Closing Thought–05Jan21

Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Radcliffe, has made an extraordinary claim and it concerns China……

Has China discovered a super-soldier formula through the capabilities of genetic engineering? A U.S. government official claims this is exactly what is happening.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that claims the Chinese government is attempting to enhance the capabilities of soldiers through genetic engineering. It’s not the first time such a claim has been made. Ratcliffe’s article, cited in an NBC report, outlined his belief that China is the greatest threat to the United States in terms of military and economic power.

Ratcliffe’s concerns build on theories raised in 2019 about China’s capabilities with CRISPR, particularly after Chinese researcher He Jiankui used CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to alter the DNA of embryos for seven couples in 2018. Although international outrage resulted in Jiankui’s incarceration in China, Ratcliffe suggested the Chinese government would attempt to capitalize on these capabilities with gene editing and continue to experiment on adults to create biometrically advanced super soldiers the likes we have seen only in movies.

https://www.biospace.com/article/is-china-using-crispr-to-create-super-soldiers-/

Is this true?

Or is it just more chest thumping against China by the Trump admin?

I do not doubt that China would try such a thing….but accusation is not proof….I will wait for the proof.

And yet the US is mobilizing for a large scale war….China is the first suspect…,but there are others….

The US military is investing heavily in preparing for large-scale combat operations. These operations, pitting the US armed forces against peer or near-peer adversaries, would require large numbers of troops, would almost certainly be expensive, and would risk high numbers of casualties. In other words, major war. But even if the US military is prepared, the American people aren’t. This is a problem.

A major war, fueled by rising competition between great powers, is certainly not guaranteed. Any geopolitical gains made would likely be offset by high casualties and the risk of a nuclear exchange. However, miscalculation and misperception could inadvertently lead to a dangerously escalatory armed clash. Military establishments the world over, and especially in the United States, are assiduously preparing for the possibility.

https://mwi.usma.edu/making-the-case-for-war/

And a now familiar tactic by the DoD….China is offering bounties for American troops…..

Months after an unsubstantiated claim about Russia paying bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops spread like wildfire, a similar claim about China is being reported by Axios.

The Axios report published on Wednesday cites two unnamed Trump administration officials. According to the officials, the Trump administration is declassifying “uncorroborated intelligence” that “indicates China offered to pay non-state actors in Afghanistan to attack American soldiers.”

The report says President Trump was verbally briefed on the uncorroborated intelligence by National Security Robert O’Brien, and officials across all agencies are working to “corroborate” the intelligence.

There are few details in the report of what the uncorroborated intelligence actually says. Axios was unable to see any of the intelligence reports and received the information from sources in a phone call.

One source said: “The US has evidence that the PRC [People’s Republic of China] attempted to finance attacks on American servicemen by Afghan non-state actors by offering financial incentives or ‘bounties.’” The sources did not say if the “non-state” actors included the Taliban or not.

The only info Axios could get was that the alleged bounty scheme happened sometime after the US-Taliban peace deal was signed in February. Since the deal was signed on February 29th, no US troops have been killed in combat-related incidents in Afghanistan.

(antiwar.com)

Deja vu all over again.

But not to worry…..we have a new president waiting in the wings to change the trajectory of our foreign policy…..Joe Biden will be better…..

Well that statement is pure manure……Joe Biden will change little….

Joe Biden stressed the need for “modernizing” US defense capabilities in the face of threats from China and Russia. Biden also addressed the recently discovered hack of the software company SolarWinds that affected several government agencies.

Biden said he spoke with a member of his transition team about the “different strategic challenges we’re gonna face from both Russia and China and the reforms we must make to put ourselves in the strongest possible position to meet those challenges.” He said those reforms include “modernizing our defense priorities to better deter aggression in the future.”

“We have to be able to innovate, to reimagine our defenses against growing threats in new realms like cyberspace,” Biden said. “We’re still learning about the extent of the SolarWinds hack and the vulnerabilities that have been exposed. As I said last week, this attack constitutes a grave risk to our national security.”

In comments last week, Biden slammed President Trump for not prioritizing cybersecurity and, like many have, blamed Russia for the SolarWinds hack, despite a lack of evidence that Moscow was involved. The former vice president has also vowed retaliation for the SolarWinds hack, and Biden’s chief of staff said the incoming administration’s response would be more than “just sanctions.”

(antiwar.com)

You see if you were hoping for sanity in our defense posturing then you will be sadly disappointed.

There is another situation that could lead to problems shortly…..

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has re-awoken to a profound truth: Rich, secure capitalists are the natural enemies of authoritarian regimes. In a hybrid autocratic-capitalist model, capitalism is the means to generate wealth, but power is the end goal. Successful capitalists naturally begin to demand that their personal and property rights be protected from authoritarian fiat. Capital in the hands of entrepreneurs is a political resource; it poses a threat to the implementation of centralized plans.

Realizing this, the CCP has begun to assert control over the private sector by “installing . . . Party officials inside private firms” and having state-backed firms invest in private enterprises. In the absence of civil rights or an independent judiciary, “private” companies have no real independence from the government in China. Dissent and demands for civil rights are a threat to the regime and will be crushed.

China’s shift from encouraging external investment and internal market competition toward treating capitalism as a threat has an obvious historical precedent. From 1921–1928, the Soviet Union instituted a policy of economic liberalization, which allowed for the privatization of agriculture, retail trade, and light industry. This partial and temporary return to a controlled and limited capitalism, known as the New Economic Policy (NEP), saved the Soviet economy from collapse and enabled Russia to modernize. But, in 1928, Stalin suddenly reversed course: He collectivized agriculture and liquidated the most prosperous farmers, thereby necessitating the frequent resort to grain imports, notably from the United States.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/the-bill-is-coming-due-for-chinas-capitalist-experiment/

Just a little something to think about……

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

“Tailgunner Joe” Get Physical

With all the years of division and media BS….all that brings my favorite bad guy from the 1950s….Sen Joe “Tailgunner” McCarthy……

How many know who “Tailgunner Joe” is?

Joseph McCarthy, in full Joseph Raymond McCarthy, (born November 14, 1908, near Appleton, Wisconsin, U.S.—died May 2, 1957, Bethesda, Maryland), American politician who served in the U.S. Senate (1947–57), representing Wisconsin, and who lent his name to the term McCarthyism. He dominated the U.S. political climate in the early 1950s through his sensational but unproven charges of communist subversion in high government circles. In 1954, in a rare move, McCarthy’s Senate colleagues officially censured him for unbecoming conduct.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-McCarthy

It was a simpler time when according to some there were Commies in every closet in America (somethings do not change…after 70 years some lunatics still see them where none exist….kinda like those reptilian aliens that are here now)

At one point Tailgunner decided it would be prudent to attack a reporter….

It may seem unimaginable these days, but a U.S. Senator once assaulted a prominent newspaper columnist at an exclusive club in Washington, D.C.

The brief but violent confrontation between Joe McCarthy and columnist Drew Pearson took place December 12, 1950, at the end of a dinner at the Sulgrave Club, which occupies a Gilded Age Beaux Arts mansion on DuPont Circle.

I recount this episode in my book, Getting It Wrong— in a chapter puncturing the myth about CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow and his half-hour television report on McCarthy in March 1954. The myth has it that Murrow confronted and single-handedly took down McCarthy, the Red-baiting Republican senator from Wisconsin.

I note in Getting It Wrong that “the evidence is overwhelming” that Murrow’s television report on McCarthy “had no such decisive effect, that Murrow in fact was very late in confronting McCarthy, that he did so only after other journalists had challenged the senator and his tactics for months, even years.”

Notable among those journalists was Pearson, a veteran, Washington-based syndicated columnist and radio commentator who, long before Murrow’s show, raised pointed and repeated challenges to McCarthy’s claims that communists had infiltrated high positions in the State Department, the Army, and other American institutions.

Remembering when Joe McCarthy beat up a columnist

It amazes me that this sort of thing does not happen more often…..the only one I can think of right now is that GOP representative that threatened to throw a reporter off an balcony a few years ago.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Do We Want A True Conservative Party?

My thoughts on the state of conservatism these days…..originally posted on my op-ed blog…..2021 will show what direction the GOP will decide to travel chuq

Gulf South Free Press

The GOP use to hold the mantle of America’s conservative party….that is until the slow rise of the Tea Party and then the election of Donald Trump…..the GOP has become the party of Trump and flies in the face of conservatism.

To keep it simple…..Generally believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.  Also believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goal.

So with that simple explanation we see that Trump flies in the face of American conservatism.

But if you need more conservatism to test my premise then this may be of assistance….https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/

Next, do we truly want a true conservative party?

Why?

We already have a damn good conservative party…..it is called Democrats.

I have been saying that for years…ever since the Reagan years because the Dems turned…

View original post 320 more words

Those Social Conservatives

Just a little something now that a Dem will occupy the White House….an old nemesis will return…..the social conservative.

First what is a “social conservative:”?

While the terms conservative and liberal can have different definitions in different countries, American social conservatism usually refers to a political ideology that involves traditional, historical views on the definition of marriage, life, sexuality, and religion. This ideology is in direct contrast with another known as social liberalism. Individuals who are socially liberal typically embrace and support marriage equality, abortion rights, and government intervention on issues such as pay between men and women.

Voters who are social conservatives often support candidates in the Republican Party, which is known for having traditional views in relation to the definition of marriage, life, sexuality, and religion. According to Gallup’s annual measurement of social views, about one-third of Americans identify as socially conservative. American social conservatives are often members of a Christian or Jewish denomination, but not every social conservative is religious.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-social-conservatism-definition-examples.html

For those that have an allergic reaction to actual reading…..I have visuals…..

Since the election of Trump….the traditional beliefs of the social conserv is gone….so can we say that it is a “dead” movement?

I have thrown a lot of info at you about social conservs…..and with good reason…..

Some research is showing that social conservs are less intelligent than others…..

Over the past decade, several studies have shown that people who tend to hold more conservative views score low on measures of intelligence. However, it now appears that while conservatism and intelligence are negatively correlated, the link is not as strong as first thought.

Much of the previous work in this area was based on a psychological definition of conservatism, rather than a political one. The term “conservative syndrome” was coined to describe a person who attaches particular importance to respect for tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation.

Such a person tends to hold conformist values like obedience, self-discipline and politeness, and emphasises the need for social order coupled with concerns for family and national security.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/socially-conservative-people-tend-to-be-less-intelligent-according-to-science/

If social conservs like Reps. Jordan, Nunes, Meadows, Gaetz, McCarthy are examples of the political philosophy then I would say that the research holds up well.

And no better example of stupid than the “anti-maskers”……and the return of the social conservative will once again lead the stupidity in our Congress.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Vote For More Defense Spending

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was passed by Congress and then vetoed by Trump…..this got the M-IC up in arms and pulled no punches to get the congressional override of the veto….and they succeeded.

There were a few brave representatives that think we spend way too damn much on the military and should reassign those funds where they are needed…..

The efforts by the industry that owns damn near all our elected officials was overwhelming…..

First it was the House of Representatives that voted to override…..

The House convened on Monday for an override vote of President Trump’s veto of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In a vote of 322 to 87, the House secured well over the two-thirds majority needed for the override, and the bill now moves onto the Senate.

The Senate is expected to convene for the override vote on Tuesday. Before President Trump’s veto, the NDAA passed through the Senate by a vote of 84 to 13, well over the two-thirds majority needed for the override. But the bill could be delayed if a senator chooses to drag out procedural hurdles. If the vote is delayed past January 3rd, Congress will have to restart the NDAA from scratch.

There were a few brave reps that voted against the override…..

Just 20 House Democrats opted to break with their party and their Republican counterparts late Monday to vote against overriding President Donald Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a sprawling bill that greenlights over $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one the few House Democrats who voted against overriding the president’s NDAA veto, applauded his colleagues for having “the courage tonight to vote no on the bloated defense budget.”

“They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people,” said Khanna.

“We’re spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can’t find money to get food in to people who need it?” Khanna said. “We can’t find money to get more rental assistance for folks who are going to face evictions? We can’t find money to get $2,000 into the pockets of Americans? The priorities are wrong, and so I’m not going to vote to override his veto.”

(commondreams.org)

For those interested in the people that voted against war and for as better society…..

Here are the 20 Democrats who voted against overriding Trump’s NDAA veto: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Jesús García (Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Joe Kennedy (Mass.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Grace Meng (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

And the Senate follows suit….

the Senate voted to override President Trump’s veto of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In a vote of 81 to 13, the Senate easily secured the two-thirds majority needed for the override.

Earlier this week, the House also voted to override the veto in a vote of 322 to 87. The votes mark the first time Congress rebukes one of President Trump’s vetoes with an override.

President Trump had several issues with the $740.5 billion military spending bill. Chief among them is the lack of an amendment to repeal Section 230, a law that shields tech companies from liability for content published on their platforms by third parties.

Another issue the president had is over amendments that seek to block planned troop drawdowns in Afghanistan and Germany. Another provision can block any future plans to withdraw troops from South Korea.

The senators who voted against the NDAA are Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mike Braun (R-IN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Josh Hawley (R

(antiwar.com)

These people did what elected officials are suppose to do….they voted for the best interest of the people they represent.

I may not agree with some of the issues these reps hold dear….but I applaud their vote for the country and its people.

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”