Xi Van Fleet, a survivor of Mao Tse Tung’s cultural revolution, warns that Progressives are pushing the U.S. to the same path. Then, Former CIA officer Clare Lopez provides her extraordinary insights into the crises facing America. Both on this week’s American Political Zone! watch at https://rumble.com/v3uj0y4-the-american-political-zone-november-8-2023.html
The U.S. military is facing unique challenges in fulfilling its mission to deter the growing threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The problems are not the fault of the servicemembers, but from the politicians, some in elective office and, also, some in uniform who have forgotten that their oath is to the Constitution and not to progressive ideology.
During the Obama presidency, the armed services were deprived of crucial funds, the aftereffects of which can still be seen today. Some officers were promoted more for their demographics and political loyalty than for their capabilities and leadership qualities. But perhaps the worst promotion of all was appointing General Mark Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, selected by President Trump, a move the former President has admitted was a terrible error.
When President Biden appointed Lloyd Austin as Defense Secretary, the two combined to incompetently impose unprecedented debacles on the services, including the incompetent execution of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the institution of woke dictates that have demoralized current servicemembers, and created a recruitment crisis.
Many Members of Congress have been so outraged that they passed a bill to reduce Austin’s salary to a mere one dollar.
Milley, now retired, and Austin are not alone in their politicized agenda. Earlier in 2023, Rep. Mike Rogers, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Jim Banks, Chair of the House Committee on military personnel, demanded to know what Austin would do about Kelisa Wing, the “chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer” in the Department of Defense Education Activity office, who has made who has made repeated comments exhibiting overt racial bias against whites.
The upshot is that Washington has spent vast sums on other priorities at the expense of its most important duty, protecting the nation.
Earlier this year, Adam Kredo, writing for the Washington Free Beacon, reported that “The Biden administration wants to enact sharp budget cuts to the U.S. Navy that would force it to prematurely retire almost a dozen ships and take offline critical missile systems that serve as a primary deterrent to Chinese aggression. President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget proposal would deal a massive blow to the already strained American Navy—the White House wants to prematurely retire eight ships and two combat vessels. By taking these ships out of action, the Navy would lose more than 600 vertical launch missile systems—a missile capability that serves as the primary deterrent to Chinese military attacks in the Pacific, according to congressional research provided to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘The Biden Administration’s defense budget would hollow out our fleet and scrap Navy radars and missile systems we desperately need to deter China,’ Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), the Senate Armed Services Committee’s ranking member, told the Free Beacon. ‘Prematurely retiring our ships sends exactly the wrong signal to China as they continue to build their own Navy at a historic pace. Biden’s budget would decrease the total number of active Navy ships, retiring at least 11 ships while only requesting the construction of nine new vessels. The Navy currently has 294 battle force ships, far short of the 355 it is required to have by law. Biden’s budget would further reduce this number, according to information about the White House’s 2023 budget proposal codified by Wicker’s office.” The policy wholly ignores the reality that China has the world’s largest navy, and it is growing still larger.
Already underfunded by the eight years of the Obama presidency, Biden’s defense budgets have repeatedly failed to keep up with inflation. Adjusted for inflation, Biden’s proposed defense budget would produce a 5% cut. It is difficult to see the rationale for that, as foreign threats have grown exponentially. Military spending amounts to a mere 12% of the federal budget, and only 3.1% of GDP, projected to decline to 2.8% in the next ten years. In 1960, it was almost 9% of GDP. In 1969, it amounted to 52% of the federal budget.
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
Photo: Dept. of Defense
There is a clear partisan divide in attitudes towards the First Amendment.
A Realclear Politics analysis gives specific details of the partisan divide in support for free speech. “Painting with a broad brush, Democrats grant significantly more deference to government than do Republicans when it comes to regulating free speech. This wasn’t the only fault line revealed by the RCP survey. Some of what is dividing these differences is generational, as Millennials and Gen-Z have come of age in a digital age environment in which reasonable expectations of privacy seem a relic of the past. “Those under 30 are most open to censorship by the government,” Kimball noted, adding that 42% of this cohort deem it “more important” to them that the government protect national security than guard the right to free expression. Among those over 65 years old, the corresponding percentage was 26%… Republicans are not the authoritarian party. That distinction belongs to the Democrats… Nearly one-third of Democratic voters (34%) say Americans have “too much freedom.” This compared to 14.6% of Republicans. Republicans were most likely to say Americans have too little freedom (46%), while only 22% of Democrats feel that way. Independents were in the middle in both categories.”
Targets of the anti-First Amendment crowd range from parents to billionaires.
The New York Post recently reported that US Education Secretary Miguel Cardona criticized parents who had the temerity of criticizing schools for their bizarre woke policies that have resulted in crises such as girls being rapid in restrooms by males who enter those places under the excuse that they “felt like a female” on a give day. Cardona chided moms and dads “misbehaving in public” and “acting like they know what’s right for kids.”
Those parents are in good company. After the 2020 election, when Democrat-leaning federal agencies moved to censor media outlets that would have printed or posted accurate information that would be embarrassing to Joe Biden, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, promising that he wouldn’t be intimidated in a similar manner. The White House made a predictable move. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Administration has responded by using a variety of excuses to harass Musk through various investigations.
Jason Boyd wrote in The Federalist that “Democrats are at war with free speech, and they are using every tool in their political box to silence their political opponents…Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren even went so far as to claim Musk owning Twitter is ‘dangerous for our democracy.’ The Washington Post also admitted that ’Democrats, Biden have limited power as Elon Musk buys Twitter…Throwing a fit about the ability to censor and suppress speech is a growing trend in Democrat politics. Leftist politicians past and present have been heavily involved in efforts to smear their political enemies as “threats to democracy” and label anything counter to their narrative as disinformation.”
David Keene, in a Washington Times article states that “Transparency is fast emerging as the major obstacle in the way of the woke left’s campaign to banish those who question its narrative from the public square. Today’s elites reject the classical liberal view that free speech is essential to the functioning of a free society as it allows thinking people to decide for themselves which opinions they might choose to support…When Elon Musk released evidence that Twitter not only engaged in a conscious campaign to shut down speech with which its owners took issue but also coordinated its censorship campaign with the government and with politicians its leadership wanted to promote, the elite media dismissed the whole thing as a lot about very little, but the American public wasn’t so sure.”
The censorship moves extended beyond electoral politics. WSJ found that “Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily.” The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.”
American society, once open, has reacted. A CATO analysis found that “nearly three‐fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. A little more than a quarter (28%) instead believe that political correctness has done more to help people avoid offending others.
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
Illustration: Pixabay
The evidence is now as overwhelming as it is shocking: many Americans are turning sharply away from what was once the nations’ most basic principle, the sanctity of free speech.
Both the Obama and the Biden Administrations have attempted to federalize attempts to limit the First Amendment through the establishing of “Disinformation” agencies. It has become clear that both presidents defined “disinformation” as views and facts they disagree with.
The problem has been growing. In 2019, a report by the Campaign for Free Speech found that “Americans are increasingly hostile toward free speech, a free press, and the First Amendment. According to the survey, 61 percent of Americans agree that free speech should be restricted, and 51 percent believe that the First Amendment, ratified in 1791, should be rewritten to reflect the new cultural norms of today. Millennials feel a greater sense of negativity from free speech, with 57 percent agreeing that the First Amendment should be rewritten, and 54 percent believing that possible jail time would be an appropriate consequence for “hate speech.” Americans also support government being able to punish the media: 57% believe the government should be able to take action against newspapers or TV stations. Of those who support this, 46% support possible jail time. Additionally, 36% of Americans support a government agency reviewing alternative media such as podcasts; less than half of Americans oppose this.”
A recent report from Pew Research notes that “Support for both technology companies and the government taking steps to restrict false information online has grown in recent years. For example, the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.
A Daily Signal study notes that “Democrats value free speech far less than Republicans do…Free speech is seriously threatened for the first time in American history… The threat to free speech comes entirely from the Left… There is no example in history of the Left attaining power and allowing free speech. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution to the Maoist takeover of China to almost any university in America today, wherever the Left comes to power, it suppresses speech…The Left must suppress speech in order to retain power. If it were to allow dissent, it would lose its hold on power…That is why conservative speakers are rarely allowed to speak on college campuses. Left-wing professors, deans, and administrators know—consciously or subconsciously—that an effective conservative speaker can undo years of left-wing indoctrination in just 90 minutes… All tyrannies label dissent ‘misinformation.’ That is what Vladimir Putin’s government labels all dissent in Russia today.”
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor in chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
The report concludes tomorrow
Soul and root 灵魂与根 (línghún yǔ gēn) may sound uplifting to some, but for those living in Taiwan it is a source of great concern. The expression, long used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership to invoke a sense of unity as it relates to China’s cultural heritage, has a more prescriptive intent today. At a Politburo study session in June, President Xi Jinping declared “We must not abandon Marxism as our soul or China’s excellent traditional culture as our root.” Only a year ago, the expression stood only for “cultural heritage.” By this summer the CCP had finished reframing the phrase soul and root and presented it to the nation as the theme of the 102nd anniversary of the founding of the CCP. What has changed over the past year? Soul and Root is now a neonationalist call to the Chinese people to unite Taiwan with the People’s Republic of China. President Xi needs the backing of the populace to force Taiwan under Beijing’s governance and to carry out his vision of remaking the international, rules-based order to favor China’s vision of it place in the world.
In October, Chinese Air Force fighter jets, bombers, and UAVs penetrated Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over 142 times, with 358 aircraft crossing the median line surrounding Taiwan. Chinese intrusions were not limited to the air, its Navy (PLAN) also sent an aircraft carrier, support, and allied ships through the Bashi Channel into the Pacific. The waterway is located between Taiwan and the Philippines, with Taiwan’s Orchid Island to the north and the Philippine’s Botel Tobago to the south. It is a sensitive region containing numerous underseas communications cables, a maritime commerce route, and a critical channel Taiwan uses for its military ships leaving the South China Sea and entering the Pacific Ocean. Although claimed by both Taiwan and the Philippines, this channel effectively provides the Taiwanese navy the vital strategic depth and operational space it will need in the event of a kinetic battle with China. It also allows Taiwanese submarines to avoid the shallow depths of the East China Sea, which are heavily patrolled by China.
For Beijing, the region plays an important role in its geopolitical ambitions and serves as a chokepoint that allows China the control essential for operational mobility of its rapidly expanding submarine fleet. As China extends its global power projection, the Bashi Channel has emerged as the center of its Soul and Root appeal. There are many disputed islands in the Channel claimed by China. Any increase in Chinese control of the area could represent a tipping point for Beijing’s economic and security interests, and end in heavily isolating Taiwan from the global economy. East Asian maritime trade depends on the Channel to sustain the current volume and velocity of global trade. Any disruption to the route will increase tensions with China and negatively impact shipping costs and it reverberates down the global supply chain.
Japan and South Korea depend heavily on the Bashi Channel as a transit route for importing the energy needed to keep their economies running. Any disruption has the potential to spur a global energy crisis. China’s Soul and Root campaign could disrupt the peace and stability in East Asia at a time when the United States is distracted by military crises in other areas of the world. One question many analysts in Washington are discussing this week is, Was this China’s intention all along? With world attention turned toward Russia’s war in Ukraine and now the dire situation in the Middle East, China could use this time to further its global ambitions.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.
Illustration: Pixabay
There is an “increased threat” From Russia Against Critical Infrastructure in Finland,” according to a recent Moscow Times headline. With the world closely monitoring events in the Middle East, a serious Scandinavian incident was virtually overlooked by many major Western media outlets. It appears this fall that Putin believes he is free to act out beyond the battlefield in Ukraine. And, he is soliciting help from China, one of Russia’s few allies. On October 8, the Balticconnector natural gas underwater pipeline between Finland and Estonia received significant damage. Preliminary findings from the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation determined that a pipeline leak was likely caused by the Russian oil carrier SGV Flot seemingly in concert with the Chinese-flagged container ship, the Newnew Polar Bear. The Chinese vessel apparently dragged its anchor along the seabed over the 48-mile-long gas pipeline.
Needed repairs are extensive and not expected to be complete until at least April 2024. The Finnish Security and Intelligence Service (SUPO) warned that the suspected sabotage targeting the country’s crucial maritime energy infrastructure, occurred inside its exclusive economic zone. This latest incident raises a question for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Member states. If Russia and its allies continue to destabilize the region, should NATO consider additional protective actions? Both
Finland and Estonia are NATO Member states. The Finnish-Russian bilateral relationship has deteriorated quickly since Finland joined NATO last April after Helsinki ended seven decades of its non-aligned policy.
“Another liquefied natural terminal in Hamina was connected to the grid in 2022 but has very limited capacity… This development along with the original pipeline have become the only viable alternatives to Finland’s import of Russia gas,” according to Mateusz Kubiak of the Jamestown Foundation.
Last week Finnish law enforcement confirmed new evidence linking China to the incident when it found the Newnew Polar Bear’s anchor near the pipeline along with traces of drag marks leading to the nexus of the damage.
The Barents Observer reports this week that the sabotage is complicated by evidence indicating the ultimate owner of the cargo vessel appears to be the Russian-registered company Torgmoll. The publication discovered that new permissions for the Chinese ship to navigate using Russia’s Northern Sea Route were addressed to Torgmoll. Previous permissions were granted to China’s Haian Xin Xin Yang Shipping company. Torgmoll office in both Moscow and Shanghai proport to be developing China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The suspected coordination between China and Russia is a concerning sign of increased coordination of disruptive events against Western states.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg discussed the issue with ministers of defense from each of the Member countries and quickly declared if proven to be sabotage, the alliance should develop a “united and determined response.” NATO is viewing the Russian-Chinese act as part of a larger regional security issue and order increased maritime patrols in the Baltic Sea and flyovers. Kubiak suggests that the final findings of the investigation will likely inform NATO’ s decision to either provide a military response or deescalate the situation. Stoltenberg noted that NATO Member states themselves should individually consider additional protection and monitoring of critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region and elsewhere, including natural gas and crude oil import terminals.
“NATO already took the first step in this direction when it announced the creation of a Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell at NATO headquarters earlier this year,” according to Kubiak. As the war in Russia drags on and Putin becomes more desperate, analysts expect to see additional sabotage. The Kremlin already is treating Finland as a hostile country. While Finland has a sufficient energy supply to last through the winter months, additional damage to its remaining undersea pipeline would prove disastrous.
The loss of the Balticconector pipeline provides ample evidence that China are Russia are coordinating their anti-Western activities. They are also involved on the periphery of the war in the Middle East. It is possible the conflict there could expand into a proxy war among nuclear armed states, supported by Vladimir Putin and indirectly by Xi Jinping. Both leaders have shown they are willing to set aside differences and work to overturn the rules-based international order.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.
Photo: Pixabay
On this week’s program, researcher Brandon J. Weichert outlines the threat from Iran. Author Joel Gilbert discusses whether Michelle Obama will run for president in 2024. Two exceptionally insightful and well-informed guests examine the hottest topics of the day! Watch at https://rumble.com/v3t3l1m-the-american-political-zone-october-31-2023.html
Photo: Pixabay
The Khalistan movement, demanding an independent Sikh state within India, may seem distant to many Americans. However, it holds significant implications not just for India but for the United States and its global partnerships. Americans should take notice of the Khalistan movement, its historical context, and its potential impact on international relations, especially with a focus on the United States.
The Khalistan movement has its roots in the struggles of Sikhs in India, particularly in Punjab, where they form a majority. Sikhs are a vital part of India’s diverse cultural fabric, comprising just 2% of the country’s 1.4 billion population. However, their demand for Khalistan, an independent Sikh homeland, has resurfaced multiple times, most notably during the violent insurgency of the 1970s and 1980s.
What sets the Khalistan movement apart and makes it relevant to Americans is its historical context. In 1984, the Indian government’s military operation in the Golden Temple, Sikhism’s holiest shrine in Amritsar, caused thousands of Sikh deaths and sent shockwaves through the global Sikh community, including the Sikh diaspora in the United States. This event reshaped the narrative of Sikh identity and ignited the Khalistan cause among Sikhs around the world.
Why should Americans care about a movement rooted in South Asia? The Khalistan movement holds several key implications for the United States:
Diaspora Dynamics: The U.S. is home to a significant Sikh diaspora. Understanding the Khalistan movement is essential for fostering understanding and engagement within this community. Their perspectives and concerns matter in American society.
International Alliances: The United States maintains strategic partnerships worldwide. It is crucial to grasp the complexities of global issues such as the Khalistan movement, as they can affect diplomatic and strategic relations. The recent allegations of Indian government involvement in Canada have caused strains between countries with strong ties to the U.S., such as India, Canada, and Australia.
National Security: The United States’ focus on counterterrorism should extend beyond its borders. The Khalistan movement, when associated with pro-Pakistan and pro-Kashmiri groups, poses potential security threats. Acknowledging these threats can help U.S. law enforcement agencies address them proactively.
Global Context: The world is interconnected, and one nation’s challenges can have a ripple effect. The resurgence of the Khalistan movement and its potential ties to regional dynamics in South Asia could impact global stability and U.S. interests.
The Khalistan movement, rooted in the struggle of Sikhs for an independent homeland, may seem distant to many Americans. However, it carries historical significance and holds implications for the United States in terms of its diaspora, international alliances, national security, and global context. By understanding and engaging with the Khalistan movement, Americans can foster stronger relationships within their diverse communities and navigate complex global challenges more effectively. As the world continues to interconnect, acknowledging the relevance of such movements is vital for U.S. national interests and global stability.
Background: the Sikh nation developed a national consciousness in the 17th century and established an independent and sovereign state in 1765. the independent and sovereign Sikh state was recognized by other European and Asian states until conquest by the British in 1849. The Sikh nation was the last nation to fall to British conquest in the Indian subcontinent. the Sikh nation reasserted the independence of its state, known as Khalistan, on October 7, 1987 and formed the Council of Khalistan naming Washington DC-based Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh as its President to serve as government pro tem.
Kaitlyn Williams
Illustration: Proposed flag of Khalistan