Displaying posts published in

June 2021

China and Russia by Peter Schweizer

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17469/china-and-russia

The actions of the Beijing government since the earliest days of concern about the disease have shown in stark relief how a closed, authoritarian society tries to deny and shift blame for its misdeeds. How it seeks to co-opt international health agencies. How it tries to bribe foreigners to do its bidding. How it has infected more than not just American bodies, but American society and its institutions at many levels.

Almost no one in American politics, on the Left or Right, has been hailing the Chinese communist government for its efforts to stem the fourth deadly pathogen to come from its shores and devastate the rest of the world. The Chinese government concealed all information about how the virus originated, encouraging speculation they did so intentionally. According to Gordon Chang, they may even be preparing to do so again, only worse…. By comparison, Russia’s crimes against the West, real and imagined, amount to a relative nuisance.

Foreign policy, however, is made towards nations, not individual leaders. In geo-political terms it asks: What is another country’s ability to help you, or harm you?

In the 1980s no one would have suggested that Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, or Muamar Qaddafi was America’s greatest enemy. They were obnoxious sideshows, annoying tinpot dictators with a flair for the microphone, but not existential threats on the order of the Soviet Union.

What this poll suggests is that threat assessment has somehow become a partisan issue, based on political grudges and perceptions that have little to do with a particular nation’s real capacity to damage American interests. The divide among Republicans and Democrats between China and Russia as our largest threat fails to account for a modern analysis of China’s power, influence, aggressiveness in action, and willingness to corrupt American political and cultural leaders. It should not be a partisan issue, no matter how obnoxious one nation’s current leader may be.

Putin loves to tweak America; Xi prefers quieter, more damaging forms of aggression.

It is vital for American voters to understand that bribery is a key part of doing business for both China and Russia.

No matter how much he might like to, Vladimir Putin cannot threaten the balance sheets of huge American companies such as Apple and Microsoft; China could do it tomorrow.

Imagine yourself sitting at a poker table with one opponent who fingers his dwindling stack of chips while glowering at you and daring you to bump the pot. Meanwhile, your other opponent with more chips sits quietly behind his cards while his paid spies behind your chair signal him the contents of your hand.

China: The Elephant in that Room in Cornwall by Amir Taheri

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17481/china-g7

While Obama looked the other way, China militarized a string of atolls in seas around it as part of a long-term plan to forge an aggressive profile against its neighbor and the United States.

The Chinese challenge can and must be met both in the global arena and inside the People’s Republic itself. Any move in that direction would require a realistic assessment of the People’s Republic in terms of hard and soft power.

China’s pursuit of global power and influence is modelled on the Western empire-buildings of the 19th century, which consisted of importing raw material, exporting manufactured goods, and weaving networks of trade with the help of a seemingly endless flow of settlers, gunboats and colonial outposts across the globe. China cannot fully adopt that model for a number of reasons. Its model is based on the assumption that capitalism can forever do without democracy, something that the experience of the Western imperial powers of the past proved to be fallacious.

At the G7 summit in Cornwall last weekend, US President Joe Biden warned his fellow-summiteers that unless something was done “China would eat our lunch.” Did Biden overegg the pudding with his colorful language or is the world ignoring the invisible chopsticks at work?

In a sense China, as the biggest trading partner of almost all the G7 members, is already eating part of their lunch while it is clear that without Western investment, technology and, of course, markets, China might have remained hungry and stuck between the madness of Maoism and the inertia of Ah-Quism.

Biden, of all people, should know all that. For it was during the Obama administration in which Biden was part of the décor that the “Asia-Pacific” cliché was launched as the principal future direction of the US global strategy. While Obama looked the other way, China militarized a string of atolls in seas around it as part of a long-term plan to forge an aggressive profile against its neighbor and the United States.

The Europeans saw the “Asia-Pacific” motif as a signal that China was the future and that they had better put as many chips on its number as they could.

Like his other grandiose schemes, Obama’s “Asia-Pacific” failed because his administration was unable to define China’s place in the global system and its relations with the United States. Unable to decide whether China was friend or foe, Obama, the quintessential ego-worshipper, believed his charm would be sufficient to coax China into the channel he desired.

Bill Maher continues to give voice to rational leftists By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/06/bill_maher_continues_to_give_voice_to_rational_leftists.html

It’s doubtful that Bill Maher will ever change his politics. He believes absolutely in fundamental leftist principles about how government should operate (and, of course, abortion). However, he’s not a fool and he realizes that leftists, drunk with power, have become their own worst enemies. Most recently, he went after Lin-Manuel Miranda, the talented composing of Hamilton, because Miranda groveled after the leftist mob attacked him for having the wrong colored people in the film adaption of his musical, In the Heights.

Most of you are probably familiar with Hamilton, even if you haven’t seen the show or heard the music. Miranda was so inspired after reading Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton, that he sat right down and composed what I call a “popra” – that is, like an opera, the whole thing is sung (or chanted or rapped) only with modern, rather than classical, music.

What made Hamilton stand out was the choice to exclude White people from the cast. In theory, that was a brilliant idea because it’s a reminder that the principles of America’s founding are applicable to all people of all races. The ideas of individual liberty and limited government are colorblind. They were the best ideas that brilliant men could come up with. America’s shame came from withholding this government from Blacks. Now, thankfully, these ideas are available to all in America – and again, the casting suggested that.

However, thanks to the death last year of a drug-addled ex-con, the left has dragged America with incredible force away from those ideas. Instead of being a colorblind nation bound together by a brilliant political philosophy, Critical Race Theory demands that America become a racially segregated nation with non-White victims engaged in a permanent vendetta against evil White oppressors. It doesn’t matter that there’s no factual for this narrative. Because racial schism is the vehicle by which leftists believe they can finally impose Marxism on America, reality must step aside.

Illinois Governor Signs Bill to Make Official Titles Gender-Neutral By Brittany Bernstein

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/illinois-governor-signs-bill-to-make-official-titles-gender-neutral/

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker (D.) signed a bill this week to change the titles for elected officials in the state from “alderman” and “congressman” to “alderperson” and “congressperson” to be more gender-inclusive.

“We see a lot of ‘hes’ and ‘hims’” in state statute, said the bill’s co-sponsor, State Representative Maurice West (D).

“And now we have, you know, not just women in office, but we have people who may not identify with any gender,” he added. “We want to make sure that our voting and our election cycle process is inclusive for everyone.”

The change was included in Democratic legislation, first introduced in February, that amends Illinois’s state election code to postpone the 2022 Illinois primary until June. 

It comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) introduced new congressional rules in January to remove all mention of gender-specific pronouns and terms like “man,” “woman,” “mother” and “son.”

Pelosi’s new rule sparked backlash from Republicans, including House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy who wrote in a tweet, “This is stupid. Signed, – A father, son, and brother.”

Biden Admin Takes Steps to Offer Gender-Transition Surgery through VA Health Care: Report By Brittany Bernstein

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-admin-takes-steps-to-offer-gender-transition-surgery-through-va-health-care-report/

Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough is taking steps toward making gender transition surgery available to veterans through Veterans Affairs health-care coverage, according to a new report.

A VA department spokesperson reportedly told CNN that McDonough plans to announce the move at a Pride event at the Orlando Vet Center in Florida on Saturday.

“We are taking the first necessary steps to expand VA’s care to include gender confirmation surgery — thus allowing transgender vets to go through the full gender confirmation process with VA by their side,” McDonough is expected to say.

The VA Health Benefits package currently covers mental-health services and sex-change hormones, but does not cover gender-transition surgery. 

McDonough’s prepared remarks note that “there are several steps to take, which will take time.” Policy changes will need to be made and the process of creating a new federal regulation can take years.

A VA spokesperson told CNN the department plans to start the federal rulemaking process to make the change this summer.

Georgia’s Election Reform Makes It Easy to Vote & Hard to Cheat By Jonathan Bain

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/06/18/georgias_election_reform_makes_it_easy_to_vote_and_hard_to_cheat_781903.html

Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it’s not difficult to find voters in Georgia who were discouraged by the messiness of the 2020 election process.

It’s one thing to be disappointed by the outcome. It’s entirely another to feel disenfranchised and frustrated by questions and uncertainties surrounding absentee ballot handling, unsecured drop boxes, and questionable third-party funding of local elections.

In evaluating federal, state, and local voting safeguards, these and other serious complications — glitches, missing votes, even water pipe breakages at polling locations or ballot drop boxes — raised legitimate concerns and weakened voter confidence in Georgia’s election integrity.

Such concerns ultimately weaken voter confidence and decrease participation in elections regardless of political persuasion and prompted Georgia lawmakers to modernize voting laws to make it easier to vote and harder to interfere with Georgia’s elections. 

As expected, a few partisan individuals and groups rushed to label Georgia’s new election reform law, the Georgia Election Integrity Act of 2021, (SB202) as an act of voter suppression. However, their claims are simply not true: reforms introduced in this legislation expand voting access for all Georgia voters while enhancing the security of the process.

Why Has “Ivermectin” Become a Dirty Word? At the worst moment, Internet censorship has driven scientific debate itself underground Matt Taibbi

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty

On December 8, 2020, when most of America was consumed with what The Guardian called Donald Trump’s “desperate, mendacious, frenzied and sometimes farcical” attempt to remain president, the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news.

“We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally. “There is a drug that is proving to have a miraculous impact.”

Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet?

Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.

“I want to try to be respectful because I think the intention is correct,” Kory told the committee. “They want to cut down on misinformation, and many doctors are claiming X, Y, and Z work in this disease. The challenge is, you’re also silencing those of us who are expert, reasoned, researched, and extremely knowledgeable.”

Eight million people watched Kory say that on the C-SPAN video of the hearing posted to YouTube, but YouTube, in what appears to be a first, removed video of the hearing, as even Senate testimony was now deemed too dangerous for public consumption. YouTube later suspended the Wisconsin Senator who’d invited Kory to the hearing, and when Kory went on podcasts to tell his story, YouTube took down those videos, too. Kory was like a ghost who floated through the Internet, leaving suspensions and blackened warning screens everywhere he went.

Is it racist to confront a suicide bomber? The inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing points to some serious problems in our society. Brendan O’ Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/06/18/is-it-racist-to-confront-a-suicide-bomber/

The independent inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing of May 2017, in which 22 pop fans were killed by an Islamist extremist, has published the first volume of its report. It makes for chilling reading. The inquiry has found there were numerous ‘missed opportunities’ to confront Salman Abedi, the bomber, and potentially stop him from detonating the device in his rucksack. Most chilling of all is the reason given by one of the key security guards on patrol that evening as to why he failed to question Abedi. He was worried, he said, that asking a brown-skinned man why he was hanging around the arena might be construed as racist.

Take that in. There was a very shifty-looking young man around the foyer and mezzanine of the Manchester Arena towards the end of an Ariana Grande concert, carrying a ‘bulging’ rucksack so large he ‘struggled’ under the weight of it, and a security guard was reluctant to confront him lest he be accused of racism. In the words of the report, this was a significant ‘missed opportunity’. The ‘inadequacy’ of the security guard’s response to the presence of a highly suspicious individual was one of the many misjudgements made on that black, fateful night, the report says. Is it possible that the fear of being thought of as racist is screwing up everyday life, and even hindering sensible action in threatening situations?

To be clear, the security guard who was cagey about questioning Abedi is not responsible for the failure to stop Abedi from detonating his device. The first volume of the inquiry’s report – which covers security at and around the arena on the night of 22 May 2017 – criticises certain individuals, including the security guard, for not doing their jobs diligently enough. But it says that it was the organisations responsible for security at the arena – the arena’s own security firm and also the British Transport Police – that were ‘principally’ to blame for the ‘missed opportunities’. It also makes the reasonable point that it is impossible to know what would have happened if Abedi had been confronted. It proposes that there may still have been loss of life – if, for example, he had detonated his device while being questioned – but that it would have been less severe than the horrors that shortly unfolded.

Doctors for Progressive Conformity The AMA wants to police the speech of dissenting members.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctors-for-progressive-conformity-11624055333?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

The American Medical Association is a lobby of doctors that’s supposed to promote policies that improve public health and medicine. But it seems to be evolving into another arm of progressive politics, like the teachers unions. See the AMA’s policy-making meeting this week.

Delegates spent much of the time discussing systemic racism in health care and adopted guidelines for workplaces to establish training requirements for explicit and implicit bias and microaggressions. AMA trustee Willarda Edwards called systemic racism “the most serious barrier to the advancement of health equity and appropriate medical care.”

Many doctors would disagree with that statement. But the AMA seems to want to enforce ideological conformity in its ranks, including on social media. Delegates also voted to encourage social-media platforms to “crack down on medical misinformation,” including by “altering underlying network dynamics or redesigning platform algorithms.”

Social-media platforms have been removing content by doctors who disagree with the progressive lockdown consensus or who suggest that the virus may have leaked from a Chinese lab. Many doctors say their videos recommending early treatment with repurposed antiviral drugs have been censored, including one from a Senate hearing.

Social-media censorship suppressed debate on important issues during the pandemic, and the AMA wants to extend the information control to other health subjects. The new AMA policy would ostensibly encourage Facebook, YouTube and others to remove posts by doctors who question progressive orthodoxy on race and identity politics.

AMA delegates also voted to endorse an intellectual property waiver that progressives have been pushing for Covid vaccines at the World Trade Organization. President Biden endorsed it last month. But even European leaders say it won’t increase global vaccine supply and will set a dangerous precedent that will retard innovation in new medicines.

None of these new AMA policy positions will help patients or physicians, and they risk eroding public trust in the medical profession. Whatever happened to “first, do no harm”?

Why Shutdowns and Masks Suit the Elite Covid restrictions seem less onerous from the standpoint of ‘expressive individualism,’ which defines the self in terms of ‘its will and not its body.’

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-shutdowns-and-masks-suit-the-elite-11624038950?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

A marvelous review in these pages last November inspired me to read a new book by O. Carter Snead, “What It Means to Be Human: The Case for the Body in Human Bioethics.” It was published by Harvard University Press on Oct. 13. Covid-19 had begun its transformation of American life a few months before, and of course the book made no mention of it.

Yet Mr. Snead’s volume helped explain the bizarre and at times perverse response of prosperous Western nations to the pandemic: the long discontinuation of economic life, the belief that pixelated screens can facilitate human relationships, the prohibitions on ordinary social interactions, the fetishization of masks. These policies and practices weren’t handed down from the ether by Reason and Science but bore the weight of contemporary assumptions about—to borrow Mr. Snead’s title—what it means to be human.

His book isn’t about public health but “public bioethics”—the effort to make humane laws and rules for biotechnology and medical care. Mr. Snead’s premise and theme is that humans are embodied creatures, not mere wills and intellects. That premise stands in contrast with the dominant modern worldview, which he calls “expressive individualism”: the belief that the human self “is not defined by its attachments or networks of relations, but rather by its capacity to choose a future pathway that is revealed by the investigation of its own inner depths of sentiment. . . . Because this self is defined by its capacity to choose, it is associated fundamentally with its will and not its body.”

Mr. Snead is a law professor at Notre Dame and director of its de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. On a recent trip to the Midwest, I drove to South Bend to ask what the pandemic year has revealed about our understanding of humanness.