Joe Biden, the corrupt, unaccomplished 47-year career politician, with a reputation of having been a proud segregationist, an unabashed plagiarist and liar, a resolute tale-teller, and a serial flip-flopper, is pretending to head up a radical social-democratic ticket for President of the United States that includes as his running mate the ambitious, disagreeable junior senator from California: (LAWYER) Kamala Harris.
On the 14th of August 2020, Politico Magazine, in a lengthy article, revealed for the first time Barack Obama’s true opinion of Joe Biden together with his warning to the people of America. During the 2020 primary Obama told a fellow Democrat: “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.”
Tom Cotton: Biden’s Foreign Policy Flip Flops Fail America
'Joe Biden’s hybrid hawk-dove-ostrich foreign policy is doomed to failure in a harsh world that demands constancy and strength.'
You’ve probably heard politicians with muscular and aggressive foreign-policy views called "hawks" and those with timid or hesitant views called "doves." As a third avian category, I would add the "ostriches," who stick their heads in the sand to ignore gathering threats. Most politicians belong to one of these flocks. But not Joe Biden.
Even by the low standards of a politician, Joe Biden has changed positions dramatically and frequently. Elected to the Senate in 1972, in his own words, "as a 29-year-old kid against the war in Vietnam," he expressed dovish views for the last two decades of the Cold War. But after the Persian Gulf War and well into the Iraq War, he was reborn as an avenging Wilsonian hawk. After setbacks in Iraq, however, he reverted to his dovish past. Along the way, he has also exhibited ostrich-like tendencies, simply sticking his head in the sand about threats, especially those coming from Russia and China. Biden’s erratic, inconsistent views seem hard to square with a coherent, integrated worldview. "I wish I could say Biden was a student of history," said one senior Obama administration official during the debates about the Afghanistan surge, but "that’s not Biden. He has gut instincts." Unfortunately, these instincts tend to line up with Democratic political trends, not America’s national interest.
Having campaigned against the Vietnam War, a young Biden reflected his party’s Blame America First mindset. As North Vietnamese forces advanced on Saigon in April 1975, Biden voted against a bill to give last-minute aid to South Vietnam and to authorize the use of American troops to evacuate our citizens. In an eerie preview of his misjudgments about Afghanistan 46 years later, Biden concluded that "the time has come—perhaps it is past—for a swift, uneventful evacuation of all Americans from South Vietnam before the situation develops wherein it would take large numbers of American troops to bring out our citizens." Biden understood that an evacuation was necessary, but he opposed the military measures necessary to conduct a safe evacuation. The Senate passed the bill but it failed in the House, and Saigon fell a few days later. American helicopters scrambled to evacuate our embassy. The desperate scenes on a rooftop in Saigon would only be surpassed by those at an airport in Kabul.
That same month, Biden also foreshadowed his lifelong hostility to defense spending. He proposed to slash more than 10 percent from the Ford administration’s defense budget, dangerous under any circumstances but especially during a foreign-policy crisis. The amendment was defeated easily, with even liberal stalwarts like Walter Mondale opposing it. "The Congress decided against the war in Vietnam," Mondale explained. "We did not vote to become an isolationist country." But Biden did, complaining that defense spending took priority over social spending and that we shouldn’t base the defense budget on "everything our adversary can do"—which is of course exactly how we should craft the defense budget.
For the rest of the Cold War, Biden took conventional dovish positions. He opposed higher defense spending, new missiles, and advanced weapons, fretting that we would gain the upper hand against Soviet Russia. By the same flawed logic, he opposed missile-defense systems. Biden also championed deeply flawed arms-control agreements such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks of 1979, which died politically with Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan that year, but which Biden tried to resuscitate for years. Biden opposed the deployment of medium-range missiles to Europe in the 1980s and called for a nuclear freeze, which would’ve only frozen Russia’s advantage in place. He detested the Somoza government in Nicaragua and opposed Reagan’s funding of the Contra rebels in the 1980s, just as he opposed Reagan’s backing of the pro-American government of El Salvador against a Marxist insurgency. At every turn, Biden hewed to the Democratic mainstream of Blame America First policies.
Biden’s vote against the Persian Gulf War concluded his first flight as a dove. Though it’s largely forgotten now, the vote to authorize military force to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was very close, 52–47, with a few Democrats joining nearly all Republicans. Biden asked, "What vital interests of the United States of America justifies sending young Americans to their death in the sands of the Arabian Peninsula?" The way Biden phrased the question is telling. Kuwait isn’t really on the Arabian Peninsula, so Biden apparently presupposed Saddam might not stop there but rather invade more neighboring countries. That threat was a centerpiece of the case for war, as was the threat to the region’s oil supply, on which our prosperity depended more in those days. Yet Biden seemed indifferent, condemning "a precipitous war that will divide and weaken our nation." Biden was wrong as usual: after a punishing six-week air campaign, our troops destroyed what was then the fourth-largest army in the world in four days.
After the war, Biden shed the soft white down of a dove for the razor talons of a hawk. Perhaps he had recognized the error of his ways. More likely, he recognized that Bill Clinton had at least claimed to support the war and had chosen Al Gore as his running mate, one of the few Democratic senators to vote for the war. In any event, Biden espoused bellicose interventionist views for the next decade.
Biden began his transformation by overcompensating for his misjudgment on Iraq. He acknowledged his error, but that wasn’t enough. He criticized President George H. W. Bush for not removing Saddam from power altogether, which he called a "fundamental mistake." Biden also affirmed that Iraq had a program for weapons of mass destruction, stating in one Senate hearing that inspections and sanctions couldn’t stop the program—only "taking Saddam down" could. These words later came back to haunt him in the 2008 and 2020 Democratic presidential primaries.
Next, Biden was particularly belligerent about the Balkan Wars in the 1990s. He bragged that he was "the first guy to call for air strikes in Bosnia," without articulating a vital American interest to get involved in that country’s civil war. He boasted that he "was suggesting we bomb Belgrade," the Serbian capital, and also "blow up all the bridges" between Serbia and Bosnia. Biden condemned "the bankrupt policy in the former Yugoslavia, begun by the Bush administration and continued with minor adjustments by the Clinton administration." He added that Clinton had a "policy of despair and cowardice." Even worse in his eyes were our European allies, whom he accused of "moral rape."
Finally and most notoriously, Biden supported the Iraq War in 2003—until it became politically inconvenient. Again, it’s largely forgotten now, but this vote wasn’t close, 77–23. Besides Biden, among the Democratic senators who voted for the war were Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer. Four months after the war started, Biden stood by his vote. "I would vote that way again today," he declared, while adding "the cost of not acting against Saddam I think would have been much greater." A year later, he maintained that his "vote was just" even if the war itself was "unwise." But by late 2005, as he prepared again to run for president, Biden finally recanted and admitted his vote was a "mistake." And he’s spent the rest of his career falsely denying his early support for the war.
Biden has followed the Democratic Party back to its dovish, Blame America First roots. He opposed the Iraq surge, which he called a "tragic mistake," even when it turned out to be a smashing success. As vice president, he stridently opposed a similar surge in Afghanistan as well, subjecting Obama to what Secretary of Defense Bob Gates characterized as constant "Chinese water torture." He opposed the operation to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, alone among Obama’s senior team. Biden also didn’t join other senior members of Obama’s war cabinet in advocating the Petraeus plan to arm Syrian opposition fighters in 2012. To be fair, Biden did counsel against the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and the military intervention in Libya; even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Whether dove or hawk, over the years Biden also has behaved like an ostrich, sticking his head in the sand about threats, especially those from Russia and China. Biden is particularly allergic to acknowledging geopolitical competition and rivalry, and heaven forbid a "cold war"—even during the actual Cold War. In 1983, Biden asserted that "we’re not in a cold war," but as a result of Reagan’s policies, "we’re a whole heck of a lot closer than we were two years ago." When Mitt Romney cited Russia as a chief "geopolitical foe" in 2012, Biden mocked his "Cold War mindset."
The same goes for China. In 2019, Biden defended the Chinese Communists as "not bad folks." Even after decades of Chinese crimes and aggression, Biden incredibly declared that "they’re not competition for us." Biden’s ostrich routine continued as president. At his first speech to the United Nations, Biden insisted that "we are not seeking a new Cold War." Of course we’re not and we never did, with Russia or China. Yet China has waged a cold war against us for decades, so our choice isn’t whether to seek one, but whether to win. Biden was so timid, however, that he couldn’t even bring himself to mention China’s name in the speech. Biden has always struggled to see China as a competitor or a threat. He summed up his own long-standing views in 2011 when he recalled a trip to China in 1979 as a junior senator: "I believed then what I believe now: that a rising China is a positive, positive development, not only for China but for America."
Talk about sticking your head in the sand.
The president’s flip flopping between hawk, dove, and ostrich was on full display this year. In March, he showed reckless aggression when speaking about Russia, bellowing, "for God's sake this man [Putin] cannot remain in power." Then, in August, he showed his dovish side continuing nuclear negotiations with Iran, while Iranian leaders gloated about the attempted assassination of author Salman Rushdie on American soil and began sending suicide drones to Russia, for use in Ukraine. And last month, Biden burrowed his head further in the sand on the China threat, once again declaring "we do not seek conflict. We do not seek a Cold War."
Joe Biden’s hybrid hawk-dove-ostrich foreign policy is doomed to failure in a harsh world that demands constancy and strength. A man with such an inconsistent philosophy is unreliable, unstable, and unsuited for the most important foreign policy job in the world.
Tom Cotton, a Republican, is a United States senator from Arkansas. This excerpt is from his new book, Only the Strong: Reversing the Left's Plot to Sabotage American Power, which will be published by Twelve on November 1.
How could the far right ever be equated with Nazism?
Anarchism belongs on the far-right, so why does the authoritarian far-left constantly lie about it?
The logical political spectrum places anarchy with the minimum of government control at the far-right. Why is that so difficult to understand?
It only took a few hours for the far-left national media to morph a nudist hemp jewelry–maker into a far-right "fascist." Anti-liberty authoritarians of the fascist far left never let a good crisis go to waste. With the midterms fast approaching, they can no longer deny the reality that the people are pissed. Gas is going up, their 401(k)s are going down, crime is out of control, and kids are dying from fentanyl.
You can smell their desperation in trying to find anything to distract from their abject failure, and "political violence" fits the bill. They've already begun trying to use this to justify the suppression of free speech and the monitoring of ballot drop boxes.
The only problem is that the perpetrator was a psychotic homeless addict and was all over the map, but they never let the facts get in the way of exploiting a serious crisis.
They are also busily projecting the political F-bomb, with the brain trust of the Squad asserting that ensuring free and fair elections is fascism, somehow. As we get closer to their justified trouncing at the polls, we should have no doubt that they will turn up the volume in their projection.
You'll note that when the liberty-deniers can't pin down specifics, they resort to generalities in the hope that the viewer will make the connection to conservatives. Therefore, they exploit terms like "political violence" and "far right." They can pretend to be neutral in using unbiased terminology, but they've propagandized these terms to the point that they have sinister, underlying meanings.
This is why it's vitally important to bust the mythology around certain terms such as "far right."
There have been a number of dissertations on the basics of the political spectrum, with one distinct difference between the two types of constructs. One set is based on factual logic, the other on preconceived and wholly arbitrary notions that could be manipulated to come to any desired conclusion.
We will rest our case on basic logic, starting from the foundational fact that governmental control levels are the only logical metric for the political spectrum.
We then build our logical case up from this, as detailed in the reference piece "Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum":
Since a spectrum is in fact a continuum, the absolute extremes must be established, so that all variations and deviations from those extremes can be accurately charted. For example, light and dark, heat and cold, the band of waves of the electromagnetic spectrum, all measure from one extreme to the other. So it is with the political spectrum. Since governments establish order based on the regulation of the activities of the members of their respective societies, the correct extremes for the political spectrum delineate the degree of individual freedom allowed. And traditionally that has been demarcated as left to right; least freedom, to most freedom; totalitarianism to anarchy.
And because the spectrum is a continuum, from one extreme to the other, it is a straight line. It doesn't curve around, or circumvent the scale at any point. It is a continuous, single-dimensional range from one extreme to the other. And with individual freedom, there are only two absolute points of reference: maximum freedom (anarchy), or no freedom (totalitarianism). With those absolutes established at the ends of the spectrum, all systems of governance can be effectively placed on the spectrum, and scaled based on the degree or level of individual freedom, or conversely, the degree of state control over the individual.
The extreme far-right minimum for government control is further confirmed by the basic origins of the word anarchy: "absence of government," or "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority."
We all know that the national media and the socialists constantly propagandize the public to make the term "far right" synonymous with the ideology of fascism and Nationalsozialism (based on earlier German sozi, a popular abbreviation of "socialist").
So how would they reconcile anarchy — "having no ruler," absence of government, and absence of order — with the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of Nazism?
[T]he body of political and economic doctrines held and put into effect by the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 including the totalitarian principle of government, predominance of especially Germanic groups assumed to be racially superior, and supremacy of the führer.
In particular, take note of the portion of the definition that refers to the "totalitarian principle of government." That would seem to be at odds with the absence of order and the absence of government.
Therefore, we have proven that anarchism or minimal government control belongs to the "far right," eviscerating another big lie from the left. The far right can never be equivalent to the National Socialist German Workers' Party and fascism.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a Bill of Rights organization, and a longtime contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Image: Chris Dodds via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
"Along with (LAWYER) Obama, Pelosi and (LAWYER) Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration (JOE BIDEN (LAWYER) WAS OFF SUCKING OFF BANKSTERS AND BRIBES)."
PATRICIA McCARTHY
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton (GAMER LAWYERS-2) Foundation and the (GAMER LAWYERS-2) Obama book and television deals. Then there is the Biden (GAMER LAWYERS-3) family corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the (GAMER LAWYER) Warren and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (YOU CAN ADD LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER TO THE PANTHEON OF DEMOCRAT BRIBES SUCKING CORRUPT LAWYER POLITICIANS!). BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Is that not what the Democrat Party has created right here in America, transforming a once prosperous, strong, united, and safe nation into a debt-laden, militarily weak, socially divided, and increasingly dangerous society? Here are some of the Bizarro policies and beliefs inflicted on us by the neo-socialist, globalist, anti-American Democrat Party over the past few decades
— PAUL E. SCATS
Big media and Big Tech colluded to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. A poll showed that nearly four of five Americans believe that “truthful” coverage would have changed the outcome of that election.
Mark Zuckerberg spent $419 million, which enabled far-left activists to target specific key districts in swing states, redesign ballots to their advantage, overrule local elected officials on how elections were to be run, and even infiltrate sacrosanct electoral infrastructure.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY?
I can no longer remain in today’s Demo Party that is now under the control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue and stoke anti-white racism, actively undermine our freedoms, are hostile to people of faith, demonize the police and protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after opponents.
TULSI GABBARD
"That phase of the takeover was started in 2008 by Presiden Barack Obama. Throughout his eight years in office, Obama practiced divisiveness and hammered away at the Second Amendment while pouring gallons of fuel on the fire of the "Black Lives Matter" lie. His administration was rampant with corruption, pushing the envelope with every new scandal." RICK HAYES
Victorious Democrats would also end congressional investigations into the Hillary-THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OF BRIBES SUCKINMG GAMER LAWYER-POLITICIANS - Deep State-DNC-Russian-Clinton Foundation collusion and corruption. All the players in these massive, sordid affairs will be deemed “too big to jail” – and too closely tied to the Democratic Party to be investigated further. Paul Driessen
However, the lust for power and immense pecuniary gains cause people to behave in the most cold-hearted fashion. It is inhuman of Biden's wife and family to allow him to be exploited like this, such that he becomes the target of ridicule. Biden is the empty vessel into which anything can be poured. RAJAD LAAD
LAWLESS LAWYER Joe Biden and other Democrats have spent the last four years repeating the mantra “no one is above the law.” Yet Biden has advocated policies that would, as the San Francisco Chronicle recently noted, effectively make the United States a sanctuary country.
Capehart: National Dems Have Urged Focus on Abortion, Democracy over Economy
On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” Washington Post Associate Editor and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart said national Democrats have told Democratic candidates to avoid talking about jobs, the economy, and inflation and focus on abortion and democracy as issues in the midterms, but despite this advice from national figures, “plenty of” individual candidates pushing back against that advice and telling the national party, “I’m listening to my constituents, and they care about the economy. They care about gas. They care about jobs” and running their campaigns accordingly.
After New York Times columnist David Brooks accused many Democrats of spending too much time telling people to care about abortion and democracy and not to care about things like crime, homelessness, and inflation, Capehart stated, “I think Democrats are running — national Democrats, sure, will say, run on this, run on that, and this is your — what your message should be. But, in individual races, there are plenty of Democrats who are saying, don’t tell me what to do. I’m out there campaigning. I’m listening to my constituents, and they care about the economy. They care about gas. They care about jobs. And they are running in that way.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
No comments:
Post a Comment