Recently in History Category

Newt Gingrich is in good company: Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Boris Nemtsov know what it means to be the dissident candidate and to face the darts of running against the establishment and its media. Stand strong, Newt. You are fighting for your grandchildren's future and for ours.

This is something I predicted would happen in 2009, that American statism without intervention would increasingly mimic the electoral authoritarianism of Putin's Russia.

As a boy I worked on Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign and read and watched everything that had to do with him. As I grew older, my love for the Gipper only grew as well. That's why I'm with Newt. I also know where Mitt Romney and his ilk come from: they were the ones who not only opposed Reagan but hated him - and hated the American people for wanting to be in control of their government.

In 2006 the establishment hit the first major wall of resistance since the era of Newt Gingrich as House Speaker. The American people were resolute to stop the amnesty legislation the Senate was seeking to pass that would allow millions of illegal aliens to cut in front of legal immigrants and American citizens and become a new voting bloc to ensure the votes of millions of Conservative Americans would be rendered inconsequential. In the height of the battle, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter pounded his fist on the lectern on the floor of the Senate and exclaimed, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" But the American people had a different idea, an idea that was firmly based in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." And so the establishment lost and not long thereafter, Senator Specter was primaried out of office and replaced by a more conservative Republican.

The battle won, the war waged on. Increasingly, the establishment media became more brazen with each passing year. They were caught and frustrated in 2004, when Dan Rather's forged documents revealed an attempt by CBS to alter the outcome of that year's presidential election. In 2006, MSM struck back, both with its nakedly biased coverage of mass protests by illegal aliens and events leading up to the fall midterm elections. By 2008, the establishment's media was back with a vengeance. It began by anointing weak liberal Republican Senator John McCain for the nomination, then dutifully torpedoing him the moment the nomination was clenched in favor of Barack Obama. The coverage was so slanted, it became the focus of several feature documentaries and countless other serious points of examination. The sad part about American establishment media is that unlike Russian media, which is compelled at the barrel of a gun, the US press subjugates itself freely.

With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of Congress and after Barack Obama's election in 2008, the establishment set to subdue the American people as they did the Native Americans so many generations ago, and to punish us for asserting our fundamental human rights as expressed in the Constitution. One of the means by which they sought to do so was by enacting Obamacare, which gave the state complete control over whether each of us would live or die without a trial or even the accusation of having committed a crime. Socialized medicine, they knew, was like a death penalty for the innocent, and it was touted by supporters like Robert Reich as a way to kill off the feeble and elderly.

What resulted, however, was probably not anticipated: a backlash that spawned the Tea Party, which became a movement so vast that one of its protests on the Washington Mall exceeded in size the total present for Barack Obama's inauguration, which itself had set the record for crowd size on the mall.

By November 2010, the movement had gained maturity, leading to the largest sweep of House seats in US history, as well as those in state houses. The establishment scrambled and quickly appointed stalwarts like Speaker John Boehner to manage the damage.

In 2012, the establishment is determined to use whatever means necessary to destroy any candidate who is a serious reformer, as we see with incomparable bias in MSM as well as Fox News and Drudge. And in the noise of the chaos of seeking to destroy Newt Gingrich, another negative side effect of all this nasty campaigning by Romney is that we might forget about our Tea Party candidates running in congressional races. Therefore we must both stand strong with Newt while giving of our time to the other races that matter, too. It's a good deal of work, but it is still so much less than that which those who wear the uniform must so often face.

This primary season we have a choice to make. We will either choose a man who stands with the far left and looks at you and me with contempt or we can choose Newt Gingrich - a proven Reagan conservative bold enough and moral enough to stand up to the establishment and carry the torch of the people - and Reaganism - into the White House. Let's go with Newt.

In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

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.

Below is a reposting of an article I wrote for the Henry Jackson Society back in 2009 on July 27th. I am reposting it here for two reasons. The first is that the database server at the original website has lost the article; the second reason is why I thought you should read it in the first place, which is that today we are at a crossroads. If we go in one direction we will embrace progress and a future full of wonder with technological advances that will boggle the mind, to say nothing of improving our quality of life in every area, from health care to transportation and communication. History of human progress demonstrates that we must push outward against the boundaries of the unknown or we begin to die. If we take the other road, however, we face being surpassed by enemy regimes like Communist China, the strategic implications of which alone should cause great worry. We as a people will regress through history until we are little more than a byword. Today the visionary is Newt Gingrich. His plan to have a base on the moon by the end of his second term in 2020 is ambitious but well within our reach if we would just decide to do it. Those who oppose him - the same cadre of anti-science, regressive liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans who killed the Apollo Program who today manifest in the likes of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney - mock his vision. But ask any NASA scientist, any serious astronomer and you'll notice they aren't laughing. Newt at times will quote Proverbs 29:18, which wisely advises that, "Where there is no vision the people perish..."

Without further ado:

The Moon and Mars: Vision is as Necessary as Technology 
July 27th, 2009


This week marks the 40th anniversary of mankind's first landing on the moon. It is a journey that began long ago when mankind first set out to explore the nearby hills and trees and then stretched across the millennia. In the course of so many lifetimes, we began our first voyages across the ocean by boat and later by plane, followed by that giant leap on 16 July 1969, though it was also but another small step in many.

Progress has been the primary element to our survival since the beginning; it has been greatly valued by those societies which have managed to thrive even when great sacrifice was involved. Unfortunately, the tale of progress does not have a happy ending as yet. For, in the mid-1970s the U.S. Congress astonishingly voted to cut funding to NASA's lunar program, which by now would likely have spawned a host of great discoveries and possibly even a few manned missions to Mars and perhaps beyond. We will never know what could have come of that lost half century, but it is safe to assume much would have been the reward, because that has been the eternal nature of mankind's pattern of exploration and discovery.

Ironically, members of Congress who voted to kill the Apollo moon program in favor of expanding social welfare programs that many predicted would be a disaster and now we see were complete and total failures like for others to think of them as "progressives". During the same period such self-appointed "progressives" allocated funds like drunken sailors to a plethora of counter-productive social programs, they embarked on starving the two areas most necessary for survival: defense and space; the former allowing Soviet expansion to regress human rights around the world and the latter even endangered what was in the early 1970s a nascent space shuttle program. (1) (2) (3) (4)

There has been nothing progressive about enduring the backward thinking with regard to any of these things. And there is nothing progressive about essentially continuing for another half century in the same direction. Instead of being "progressive", such in Congress instead became "regressive", obsessed only with looking back to outmoded ways of running government, to organizing mankind based on race rather than character, and of course by halting mankind's journey to new frontiers.

While limited-thinkers continue to live in yesteryear and remain determined to keep the rest of us there also, the frontier calls. If the frontier of space is anything like all the other frontiers before it which we have faced, it will ultimately prove invaluable to our survival. Those hopelessly sentimental who do not understand this continue to lie down in the roadway, accusing us of being heartless for having the need to move forward. This farce serves no purpose and is the reason why today we have moved backward in our space program instead of being much farther along than we were half a century ago. Fans of the television series Star Trek might be dismayed to discover there would be no "Enterprise" in the 23rd Century had such regressives run things in the fictional space of that story's narrative. Indeed, the future history of the real world in which we live would be equally as bleak.

Today, astronomers and other scientists, small children, and the entire world wistfully gaze up into the stars and wonder if in our lifetimes a human being will ever set foot on Mars, return to the moon or even if we will be able to put another space station up, so far backward have we moved. Mankind, once the heirs to a bright future measured by great leaps now must sit content to watch re-runs of Star Trek or live in a make-believe galaxy far, far away. Meanwhile our own saga of space flight becomes one of long ago and the tools and resources we will need to thrive in our future as a species remain untapped by a disastrously retrograde mindset.

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.

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.

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.

I wrote a piece a couple of years ago detailing Russia's disappointing departure from rather short-lived aspirations of democracy in the 1990s and how Vladimir Putin's concept of a managed, electoral authoritarianism (to borrow from Francis Fukuyama) meant that by controlling the media he controlled the elections. As a result, Putin's government managed to guarantee the outcome because he controlled the information the voters needed to make their decisions.

So Newt Gingrich faces a confluence of things which for a host of disparate reasons seeks to have him lose to Romney. On the part of the pro-Obama media, we see an unflinching advocate with a bullhorn in on hand and duct tape in the other so it can both talk over and silence the opposition. With the bullhorn, the media strategically chants whatever it must at any given time to protect the administration. It then brings the duct tape into the GOP presidential debates and silences any it wishes to marginalize.

Indeed, the media's strategy at the moment is to see to it that the weak, threadbare liberal Mitt Romney wins the nomination. One might be a bit tongue-in-cheek and say that last night's debate was an ABC-orchestrated infomercial for a worthless product called Mitt Romney, although at least ShamWow had "wow" in its name.  And it is true that Willard "Mitt" Romney is an incredibly flat dullard - although President Obama may arguably come up even shorter in that area - which is why both he and the left in general realize they must not only promote Romney but destroy his opposition beyond recognition, at least until Mr. Romney secures the nomination. What Alexander Solzhenitsyn once noted about the 20th Century seems just as true today about candidates like Romney, which is possibly another reason why the media prefer him: "Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century, and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press."

The reality, however, is far more serious than a comical dysfunctional former governor with a 34 percent approval rating who abuses his dog and only talks about saving the life of the unborn if it saves his career. As we've learned, this is the way an MSM "debate" works in the modern era: Silence Newt, give Romney all the time, pronounce Romney the winner. Hello Vladimir Putin. And that should be the worrisome part. In effect, the American media is doing exactly what Russian media has been doing for twelve years since Putin took power with the exception that at least Russian media had to be coerced. American media hasn't had 300-plus journalists murdered by the regime - no, all it needed was some common ground and a few fancy invites to the White House. The shameful and perhaps most disturbing part about Romney (or perhaps evidence of his sheer stupidity) is that he's perfectly okay with this as long as the Obama media takes out Mitt's enemies, too. Even with the guy endorsing Mitt who tried to ride that ride back in 2008 only to have it turn around and bite him once he clenched the nomination, Mit seems utterly oblivious to the fact that being last to be lead to the slaughterhouse still means you're being taken to the slaughterhouse. It seems we have learned very little from the McCain disaster four years ago. But RINOs have been trying to inoculate themselves against conservatives ever since the Reagan Revolution, which is part of the reason why they so willingly join forces with Democrats and the liberal media to destroy conservative candidates.

Will Newt win it or is he somehow destined to become the next Garry Kasparov? I believe he will win, but it will be difficult. Newt is truly an historical figure of a potential magnitude of greatness that he may well go down as one of the actual top-four presidents in US history. So why would it be so hard if Newt finds natural resonance with the American people if he is such a gigantic figure? Again, the answer: the gatekeepers in the media. The American people cannot vote for someone they do not realize even exists, instead believing the evil cartoon character the media has created in his stead. Judging by the debate last night in which Newt was limited to fewer chances to speak than even Jon Huntsman who sits at the bottom of the polls, it's clear that the media realize Newt's initial surge came about by his ability to speak directly to the people much as Reagan did. The media would like to see Romney nominated because they believe he will lose to Obama, but even if Romney somehow defeats Obama, he is by far the closest thing they have to Obama outside of Hillary Clinton. So the media is working overtime to cut off Newt's mic while creating a host of fables about him that would be easily dispelled by any direct contact. So far, they've succeeded somewhat with help from the usually-right leaning but pro-Romney Drudge Report, Fox News, and over $10 million in false attack ads by Romney and his wingman Ron Paul, which the media have apparently forbidden Newt form defending himself against.

To borrow an idea from Speaker Gingrich himself, Newt plays chess, Romney plays checkers, and Barack Obama plays tic-tac-toe.* And right now both the checkers and the tic-tac-toe guy are playing "get the guy with the chess set". So we shouldn't by any stretch see this cabal of anti-Newt media or the virtual blackout during the debate last night as a nail in the coffin. Newt is smarter than all of them put together and I have no doubt that the champion of great solutions will solve this challenge, as well as the next, which is defeating Obama. Newt's sights are set and we need to stay behind him as he fights to restore the greatness of America, and certainly with each new step along the way, we begin that restoration, or to borrow from Newt's own words, "Nothing will turn America around more than Election Night when Barack Obama loses decisively." But as we seek to return the reins of power to the people, we also need to take time to reflect on the values that made us great. The media must also return to the values of integrity and fairness so that our great and free society can thrive and its people prosper. The media has been headed down a very dark path in which the lie has increasingly "become a moral category but a pillar of the state", as Solzhenitsyn also noted about life in the Soviet Union. He also famously said that "the strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

So as we elect Newt Gingrich as the 45th President of the United States next November, let's remember what Newt himself has told us: we also have much work to do. Health starts on the inside and works its way out, not from the top down. We have no way to predict what will become of Russia but we are in full control of what we as Americans become.


*"It's one thing if the White House can't play chess. It's another thing if the White House can't play checkers. But if the White House can't play tic-tac-toe..." - Newt, January 7th, 2012

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. 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.

Like Obama, Romney is a reflexively liberal empty suit. Empty suit or not, both men are strongly ideological. In point of fact, every man has an ideology - whether it is shallow or deep, in contact with the real world or not, and that view of the world shapes his behavior. Romney essentially has the depth of a baking sheet but it is a rather liberal baking sheet. Being shallow for both these men means they are not only wrong but incompetent.

As for the election, I think we all realize that Romney almost certainly will lose to Obama, as RINOs have always done against liberal Democrats. In fact, it's really built into this campaign season and is part of why Romney is the establishment's anointed one. Romney's major backers back him because they have already embarked on a senate-first strategy. They believe him to be a suitable throwaway candidate who will not rock the boat for the effort to retake the senate. Certainly, the crusty and perhaps bigoted establishment would not be game for having a Mormon serve in the White House, so that alone is your first indicator he is a diversion. Others indicate his lackluster record as governor of Massachusetts and his inability to connect with voters - particularly southern voters - even as well as Al Gore or George H.W. Bush had. The establishment has concluded it will be impossible to defeat Obama, so the desire instead is to focus efforts on Congress and pick an unserious presidential candidate, saving better ones for another time. I fundamentally disagree with this approach and believe history bears this out, although his cynical backers most certainly are right about Romney's chances.

Let's take a look at just a few of the historical patterns.

First, only three of the last nine Republicans to win Iowa went on to win the Nomination. Of those, two were sitting presidents and unopposed and the other was the liberal Bob Dole who lost to the Democrat Clinton in the GE. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was one of the candidates who was beaten badly in Iowa by George H.W. Bush (the Romney of the day) and the campaign was nearly destroyed. For most of us, Paul Harvey doesn't need to read us the rest of the story.

Furthermore, no Republican presidential candidate running as a liberal like Romney has won the general election in the past forty years:

Ford 1976 (running as a liberal): Lost
Reagan 1980: (running as a conservative): Won
Reagan 1984 (running as a conservative): Won
Bush 1988 (running as a conservative): Won
Bush 1992 (running as a liberal): Lost
Dole 1996: (running as a liberal): Lost
Bush 2000 (running as a conservative): Won
Bush 2004 (running as a conservative): Won
McCain 2008: (running as a liberal): Lost

One reason for this is sheer demographics. Conservatives make up close to 50 percent of the US population as well as the majority base of the GOP. By contrast, self-described liberals comprise roughly 20 percent, with independents, the confused, the apolitical, and convicted felons making up the difference. Of those in that 30 percent who can legally vote, a candidate would be lucky to secure a third, i.e. 15 percent of the original pie. So it is vital for any GOP nominee to carry the base in order to win and we can see what happens to those who don't just by having another look at the list above.

Finally, Romney has consistently failed to garner more than the mid-20s - far less than even his mentor Bush 41, the 1980 frontrunner at this point in the race. New Hampshire will almost certainly go for Romney, but the political terrain suddenly changes as they head south. South Carolina almost always votes for the eventual nominee, and both SC and Florida favor Newt. By this time Bachmann and possibly Santorum will have dropped out, adding their supporters and key percentage points to those also left by Perry who suspended his campaign tonight. That support isn't going to Romney and I predict this will cascade in Newt's favor. But no matter which conservative chess piece you place as the sole competition to Romney, Romney loses. The numbers are just there; they're diffuse among several candidates at the moment, but those numbers will be reaching critical mass just when they're needed. Make no mistake, 2012 is another Tea Party election and Newt is the strongest Tea Party candidate and conservative candidate in essence to take it to the general election.

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. 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.

As mentioned in my previous post, former China defense minister Chi Haotian called for the use of WMD to annihilate the US population in an act of ethnic cleaning never before seen in human history.

One such method of WMD attack - and also comparatively low-cost - that is gaining wider attention is the use of EMP (or Electromagnetic Pulse). China could employ this method through a proxy power such as Iran or North Korea or a non-state actor, thereby concealing the return address (or China may decide as it examines its cost-to-benefit ratio that such an attack is worth losses suffered during the response).

Here's how it works: A single nuclear missile is detonated at apogee above the continental United States, Europe, Israel, India, Japan or other target sending out several waves of energy toward everything within line-of-sight. Power grids, unshielded electronics such as your computer, transportation (cars, delivery trucks, ambulances, aircraft, etc.), radios and TVs would all be fried. This would have devastating consequences, as you might well imagine.

I believe this is one of the most crucial issues facing the world from a security standpoint. In fact, an EMP has the potential to kill up to 90% of the affected population within a year after the event due to the natural die-off resulting from infrastructure collapse.* It normally takes about ten years to replace major power transformers - and that's under the most ideal conditions. During that time, there would be no way to get food, water, medicine, and other essentials to market; there would be no means of transporting the sick, no method for regulating the indoor climate in hospitals and nursery homes or disposing of waste. Disease, starvation, and the elements would take their toll. And many of the illnesses and accidents treatable today would also become fatal. Refugees would also swarm the countryside, overwhelming those who believed their isolation and self-sufficiency would sustain them.  

If any regime deserves to be taken seriously in its threat to annihilate an entire population, that regime is surely CCP China, which has murdered over 70 million of its own people and counting, making it the most genocidal regime in human history. This is also a regime that makes no effort to diminish the cruelty of death, as we see from its harvesting of organs from living dissidents and the practice of filleting others alive. The regime has also built a vast network of mysterious and pristine cities across its country, which are completely uninhabited, as well as massive underground bunkers. It seems reasonable to assume these serve a strategic purpose and it is clear that it would be strategically useful for a regime intent on initiating - and winning - a nuclear confrontation with an enemy.

As is widely known, Iran has already tested the idea of detonating a missile at apogee and is presently acquiring both missile and nuclear technology from China, Russia, and others within that axis.

However, even if we were to eliminate all nuclear weapons and other man-made sources of EMP tomorrow, of grave concern also is the threat posed by solar events such as the Carrington event of 1859. Such an event - which occurs about every 100 years - would be global. Without hardened infrastructure from the electrical grid to transportation and communications, we are all literally sitting under the gun. That is why the best first strategy for ameliorating this unthinkable threat is to increase our survivability, as mentioned above. The next solar event is inevitable and is also arguably already overdue, and the reduced benefit of a first strike will also deter potential aggressors who seek to use a man-made event to score a quick win.

Without the will to develop new and more secure technologies, there is very little we can do to mitigate such an event, be it naturally-occurring or as the result of an attack from China directly or one of its proxies. So it is key that we understand that the moment to act is now. Otherwise, the inevitable will come. It will either be man-made or sun-caused, but at the point at which it occurs, civilization will suffer a severe downgrade and millions - possibly billions - of unique human beings with hopes, dreams, and aspirations will slowly and agonizingly vanish from the face of the earth.


*Forstchen, William R. One Second After. New York: Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2009.

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.

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.

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.

In 1962 during his second year at West Point, my father attended an address by the Great American General Douglas MacArthur. It was what would become known as one of the greatest speeches in history. Recently, my father's vinyl recording of the event was re-discovered in a box along with the program. While I have found bits and pieces of audio from the speech on YouTube or in obsolete audio formats posted way back in the 1990s in various corners of the web, I did not see the full audio online, so I thought it might be useful to others to remedy that.

I also felt that reading the speech within the pages of the actual program handed out on the day the address was delivered would be enjoyable for others, so I have scaned it and converted it to a PDF document. You can download and view that here: USMA MacArthur Farewell Address 62.pdf  A copy/paste-friendly version of the address can be found at American Rhetoric and other spots on the web. I hope that you will be enriched by these priceless treasures of our great history and be inspired as an American to know that our greatest days yet lie ahead.

General Douglas MacArthur USMA 1962: Duty, Honor, Country (Full) from Blogbat on Vimeo.

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.