Recently in Axis Powers Category



Gian-Gollum
Romney on Iran: "They have to understand that we will take military, kinetic action if they continue to pursue a nuclear option." The phrase "kinetic military action" is Obama legal speak for "war we don't want to get permission from congress to prosecute."

Aw, someone told Mittens to use a big-sounding glam-national security catchphrase. And bless his heart, last Friday on the Rick and Bubba Show the failed liberal un-Governator from Massachusetts actually threw caution to the wind, managing to awkwardly salvo the boilerplate that his advisors so painstakingly - probably for hours - maybe days, weeks - labored and toiled with him over blood, sweat, and tears so he would lob it properly at the enemy. And like a Russian nesting doll of foreign policy FAIL, the term itself reveals the tragic ignorance of whoever brandishes it. Indeed, his advisors probably spent hours, days, weeks, even years, learning raptly, uprearing, and canonizing this one precious phrase from the Obama administration (the RINOs' Good Shepherd is always the liberal Democrat, you know) along with countless other focus-group-tested buzzwords and - as Beltway Confidential dubbed them, "ungainly euphemisms":

Near as I can figure, "kinetic action" is redundant - like "wet water."  But Harvard Law professor and former head of the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith thinks there's a reason the Obama administration is at, er, "kinetic military action" with the English language here.

Gene Healy went on to quote Goldsmith as saying it was a means to avoid congressional authorization in Libya and who knows where else next (Romney-endorser John McCain is hovering like Gollum over his list this very moment). You could imagine the monody that rose from the catacombs where Romney's venerated "advisors" dwell. How will we ever again enjoy the bountiful fruit of presidency-by-proxy if these advisors cannot manage to imprint on Willard a single Hogwartsian phrase properly turned to unlock the heart of every blushing American voter. 

But the voter has to wonder, is this what we can expect from Romney: poorly repackaged retreads from the administration his entire campaign is ostensibly predicated on replacing? Romney does deserve some credit for realizing Iran has to be stopped - that's more than we can say for his wingman Ron Paul - but his complete and utterly excruciatingly embarrassing amateur hour with every facet of American National Security policy as a theory and as carried out within the context of even the most recent administration, and the tactical as well as the philosophical foundations that underlie how it is implemented, paint a picture of a man who is not built for president. This is by no means his first inexpert blunder or only crucial foible - and we're just in the talking phase where it's still considered easy. This type of pantomiming is like a knock-off of a poorly-made replica of a designer handbag, with its logo askew and poorly-stitched vinyl already coming apart in the shop. Unseriously dangerous. It reminds America once again that there is only one statesman in the room competent, capable, steady, learned, and set for the task, and that is Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ph.D., who for years has taught strategy and the art of war to our top generals. Given the delicate times into which we're entering, with whom would you rest easier knowing he were in charge of such a crisis? The answer is clearly the former Speaker. And that you should remember when you vote.



nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Rick Santorum's Quisling Moment

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


As you might recall, we wrote a month or so ago about how Mitt Romney is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Communist China. Today, we write about Rick Santorum's Quisling moment. Like Mitt Romney, Santorum started out his career labeling himself a progressive, distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, working closely with unions and pushing other liberal legislation.

In his later years, Santorum referred to liberal fellow Senator Arlen Specter as his mentor and even endorsed him against a conservative primary rival "because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it's in the best interest of my state." Obviously, those would be liberal interests. Specter led the controversial charge for amnesty in 2006 despite a precedent-setting uproar by Americans who made history with the sheer volume of calls to the capital switchboard made to register their abhorrence of the legislation Specter championed. Instead of acquiescing to the will of the people, however, Specter marched up to his lectern on the Senate floor, pounded it with his fist and declared, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" Specter was soon removed from office, but Santorum continued to have nice things to say about him.

Enter Rick Santorum 2012, candidate for Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces, champion of contraceptive bans and backward Taliban-style rules for women - the obvious over-compensation for his liberal past. All of this would be as comical as a goofy sweater-vest were it not for the real damage his voting record as Senator has done, is doing, and will do to our survival national security interests.

To wit, Santorum voted in 1997 to allow the sale of supercomputers to China, whose military leaders have repeatedly sworn to destroy us, make war on us, and to literally "exterminate" our entire population. Maybe if Santorum had spent less time distancing himself from Reagan and Gingrich in the 1980s, he would have learned something rather important: giving your enemy the technological advantage is suicide. In recent years, China's fastest supercomputers surpassed our own for the first time in history, and by 2010 were an astonishing "47% faster than the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's machine". Make no mistake: this alone disqualifies Santorum to be Commander-in-Chief.

Our strategic advantage has long leaned on technology, given our comparatively small force size vis-à-vis China or the former Soviet Union. China's army alone is roughly the size of our entire population. Imagine that force size equipped with modern weaponry that far exceeds our own. That is defeat and the end of America. Rick Santorum voted for that.

Clearly, Santorum has failed to comprehend the strategic consequences of his actions, as the recent outcry over his outspoken opposition to manned space flight and a return to the moon demonstrates.  Former Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney and current national security advisor to Newt Gingrich Stephen Yates rightly eviscerated Santorum's childish, out of touch, and ultimately suicidal space policy:


I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.

American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.

We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.

As with Romney and Huawei (and many of his other failures), Americans might be more forgiving if there were some serious evidence of enlightenment; however, in the case of both Romney and Santorum such an opening of the mind has not transpired and both candidates continue to represent an indirect but existential threat to American national security.



H/T to @MissLiberty on Twitter for the heads up on Santorum's pro-China voting record and for the China supercomputer tech links.

Related:

China's Supercomputing Goal: From 'Zero To Hero'

Rick Santorum's Voting Record

Middle East Quarterly: Russian and Chinese Support for Tehran

China Plans Manned Moon Mission

China's Challenge at Sea



nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.




214427-a-logo-of-huawei-technologies-co-ltd.jpgUPDATE for yesterday's post: As it turns out, Mitt Romney as governor was a wholly-owned subsidiary of China. Rep. Duncan Hunter, member of the House Armed Services Committee excoriated Romney in 2008, advising voters then to steer clear of a pro-China Romney. To this date Romney has failed address the problem, demonstrating further how unserious a candidate he is for Commander-in-Chief - although there's very lttle anyone could say to save himself from the inevitable disqualification this type of footsie with a hostile regime that has called for "exterminating the US population" brings.



From Newsmax, 2008:

"As the founder of Bain Capital, Governor Romney has an obligation to utilize his influence within the company to terminate the proposed merger between 3Com and Chinese defense contractor Huawei," said Hunter. "In light of China's refusal to port several American naval vessels last week, it is increasingly more important that American military technology be protected from foreign companies, such as Huawei, that are closely aligned with the Chinese government."

Hunter refused to endorse Romney in 2008 for this specific reason.
30125278.jpg
"This proposed deal, which Governor Romney can work to terminate should he choose to do so, is unpatriotic and damaging to national security," continued Hunter. As further detailed in a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives, Huawei has close ties to the military of communist China and allegedly aided Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. 

As mentioned yesterday, "Huawei [is] linked by the Pentagon and other key figures in national security as an espionage front group of Beijing's Ministry of State Security (MSS)." In 2007, the tech-industry news site Cnet noted that Huawei is run by a former PLA officer by the name of Ren Zhengfei.

Meanwhile, Ren has gone about building Huawei into a success story disregarding the usual corporate niceties. In 2000--three years before the WMD craze got us all nutso about taking out Saddam--the CIA accused Huawei of secretly selling a communications system to Iraq. In the final report of the Iraq Survey Group, Huawei and two other Chinese companies were singled out for carrying out "extensive work in and around Baghdad"--mainly telecommunication switches and the installation of fiber-optic cable.

The article goes on to mention Romney's involvement:

[...]Friday we learned that Bain Capital is paying $2.2 billion to acquire 3Com. Part of the deal involves China's Huawei Technologies, which will acquire a minority stake in 3Com.
And, oh, by the way, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor running for the Republican presidential nomination--he headed Bain Capital for 14 years.
Six degrees of separation. In this case only 2--but who's counting.

In a later interview with Fox News, Hunter went farther and told Chris Wallace, "I think Mitt Romney's a no-go for that reason alone".



A note of disclosure: As a Newt guy, I'm not telling you to vote for Newt, although he is the best candidate on national security and I do recommend you do; however, I think as long as you stay away from Romney, Huntsman, and Paul, your choice will not be a candidate who potentially does direct damage to our national security interests. I personally think Newt would agree with the principle that one of the most important things we can do as Americans is to keep more bad actors out of the White House.



nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


Sunday's GOP Presidential Debate and China

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


During the 26-minute penalty box phase in Sunday morning's New Hampshire debate where far-left NBC host David Gregory banned Newt Gingrich from taking part in some of the most crucial parts - parts where 1%-ers like Huntsman and Perry and all the other candidates all far less qualified were heartily invited to opine - Willard "Mitt" Romney and Jon Huntsman fell into a dustup over China. Huntsman, the official spokesperson for the most genocidal regime in human history in a stunning are-you-serious display of ignorance for a supposed Sinophile stated that we should not seek to protect our interests in responding to China's trade war against us because it would cause a trade war. Come again?  Meanwhile, Romney - now brought up to speed only in sound bites by one of his advisors who seems to be a closet fan of Donald Trump - doesn't know about this trade war stuff, but he sure would like to raise taxes on China because that's what he's had so much experience doing to people in his own state and it's safe - he knows how to do it. Play your strengths.

Mr. Huntsman certainly is not inexpert on the topic of China. He has spent many years in China first as a businessman and then as Obama's China ambassador - and his company has over $9 billion tied up in China (surely no conflict of interest there).  Huntsman is incredibly knowledgeable on the topic, which again makes his blunders on the topic so stunning. Where he may be faulted is in the area of his affections, or at best, his understanding of what motivates the regime and what its implications are for the world - particularly in light of similar regimes throughout history, which is our only guide. Huntsman falters in part because he's no historian, no philosopher, and certainly no political scientist, but no amount of education can make up for a gut that is seemingly off its axis (or in the case of the Axis of Evil, riding high atop it).  Fairly recently, a husband and wife team of highly acclaimed researchers Jung Chang and Jon Halliday embarked on a project which became a New York Times best-seller. The book, Mao: The Unknown Story - now banned in Communist China - was an unofficial biography like no other in terms of scope and attention to detail. Along the way, the book mentioned that in the 1960s RINO Richard Nixon made numerous trips to China on business. During his trips he fell in with a beautiful young honey trap who used her influence to affect a friendlier outlook on the regime and may have brought about Nixon's shortsighted and naïve misadventure of "ping pong diplomacy". That policy in turn opened the US up to the most genocidal regime in human history that despite all rainbow and unicorn talk by the administration continued to find ways to destroy us, and most likely played an important role in our defeat in Vietnam along with the genocide of millions in Southeast Asia. To put a nice spin on things, it seems high-school dropout Jon Huntsman is the very best imitation yet of Nixon, albeit with a better tan and a smidgen more personality. But I'm sure he will tell you he's not a crook.

On the other hand, Mr. Romney is in many ways the opposite of Huntsman and in other respects, quite similar. Breathtakingly inexperienced in foreign policy and up until very recently, almost as inarticulate as Rick Perry on the topic until a few of his advisors came to the rescue. Up until this year for Romney, "China" was only something stamped on the bottom of most of the products sold in his Staples office supply stores, covered in the fingerprints of the five-year-olds who were forced to assemble them. So one of the few areas that Huntsman and Romney shared in common with respect to China was that both men had a big money stake in preserving the status quo at all costs - even against the long term national security interests of the United States (though they might both be men of denial rather than malice). Another thing the two share in common is that both men as president would likely continue the failed China policies of the last four presidents, albeit for somewhat different reasons - one because he thinks he's clever, the other because he doesn't know a thing and therefore thinks it must not be important. One thing in Romney's (and almost everyone else's) favor, however, is that he never announced to the world that China's telecommunications company Huawei - linked by the Pentagon and other key figures in national security as an espionage front group of Beijing's Ministry of State Security (MSS) - was a great company or that it had a terrific "worldwide reputation", as Perry once had. But at this point we are only nuancing shades of fail here.

UPDATE: Actually, Romney was totally in bed with Huawei. We mosted more information about it here. And as far as not being a crook as Huntsman may be able to claim and Nixon wasn't, well...

By contrast, Newt Gingrich understands the China threat, its historical context, the nature of communism - and China's flavor of Marxi-fascism deliberately patterned after Nazi Germany - and the finer points of geostrategy, the need to be proactive, the value of covert operations, the importance of morale, and the importance of recognizing proxy wars for what they are along with all manner of asymmetrical warfare. Newt's playing for the right team and understands why and how to do it. The biggest travesty of Sunday morning's debate was not the predictably shallow aping of advisors by Romney or Huntsman's faithful wearing of the red (China) team's colors, it was the exclusion of the only practical, competent, trustworthy, and much-needed Newt Gingrich from this discussion. Nevertheless, Gingrich is the only one to have endorsements by the greatest minds and strategic thinkers of the Reagan era or today, including former Reagan National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane and Dr. Thomas Sowell. Speaker Gingrich's exclusion from the discussion in the last debate is a sad example of biased networks putting politics over national interest. It is important for all Americans that he be allowed to partake in the discussion of national security - an area in which we must have our best leaders step forward.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.



Apparently, Business Insider is now hiring staff writers for Xinhua, China's state-run "news" agency. In fact, the propaganda (both in tone and content) is so thick in this hit piece directed at America and its people that it likely would move members of the CCP to tears.  So we decided to go through each of "The 9 Things About America That You Knew Were True - But Aren't" and give you the aren'ts'  aren'ts.


1. July 4th isn't really an important day

"The founding fathers would be surprised to learn that we celebrate on the 4th. John Adams, future second president of the United States, wrote that 'the Second of July, 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.'" Actually, the writers of this piece should have suggested that perhaps some of the founding fathers might have initially felt this way. July 4th quickly became the traditional date of commemoration for our declaration of independence from Britain as well as other patriotic reasons: the date in 1778 also marked an important victory for George Clark's forces, and in 1802, it was the date West Point Military Academy opened. It was also the date of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the date Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both passed away in 1826, and the date slavery was abolished in law and practice by the State of New York in 1827.


2. The Pilgrims were just a bunch of racists and were only inconvenienced by authorities harshing their buzz in Europe

As we can already tell, Eric Goldschein and Robert Johnson - the two mind-numbed public school automatons who wrote this piece - seem to have a clear bias, which becomes further evident by dismissing "persecution" and replacing it with "frustration". In reality, Pilgrims were in fear of their lives, which rises somewhat above mere "frustration". Furthermore, the Founding Fathers established no "separation of church and state" - a slogan of the left ever since it was taken out of context from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and began being employed in the 20th Century to read into the Constitution the exact opposite of what the letter and the spirit of the law states.


3. Betsy Ross didn't design the flag

The article's title claims that nine things "aren't" true, so the writer must have meant to include this one, too; however, the writers admit here no one seems to know. Even the simplest mind (except for atheists) knows that lack of data does not prove a negative. Just the tone of this segment further supports the idea that Goldschein and Johnson had an axe to grind.


4. Salem witches not burned at the stake

The witch-hunters did burn accused witches at the stake in Europe, but the writers are correct on this point. Interesting to note, however, that the writers did not go out of their way here to minimize these trials in the historical context, even though they were rather slight in scope and short-lived compared to those in Europe. But this fact might have been an inconvenient truth in support of the many reasons we fled Europe, one of which being the sheer barbarity. I do give the writers a few points for mentioning the Salem body count of 20; however, literally scores of thousands were burned to death and murdered in other ways across the pond. This fact should have been mentioned as well, if the goal were to supply accurate context (e.g. Mexico outlawed slavery - at least on paper - in 1830).


5. The Alamo was about defending slavery rather than freedom


This is complete revisionism. Santa Anna was one of the most egregious tyrants and violators of human rights on the continent. Sadly, the Mexican government remains one of the most elitist (and unpopular) faux democracies in our hemisphere today. Furthermore, Mexico outlawed slavery the same way Communist China today has freedom of religion in its constitution: a formality as a rule ignored in practice.


6. Revere's words aren't sufficiently exact, so we should hate America

"Someone needs to let Sarah [Palin] know" what? The original controversy to which the embedded image of Palin intimates is whether Revere also warned the British, not over the exact words that Revere used, which is what this hit piece falteringly addresses. In fact, the exact words used by Revere would not have made much sense in recounting the story in later generations, which is why for generations we paraphrased them with, "The British are coming!", as Longfellow discussed but also did not state verbatim in his famous poem. The fact that Goldschein and Johnson take issue with this and for added measure takes a swipe at Palin further lends to the obvious, which is this Business Insider bit is little more than an anti-American hit piece that is also perfectly happy to go after those who are outspoken supporters of America for good measure.


7. Wild West wasn't quite so wild

Congratulations to the writers who have at last - on number seven out of nine - scored one for their "win" column. The Wild West was not as wild as the writers' friends in Hollywood have portrayed it. But before we give Goldschein and Johnson their trophy for getting one right, this win might turn out to be a bigger loss. Why? Because the political left to which Goldschein and Johnson clearly belong has long associated the Wild West with those crazy savages in flyover country - or basically anyone not an East- or Left Coast liberal establishment type. So as we look deeper we realize these gems have shot themselves in the foot. But hopefully this wild west-style fiction-slinging won't wind up following them around in their apparently early careers.


8. Lindbergh wasn't the first to fly around the world

This is a half-win for our dynamic komrade duo in the sense that this is true. Unfortunately, they fail to provide historical context, which I found odd. It's interesting to note they avoided mentioning Lindbergh's anti-Semitism and love for socialism and the Nazis - views likely in many respects shared by these writers' political clique.


9. "US not responsible for winning World War II in Europe"

At last something the US isn't responsible for. That is of course because it is a good thing, according to these writers, who have been brainwashed to also conclude that since the US is evil, it can't be recognized for doing good. That the US isn't "resonsible for winning WWII in Europe" is also a popular meme among non-American participants in the war who were humiliated by having the crap beat out of them by Nazi Germany at the time the US stepped in and began smashing heads together, further pointing out their humiliation. In fact, I worked with a Russian during my time in London and we debated this matter a couple of times. There is no question that every little bit helped, so the Soviets deserved some credit (actually, by that logic, Germany deserves some credit for not learning Napoleon's lesson and invading the Soviet Union and getting attacked by bad weather). The British (thanks to American arms and support), a handful of French, and other resistance fighters (thanks to American arms and support) also deserve credit for their courageous role in standing up to the Germans. But the reality is that they were all but Lilliputians until the US King Kong showed up on the scene and took Hitler down. Even Churchill knew it was the Americans that had saved the British Empire. That far-left revisionists like the ones who wrote this piece follow an old, infamous antithetical meme says more about the writers than it informs us on the details of history. That the writers intimate that the genocidist Stalin is the real hero both smacks of genocide-denier Walter Durranty of the NYT and fails to give meteorology the credit it is due, to say nothing of denying the US role in defeating Nazi Germany.


As pointed out, our beloved writers clearly had a bone to pick with the US. In eight of the nine short swipes, they managed to spout the leftist party line without a single error - a sycophant's ape-rate even writers for Xinhua have trouble at times attaining. This Business Insider bit is far from serious and is nothing more than a hit piece filled with the ersatz slogans we come to expect in any friendly PLA writing course. Given Business Insider's low bar for its writers, I honestly wouldn't waste my time at Business Insider going forward. Interestingly, Business Insider, also offers a piece titled, "The 25 Worst Mistakes In History". Surprisingly, denying the Soviet strategic threat and human rights violations for decades and hiring these two writers didn't make the list. Better to stick to something like the Wall Street Journal, where even the liberal writers attempt to write for grownups. Or you could always head over to Cracked.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


 

     The Blogbat Weblog 3.0

 

 

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Axis Powers category.

NATO, Other Allies is the previous category.

Islamism is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.