Biden’s Unprecedented Falsehoods

Exaggeration, as well as inaccurate statements and skirting the law are an unfortunate standard in politics. The White House has recently admitted that the President made 148 verbal mistakes this year.

However, the issue is not the verbal gaffes made by Mr. Biden. It is the outright lies, sheer nonsense, and refusal to ignore blatant abuses of federal and local power and funds currently being engaged in by the Democratic Party and its media allies, unlike anything previously seen.

Consider the lies.

The President continues to announce that he is cancelling portions of student debt, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the move was unconstitutional.

The Administration has insisted, even under oath, that the border is under control. That, of course, is sheer nonsense. It’s wide open and an economic, crime, and social disaster for cities and states across the nation. The Biden Administration adamantly refuses to enforce existing law and regulations, and punishes state officials that seek to protect their citizens from this White House manufactured crisis. In defiance of the law, the current White House has not only violated its obligation to protect the borders, it has actually encouraged illegal immigration, even flying aliens to the U.S.

Despite statements by blue state attorneys general and local district attorneys, Crime is not under control. Our streets and urban transit systems are deeply dangerous. Defunded police departments have been hit hard. The fabrication that U.S. law enforcement is racist is sheer nonsense. Race-baiting leftist district attorneys and state attornies general ignore the blatant failure of their get out of jail free policies.

Biden alleges that he supports Israel. However, he constantly undercuts most moves the nation makes in its own self-defense.

The Administration insists it is serious about national security, but its inadequate defense budgets, morale-busting personnel policies, and appeasement policies paint a different picture. The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force are all on track to be smaller at the end of Biden’s first term than at the beginning. Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, his comment that he wouldn’t respond to “a little” invasion of Ukraine, his refusal to take steps to shoot down China’s spy balloon, and his morale-busting woke policies within the armed forces demonstrate his lack of interest in defense matters.

The President proudly touts support for infrastructure, but will the cash from recent legislation actually be spent as advertised?

The Heritage Foundation reports that “While the plan relies on the moderate and uncontroversial term “infrastructure,” less than 5% would actually go toward traditional road infrastructure projects. Rather, it will be spent on corporate welfare, tax credits, and the left’s radical ‘green’ agenda.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that “Billions fill the coffers of trade unions and other special interests, who dutifully kick back a portion to their political benefactors in the form of campaign contributions. Investment and Jobs Act, and in addition much of the spending decisions will be distorted by climate policy considerations. All of this waste will also be seen with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and in addition much of the spending decisions will be distorted by climate policy considerations.”

The Brookings Institute notes that “On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law another large expenditure bill, the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill (“The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act”). This legislation authorized $550 billion in new funding for projects involving roads and bridges, improvements in water infrastructure, rail improvements, broadband internet and cybersecurity enhancements, replacement of hazardous lead pipes, port improvements, environmental projects, electric vehicle charging stations, and other infrastructure projects……the bill did not focus on the potential for fraud, and “the word fraud appeared only seven times in the 2000-page bill.”

Questionable assertions have become a standard in politics on both sides of the aisle, but the degree to which the Biden Administration engages in this tawdry practice is unprecedented.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.