheathe its sword.

These martial intentions are not lost on China’s Asian rivals. If viewed from Delhi, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul, Manila, or Canberra, the hostile purpose of the string of pearls is obvious. In the event of war, China is positioning itself not simply to defend its own energy supply lines but also to threaten the lines of its adversaries, all of whom are highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Among the most dependent are Japan and Taiwan, both of which have virtually no domestic oil and gas and rely overwhelmingly on Middle Eastern imports.

Among the pearls, the offensive strategic potential of Djibouti and Gwadar are particularly notable. Djibouti guards the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, a chokepoint in the route between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, through which oil flows to Europe. Gwadar, for its part, is located just off the Gulf of Oman, situated within easy striking distance of the Strait of Hormuz, through which oil destined for India, Japan, and Taiwan must pass.

If Beijing were in a position to interdict the cargo passing through these two key Middle Eastern chokepoints from its new bases in Djibouti and Gwadar, it would have its thumb on the world’s windpipe. Which appears to be exactly the vision that shapes the ambitions of Chinese war planners. A 2016 U.S. Naval War College study warns that within a decade China will have as many as 530 warships and submarines, up from the estimated 400 currently in its fleet. Under current budgets, the United States has little prospect of keeping pace.

Some analysts argue that the counting of vessels is a meaningless exercise: American ships are larger, more sophisticated, and more lethal than their Chinese counterparts—and may remain that way for decades to come. The American navy, moreover, is supposedly better trained in combined arms conflict and in coordination with allied militaries. Whatever the truth of such assertions, Beijing is not planning to assert its domination over the United States in an epic big-screen set piece event like the Battle of Midway. Instead, it’s chipping away at American power, slowly and methodically, with the aim of persuading America’s allies (and potential allies such as India) that the global balance of power is shifting against Washington, and that they are foolish to rely on the Americans for their security.

China’s Middle East strategy is not hard to parse. It is not trying to defeat the Americans in armed combat; it is waging a campaign of political warfare. To borrow a phrase from the Cold War, Beijing is trying to Finlandize America’s allies. That job does not require a military that can match America’s weaponry gun for gun. It just requires that the Americans appear unreliable.

Even now, before its buildup is complete, the Chinese navy is successfully pinning down and thinning out American forces. In 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis changed the name of the combatant command for Asia from United States Pacific Command to United States Indo-Pacific Command. In doing so, he tacitly acknowledged that if war were to break out in Asia tomorrow, the United States navy would have no choice but to increase patrols in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf to deter the Chinese from attacking the supply lines of its enemies. The more thinly spread the forces of the United States become, the easier it is to make smaller powers afraid that America won’t be able or willing to protect them.

China’s message to Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea (to say nothing of Saudi Arabia and Israel) is clear: America is in decline; China is ascendant, its rise to glory inevitable.

In recent years, Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, has treated Xi Jinping to lessons on how to erode American prestige on the cheap. In the Syrian civil war, Putin deployed a force that was not large enough to constitute a significant threat to American preeminence, but it was still strong enough to turn the tide of the war. By establishing Russia as the leading actor on the ground in Syria, Putin turned himself into an indispensable interlocutor for America’s allies in the Middle East, especially Israel and Turkey, both of whose leaders began visiting Moscow more often than they flew to Washington.

China’s involvement with Russia’s Syria campaign extended well beyond watching Putin meet with Erdogan and Netanyahu in Moscow on television. Chinese warships were a regular part of Russian naval deployments in the Mediterranean, and the canisters of gas that Bashar Assad’s forces dropped on civilians in the early parts of the war were made in China.

One observable effect of China’s military engagement in the Middle East, through its active military alliance with Russia and elsewhere, over the past decade, is that many of America’s closest Middle Eastern allies have become customers for Chinese arms. In 2017, China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) signed a partnership deal with Riyadh to construct a drone manufacturing plant in Saudi Arabia. Previously, CASC had entered into only two such deals: with Pakistan, China’s closest ally, and in Myanmar, which it hopes to turn into an ally and thereby flank India in the East.

China is also gaining experience in force projection through its participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions, to which Beijing sends significantly more personnel than any other permanent member of the Security Council. While Beijing receives plaudits from internationalists for this contribution, the Chinese military gains logistics experience, collects valuable intelligence, and forms enduring relationships. Best of all, it dips into the United Nations peacekeeping budget, to which Washington contributes significantly more than Beijing, to help protect China’s growing overseas assets. Of the 13 countries that accepted Chinese peacekeepers between 2012 and 2018, nine were home to significant Chinese investments. In time, at least some of those contingents will swap out their blue U.N. flag for the red flag of the People’s Republic, transforming themselves into official Chinese military missions.

The rise of the naval base in Djibouti provides the model for this kind of transition. Chinese vessels first arrived in the Horn of Africa in late 2008, to cooperate with (but not to join formally) a multinational anti-piracy task force. The move marked a dramatic change: Never before had China sent warships beyond its territorial waters to cooperate with foreign militaries on an issue of mutual interest. Nor had the Chinese navy ever maintained daily communication with the United States military at the tactical and operational levels. Before then, military-to-military engagements between the Chinese and American navies had been limited to formal meetings between senior officers.

At the time, some in the Pentagon did suggest that this change represented the beginning of serious competition with China in the Indian Ocean and the Middle East. The proponents of harmonic convergence, however, drowned those voices out, arguing that the shift in Chinese policy signaled the eagerness of Beijing to become a “responsible stakeholder”: Cooperation against pirates today would open the door to other forms of cooperation tomorrow.

They were wrong. By encouraging such happy thoughts, the Chinese navy made the Americans comfortable with the presence of Chinese warships in the Horn of Africa. Before long, their temporary mission became a permanent base from which lasers are now directed into the eyes of American pilots.

China does have a deep, obvious, and abiding interest in guarding the free flow of oil—that much the proponents of harmonic convergence got right. Nor was the theory wrong in perceiving that China consciously benefits from the regional stability that the United States military provides. There is indeed a genuine overlap between Chinese and American interests. But that is the least interesting half of the story. China is also dedicated to transforming the liberal international order by undermining the United States and supplanting it as the dominant power in the Middle East. The goal of China’s formal neutrality is to manage the contradiction deftly, not least by diverting Western attention from its hostile long-term intentions.

The coordination between Moscow and Beijing in the Middle East is part of a much larger story. “In the past six years, we have met nearly 30 times,” Xi Jinping said about Vladimir Putin last year upon his arrival in Moscow for a state visit. “Russia is the country that I have visited the most times, and President Putin is my best friend and colleague,” Xi said. For his part, Putin replied that Chinese-Russian ties had “reached an unprecedented level” and described the relationship between the two countries as “a global partnership and strategic cooperation.”

These were more than just diplomatic pleasantries. While significant areas of friction remain, China and Russia are now working hand-in-glove in many key areas, including in defense. The U.S. intelligence community’s “Worldwide Threat Assessment” last year led with the statement: “China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.” The assessment did not identify the Middle East as an area of major alignment between China and its Russian partner, but it should have. Together, they are searching for ways to loosen the bonds between Washington and its allies and to strengthen anti-American forces in the region, which are led by Iran.

Harmonic convergence, however, has obscured the nature, extent and even the existence of a Chinese-Russian condominium in the Middle East by overemphasizing the shared Chinese-American interest in regional stability against Russia’s interest in instability—which boosts Russian oil revenue and arms and security exports. Alas, the presumed clash between Russian and Chinese interests is more theoretical than real. As a practical matter, China’s mercantilist approach to energy mitigates friction with Russia over questions pertaining to oil pricing.

Wherever possible, China purchases long-term concessions at favorable rates, thus insulating itself from the vicissitudes of energy markets. Similarly, Putin’s military interventions in Libya and Syria have not threatened China’s interest in stability, which focuses on the oil exporting countries of the Persian Gulf. On the contrary, they have created many opportunities for Chinese diplomacy and commerce. Consequently, little stands in the way of Russia and China forming an active or tacit alliance aimed at weakening the American order in the Middle East, which is an interest that both countries share in common.

Another fact that Americans tend to miss is that China’s economic size and strategic advantages position it as the senior partner in the relationship—meaning that Xi Jinping, not Putin, calls the shots. It is Russia’s job to intervene militarily in the Middle East and, thereby, to take the heat from the Americans. Meanwhile, China benefits from Russia’s “destabilizing” activities.

The behavior of Chinese diplomats at the U.N. is instructive. For at least two decades, they have mostly deferred to their Russian counterparts on the weightiest Middle Eastern issues, such as the Iranian nuclear deal and the Syrian conflict. If approached by American or European diplomats regarding Beijing’s position on an issue under debate, Chinese diplomats indicate that there is no point in discussing matters with them, because they will vote however the Russians decide to vote. By behaving as if Beijing has no independent policy, Chinese diplomats succeed in providing Russia with staunch support while appearing passive almost to the point of indifference. This ploy reinforces the American presumption that trade is all that China really cares about in the Middle East—and that Russia, not China, is the most serious challenger to American primacy in the region.

Russia’s ability to perform as China’s stalking horse in the Middle East depends significantly on its military alliance in Syria with Iran, which has produced the bulk of the ground troops buttressing Bashar Assad’s regime. But Russia cannot afford to pay for the Iranian effort. For that, China’s resources are essential.

While China does not directly subsidize the Syrian war, it is Iran’s biggest trading partner and its biggest source of foreign investment—just as it is Russia’s. While Beijing’s cooperation with Tehran centers on China’s energy needs and nonenergy economic investments, the relationship has also included, for many years, defense cooperation. As the Trump administration’s sanctions have ravaged the Iranian economy, China’s importance to Tehran has only grown.

And Beijing has grown increasingly willing to demonstrate that fact. Last December, China held joint naval exercises with Russia and Iran in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman. The event was notable for being the first of its kind among the three countries, but also for the timing. It came in the midst of significant conflict between Washington and Tehran in which Iranian forces were conducting attacks on tankers hauling oil from the Persian Gulf.

If China were truly neutral in Middle Eastern conflicts, and if it were truly concerned exclusively about trade, then wouldn’t it have refrained from holding joint exercises at that moment—and encouraged its closest friend in the Middle East to settle down, compromise, and get on with the exciting business of building the Chinese and Iranian economies?

Instead, China advertised itself as the silent partner of the Russian and Iranian axis and, by extension, of the so-called “Resistance Alliance,” the string of Iranian allies, including the Assad regime, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis of Yemen.

Of course, Beijing does not explicitly support the malign activities of the Resistance Alliance. On the other hand, neither does it mount opposition to those activities. Iran, too, is China’s stalking horse.

The benefits to China of the destabilizing activities of Russia and Iran in the Middle East are many and substantial. The strategy, first, exhausts America. The last two American presidents have been elected on platforms dedicated to reducing commitments to the Middle East. Sizable segments of both political parties do not understand why the United States is playing a major role in the region, and some significant portion of them advocate leaving it altogether.

Second, the Iranian-Russian axis and the Resistance Alliance damage American prestige. The continuing failures of the United States to prevail over the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, and to outmaneuver Russia in Syria, allow the propaganda machines of Russia, China, and Iran to foster the impression, both inside the Middle East and beyond, that America is past its prime.

Third, keeping the Iranian regime alive and maintaining its military capacity helps the Chinese forces in the region to pin down the American navy, because Iran’s threatening behavior in the Persian Gulf diverts American resources from the Western Pacific.

Fourth, China is sowing division between America and its allies. Few issues have caused a deeper rift between the United States and its European allies than the disagreements over how to handle the Iran challenge in all of its dimensions—not just the nuclear file. The Syria conflict has similarly divided the Americans from their regional allies, especially Turkey, and it has sent very large refugee flows into Europe that have vexed the European Union and roiled its politics.

Finally, support for Iran and Russia, especially in an era of doubts about America’s long-term commitment to the Middle East, forces major allies of the United States such as Saudi Arabia and Israel to hedge their bets by cultivating their ties with Beijing. For American allies, the best way to gain entree to Beijing without annoying the Americans is by accepting its open invitation to engage economically. Indeed, China is now the number one trading partner of Saudi Arabia, from which it imports more oil than from any other country. Israel, for its part, receives significant capital investment from China along with high-level visits from Chinese military brass, and is employing a Chinese company to develop the port of Haifa—despite repeated American requests to cancel the contract.

In a perfect world, neither the Israelis nor the Saudis would choose to manage their Iran problem through Beijing; they would prefer instead to solve it through a strong alliance with the United States. But both are realistic, and they can see clearly that America’s staying power is uncertain.

The very best lies are grounded in truth, and Beijing’s declaration of neutrality is a very good lie. It broadcasts half of the thoughts that are actually in Xi Jinping’s head, openly acknowledging China’s hunger for energy and need to prevent disruption of its supply. But by emphasizing these truths, Beijing’s neutrality deflects attention from its darker objectives.

Tacit support for the military interventions of Russia and for the terrorism and subversion of the Islamic Republic does not threaten China’s economic interests. On the contrary, brutish violence, if kept within limits, is good for business. What is more, a modicum of mayhem also keeps America on its back foot. In short, China is neutral against the United States.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, China’s annual crude oil imports, the highest in the world, averaged 10.1 million barrels per day in 2019. Expert forecasts predict that those imports will rise significantly in volume over the next decade. To mitigate the risk of disruption, China has diversified its portfolio of suppliers. In 2019, the top 10 sources of Chinese oil imports included, in addition to Middle Eastern suppliers, Russia, Angola, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Spreading a dependency of this magnitude across many different suppliers is also a campaign of influence, part of Beijing’s political warfare against the United States.

The purchase of British oil is a case in point. Between 2018 and 2019, China’s imports from Britain increased more than its demand from any other supplier—by 44%. Is it an accident that China invested so dramatically in the British economy at a moment when London was in heated negotiations with Washington about whether Britain would allow the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei to build and operate its 5G network infrastructure? If it is indeed an accident, the Chinese ambassador in London would like to hide that fact from us. When Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently reversed course and decided to phase out Huawei, the ambassador warned him that Chinese companies investing in Britain were “all watching.”

Such threats to punish governments with loss of “private” investment have become a normal part of China’s interaction with close U.S. allies like Britain, Canada, and Australia. In America, however, the prevailing wisdom, based on harmonic convergence, depicts China’s Middle East policy as nothing but a single-minded exercise in resource extraction, as if the Chinese private sector makes decisions on the basis of profit-and-loss calculations, and the bureaucrats in Beijing then run along behind it.

The propensity of Americans to see economics as an autonomous sphere blinds them to a simple fact: China is consciously deploying its economic influence to undermine the American order in the Middle East. Since the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, Beijing has invested more than $123 billion in the Middle East and North Africa. If these numbers suggest that the region is a top strategic priority, the relative trend lines are even more expressive. China is now the Middle East’s largest source of foreign investment. While China’s global investments decreased by $100 billion in 2018, its investments in the Middle East and North Africa actually grew that year by over $28 billion. Almost three-quarters of that sum went to American allies: Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia—all countries which China designates as “strategic comprehensive partners,” a major honor in the Chinese diplomatic system. By 2018, annual bilateral trade between China and Persian Gulf allies had nearly doubled from a decade before to $163 billion; in 2000, it was only $10 billion. China is now the largest trading partner of Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and is among the largest partners of Israel.

But Beijing has singled out one Middle Eastern country for special attention. Between 2008 and 2018, bilateral trade with Iraq increased by over 1,000%, from $2.6 billion to more than $30 billion. In 2013, China became Iraq’s leading source of foreign investment and top trading partner, not to mention the recipient of over half of its oil. Iraq is now the third-largest supplier to China, just behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his detractors, including China, accused him of launching a war to seize control of Iraq’s oil reserves. Ironically, no country has benefited more than China from the postwar oil dispensation. Last year, China Construction Third Engineering Bureau Company agreed to a $1.39 billion deal to build a wide variety of projects in southern Iraq, including low-cost housing, education and medical facilities, and tourist centers.

During a five-day visit to Beijing in September 2019, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi elevated formal cooperation even further, announcing that Iraq would join China’s Belt and Road Initiative. For his part, Xi Jinping committed to an “oil for reconstruction program,” where China would construct a wide array of projects in Iraq, ranging from roads and airports, to hospitals, sewage systems, and schools, in return for 100,000 Iraqi barrels of oil per day. The United States military defeated the Islamic State for the Iraqi government, but it was Chinese companies, not American, that have reaped the rewards. Thanks to harmonic convergence, the Americans harbored no resentment toward the Chinese for their apparent good fortune. On the contrary, Washington welcomed the growing Chinese economic role, even giving Beijing credit for joining the “American” project of building the Iraqi economy and stabilizing the country.

As sad as this story is, it gets even worse. While Iraq is a wonderland for Chinese business, it is a hostile environment for Americans, due to the widespread influence of Iranian-backed militias. Last December, Iran launched a campaign, spearheaded by those militias under the guidance of Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to expel the United States from the region as a whole, starting with Iraq. Once again, Iran’s “destabilizing” activities did not receive any visible rebuke from China.

Given the vital importance of China to Iran as its economic lifeline in the era of the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign, one cannot but wonder if Qassem Soleimani received a wink and a nod from Beijing before he launched the violent anti-American campaign that ended in his death. Even if there was no such consultation, the growing influence of China in Iraq still represents yet another example of how Beijing’s use of Iran as a stalking horse pays economic and strategic dividends simultaneously. The IRGC exhausted and confounded American forces in Iraq, thereby creating a vacuum that Iran’s patron, China, is filling.

The realization that China poses a serious threat to the United States in the Middle East comes at an inopportune moment. Public trust in American leaders is at historic lows, and trust in their judgment about the Middle East is especially jaundiced. On both the left and the right, influential voices in the United States demand a reduction of American military commitments. President Obama first planted the idea of retreat in the public mind, with the announcement from his administration of a “pivot to Asia.” This line of thinking is alive and well among supporters of President Donald Trump. “We’re getting out. Let someone else fight over this long bloodstained sand … The job of our military is not to police the world,” Trump said last October. Though he was referring directly to his decision to pull American troops from northeast Syria, his rhetoric signaled agreement with those who favor a broad retreat from the Middle East.

The transformation of the United States into a net energy exporter, thanks to the fracking revolution, has strengthened the bipartisan claim that an American retreat from the Middle East would be both sane and safe. Shouldn’t those who are actually dependent on Middle Eastern oil police the region? While we sympathize with the sentiment behind the question, the simple answer is that no power other than the United States has the wherewithal to contain China. Far from strengthening the United States, a retreat from the Middle East would do severe harm to American interests and deliver a strategic victory of very large proportions to Beijing.

Consider this entirely plausible scenario of the immediate consequences of an American withdrawal. As a first step, Xi Jinping would back Tehran politically and militarily in the development of so-called “anti-access/area denial capabilities.” These are the mix of tactics and weapons that the Chinese military is now deploying inside the first island chain in the Western Pacific with the goal of turning the region into a no-go zone for American forces. With Iran so equipped, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman would become Chinese lakes.

As a second step, Xi Jinping would follow a similar strategy along the coast of the Red Sea. Dramatically expanding the base in Djibouti, he would then transform the Chinese commercial hub in Port Sudan, across the Red Sea from Jedda, into a sister military base. With both of these installations equipped with anti-access/area denial capabilities, the Red Sea, too, would become a Chinese lake.

From Djibouti, Beijing would assist Iran to realize its objective of turning the Houthis into a Yemeni clone of Lebanese Hezbollah—an Iranian-directed militia equipped with a large arsenal of precision guided ballistic missiles capable of destroying Riyadh. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf sheikhdoms would find themselves surrounded by Chinese and Iranian firepower. Their ability to export oil, the lifeblood of their economies, would become entirely dependent on the goodwill of China, which would be the only power capable of restraining Iran. The leaders of the oil producing Arab states would then race each other to Beijing to see who could kowtow first to the Chinese Communist Party.

Israel, too, would have no choice but to kowtow, as its shipping lanes from the Port of Eilat to Asia would be at the mercy of the Chinese in the Red Sea. No sooner would the Sino-Russo-Iranian axis rise in the Persian Gulf than a revivified Russo-Iranian alliance would appear in Syria, with direct or indirect assistance from the Chinese military. The Israeli prime minister would make his own mad dash for Beijing to negotiate the place of Israel in the new, Sinocentric Middle Eastern order.

As the representative of a country with nuclear weapons, a state-of-the-art military, and a diversified economy, the Israeli leader would likely receive better terms than his Arab counterparts. Xi Jinping would be more than delighted to treat Israel as close friend of China—provided Israel agreed to downgrade its ties with the United States and Europe, establish a Sino-Israeli cyber research and development center in Beijing, participate in a joint missile defense development project, and allow the Chinese navy to conduct port visits in the Haifa harbor that China built and runs.

The swift hegemony of China over the oil transport chokepoints of the Middle East would lead to panic among America’s East Asian allies and India. Was China readying itself to strangle them economically? Should they search for sources of oil from the Western Hemisphere? Should they work with one another to build emergency oil reserve systems?

In response to the panic, Beijing would launch a charm offensive to reassure panicked U.S. allies that China remained fully committed, as always, to freedom of navigation and to the free flow of oil at stable prices. Beijing would then begin the slow, deliberate and systematic work of exploiting its favorable strategic position in the Middle East to transform itself into the undisputed king of the global energy trade, building up positions of unrivaled power at every stage of the oil production process, from extraction, to transport, to refining, and marketing. 

Oil and gas are unique commodities. Their price and availability affect every individual in the world, yet they are controlled by a relatively small group of powerful companies. Merely through the choice of contracting partners and terms of sale, producers and distributors have the power to redirect billions of dollars from one set of pockets to another. Energy companies are thus inherently attractive to Chinese communist leaders, for whom it is second nature to seek out and acquire instruments of mass influence that can be kept under the tight control of a privileged few.

Under the new, Sinocentric Middle Eastern order, companies and individuals critical of America would see their stars rise. This web would include Europe and, indeed, all other regions where Middle Eastern oil and gas are consumed. Nor will the energy self-sufficiency of the United States protect us from Chinese pressure. The recent Saudi-Russian price war serves as a reminder that oil is produced locally but priced globally. When the Saudi-Russian dispute collapsed the price, it threatened to destroy the American fracking industry, on which much of the growth of the American economy is now predicated.

If China succeeds the United States as the dominant power in the Middle East, a major shift in the global balance of power will result, significantly diminishing the clout of the United States, even to the point of eroding the control that Americans exercise, as a free people, over their own destiny.

Retreating from the Middle East would go down as one of the greatest strategic blunders in American history. Nevertheless, the political climate in the United States constrains the options of America’s leaders. The last two presidents gained office by promising to end wars in the Middle East, not start new ones. Neither President Trump nor Democratic candidate Joe Biden will display anything but a reluctance to introduce new forces into the region.

How then, can the United States strike a balance between containment of China and the electorate’s demand for a light touch in the Middle East? The key is finding partners on the ground who will do the work that the American military cannot do.

In American politics today, there are only two available methods for identifying partners and assigning them roles and missions. The first, co-optation, was the method Obama used. Attempting to create a concert system in the Middle East, Obama started from the assumptions that Moscow and Tehran were open, under the right conditions, to being co-opted; and that America and its major allies shared more in common with them than they had heretofore been inclined to acknowledge. Obama saw himself not as the head of a coalition dedicated to undermining Russia and Iran, but as a leader intent on bringing together all of the various regional “stakeholders” and helping them find mutually beneficial solutions to the challenges of the region. America, its allies, and Iran and Russia all shared, Obama believed, a vital interest in containing Sunni radicals such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State, and in stabilizing the Middle East more broadly.

By the lights of this theory, Iran is a status-quo power, merely struggling to hold on to what it has, not attempting to overturn the existing order. The worst policies of Iran—pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and building of subversive militias in surrounding states, to name just three—were indeed ugly, but they were essentially defensive acts. Iran has a weak regular army, which poses no threat of invading its neighbors. Its deep sense of insecurity, historically, has derived largely from the fact that its regional rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia, had persuaded the United States to take an aggressive position toward it, thus convincing Tehran that America’s real goal was regime change. As long as America sought the destruction of the Islamic Republic, a more productive relationship was impossible.

Obama approached Russia with an analogous set of assumptions—which, intellectually, fit hand-in-glove with the harmonic convergence approach to China. If the United States were to treat Moscow and Tehran as partners, not as adversaries who needed to be contained, then it could change the calculus in Moscow and Tehran. Thus, on one hand, the president repeatedly scolded Saudi Arabia and Israel, lecturing them on the need, in his words, to “share” the region with Iran. Meanwhile, on the other hand, he engaged in an ambitious attempt to arrive at a strategic accommodation with Moscow and Tehran. The main focus of that effort was the Iran nuclear deal, but it included diplomatic engagement over the future of Syria and Iraq as well.

The foundational assumptions supporting this approach, however, were false. Russia and Iran are not simply playing defense against American imperialism. They are anti-status quo powers seeking to oust the United States from the region—and they were backed in turn by a more powerful anti-status quo power, China. Obama’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq; his repeated announcements that America was war weary and eager to rebuild at home; his refusal to take the lead, whether diplomatically or militarily, in stabilizing Syria; his explanations that East Asia was the new foreign policy priority—all of these and more convinced Moscow and Tehran that the United States was racing for the exits in the Middle East. Once America left, they had good reason to believe that the Chinese would work with them.

Thus, the spirit of partnership that the United States hoped to spark by adopting a more accommodating position on the Iranian nuclear program did not generate a reciprocal response.

On the contrary, the Iranians recognized that Obama’s ambition to complete the nuclear deal gave them a free hand elsewhere in the region. Tehran’s shared interest with Moscow in the survival of the Assad regime generated unprecedented cooperation between the two countries in Syria. The moment the nuclear deal was completed, this cooperation flowered into a full-blown military alliance.

Iran and Russia were not alone in deepening their involvement in the Middle East on the heels of the nuclear deal. In January 2016, Xi Jinping toured the region for the first time, visiting Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and, the highlight of his trip, Iran. Chinese propaganda framed the visit as the arrival not just of a leader, but of China as a great power. The co-optation method of stabilizing the Middle East opened the door to a Sino-Russo-Iranian coalition dedicated to overturning the American order.

The United States cannot leave the Middle East. But neither can it stabilize the region with large numbers of its own ground troops. Nor can it create a concert system with Iran and Russia. Only one option, then, remains: to contain the anti-American powers—China, first among them—by building up a regional coalition made up of America’s traditional allies, which will shoulder much of the work on the ground.

Alas, containment has been getting bad press these days. On July 11, The New York Times reported that China and Iran were on the verge of signing a 25-year trade and military agreement. The article would have us believe that this is a stunning new and dangerous development—the direct consequence of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. But it is not. As even the article concedes, without digesting the implications, Beijing and Tehran first announced a “Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” when Xi Jinping visited Tehran in 2016—a year before Trump took office, and only one week after the JCPOA brought sanctions relief to Iran.

The New York Times encourages us to conclude that the only remedy to the Sino-Iranian alliance is a return to Obama’s policy of co-optation. But the great flaw of Obama’s policy was that it forced no hard choices on Iran, which was free to pocket concessions from the West while cooperating even more closely with China and Russia in ways that eroded American power. Tehran could enjoy sanctions relief while building a web of rapacious militias explicitly dedicated to attacking and subverting America’s allies and to driving the United States from the Middle East.

Similarly, Obama’s model of co-optation failed to take advantage of the glaring contradiction at the heart of China’s grand strategy, which seeks to enjoy all the benefits of American hegemony while working, indirectly, to destroy it. Indeed, the contradiction strikes at the core of the Sino-Iranian relationship, which now consists of a delicate balancing act: While China tacitly supports Iran in order to undermine the American position in the Middle East, it cannot afford to take that support too far, lest the blowback harm its economy or provoke a damaging counterreaction from the United States.

The modern Sino-Iranian relationship was forged shortly after the Iranian Revolution, when both Iran and China were still international pariahs united by overt hostility to the American-dominated global order. Since then, China has adopted a more restrained posture—at least in appearance—especially since its accession to the World Trade Organization and its integration into the global economy. China’s economic ties with the United States put limits on China’s support for Iran: In 2018, China’s annual trade relationship with Iran was $42 billion, while its trade relationship with the United States ran at about $737 billion.

At present, China is too dependent on exports to the United States, too weak militarily, and its energy supply lines are too vulnerable to risk direct confrontation with the United States; instead, China mounts indirect challenges through Iran and Russia. A return to the cooptation approach will assist Beijing in its strategy of having it both ways. More specifically, it will strengthen the Russian-Iranian alliance, turning it into a more effective sword for China to swing at the American regional security structure.

If the Russian-Iranian alliance should die, or become weak and ineffectual, China will not step in directly to build it back up—because Beijing fears a direct confrontation with the United States. The first priority of American policy, therefore, is to remove the sword from China’s hand by crushing the Russian-Iranian alliance. The domestic American political climate will not permit the use of large numbers of American troops in this project, but four other tools do exist:

1) Economic sanctions. The Trump administration has been imposing these effectively. The Iranian economy is in perilous condition, and the economic situation of Iran’s allies, the Assad regime and Lebanese Hezbollah, are equally dire.

2) Clandestine operations. In recent months, Iran has experienced a wave of mysterious fires and explosions at industrial complexes and military installations. One of these events, at the nuclear fuel enrichment site at Natanz, reportedly set back the country’s nuclear program significantly. A foreign hand is suspected in at least some of these episodes, and the finger of suspicion points most often at Israel. But the sabotage could just as easily be the result of a joint American-Israeli operation.

3) Direct military action by allies. The Turks and the Israelis have both carried out very effective operations in Syria that have significantly degraded not just Iranian but also, in the case of the Turks, Russian capabilities.

4) Selective and judicious use of American military capabilities. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in December did more to shake the Iranian regime than any step the United States has taken in the last 30 years, with the possible exception of the invasion of Iraq. It not only removed from the game an indispensable player, but it boosted the morale of America’s allies and demoralized its enemies.

These tools, taken together, can effectively remove the Russo-Iranian sword from the hand of China. They are already being used. Are they the result of a conscious Trump administration strategy, or have they simply materialized as a set of ad hoc responses to the president’s insistence that his national security team contain Iran aggressively, yet with an economy of force? Whatever the answer, they point the way forward. The goal of American policy should be to use them separately and in coordination so as to increase their lethality.

The greatest advantage that the United States has in its competition with China and, indeed, with any of its adversaries, is hard power. In the realm of trade and investment, Washington simply cannot compete with China and hope to win. If it is to contain China successfully, then it will win with its sledgehammers: military power and economic sanctions. In the Middle East, what America’s allies crave most is the security that comes from the might of the American military. Nothing does more to encourage allies to hedge their bets and cozy up to Beijing than the fear that the United States has decided to abandon military competition as a tool of statecraft.

As China works to make the Middle East a factor in the Western Pacific balance of power, the United States should respond by bringing the Pacific to the Middle East. China’s energy supply lines and its aspiration to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf should become a regular and significant part of America’s discussions with its Pacific partners and India. The goal of this dialogue should be to arrive not just at a shared picture of the threat but also at strategies for assuring that China’s supply lines remain highly vulnerable. China’s partners and potential partners in its plan to become a Middle Eastern military power—Iran, Djibouti, Pakistan, Iraq, and others—should be put on notice that the days of harmonic convergence are over. Support for Chinese hard-power aspirations must come at a steep price. The U.S. must bury harmonic convergence as an organizing principle, or risk ceding control of the international system to a hostile, anti-democratic power.[3]

As I have written:

China’s economy was almost in free-fall before it unleashed the Coronavirus and caused so much suffering globally.  Now, the consumers of the world must boycott anything and everything containing Chinese components for the next twenty years—by “voting” with their pocketbooks—just as Americans did with German and Japanese cars after their savagery in World War II.[4]

And I added:

[Y]es, China’s evil leadership tier thirsts for power, but so did the Soviet leadership that is no more. Perhaps symbolic is that China’s aircraft carrier the Liaoning was a Soviet-era rusting hulk that the Chinese acquired and put a [flat top] on. For the longest time, [China] couldn’t land jets on it, and it was a joke. . . .

The longer that India exposes the weak underbelly of the Chinese military, the better. However, it appears that China is willing to sacrifice Hong Kong’s position as a global financial center in order to subjugate its residents and snuff out democracy. Similarly, it is “reeducating”—persecuting—at least 120,000 and possibly over 1 million Uyghurs.[5]

At the very least, the thoroughly-evil regime of Xi Jinping in China must be crushed.

Lastly, Putinism in Russia will die with the death of the country’s brutal dictator-for-life Vladimir Putin.  And cut off China’a oil supplies and it is dead in the water, quite literally.[6]

 

Xi Jinping and Coronavirus

 

© 2020, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/the-silent-voices-of-stalin%E2%80%99s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao%E2%80%99s-chinese-holocaust/ (“The Silent Voices Of Stalin’s Soviet Holocaust And Mao’s Chinese Holocaust”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/20/can-we-coexist-with-asias-communists/ (“Can We Coexist with Asia’s Communists?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/coexistence-with-china-or-war/ (“Coexistence With China Or War?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/the-coronavirus-must-become-chinas-chernobyl-hastening-the-collapse-of-its-evil-regime/ (“The Coronavirus Must Become China’s Chernobyl, Hastening The Collapse Of Its Evil Regime”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/why-should-the-world-trust-china-ever-again/ (“Why Should The World Trust China Ever Again?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/25/china-infects-the-world-then-lies-and-blames-america/ (“China Infects The World, Then Lies And Blames America”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/expert-warns-quarantine-process-failed-as-china-stands-ready-to-crash-world-economy/ (“Expert Warns Quarantine Process Failed, As China Stands Ready To Crash World Economy”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/china-is-americas-enemy-and-the-enemy-of-free-people-everywhere/ (“China Is America’s Enemy, And The Enemy Of Free People Everywhere”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That”)

[3] See https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/china-middle-eastern-kingdom (“China’s Emerging Middle Eastern Kingdom”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/china-must-be-crushed/ (“China Must Be Crushed”) and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/world/asia/cold-war-china-us.html (“Caught in ‘Ideological Spiral,’ U.S. and China Drift Toward Cold War”—”Relations are in free fall. Lines are being drawn. As the two superpowers clash over technology, territory and clout, a new geopolitical era is dawning”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/07/16/china-must-be-crushed/ (“China Must Be Crushed”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/07/07/will-america-be-the-great-and-glorious-republic-of-the-past-or-the-social-and-cultural-marxist-hellhole-that-is-the-promise-of-the-mobs/#comment-24915 (“Will America Be The Great And Glorious Republic Of The Past, Or The Social And Cultural Marxist Hellhole That Is The Promise Of The Mobs?”); see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning (“Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning”) and https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/8/us-admirals-china-sea-carrier-operation-meant-mess/ (“China Sea carrier operation meant as message to Beijing, say U.S. admirals”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Xinjiang (“Persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang”) 

[6]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/the-death-of-putin-and-russia-the-final-chapter-of-the-cold-war/ (“The Death Of Putin And Russia: The Final Chapter Of The Cold War”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/the-real-russian-conspiracy-barack-obama-the-clintons-and-the-sale-of-americas-uranium-to-russias-killer-putin/ (“The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin”)





China Must Be Crushed

16 07 2020

  By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

China launched the deadly Coronavirus on the world—as a bioweapon or inadvertently—and it must pay with its very existence, and not be pampered as some would suggest.

Steven Lee Myers and Paul Mozur have written in the New York Times:

One by one, the United States has hit at the core tenets of Xi Jinping’s vision for a rising China ready to assume the mantle of superpower.

In a matter of weeks, the Trump administration has imposed sanctions over punitive policies in Hong Kong and China’s western region of Xinjiang. It took new measures to suffocate Chinese innovation by cutting it off from American technology and pushing allies to look elsewhere. On Monday, it challenged China’s claims in the South China Sea, setting the stage for sharper confrontation.

And President Trump said on Tuesday that he had signed into law a bill to punish Chinese officials for the new security law that curbs the rights of Hong Kong residents, along with an executive order ending preferential trade treatment for Hong Kong.

“The power gap is closing, and the ideological gap is widening,” said Rush Doshi, director of the China Strategy Initiative at the Brookings Institution in Washington, adding that China and the United States had entered a downward “ideological spiral” years in the making.

“Where’s the bottom?” he asked.

For years, officials and historians have dismissed the idea that a new Cold War was emerging between the United States and China. The contours of today’s world, the argument went, are simply incomparable to the decades when the United States and the Soviet Union squared off in an existential struggle for supremacy. The world was said to be too interconnected to easily divide into ideological blocs.

Now, lines are being drawn and relations are in free fall, laying the foundation for a confrontation that will have many of the characteristics of the Cold War — and the dangers. As the two superpowers clash over technology, territory and clout, they face the same risk of small disputes escalating into military conflict.

The relationship is increasingly imbued with deep distrust and animosity, as well as the fraught tensions that come with two powers jockeying for primacy, especially in areas where their interests collide: in cyberspace and outer space, in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, and even in the Persian Gulf.

And the coronavirus pandemic, coupled with China’s recent aggressive actions on its borders — from the Pacific to the Himalayas — has turned existing fissures into chasms that could be difficult to overcome, no matter the outcome of this year’s American presidential election.

From Beijing’s perspective, it is the United States that has plunged relations to what China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, said last week was their lowest point since the countries re-established diplomatic relations in 1979.

“The current China policy of the United States is based on ill-informed strategic miscalculation and is fraught with emotions and whims and McCarthyist bigotry,” Mr. Wang said, evoking the Cold War himself to describe the current level of tensions.

“It seems as if every Chinese investment is politically driven, every Chinese student is a spy and every cooperation initiative is a scheme with a hidden agenda,” he added.

Domestic politics in both countries have hardened views and given ammunition to hawks.

“What cooperation is there between China and the United States right now?” said Zheng Yongnian, director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore. “I can’t see any substantial cooperation.”

The pandemic, too, has inflamed tensions, especially in the United States. Mr. Trump refers to the coronavirus with racist tropes, while Beijing accuses his administration of attacking China to detract from its failures to contain the virus.

Mr. Trump, in a statement delivered from the Rose Garden Tuesday evening that focused harshly on China and his presidential rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., referred to the pandemic as “the plague pouring in from China,” and said that the Chinese “could have stopped it.”

Both countries are forcing other nations to take sides, even if they are disinclined to do so. The Trump administration, for example, has pressed allies — with some success in Australia and, on Tuesday, in Britain — to forswear the Chinese tech giant Huawei as they develop 5G networks. China, facing condemnation over its policies in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, has rallied countries to make public demonstrations of support for them.

At the United Nations Humans Rights Council in Geneva, 53 nations — from Belarus to Zimbabwe — signed a statement supporting China’s new security law for Hong Kong. Only 27 nations on the council criticized it, most of them European democracies, along with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Such blocs would not have been unfamiliar at the height of the Cold War.

China has also wielded its vast economic power as a tool of political coercion, cutting off imports of beef and barley from Australia because its government called for an international investigation into the origins of the pandemic. On Tuesday, Beijing said it would sanction the American aerospace manufacturer Lockheed Martin over recent weapons sales to Taiwan.

With the world distracted by the pandemic, China has also wielded its military might, as it did by testing its disputed frontier with India in April and May. That led to the first deadly clash there since 1975. The damage to the relationship could take years to repair.

Increasingly, China seems willing to accept the risks of such actions. Only weeks later, it asserted a new territorial claim in Bhutan, the mountain kingdom that is closely allied with India.

With China menacing vessels from Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia in the South China Sea, the United States dispatched two aircraft carriers through the waters last month in an aggressive show of strength. Further brinkmanship appears inevitable now that the State Department has declared China’s claims there illegal.

A spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, Zhao Lijian, said on Tuesday that the American declaration would undermine regional peace and stability, asserting that China had controlled the islands in the sea “for thousands of years,” which is not true. As he stated, the Republic of China — then controlled by the Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek — only made a formal claim in 1948.

“China is committed to resolving territorial and jurisdictional disputes with directly related sovereign states through negotiations and consultations,” he said.

That is not how its neighbors see things. Japan warned this week that China was attempting to “alter the status quo in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.” It called China a more serious long-term threat than a nuclear-armed North Korea.

Michael A. McFaul, a former American ambassador to Russia and professor of international studies at Stanford University, said China’s recent maneuvering appeared to be “overextended and overreaching,” likening it to one of the most fraught moments of the Cold War.

“It does remind me of Khrushchev,” he said. “He’s lashing out, and suddenly he’s in a Cuban missile crisis with the U.S.”

A backlash against Beijing appears to be growing. The tensions are particularly clear in tech, where China has sought to compete with the world in cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence and microchips, while harshly restricting what people can read, watch or listen to inside the country.

If the Berlin Wall was the physical symbol of the first Cold War, the Great Firewall could well be the virtual symbol of the new one.

What began as a divide in cyberspace to insulate Chinese citizens from views not authorized by the Communist Party has now proved to be a prescient indicator of the deeper fissures between China and much of the Western world.

Mr. Wang, in his speech, said China had never sought to impose its way on other countries. But it has done exactly that by getting Zoom to censor talks that were being held in the United States and by launching cyberattacks on Uighurs across the globe.

Its controls have been hugely successful at home in stifling dissent and helping to seed domestic internet giants, but they have won China little influence abroad. India’s move to block 59 Chinese apps threatens to hobble China’s biggest overseas internet success to date, the meme-laden short-video app TikTok.

Last week, TikTok also shut down in Hong Kong because of China’s new national security law there. The American tech giants Facebook, Google and Twitter said they would stop reviewing data requests from the Hong Kong authorities as they assessed the law’s restrictions.

“China is big, it will be successful, it will develop its own tech, but there are limits to what it can do,” said James A. Lewis, a former American official who writes on cybersecurity and espionage for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Even in places where China has succeeded in selling its technology, the tide appears to be turning.

Beijing’s recent truculence has now led the United Kingdom to block new Huawei equipment from going into its networks, and the Trump administration is determined to cut the company off from microchips and other components it needs. To counter, Beijing has redoubled efforts to build homegrown options.

Calls for a total decoupling of China’s supply chain from American tech companies are unrealistic in the short term, and would prove massively expensive in the longer term. Still, the United States has moved to pull Taiwan’s microchip manufacturing — crucial to the supply chains of Huawei and other Chinese tech companies — closer to its backyard, with plans to support a new Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing plant in Arizona.

Mr. Wang, the foreign minister, urged the United States to step back and seek areas where the two countries can work together. Pessimism about the relationship is nonetheless widespread, though most Chinese officials and analysts blame the Trump administration for trying to deflect attention from its failure to control the pandemic.

“It is not difficult to see that under the impact of the coronavirus in this U.S. election year various powers in the U.S. are focused on China,” Zhao Kejin, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University, wrote in a recent paper. “The China-U.S. relationship faces the most serious moment since the establishment of diplomatic relations.”

While he eschewed the idea of a new Cold War, his alternative phrasing was no more reassuring: “The new reality is China-U.S. relations are not entering ‘a new Cold War’ but sliding into a ‘soft war.’”[2]

China’s economy was almost in free-fall before it unleashed the Coronavirus and caused so much suffering globally.  Now, the consumers of the world must boycott anything and everything containing Chinese components for the next twenty years—by “voting” with their pocketbooks—just as Americans did with German and Japanese cars after their savagery in World War II.  Nothing less will suffice.[3]

As I wrote recently:

[Y]es, China’s evil leadership tier thirsts for power, but so did the Soviet leadership that is no more. Perhaps symbolic is that China’s aircraft carrier the Liaoning was a Soviet-era rusting hulk that the Chinese acquired and put a [flat top] on. For the longest time, [China] couldn’t land jets on it, and it was a joke. . . .

The longer that India exposes the weak underbelly of the Chinese military, the better. However, it appears that China is willing to sacrifice Hong Kong’s position as a global financial center in order to subjugate its residents and snuff out democracy. Similarly, it is “reeducating”—persecuting—at least 120,000 and possibly over 1 million Uyghurs.[4]

At the very least, the thoroughly-evil regime of Xi Jinping in China must be crushed.

 

 

© 2020, Timothy D. Naegele


[1]  Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and Timothy D. Naegele Resume-20-6-30). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal (see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commendation_Medal#Joint_Service). Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/articles/), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com

[2]  See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/world/asia/cold-war-china-us.html (“Caught in ‘Ideological Spiral,’ U.S. and China Drift Toward Cold War”—”Relations are in free fall. Lines are being drawn. As the two superpowers clash over technology, territory and clout, a new geopolitical era is dawning”)

[3]  See Timothy D. Naegele, The Coronavirus and Similar Global Issues: How to Address Them, 137 BANKING L. J. 285 (June 2020) (Naegele June 2020) (Timothy D. Naegele) [NOTE: To download The Banking Law Journal article, please click on the link to the left of this note]; see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/20/can-we-coexist-with-asias-communists/ (“Can We Coexist with Asia’s Communists?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/coexistence-with-china-or-war/ (“Coexistence With China Or War?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/the-coronavirus-must-become-chinas-chernobyl-hastening-the-collapse-of-its-evil-regime/ (“The Coronavirus Must Become China’s Chernobyl, Hastening The Collapse Of Its Evil Regime”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/04/07/why-should-the-world-trust-china-ever-again/ (“Why Should The World Trust China Ever Again?”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/25/china-infects-the-world-then-lies-and-blames-america/ (“China Infects The World, Then Lies And Blames America”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/expert-warns-quarantine-process-failed-as-china-stands-ready-to-crash-world-economy/ (“Expert Warns Quarantine Process Failed, As China Stands Ready To Crash World Economy”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/china-is-americas-enemy-and-the-enemy-of-free-people-everywhere/ (“China Is America’s Enemy, And The Enemy Of Free People Everywhere”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/china-is-americas-enemy-make-no-mistake-about-that/ (“China Is America’s Enemy: Make No Mistake About That”)

[4]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2020/07/07/will-america-be-the-great-and-glorious-republic-of-the-past-or-the-social-and-cultural-marxist-hellhole-that-is-the-promise-of-the-mobs/#comment-24915; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning (“Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning”) and https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/8/us-admirals-china-sea-carrier-operation-meant-mess/ (“China Sea carrier operation meant as message to Beijing, say U.S. admirals”) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Xinjiang (“Persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang”)








%d bloggers like this: