Unprecedented Threats Ignored

It is increasingly clear that the United States faces unprecedented threats from abroad. It is also evident that the threats are becoming coordinated.

In April, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov warned President Joe Biden against assisting Ukraine, the subject of Moscow’s expansionist activities. The same month, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lijian warned the White House about providing assistance to Taiwan.

The Office of Director of National Intelligence has sounded the alarm about the massive danger the U.S. currently faces:

Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang have demonstrated the capability and intent to advance their interests at the expense of the United States and its allies… China is…challenging the United States in multiple arenas—especially economically, militarily, and technologically—and is pushing to change global norms. Russia is pushing back against Washington where it can globally, employing techniques up to and including the use of force. Iran will remain a regional menace with broader malign influence activities, and North Korea will be a disruptive player on the regional and world stages. Major adversaries and competitors are enhancing and exercising their military, cyber, and other capabilities, raising the risks to US and allied forces, weakening our conventional deterrence, and worsening the longstanding threat from weapons of mass destruction.”

The stringent warnings are not being taken seriously by the Biden Administration, which is advocating a defense budget that doesn’t even keep up with inflation.

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), and Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) Ranking Members of the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed deep concern:

Rogers and Calvert stress that “China already has a larger Navy, more troops, more missiles, and more hypersonics than we do…Unfortunately, President Biden’s proposed FY2022 defense budget sends the wrong message to our allies and our adversaries. By failing to keep pace with inflation, the President’s budget amounts to a cut of over $4 billion in defense spending. Meanwhile, his budget proposes to increase non-defense spending by a massive $104 billion or 16 percent.

And the combination of medication such as viagra pill on line , levitra, buy generic levitra and Vardenafil are the ultimate guide to satisfactory sexual life. Inner organs’ diseases have cheap cialis online three stages: functional, structural, and final; failure of the organ. Pumping of healthy blood towards the male levitra sample find out this pharmacy reproductive function including an enzyme termed as Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5). The well-known male potency products Musli Strong capsules are the original source on line cialis the best aphrodisiac foods for men available in the online market.

“The bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission was very clear: to fully implement the National Defense Strategy, overcome threats from China and other adversaries, and recover from austere budgets in the Obama years, we need to grow our defense spending by three to five percent above inflation from 2022-2025. This year’s defense budget should be above the rate of inflation and entirely focused on deterring the threats from near peer adversaries. Instead, this budget, should it pass in its current form, would cede our military superiority to China and return us to a hollow force, unable to respond to events around the world, whether it’s conflict or humanitarian missions.

“The Biden administration lacks a coherent and effective defense strategy. His budget falls short of meeting the requirements of the great power competition we face. Even worse, this budget is the product of the progressive left’s dream to “defund the Pentagon.” While China and Russia plot the downfall of American and liberal democracies globally, President Biden’s progressive budget-driven strategy fails to meet the needs of the nation, shortchanges our military, endangers our allies, and invites chaos into the world.”

Rogers outlined the impact of the White House’s inadequate budget on one branch of the armed forces:

“The Army is facing cuts of 12 percent in procurement; 10 percent in research and development; and 18 percent in military construction. The Army has nearly $5.5 billion in unfunded priorities. The budget cuts procurement of critical vertical lift and ground vehicle programs. It buys fewer missiles and ammunition to replenish our arsenal. And it delays the modernization of existing assets, such as the Abrams tank. These cuts worsen current capability gaps. And I’m concerned it leaves the Army ill-equipped for a near-term conflict.”

The Report concludes tomorrow

Photo: Russian tanks (Russian Defence Ministry photo)

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/