Login
South African officials have threatened the US and other Western nations with prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for supporting Israel against the designated terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. South Africa’s International Relations and Cooperation Minister, Naledi Pandor, made this declaration during a talk about the situation in Rafah, standing in front of a Palestinian flag. It is unusual for a government official to stand in front of the flag of another entity, which is not a recognized country while giving an address. This act alone dispels any pretense of neutrality.
The ICC threat from South Africa is nearly laughable, given that the ICC already has an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. However, South Africa not only continues to maintain close ties with Russia as a BRICS partner but has also sidestepped international sanctions by holding joint military exercises with the heavily sanctioned Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
Signatories to the Rome Statute obligate themselves to enforce ICC arrest warrants. Evidence of South Africa’s lack of commitment to the ICC is that in 2017, South Africa was censured by the ICC for failing to enforce an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted on multiple counts of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Recently, Pretoria asked the ICC to exempt it from arresting Putin to avoid a war. The country even tried to withdraw from the ICC last spring but is suddenly all-in on deploying the ICC against the United States.
The US is not a signatory to the ICC, and the warrant would hold no validity in the US. Additionally, the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA) protects US and allied military personnel from the ICC’s jurisdiction. Since Israel is an ally, this protection can extend to diplomatic efforts on its behalf. Furthermore, any country that enforced such a warrant against the US would be guilty of illegal detention and could face severe diplomatic repercussions or potentially trigger a rescue operation, leading to significant casualties in the country detaining high-ranking US officials.
The ICC admitted “the state of Palestine” as a special signatory, which seems impossible because the State of Palestine does not exist. This makes the ICC one of the few international organizations that allows theoretical entities to join. This symbolic move is crucial because, for the ICC to have jurisdiction, either the country accused of a violation or the country where the violation took place must be signatories. Since Israel is not a signatory, the only way the ICC can claim jurisdiction is through the inclusion of the theoretical Palestinian State.
The Palestinian State’s membership status in the ICC is questionable at best and is referred to as a “non-state party observer,” which seems like a contradiction of terms. In January 2015, Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute and became a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This status allows Palestine to participate in ICC proceedings and have a say in the court’s operations, despite the contentious nature of its statehood. The ICC’s inclusion of Palestine is one of the many reasons why the US does not support the ICC.
Section 410 of the US Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, “Prohibits U.S. contributions to any affiliated organization of the United Nations or to the United Nations if they grant full membership as a state to a group that does not have internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” This act should be extended to non-UN organizations. Although the ICC did not officially recognize the Palestinian State, the fact that they admitted this entity suggests recognition. As such, Washington should ensure that the ICC receives no funding.
Washington’s rejection of the ICC is so complete that, under Donald Trump, the United States sanctioned the ICC, designating two of its prosecutors. President Biden later revoked these sanctions, but has not signed the Rome Statute, and the US remains outside of the ICC’s jurisdiction.
South Africa’s calls for warrants against the US are completely meaningless, serving only as a symbolic gesture that signals South Africa’s alignment with the China-Russia-Iran camp. To issue such warrants, the UN Security Council would have to agree, which is highly unlikely. Putin and Xi supporting that investigation would be one of the most comedic foreign policy decisions in history, rivaled only by the UN’s decision to put Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Libya on the Human Rights Council.
Washington’s response to South Africa’s call for ICC warrants should be to impose sanctions on South Africa for holding joint military exercises with Russia. The US should also launch an investigation to determine if any financial transactions between South Africa and Russia qualify for secondary sanctions. Additionally, the US should cut the $6 billion in aid it gives to South Africa and divert the money to Israel or use it to secure the southern border.
The post South Africa’s Ironic ICC Threat to the US appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, there are over 280 million registered vehicles in the United States, including cars, trucks, and motorcycles. President Biden’s plan aims to replace 67% of these vehicles with electric ones by 2032. While China, which produces 80% of the batteries, would benefit, American consumers and the environment would suffer as a result.
First, purchasing an electric vehicle (EV) is expensive. On average, the purchase price of an EV is currently $26,000 more than a gasoline-powered car. Next, using an EV as a primary vehicle or for long family trips is extremely problematic. They have a short range of only 291 miles on average, compared to 400 miles for gasoline-powered cars. Additionally, they have long charging times and reduced performance at temperatures below 40°F or above 90°F. On extremely cold days, the range of the battery can decrease by as much as 50%. Consequently, EVs may not be suitable for use in most northern states or out west, where temperatures range from very high to very low.
According to the Department of Transportation, depending on the type of EV you buy, recharging to 80% capacity can take anywhere from 20 minutes to 10 hours. The reason why 80% capacity is often cited in literature is that the top 20% and bottom 20% of the EV battery are either unusable or not recommended for use. This fact significantly affects the actual range of an EV compared to the range cited by environmentalists.
They claim that this switch is being done to save the environment, but with charging times of up to 10 hours, every American home would need at least one charger. Since most homes have more than one car, multiple chargers would be necessary. If public recharging stations on highways had fast chargers that only require 20 minutes to fill a battery to 80%, far more of these chargers would be needed than the gas pumps that exist today.
It only takes 3-4 minutes to fill a car with gas, so waiting in a line 5 cars deep would be a 20-minute wait. With EVs, that would be a 100-minute wait, followed by the 20 minutes it takes to charge your EV battery to 80%. Service stations would need to add additional charging stations, or cities would need to install them in parking lots. Either way, there would be a massive construction of new electric charging stations.
Nowadays, you replace a perfectly working phone or computer every two to three years because the technology keeps improving. This will be the case with EVs and charging stations. As new technology emerges, old EVs and charging stations will be disposed of, and new ones will be built in the hundreds of millions, which could be detrimental to the environment.
If all 280 million US vehicles were converted to EVs, the demand for electricity would increase by 25% to 50%. Generating more electricity would necessitate expanding the electric grid and likely burning more fossil fuels. However, the White House has set a goal of reducing emissions by 50% – 52% compared to 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net zero by 2050. To achieve this goal, power generation would need to switch to wind and solar, both of which have significant environmental impacts that proponents often overlook.
Feasibility studies on projected wind and solar power production often compare the power produced to current needs but fail to consider that in just a few years, most cars are expected to be EVs, causing electricity demand to skyrocket.
Aside from the fact that wind and solar farms cannot generate sufficient energy to meet the needs of an entire population driving EVs, they are also environmentally damaging. The establishment of wind or solar farms disrupts local plant and animal habitats, which is a significant concern, especially in areas with sensitive ecosystems or endangered species. Large-scale wind and solar farms require significant land areas, potentially converting natural landscapes or agricultural lands. Additionally, solar production requires a great deal of water—20 gallons per megawatt hour.
The production and decommissioning of wind turbines produce harmful emissions. Manufacturing solar panels involves mining and processing raw materials like silicon, silver, and other metals, which can have significant environmental impacts. Solar panels contain hazardous materials such as cadmium, silicon, and gallium arsenide, which are toxic to humans and animals and can pollute groundwater and air. The disposal and recycling of solar panels at the end of their life cycle pose environmental challenges, as some components can be hazardous. By 2050, estimates suggest there could be as much as 78 million tons of solar panel waste worldwide.
EVs will cost consumers more money, be impractical, and cause an environmental disaster. One way to mitigate the increased demand for electricity could be for the government to ration electricity usage, leading to rolling blackouts and bans on air-conditioning and heating. Alternatively, they could tax the usage of public roads to discourage driving. Either way, quality of life would decrease along with personal freedoms.
The post Electric Vehicle Calculations Don’t Add Up appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The decision is crucial for Ukraine’s chances of winning the war. However, it marks an escalation, bringing the US closer to conflict with Russia, the world’s largest possessor of nuclear warheads. A video released by the Russian government warns that by enabling Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, the West has revealed its “true motive.” The Moscow claims that these weapons are not for defense but are intended to strike civilian infrastructure inside Russia.
Putin told reporters in Tashkent that constant escalation could lead to dire consequences in Europe and the United States. He warned Western leaders that their decision was dangerous and could trigger a global conflict. Specifically, he said that sending French troops to Ukraine would be a step too far. Additionally, he ominously stated that some European countries have small landmasses but dense populations. Regardless of where one stands on the Ukraine war or whether the US and NATO should be involved, the Kremlin is correct in saying that each successive escalation brings the world closer to a global conflict.
On March 22, 2024, Russia declared war on Ukraine. While major media outlets reported this escalation, it didn’t receive the attention it deserved. A declaration of war is a critical step, changing Russia’s internal rules of engagement and allowing for broader military actions. In Russian military thinking, “war” is the most intense form of conflict, whereas “special military operations,” as the Ukraine conflict was previously classified, are seen as less intense on a spectrum of warfare. This declaration sets the stage for a stronger response to any foreign interference.
In a speech just before the declaration of war, Putin stated, “Strategic nuclear forces are in a state of full readiness for guaranteed use.” The mention of nuclear weapons is concerning, especially now that war has been declared. The “Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” approved by President Vladimir Putin in June 2020, outlines Russia’s nuclear policy. According to this policy, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies. However, nuclear weapons may also be used in response to conventional aggression that threatens the very existence of the state. So, the definition of a threat or the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is both ambiguous and subjective, meaning the Ukraine war itself, direct attacks on the Russian homeland, or foreign intervention could be enough to trigger a nuclear response.
Now that the threat of nuclear war has increased, there is a heightened risk of global conflict, as the US and other Western nations are contractually obligated to become involved. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine violates the Budapest Memorandum, a 1994 agreement between Ukraine, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This memorandum provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for its agreement to relinquish its nuclear weapons to Russia. Ukraine sought legally binding guarantees for its protection in case of invasion, but the US did not agree to such terms. Instead, the US, UK, and Russia provided politically binding assurances to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders.
The Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Budapest Memorandum, states, “The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”
China and France also made similar assurances but did not sign the Budapest Memorandum. On December 4, 1994, China issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. China expressed its support for the security assurances provided by the Budapest Memorandum signatories and declared its respect for the principles of the UN Charter regarding non-aggression and non-interference in internal affairs. However, China has violated this promise by aiding Russia’s war in Ukraine.
France issued a similar statement on December 5, 1994, echoing the sentiments of the Budapest Memorandum. France emphasized its commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and reiterated the importance of respecting international laws and principles, particularly those enshrined in the UN Charter.
The declaration of war is an escalation. The low threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons could easily be triggered by increased involvement from foreign powers or by Ukraine striking the Russian homeland. This is not to say that Ukraine is wrong for defending itself or for attacking the Russian homeland, nor is it a refutation of the US, NATO, or other nations coming to Ukraine’s aid. It is simply a reminder that the US and the West must be prepared for a full-scale war with Russia, including the possible use of nuclear weapons.
In his speech to the Russian people, Putin said about the West, “Everything that they are coming up with now, how they are spooking the whole world—all this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore the destruction of civilization.”
The post Ukraine Conflict: Path to Nuclear World War appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is seeking arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. However, the warrants have not yet been granted, nor has authorization for an investigation, and the ICC has no police force to enforce the warrants if they are issued.
ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan has applied for arrest warrants for five individuals connected with the Israel-Hamas War. Three from Hamas: Yahya Sinwar (Head of Hamas in Gaza), Mohammed Deif (Commander-in-Chief of the Al-Qassam Brigades), and Ismail Haniyeh (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) for war crimes committed in Israel and Palestine from October 7, 2023.
The other two alleged perpetrators are Israeli officials: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defense of Israel, for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza from at least October 8, 2023.
Israel’s specific actions condemned by the ICC prosecutor include closing border crossings, blocking aid supplies such as food and medicine, cutting off cross-border water and electricity to Gaza, and attacking and killing aid workers. Israel states that the aid workers were killed accidentally in the normal context of war.
They justify the other allegations by citing the need to prevent terrorists from entering Israel and to stop weapons and ammunition from getting into Gaza. These measures pertain to Israel’s sovereign borders, and a country has the right to enforce its border policy. Ironically, Egypt is not being charged despite also closing its borders, hindering refugee exits, and preventing aid shipments from entering.
The official statement of the ICC acknowledges that Israel took these actions to (i) eliminate Hamas, (ii) secure the return of hostages abducted by Hamas, and (iii) collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza, whom they perceived as a threat to Israel.
It is questionable whether the third point is true. As for eliminating Hamas and recovering the hostages, the ICC did not offer an alternative solution for how Israel should achieve these goals through acceptable means.
Those in favor of the ICC warrants against Israel point out that the ICC has also issued warrants for nefarious characters like Vladimir Putin and various other dictators and despots.
The rogues’ gallery of high-level offenders who have had ICC warrants enforced on them includes Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, his son, and brother-in-law for crimes against humanity; Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s finance minister and a deputy prime minister; former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak; former Guatemalan President Efrain Rios Montt for genocide; former Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo for crimes against humanity; and Kosovar President Hashim Thaci for war crimes. Supporters of the ICC warrants argue that if Israel’s allies flout these charges against Israel, it undermines the court’s authority to take action against other violators.
Before issuing an arrest warrant, the ICC must undergo several steps, including a preliminary examination, authorization of an investigation, gathering of evidence, and a review by a Pre-Trial Chamber. An investigation must be conducted to establish sufficient grounds for the warrant.
If Israel refuses to cooperate with an ICC investigation, the ICC can still proceed by relying on evidence gathered from other sources, such as non-governmental organizations, international agencies, or states willing to assist.
Moreover, the UN Security Council has the authority to refer situations to the ICC, even if the country involved is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC and defines its functions, jurisdiction, and structure. However, this referral requires a resolution supported by the majority of Security Council members, which can be difficult to achieve due to geopolitical considerations.
If sufficient grounds are found to issue the warrant, the ICC lacks a police force to enforce it, relying instead on member states to carry out arrests. Only countries that are signatories to the Rome Statute are obligated to enforce these warrants. Israel is not a signatory, which complicates the situation. The State of Palestine, while not a signatory in the traditional sense, has acceded to the Rome Statute.
In contrast, the US, China, India, Russia, and almost all Arab states are not parties to the Rome Statute. This means that unless the individuals in question travel to a signatory country willing to enforce the warrants, the likelihood of their arrest remains low. While signatory countries would be obligated to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister if he visited, no country would invade Israel to make the arrest.
Although the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, it holds considerable influence over many ICC member states. The U.S. can leverage diplomatic pressure to discourage countries from cooperating with the ICC in specific cases.
Additionally, the U.S. has passed laws, such as the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), which includes provisions to protect U.S. nationals and allies from the ICC’s jurisdiction. This can extend to diplomatic efforts to protect Israel.
If the countries tied to the crime are not signatories to the ICC, the court can still investigate if the United Nations Security Council refers the case, if a non-signatory state accepts the court’s jurisdiction, or if the crimes occurred on the territory of a signatory state. However, Israel is unlikely to accept the court’s jurisdiction, and neither Israel nor Palestine are traditional signatories.
Therefore, obtaining a referral from the UN Security Council would be necessary, but this is unlikely given that three of the five permanent members (the US, China, and Russia) are not signatories and would likely object. Even if Russia and China perceived that they could gain some benefit by agreeing to enforce the ICC investigation, the United States could still veto the resolution.
The bottom line is that the issuance of an arrest warrant is unlikely, and the enforcement even less so.
The post ICC Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu: Unlikely and Unenforceable appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Hamas is calling for a cease-fire. However, they already had a ceasefire on October 6th, but they violated it.
In 2005, Israel withdrew its troops from Gaza as part of a unilateral disengagement plan, which included the evacuation of all Israeli settlers and the dismantling of military bases. Gaza subsequently became a stronghold for Hamas, an Islamist militant group that originated from the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1980s. Hamas, which has not held elections since 2006, took full control of Gaza in 2007 following a violent conflict with the Palestinian Authority. Since then, Hamas has utilized Gaza as a base to launch attacks against Israel, including rocket fire and other militant activities. The international community has condemned Hamas for its numerous suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and other acts of violence targeting Israeli civilians. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Israel.
Hamas commits acts of repression and other human rights violations against the people of Gaza. According to Amnesty International, “Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip repressed the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly. Torture and other ill-treatment were reported in Palestinian detention centers. Members of Palestinian armed groups summarily killed several suspected ‘collaborators’. In Gaza, death sentences were passed, and executions were carried out.”
In 1988, Hamas published its official Covenant, which explicitly called for the elimination of Israel and the killing of all Jews. In 2017, Hamas released an updated version, the Document of General Principles and Policies, which removed the specific language about killing Jews but still did not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state, referring to it as “a racist, anti-human and colonial Zionist project.” The document states, “The Islamic Resistance Movement ‘Hamas’ is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project.” It defines Palestine as the land “from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south.” This definition encompasses the entire territory of the State of Israel, implying the complete elimination of Israel as it currently exists.
Given the ongoing threat that Hamas poses to the state of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted that Israel will never be safe unless Hamas is completely annihilated. To this end, he has launched one of the most intense military campaigns since the beginning of the Ukraine War. Israel provided warnings for civilians and non-combatants to leave Gaza. However, their exit is being impeded by neighboring countries. The Rafah crossing, the only border crossing between Gaza and Egypt not controlled by Israel, has frequently been closed or heavily restricted by the Egyptian government. This has severely limited the ability of Gaza residents to flee to Egypt during periods of conflict. To exacerbate the situation, Egypt is also blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza through Rafah, further contributing to the humanitarian crisis.
The Israel Defense Force (IDF) has faced accusations of targeting civilians, with women and children comprising more than half of the casualties. However, given that women and children make up about two-thirds of Gaza’s population, they are more likely to be collateral damage when Hamas is targeted. Additionally, women and children have been involved with Hamas, sometimes as human shields or suicide bombers. The term “children” includes those under 18, and Hamas has used minors in combat roles for harassment by throwing stones at IDF soldiers or using kites for espionage and dropping incendiaries.
Israel has also been criticized for restricting aid shipments to Gaza. The rationale behind this includes the fact that Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups have used aid shipments to smuggle weapons, ammunition, and military equipment. As the governing authority in Gaza, Hamas handles the acceptance and distribution of aid, increasing the likelihood that it will support terrorist activities rather than aid civilians.
There are claims that at least 260 humanitarian aid workers have been killed in the conflict, but this does not demonstrate that Israel is intentionally targeting aid workers. War zones are inherently dangerous, and although aid workers, press, and other noncombatants are not intended targets, they face significant risks by virtue of their roles. Most are aware of these dangers and accept the associated risks. A specific issue with this conflict is that Hamas terrorists have either worked as or posed as humanitarian aid workers. This has led to the suspension of U.S. funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) when it was discovered that several of its employees were involved in the October 7th attack on Israel.
Hamas could alleviate civilian suffering by refraining from using them as shields. They could also release the Israeli hostages and surrender, which would end the current military campaign. Additionally, the entire situation could have been avoided if they had not attacked Israel in the first place.
The post Hamas Responsible for Suffering in Gaza appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Socialists claim that wages are being stolen and that all profits constitute theft. They argue that wages themselves are a form of theft and that capitalism inherently involves exploitation. The only solution, they contend, is government intervention, including the provision of a universal basic wage and/or mandating companies to pay a high minimum wage. Additionally, they demand that the government enforce fair hiring practices, dictate scheduling according to their standards, and prevent companies from laying off employees even when business performance declines.
To their point, if companies were not allowed to earn a profit, it would be impossible to determine whether a company was performing well and thus no justification for laying off employees. However, without the ability to earn a profit, there would be no companies, and no jobs. So, our current system seems much better than socialism.
There are headlines, Tweets, and Instagram posts from socialist sources all over the internet regarding the concept of wage theft. Wage theft is indeed a real issue, with some employers illegally cutting corners through various nefarious means, such as having employees come in before work to “set up” or stay late to “clean up” without pay. However, socialists have expanded their definition of wage theft to an exaggerated and preposterous level.
One source wrote, “A system of profit and wage labor is a system of theft.” They believe that the workers are the ones generating the profits, and they should thus be allowed to keep them. In some extreme wage theft camps, if firm XYZ earned $200 million in profit, they claim that the company stole $200 million from the workers, equating the entire profit to wage theft.
In These Times, a socialist news media outlet, stated, “Immigrant rights are worker rights,” suggesting that companies were engaging in wage theft when they paid undocumented workers lower wages. By demanding that undocumented workers be paid the same as everyone else, socialists inadvertently confirm the conservative argument that undocumented workers take jobs and drive down wages. If the socialists win and undocumented workers must be paid the same as everyone else, companies will have no incentive to hire them. They will lose their jobs and wages will rise.
Another example of alleged wage theft is “manipulating hours,” but isn’t that just called scheduling, and isn’t it up to the employer rather than the state to decide when and for how many hours each employee works? Another complaint is that some employers find ways to evade employment laws through various tactics such as “misclassifying” employees as independent contractors or paying off the books. Paying off the books is already illegal, as is intentionally misclassifying workers as contractors. However, if the classification meets the legal definition, then employers are not in violation. And if working as a contractor with no benefits doesn’t suit them, the employees are free to leave the company and get another job.
Hiring contractors is an important tool used by companies, particularly those with seasonal or dramatically varying labor demands. Legislation preventing the hiring of contractors would not only jeopardize many companies but also eliminate jobs for people who prefer to work as contractors.
Wage theft, from the perspective of socialists and extreme liberals, is often seen as part of a broader condemnation of the capitalist system, which they believe exploits workers. This viewpoint is reflected in headlines and posts such as “Only Socialism Can Put an End to Exploitation,” “Workers Should Demand Higher Wages Right Now,” and my personal favorites, “All Capitalism is Wage Theft” and “Why Profit is Theft.” One of the articles provided an example of how “wealth extraction” works: “Let’s say a worker does 8 hours of work to produce $160 in value for the company. If everyone was paid the full value of their work, this person would get paid $160. Instead, this worker is paid $8 an hour and receives $64, while the other $96 goes to the owners.”
This incredibly simplistic take on how business works is very instructive in that it helps us understand why this person is a low-paid worker rather than an owner. The author of this example believes that all of the “value” should go to “the worker.” But what about all of the other employees in the chain of production, delivery, and distribution? What about the administrators, salespeople, marketing, and operating expenses? If all of the value went to the employee, the firm would have a value of zero. How would a firm with a value of zero obtain financing? What investor would buy shares in a company that earns no profits and whose value will remain zero forever?
All of this discussion is tied to the fact that there are high inflation and high housing prices right now, and the job market is competitive, so people with no skills or degrees in useless fields cannot find work. Consequently, they blame the entire system with headlines like “Capitalism Can’t Give Us Affordable Housing.” They miss the point that capitalism provides houses at the market price and pays workers the market wage. If they feel housing prices are too high, they are permitted, in a capitalist system, to sell houses for less. If they want a higher wage, they are welcome to pursue degrees in the medical field, STEM, or other high-demand areas to earn more. They are also free to start companies and give all of the profits to the workers.
The post The Myth of Wage Theft and the Evils of Profit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The U.S. Treasury Department could be one of the most effective tools in the fight against terrorist organizations and drug cartels. Through its Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI), the Treasury can impose economic sanctions on these groups and their supporters, including freezing or seizing bank accounts and other assets.
By holding Mexican politicians, military, and law enforcement accountable, the Treasury could effectively combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Unfortunately, politics often gets in the way.
According to the US Treasury Department’s 2024 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment (NTFRA), “the primary terrorism threat to the homeland comes from individuals in the United States who are inspired by Al-Qa’ida (AQ), ISIS, or domestic violent extremist (DVE) ideologies and who seek to carry out deadly attacks without direction from a terrorist group.”
Many of these individuals are naturalized citizens, green card holders, or illegal immigrants who entered through the Southern Border. Each year, thousands of individuals on the US terrorist watch list are entering the country illegally through Mexico, alongside cartel members and gang members affiliated with cartels. These individuals engage in illegal businesses or fundraising activities in the U.S., with the proceeds flowing back to the cartels and/or terrorist organizations.
Both terrorist organizations and drug cartels rely on a wide variety of illegal funding sources, ranging from drug and human trafficking, arms trafficking, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, and other crimes.
They are also increasingly branching into legitimate businesses, although they conduct these businesses in illegitimate ways, through extortion and corruption. Mexican cartels now dominate the avocado industry and are cornering the market in tortillas.
Meanwhile, Hamas, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and other terrorist organizations are now controlling the construction sector, property investment, and municipal building projects in their home countries, with the proceeds flowing through international financial networks open to Treasury sanctions.
Terrorist organizations also receive donations from high-ranking or wealthy individuals who support their causes. Some groups, including Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), have even used crowdfunding.
Exploiting fake charitable organizations and manipulating international aid channels are other common tactics to funnel money into their networks. In recent years, the rise of cybercrime, including hacking, online fraud, and the use of cryptocurrencies, has provided terrorists with new ways to secure funding.
“Individuals and networks providing various forms of support for Hamas have been active in America for decades.” In the 1960s, individuals within the United States began collecting money for the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine, which eventually became Hamas.
Groups within the U.S. used donor money to engage in activities such as funding, lobbying, education, and dissemination of propaganda in favor of terrorist organizations.
Terrorism funding received a tremendous boost in the 1980s when many charitable and service organizations, serving as fronts for international terrorist groups, were initially set up to raise funds and recruit fighters for the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Factions of the mujahideen later transformed into al-Qaeda.
Other terrorist organizations which have been funded by charities include al-Shabab, whose key leader, Hassan Afgooye ran fundraising activities and operated sham charities to funnel money to the group’s operations.
For his efforts, Hassan Afgooye, has been designated by the Treasury Department, however, al-Shabab continues to receive funding to the tune of $100 million per year which they earn through extortion and from contributions by businesspeople who support their activities. “Al-Shabaab’s revenues are disbursed to other al-Qa’ida-supported groups worldwide and help fund al-Qa’ida’s global ambitions.”
The Hamas Charter states that Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which claimed to be a benevolent society. Before his death in 2022, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi had been the Qatari link to the Muslim Brotherhood emerging as a most important spiritual authority in the international Muslim Brotherhood movement and the supreme religious authority for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, Hamas.
He supported Hamas suicide bombings against the US and Israel, through his fatwas, published on Hamas’ website, He established the Union of Good a global charity which was designated by the US Treasury Department for supporting terrorism.
With increased revenues, cartels like the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) and the Sinaloa Cartel have significantly boosted their firepower. They purchase high-powered arms, including automatic rifles, sniper rifles, and anti-personnel mines.
More money also allows these cartels to buy political influence, enabling their operations. The U.S. Treasury could intervene by preventing drug revenues from flowing back to Mexico and seizing the accounts of politicians aiding the cartels, as well as those allowing terrorists and cartel members to enter the U.S.
Similarly, international funding for Hamas, ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups has enabled them to purchase advanced weaponry. Many extremist groups receive funding from Iran, but Hamas is unique among terrorist organizations because it is viewed favorably by some American liberals who, wittingly or unwittingly, contribute money through U.S.-based fundraising activities and international charities.
The Treasury Department is hamstrung by politics. The U.S. government hesitates to impose Treasury sanctions on drug cartels for fear of damaging relations with Mexico.
Similarly, in the fight against Islamic extremist terrorism, there are accusations of racial profiling, as well as Biden’s concerns about losing the votes of U.S. Muslims and the support of undocumented Muslims entering through the Southern Border.
Interestingly, this highlights the need to secure the southern border and sanction Mexican officials who enable both drug cartels and Islamic extremist groups.
The Treasury Department could target these individuals financially without endangering U.S. service members or incurring the high costs of war. Financial sanctions are cheaper for taxpayers, and the seized funds could be used for border security.
The post Treasury Department Could be America’s Best Weapon Against Cartels and Terrorists appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Buying and selling carbon credits has become a great way for companies to signal their commitment to the environment, allowing them to keep polluting while also earning a profit on trading carbon credits.
If you pay a poor country not to cut down their forests, you can earn a lot of carbon credits. These credits can then be used to burn coal and produce more emissions. Whether the country actually planned to cut down the forest is irrelevant. Investigators have found that at least part of the carbon-neutral claims by airlines are backed by credits earned from preventing deforestation of forests that were never under threat.
The goal of most participants in the climate farce is not effectiveness. By writing a check, they can claim they just “saved” the world. Moreover, the amount of carbon credits they earn is not based on the money they spent, but on an estimate of how much pollution they supposedly averted.
Every year, China leads the world in coal consumption, burning 4,319,921,826 tons for everything from electricity generation to steel production. But it is deemed acceptable because China also plants a lot of trees and has created a market for trading carbon credits. China’s State Council Information Office assures us that “China’s sustained afforestation efforts green the world.” According to climate logic, China’s State Council is correct. By planting trees and establishing a market for tradable carbon credits, China has “signaled” its commitment to the environment. And signaling appears to be the new goal.
Carbon credits allow companies to meet Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards and virtue signal, without necessarily reducing global emissions. Meanwhile, these credits and environmental standards add costs to companies and countries that comply, while countries like China continue to emit pollutants and produce cheap products. Even Greenpeace agrees that carbon credits are a scam, calling them “greenwashing” and “window dressing.”
“Net zero” and “carbon neutral,” the mantras of the climate crowd, do not necessarily mean that companies stop producing emissions. These terms mean that companies balance their emissions by reducing what they can and buying enough carbon credits to offset the remaining pollution. However, there is no standard for how much they must reduce versus how much they should offset. So theoretically, they could offset 100% without reducing emissions at all.
In cap-and-trade systems, a government or regulatory body sets a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. Companies are issued a certain number of carbon credits and can trade them in a market. If a company emits less than its allotted amount, it can sell its excess credits to other companies that are exceeding their limits. Organizations can also purchase carbon credits voluntarily to offset their emissions.
When companies have already used up their credits but still need to create pollution, they can earn more carbon credits by planting trees, preventing deforestation, and developing wind, solar, or hydroelectric power to replace fossil fuels. Additionally, they can collect methane from landfills or agriculture to prevent its release into the atmosphere. These credits are often generated through projects that reduce or sequester greenhouse gases, such as reforestation, renewable energy projects, or energy efficiency improvements.
The irony of earning carbon credits by developing wind, solar, and alternative energy projects is that the company itself doesn’t need to switch to renewable energy. Instead, it can finance the installation of a windmill in a village in Bangladesh, thousands of miles away. There is no requirement that the village was previously burning coal or even had electricity. Furthermore, whether the village actually uses the windmill is not directly relevant. The company earns the credits based on the estimated amount of carbon emissions saved by the project, which is calculated and verified during the certification process. This certification can be done by a variety of institutions or organizations.
Carbon credits have faced criticism due to concerns about the proper verification of projects and the reality and permanence of the claimed reductions. Many of these reductions are highly subjective. For example, it is unrealistic to estimate the pollution that would have been created to power a village that did not previously have electricity.
There is generally no follow-up to see if the claimed reductions actually took place. As with taxes, accounting tricks can be used to exaggerate the amount of carbon reduction. However, unlike taxes, there is no overarching authority to audit the climate books. At the same time, do we really want an overarching authority with the power to audit and punish based on climate calculations?
Shell Oil became the target of international media when it was discovered they were playing a massive carbon credit shell game in China. Shell claimed thousands of credits for convincing Chinese farmers to use a carbon-saving farming method that about half of them had been using before the project even began. Even more comical was that the broker for these credits was PetroChina, a Chinese state-owned oil company. While numerous investigators and media have called these credits questionable, there is no mechanism in place to recoup the money Shell made in this process.
Ultimately, carbon credits incentivize the buying and selling of carbon credits, rather than reducing the amount of pollution companies produce. Shell is a classic example of this; the company now has a very lucrative business line of creating and selling carbon credits.
The post The Carbon Credit Scam: Financial Cost, Virtue Signaling, Little or No Environmental Benefit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Transpacific Partnership (TPP), another Obama-era globalist free trade agreement, is back in the news, and unsurprisingly, the usual suspects think the US is missing out by not surrendering its sovereignty and allowing other countries to export to the US tariff-free. In addition to free trade, globalists think the only way to save the American economy is to allow millions of people into the country who are willing to work for $5 an hour.
Globalists believe that the US needs integration with the rest of the world and that this integration is some sort of panacea that will solve all the world’s problems while improving the lives of all people. Groups like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) argue that inequality has widened and that integration will help to reduce it. However, if the US integrates with poorer countries, we will wind up with an average, which means Americans will lose while the people from the developing countries will gain.
One example would be Mexico, where the average income is $11,500 per year, whereas in the US it is $70,000. If we calculate a weighted average, considering the difference in the size of the populations, we get about $25,000. So, if the US integrates with Mexico, we can eliminate income disparity if we all agree to live on just $25,000 per year. This is essentially what globalist organizations want. By forcing the US to integrate its economy with other nations, we would just be decreasing the standard of living for Americans.
Of course, the US could also integrate with Haiti, which has a per capita GDP of less than $800 per year. The globalists would love that.
An organization called Global Sourced praised Clinton and Obama for their contributions to the globalization of the United States in an article titled “Globalization: The Foundation of America’s Economic Power.” They miss the point that the foundation of American power is hard work, fair courts, a lack of corruption, a high degree of freedoms, innovation, risk-taking, education, democracy, private property rights, capitalism, and one of the highest worker productivity in the world. The countries they want the US to integrate with generally have high levels of corruption, low levels of judicial independence, and lower worker productivity. They also tend to have higher degrees of socialism. Integrating the two economies won’t solve the problems of the poorer country.
The North American Development Bank wrote, “U.S.-Mexico Border: Linchpin for the Economic Integration of North America.” American conservatives would see this as a stronger argument to keep the border secure. However, Obama is still active on the speaking circuit, telling globalist conferences that the US needs globalism and that it is the only way to transition to lower inequality and green energy.
Similarly, President Biden has instructed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to promote “Biden’s Vision for Worker-Centered Trade Policy.” This policy is supposed to improve the lives of workers by ensuring compliance with “international labor rights under U.S. trade agreements,” but the Biden administration “excludes foreign workers, employers, and counterpart governments from those processes.” By not forcing countries that export to the US to comply with international labor rights, Biden is giving these countries an unfair price advantage, which will only increase the amount of foreign products in the US while eliminating US jobs.
The globalists are also pushing for US participation in multinational organizations and trade agreements. The Transpacific Partnership (TPP), for example, is a massive, multilateral trade group championed by Obama, which Trump rightly pulled the US out of. Supporters of the TPP claim that it will create jobs, but this makes absolutely no sense as the tariff-free imports from countries with low wages will eliminate manufacturing jobs in the US. Meanwhile, poor countries are unlikely to buy increasing quantities of high-value, high-priced US export goods.
Critics of the US aversion to joining these large groupings always argue that the US is missing out. But that is not the case. The US is the world’s second-largest trading country, and that will not change by joining these groupings. The US is the biggest importer, and these countries will not refuse to sell to us. The US dominates certain areas of trade where China doesn’t hold a candle, such as machine parts, farm machinery, white goods (appliances), precision technology, aviation and space technology, and food.
Additionally, the US already has bilateral trade agreements with most of the world and is already trading, investing, and maintaining diplomatic relations with all but six countries: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Yemen. Other than Bhutan, those countries are all pariah states, and all of them are poor. The US is losing nothing by not establishing free trade or economic integration with them.
Among the supposed benefits of the TPP is the “greater integration of the economies,” but it is unclear why anyone believes that integration would benefit the United States. The US is the richest country by GDP and the eighth richest by per capita GDP. The US dollar is the dominant trade and reserve currency. As stated above, the US already trades with the world. No harm could possibly come from securing the southern border, controlling immigration, remaining outside of transnational trade groupings, and just continuing to trade and invest with other countries as we always have.
The post The US Does Not Need Economic Integration or Globalization appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Bread line, image courtesy of Antonio Graceffo
In the first year of the Biden administration, inflation hit a 40-year high and has continued to climb steadily since then. However, he blames the problem on “evil corporations,” not his own misguided economic policies.
“Too many corporations raise prices to pad their profits, charging more and more for less and less,” said President Biden in his most recent State of the Union Address. His administration has driven the deficit, expanded the debt to historic levels, printed money, increased the money supply, and given away trillions of dollars to people who do not work and to foreign countries, but he blames corporations for inflation. And to “protect” the public from the evil capitalist system where everyone is free to buy, sell, trade, and earn as they wish, he has vowed to crack down on “price gouging.” Ostensibly, the White House will decide what the “correct” prices should be and which prices are being gouged, and the government will use its vast power to force corporations to return those prices to a federally determined level.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City blames inflation on corporate profits. Some reports claim that corporate profits accounted for as much as 53% of inflation. The reality, however, is that inflation is a monetary phenomenon caused by the reckless fiscal and monetary policies of the Biden administration.
Inflation, by definition, is the expansion of credit and the money supply. This causes the buying power of the dollar to decrease, which means you need more dollars to buy things. Most consumers see and are alarmed by rising prices, but this is not inflation; it is only the result of inflation. The real culprit is massive debt creation, deficit spending, loan forgiveness, foreign aid, and transfer payments made by the Biden administration.
Evidence used by the White House and other liberal pundits regarding inflation reference the fact that corporate profits are up, identifying this as a cause of inflation. However, corporate profits are up in nominal terms because the dollar is worth less and prices are rising. Corporations took in more dollars, but those dollars buy fewer raw materials and pay for less labor than they did before Biden took office. The same administration that blames corporations for rising prices is also demanding that the minimum wage be doubled. Labor accounts for between 20% and 40% of cost for most retail and fast food businesses. Forcing a doubling of the minimum wage will drive prices up.
A CNN article about inflation is typical of the error the White House and mainstream media are making, whether wittingly or unwittingly. The article talked about a small business owner who had trouble earning a profit despite rising prices. As prices were rising, so were his costs. To break even, he was forced to raise his prices even higher. The small business owner then blamed corporations for higher prices. His personal experience was that costs were rising and his profits were dwindling, yet he believed corporate greed was causing inflation.
In the same article where the Federal Reserve blamed inflation on corporate profits, they also stated that “although corporate profits and inflation do not have a direct accounting relationship, inflation is directly affected by growth in the markup, or the ratio between the price a firm charges and the firm’s current marginal cost of production.” The Fed is wrong in stating that inflation is affected by changes in prices. It is true, however, that when costs increase, companies have to raise prices to earn a profit. And even if the margin stays the same, say 3%-8% profit, the nominal size of the profit increases.
Here is a simple example. If, before the start of the Biden administration, your business earned a 6% profit equal to $1. That $1 is worth less today and may not be enough to cover the increase in your costs and still earn a profit. So, you have to raise your prices to get a $1.20 profit to still earn 6%. And that $1.20 buys the same quantity of goods as the $1 did pre-Biden. Just like the cost-of-living adjustment in your salary, you are absolutely no better off; you are just dealing with larger numbers.
Another point that many media reports and studies made was that corporations were evil because they based their price rises on future expectations. In fact, there is nothing evil about this; it is totally normal. If you believe prices will go up next year, you make purchases this year. In the case of corporations, they order from the factory three to six months before the product will go to market. If they expect the costs of manufacturing to rise during that period, they raise prices so that they will have money to cover the next batch of manufacturing, which will be at the higher price.
An absolutely spurious claim made by the Federal Reserve is: “Specifically, markups grew by 3.4 percent over the year, whereas inflation, as measured by the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures, was 5.8 percent, suggesting that markups could account for more than half of 2021 inflation.” This statement recognizes that inflation was higher than the markup. What this should mean is that increases in prices are lagging inflation, not driving it.
And finally, proof that the Biden administration is the culprit: An argument made by the Groundwork Collaborative think tank and others who blame “the corporations” is that corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have increased, and therefore corporate profits must have increased and are the cause of inflation. This logic ignores the fact that Biden’s lockdowns prevented people from working during the pandemic, and even now, not everyone is back at work. So, obviously, wages as a percentage of GDP will be lower if people are not working. Ironically, even the graphs created by Groundwork Collaborative clearly show that salaries as a percentage of GDP decreased during the lockdown.
As the nation rolls toward the 2024 elections, the White House is looking for anyone to blame for inflation while attempting to buy votes by continuing to give away free money, which is driving inflation.
The post Biden’s Economic Policies, Not Corporate Profits, Are Driving Inflation appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
There is a joke about immigration: “If illegal aliens grow the economy, then the countries they left must be rich.” The reality is, however, that rather than making the country richer, illegal immigrants cost the country money. The amount of money the government spends on illegal aliens each year is “the equivalent of $500 per American man, woman, child, and retiree.”
Every day, approximately 5,000 illegal aliens enter the United States. The media claims that immigration is growing the US economy, using this argument to justify open borders and illegal immigration. However, there are several intentionally misleading points here. First, the economic growth attributed to immigration includes the wages earned and taxes paid by legal immigrants, which has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The fact that legal immigrants contribute to the economy does not justify what is happening at the southern border.
Yes, every additional person living in the country adds to GDP; however, there is nothing special about illegal aliens that contributes more to this growth. In fact, legal aliens are significantly better for the economy because they pay taxes and are less likely to send most of their earnings out of the country. Legal immigrants are more likely to buy a home and pay property taxes, which fund local schools. They are also more likely to start a business, creating jobs.
Adding people to the economy who do not work or contribute only grows the economy by the amount of government transfer payments they spend. However, these transfer payments come from taxes already paid by citizens or from government debt that will need to be repaid in the future. Additionally, these transfers draw funds away from existing social programs.
In economics, there is a concept called “the broken window fallacy,” which illustrates why poor decisions by the government do not actually grow the economy. The story goes like this: kids are playing baseball and accidentally break a shop window. Some politicians argue that a broken window is beneficial because someone must be paid to fix it. The repair person has to buy the glass, so the glass vendor makes money. The glass vendor and the repair person then use the money they earned on the broken window to buy groceries, pay rent, and pay for services, creating jobs for others.
The fallacy is that before the window was broken, the shop had a window, and the shop owner had cash. After the repair, the shop still has a window, but the owner no longer has his cash. Society is no better off because nothing new was created. If the shop owner had instead used the money to expand his shop, he would create jobs while also providing better or more services to the community.
When politicians claim that illegal aliens added hundreds of billions to the economy, they are counting the money the government paid to support them. While it is true that this money went into the community because the illegal immigrants purchased food and services, or these were purchased on their behalf, this spending simply added to government debt. It is akin to the government cutting checks and sending them to people, as was done during COVID-19. This type of stimulus does not create real growth; it just creates inflation.
According to research by the Center for Immigration Studies, “Illegal immigrants are a net fiscal drain, meaning they receive more in government services than they pay in taxes.”
The lower education levels of illegal immigrants mean they are low earners and often qualify for welfare programs, frequently receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. “The tax payments of illegal immigrants do not come close to covering the costs they create.”
The Center for Immigration Studies found that the annual cost to care for and house illegal immigrants could reach up to $451 billion. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) arrived at a lower figure, determining that illegal immigrants are costing the US at least $150 billion per year. Supporters of illegal immigration may claim that this money, spent on goods and services for illegal immigrants, is added to the economy. However, this money is not added to the economy; it is diverted away from taxpayers.
The post No, Illegal Immigrants Do Not Make the Country Rich appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
“Mexican drug cartels continue to kill Americans at a rate higher than any terrorist group in history,” said Senator Tom Cotton in response to the fact that illicit drugs smuggled by Mexican cartels into the US killed more than 107,000 Americans last year.
The two largest cartels, the Sinaloa Cartel and Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), have become multibillion-dollar Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) groups. The Sinaloa Cartel, in particular, is operating in every US state and 47 countries around the world. Mexican cartels now operate on six continents and have completely dominated the cocaine and synthetic drug markets in Europe.
Republican lawmakers are pushing to have the cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), but there has been significant pushback because such a designation would complicate US relations with Mexico. Once designated, any person or entity aiding the cartels would be in violation of US law and subject to sanctions and arrest.
The U.S. reserves the right to arrest individuals supporting terrorism in foreign countries. The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted after 9/11, provides broad powers to U.S. law enforcement to combat terrorism, including the ability to target financial networks supporting terrorist organizations. Additionally, executive orders, such as Executive Order 13224, enable the U.S. to block the assets of individuals and entities involved in terrorism and to prohibit transactions with them.
Corruption in Mexico is significantly facilitating the drug crisis in the US and supporting rising violence on both sides of the border. Mexican authorities, institutions, and individuals who are found to be on cartel payrolls would be targets for US authorities.
Transparency International ranked Mexico 126th out of 180 countries in terms of corruption. Everyone from politicians and judges to the army and police are accepting money from the cartels, making them fair game for Treasury Department sanctions and possibly arrest and extradition to the United States.
In addition to wanting to designate cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), Tom Cotton and other Republicans have introduced legislation to task the Department of Defense with countering the cartels.
Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has vehemently opposed such action, calling it a violation of Mexican sovereignty. His response to the cartels, dubbed “Hugs not bullets,” involves offering scholarships and social programs to the poor. However, these measures have done nothing to reduce the killings and disappearances.
Congressman Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), a special forces veteran, said, “Our border is being exploited by cartels, as they run one of the most extensive human and drug trafficking operations in the world, leaving no corner of our country untouched by the danger of cartel activity.”
The entire nation is being plagued by these groups, but border states like Texas are being hit hardest. And the situation is only getting worse.
“My expert opinion is that we’re going to see an increase in cartel violence within the United States in all of its forms,” said Charles Marino, a former advisor to the Department of Homeland Security and the CEO of Sentinel Security Solutions. Increasing cartel activity and drug deaths in the US underscore the need to stop the flow of drugs and transnational criminals into the country.
While the threat from cartels is growing, data shows that ICE is deporting fewer suspected gang members than in years past. In 2021, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas sent a memo to ICE urging them to focus on deporting individuals with serious criminal histories, stating that merely being in the country illegally should not be grounds for enforcement action against them.
El Salvador has managed to bring its criminal gangs to heel by suspending legal due process and arresting individuals with gang tattoos. These criminals are incarcerated in a specially designed super-max prison, where they will remain for the rest of their lives. According to President Bukele, the logic is that these are repeat offenders and career criminals incapable of rehabilitation. The only way to keep the public safe from them is to keep them locked away.
With cartels operating in all fifty states, designating them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) seems appropriate. This designation would put immediate pressure on the Mexican government to support US action against the cartels in Mexico. At the same time, the border must be secured, and drug traffickers and distributors in the United States must be jailed.
The post Transnational Terrorist Organizations: Mexican Cartels Operating in Every U.S. State appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
There are four conditions for statehood; Palestine arguably meets one of them.
The most widely accepted definition of a sovereign nation is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which was adopted at the Seventh International Conference of American States in Montevideo, Uruguay, in 1933. The Montevideo Convention lays out the criteria for statehood, including a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. These criteria are widely accepted as the basic requirements for statehood in international law.
These criteria are widely recognized as the fundamental requirements for statehood in international law. Most countries and international organizations adhere to the principles laid out in the convention. Additionally, the criteria specified in the convention are commonly used by governments, legal scholars, and international bodies to determine the statehood of entities seeking recognition as sovereign states. Therefore, the definition provided by the Montevideo Convention is broadly accepted by the international community.
UN members recently voted to recognize Palestine. According to the UN Charter, “States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” However, as a member of the Security Council, the US exercised its veto power, preventing Palestine’s admission.
The United Nations (UN) does not have an official definition of statehood, as it is not explicitly defined in the UN Charter. Instead, the UN generally follows the criteria outlined in the Montevideo Convention. Additionally, the UN has three more requirements for membership.
In conclusion, Palestine is not a state. It meets possibly only one of the four criteria under the Montevideo Convention and one of the three criteria under the UN. Ultimately, the US can exercise its veto power. Pro-Palestine protestors need to read the requirements of statehood and understand that their outrage has been misguided.
The post Palestine Fails the Test of Statehood appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Biden’s inconsistent handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict is straining relations with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, the US’s primary ally in the Middle East. At the same time, the uncoordinated and conflicting policy decisions make the US appear weak, encouraging terrorists and adversaries in the region and around the globe. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) criticized Biden, stating, “President Biden has continued to embolden Iran through weak policies, allowing Iran to fund terrorist attacks against our allies.” Initially, the President pledged his support for Israel, but then later announced that he would pause the delivery of some US weapons and ammunition to Israel. Now, it seems that Biden is moving forward with a $1 billion arms sale to Israel.
President Biden said that he is frustrated with Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict, saying that too many civilians have died. He criticizes the Prime Minister for not using targeted enough attacks, thus resulting in more civilian casualties. On the other hand, according to Senator JD Vance (R-OH), Biden is withholding advanced US weapons which could be used to target more directly against Hamas, reducing civilian casualties.
A good example is Israel’s ability to conduct targeted attacks, such as the strike against a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, whom Israel assassinated in Syria last month. Not only were civilian casualties kept to a minimum, but several of his assistants, including another general, were also killed, dealing a significant blow to Iran’s ability to fight in the region.
There have been no serious demands from the White House for the hostages to be released, including the Americans. However, the president is on TV condemning Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza. Providing a view from outside of the United States, former senior British military intelligence officer Philip Ingram suggests that Hamas is watching and most likely feels that all they have to do is wait. Eventually, the support from the US and the world will wane, and Hamas will survive.
And if Hamas survives, the attacks will continue. Hamas leaders have publicly stated that they plan to commit future attacks similar to October 7th. Mr. Ingram has gone so far as to call Biden and the pro-Palestine protestors “useful idiots” because they are applying pro-Hamas pressure on Western governments without Hamas having to do anything.
Defenders of President Biden’s policies say that he is working from a position of lessons the US allegedly learned in Vietnam and Afghanistan. However, if the US had actually learned from Vietnam, the US would never have had to face the same situation in Afghanistan. In fact, if the US had learned from the French in Vietnam, the US would never have had to learn their own lessons from Vietnam. Given the US track record in the Middle East, it is illogical for President Biden to “micromanage” Israel’s war.
After the US let down the Afghanis and the Kurds, and now that there are widespread pro-Hamas and anti-American protests sweeping US college campuses, Netanyahu must be questioning President Biden’s commitment to US national security, much less Israel’s. A country so riddled with security threats, including open borders which are allowing terrorists, transnational crime, and narcotrafficking organizations to operate within the US, has no place telling Israel how to handle its own national security.
Netanyahu has his goals and objectives, and his strategy seems to be working. As of December, Israel claimed they were at the halfway mark in the war, and the IDF continues to make gains against the terrorists. Hamas began the war by killing 1,200 unarmed civilians. Now that they are being defeated, they are trying to tap out, to get the world community to come in and stop Israel. At the same time, Hamas is literally and figuratively hiding behind its own civilian population. Hamas does not wear uniforms, so even when Israel kills Hamas terrorists, the organization can claim that Israel is targeting civilians. Therefore, while it is unfortunate that innocent people are being killed, they were put in harm’s way by Hamas; consequently, defeating Hamas will sadly result in collateral damage.
The only way for peace is to defeat Hamas as a military organization. There is no way to defeat or eliminate the ideology, but by rooting out the commanders and military-trained battalions, Israel will be in a much better position. At the end of the day, the reason why Egypt and other Arab nations will not accept the refugees is that they also fear and hate Hamas. Saudi Arabia, in particular, is just concerned about making money. They have no time for terrorists. Consequently, if Israel is allowed to finish the job, decimating Hamas’s ability to wage war, the offensive will stop, the images and videos will fade from headlines, and the Israel-Gaza offensive will fade into the memory hole. At that point, it will be much easier for Israel and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other regional powers to normalize relations, creating an anti-Iran coalition and bringing greater stability to the region.
Senator Vance put it this way, “Our goal in the Middle East should be to allow the Israelis to get to some good place with the Saudi Arabians and other Gulf Arab states. There is no way that we can do that unless the Israelis finish the job with Hamas.”
The post Biden’s Disjointed Israel-Hamas Policy Costing Lives Present and Future appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
President Biden’s latest gaffe is that he insulted Japan and India by calling them xenophobic. But the US president has a history of insulting US allies and often demonstrates that he does not understand world affairs or the significance of the people he meets with.
When he was supposed to visit the UK last year on Good Friday, Biden chose Ireland over England, which upset Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. He also missed the coronation of King Charles III, which was a serious error considering the UK is the United States’ closest ally and has fought alongside us in nearly every conflict except Vietnam.
In February, he called Vladimir Putin a “crazy SOB.” Granted, Russia is not a US ally, but it is not normal behavior to hurl personal insults at world leaders. This is the sort of thing that makes it difficult to broker a peace deal in Ukraine. Similarly, Biden called Trump a clown and told him to “shut up.” The two are not friends, but with Biden at the helm, Democrats have lost the moral high ground. He also called a journalist from Fox News a “stupid son of a b-tch.”
When speaking at the G7, Biden mixed up Macron with Mitterrand, who died in 1996, and confused France with Germany. He told the leaders of the world’s richest countries, “And Mitterrand from Germany — I mean, from France…” When it looked as if the right-of-center candidate Giorgia Meloni would be elected as the new prime minister of Italy, Biden insinuated that right-wing candidates winning elections represent a breakdown in democracy. He warned, “You just saw what happened in Italy in that election. You’re seeing what’s happening around the world. The reason I bother to say that is, you can’t be sanguine about what’s happening here either.”
In March of this year, he insulted Hungary’s conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, stating that he “flatly doesn’t think democracy works and is looking for dictatorship.” Obviously, Orbán has never called for a dictatorship, but he has pushed back against unfettered globalism, prioritizing the needs of his country over the demands of the EU. A head of state prioritizing his own country sounds like a good idea, much like “America First”.
By far, the most egregious violation of diplomatic integrity has been Biden’s mishandling of relations with Saudi Arabia, the most powerful nation in the Middle East and one of the most vital regional allies of the United States. In 2019, during his campaign for the presidency, Biden called the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state. He threatened, “We [are] going to, in fact, make them pay the price, and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.”
Three years later, when gasoline had hit record highs, he crawled to the Kingdom to beg them to increase output and bring oil prices down. Before leaving the US, he downplayed the significance of the meeting, telling reporters that he was not traveling to the Middle East for the specific purpose of meeting with the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, but rather, that the two would both be attending a conference and might see each other casually. When the two met, rather than shaking hands, Biden offered the crown prince a fist bump.
If Biden were a social media influencer, then the fist bump would be considered a success because the image went viral. However, as the head of the most powerful nation on Earth, hoping to achieve diplomatic aims, it was a miserable failure that horribly offended the prince and the nation he represents.
One of the facts Biden forgets when he meets dictators or when he meets royalty is that they own everything. By contrast, the American president owns nothing—not even the limo he’s riding in or the house on Pennsylvania Avenue he lives in. Another point is that in eight months, or a maximum of four years and eight months from now, Biden will be retired, while dictators and royalty will continue to rule. They were there long before Biden became a signatory for the US government, and they will be there long after.
It would probably be easy for the man holding the most powerful position on earth to forget that he is a mere blip on the geopolitical timeline, but Biden seems to not even have considered this. He seems to actually believe that he, not the office, has the power.
Trump had been in the public spotlight since at least 1980. He was a self-made billionaire who regularly consorted with kings, queens, and heads of state, not as a public servant, but as an equal. This experience showed through in his handling of Putin, Xi Jinping, and the Saudis, as well as his ability to secure a meeting with Kim Jong Un.
Biden also seems to forget that the world is watching America through the internet. While speaking at a black college, he blamed white people. His habit of pandering to his audience makes him overlook the fact that those he insults are also watching. Like a campaigning politician, he wants to be able to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear in the moment and have it forgotten ten minutes later. But the world doesn’t work like that. Long before their meeting, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was well aware of Biden’s harsh remarks, labeling his country a pariah.
The Crown Prince was also aware that on that same trip to the Middle East, Biden shook hands with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while he only fist bumped the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.
It comes as no surprise that Saudi Arabia did not help Biden bring down gas prices.
In addition to not doing what the US wants them to do, several world leaders have snubbed Biden. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the U.A.E.’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan both declined to speak with Biden in March 2022. Similarly, Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador refused to attend the US-hosted Summit of the Americas that year because the administration had excluded Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. Most recently, Jordan canceled the US summit with Arab leaders when Biden prioritized visiting Israel.
Whether casual or coincidental, Biden insults US allies, and now the US is involved in conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, while trying to maintain the defense of Taiwan and keep a lid on the chaos in Haiti. Additionally, the US is attempting to prevent Africa from collapsing under the re-emergence of ISIS and Boko Haram.
The post Foreign Policy Gaffes: Biden Insults US Allies appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
In response to the US drug crisis which is claiming 200 American lives daily, the Biden Administration vows to cooperate with the Mexican government. A statement from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) regarding tackling Mexico’s cartels asserts, ‘In close coordination with the Government of Mexico and by leveraging President Biden’s Executive Order, we will continue to take aggressive action and exercise global leadership to strike drug trafficking organizations.'”
Taking down the cartels is crucial, given their involvement not only in narcotrafficking and money laundering but also in the surge of illegal immigration at the southern border, having gained control over the lucrative human trafficking trade. However, collaborating with the Mexican government won’t yield results. The White House statement is far from reality, given the firm grip of the cartels on the Mexican government. With escalating cartel interference in elections, prospects for change appear bleak.
Next month, Mexico will hold its general elections, but the cartels have made this year’s campaign season one of the bloodiest in history. Gisela Gaytan, a mayoral candidate from the small town of Celaya, was killed on the very first day of her campaign. Assassins shot her just after she descended from the podium, after pledging to combat cartel violence for her constituents. Magdalena Rosalez, who is running for Congress representing the same party as Gaytan, was asked by her party to abandon her campaign because of security concerns. The grim reality is that Gaytan’s murder, like most murders in Mexico, will remain unsolved and unpunished.
Democracy in Mexico is severely compromised by the cartels, whose influence has infiltrated the legislation, the judiciary, the military, police, and even the electoral process. In certain regions, the cartels handpick candidates and eliminate opposition through threats, violence, or murder. The situation is so extreme that in some elections, cartel-backed candidates run unopposed.
So far this year, approximately 30 candidates have been assassinated, with hundreds more intimidated into withdrawing from the race. Candidates face danger not only during public appearances but also every minute of every day. Consequently, 400 candidates have petitioned the government for security protection.
The cartels aim to install candidates in office who would align with their interests. Additionally, they seek to influence the selection of police chiefs, mayors, and other local officials. Furthermore, cartels are expanding their revenue sources by seizing control of municipal construction projects, including roads, schools, and hospitals.
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whom Biden is pinning his hopes on, denies assertions of violence even in Chiapas, a city synonymous with cartel rule. This is despite the fact that his own protege, presidential front-runner Claudia Sheinbaum, was recently halted and threatened by cartel gunmen.
In some parts of the country, cartels control access to towns, deciding who can enter or leave and what they can do while there. And the violence isn’t just limited to cities; even small towns like Maravatío, located in Michoacan with a population of only 80,000, have seen the assassination of three mayoral candidates. Two of the victims were from the same party as President Obrador, yet he denies that the electoral process is being impeded by violence.
In Chiapas, almost two dozen mayoral candidates from the PAN party have withdrawn from their races. According to a party member, while cartels previously influenced elections by buying off voters, they now resort to violence, either by killing candidates or forcing them out through threats.
The northern border, adjacent to the US, has long been notorious for its lawlessness and prevalence of crime and vice. However, the violence and crime are now spreading throughout the entire country. Historically, Mexico’s southern border was loosely guarded and relatively peaceful, but it has transformed into a transit point for Colombian cocaine smuggled through Guatemala. Today, Chiapas is one of the most affected states, where human trafficking, alongside narcotrafficking, has become a major source of income, with cartels aligning themselves with political parties. Numerous cartels operate in the region, including the two largest ones, the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartel (Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación or CJNG). Consequently, murders and disappearances have skyrocketed, with six political candidates among the recent casualties.
Biden is hoping that by partnering with the Mexican government, he can take on the cartels. This makes little sense given that the cartels control the Mexican government.
The post Cartels’ Grip on Mexican Elections: Government Will Not Stop Drugs to US appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Many Americans are weary of funding the Ukraine War. After seven decades of Europe depending on US defense and passing the costs onto US taxpayers, they’re reluctant to provide an additional $61 billion for Ukraine. Regardless of the validity, these sentiments align with Putin’s strategy, encouraging him as he waits for Ukraine’s funding to dwindle.
Congress recently approved $95 billion in military aid, dividing it among Ukraine, Israel, and other US allies. With most of the funds directed to Ukraine, this injection is intended to support the country until year-end. Ongoing discussions about funding underscore the reality that the conflict in Ukraine has transformed into a war of attrition, where the outcome will be determined by which side exhausts its resources—whether it’s cash, munitions, soldiers, or determination—first.
Russia, being notably larger and wealthier, possesses a substantial industrial base and abundant access to raw materials and gold reserves. However, Western sanctions, along with two years of battlefield losses, have taken a toll on Russia’s munitions supply and its ability to upscale manufacturing.
In contrast, Ukraine’s ability to sustain the conflict heavily relies on the commitment of the United States and its allies to maintain financial support. However, American fatigue is growing as they question funding a foreign war that many believe doesn’t concern them.
A panel discussion took place on May 10th at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) to explore the topic of Incoming Military Support for Ukraine and the repercussions of delayed funding. Underlying this discussion is the assumption that if funding were to stop, Ukraine would be lost.
Sam Green, Director for Democratic Resilience at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), pointed out that delayed funding has given Russia a significant advantage in its offensive. This has negatively affected Ukraine’s recruitment of new soldiers and complicated its future planning, as Kyiv remains uncertain about the timing, amount, and potential discontinuation of funding.
Another panel member, Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis, the former commander of the United States Second Fleet and NATO Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, astutely noted that funding Ukraine’s defense isn’t solely a US responsibility but should also rely on NATO’s support.
The Admiral’s point is echoed by many conservatives. Some insist on reallocating resources from the war effort to address domestic issues, especially securing the southern border. They argue that while Ukraine is important, it’s primarily a European concern and should be Europe’s responsibility. They point out Europe’s dependence on US protection since World War Two, neglecting to fund its own military and shifting the burden to American taxpayers. Contrary to certain media portrayals, Trump’s claim that the US covers 70% of NATO’s funding is accurate.
The recent aid package supplies the Ukrainian military with everything they need for a potential counteroffensive against the Russians, though its success remains uncertain. The Admiral emphasized the need for support to extend beyond funding to direct involvement in combat, wherever necessary. He stressed, “From a military standpoint,” it’s not just about money; “it’s about fighting alongside the Ukrainians.”
This sentiment confirms the concerns of many conservatives, who are already weary of funding a war they oppose. Now, there’s the added concern that they may be called upon to send their children into battle.
Nico Lange, a CEPA fellow who previously served at the German Ministry of Defense, addressed both of the admiral’s points. Firstly, regarding the prospect of someone other than the US funding the war, he expressed uncertainty about Europe’s level of support due to lack of unified leadership and urgency. Furthermore, Lange noted that Europe simply cannot match the $61 billion provided by the US.
Regarding the Admiral’s second point about conscription, Lange remarked, “For the Europeans, there is, I think, a looming discussion whether troops will be sent to Ukraine, some countries are open to this when it comes to training, maybe also helping on air defense, some are very stiffly resisting it, including my country, Germany.”
It appears that Mr. Lange suggests Europe is relying on the US to finance the remainder of the war. Furthermore, some Europeans are contemplating sending troops to participate in the conflict. While some oppose deploying their troops into combat, they are open to having their armies undertake support roles closer to the front lines.
Americans will recall that this is precisely how the US became entangled in the Vietnam War. It began with 900 observers and advisors in 1960 and concluded with 2.7 million Americans serving and 58,000 killed. If the White House were to ask Americans to fight in Ukraine, the war would become highly unpopular, and those against it would push hard for the US to pull out and stop funding altogether.
Russia started the war with a stockpile of old Soviet munitions, which it has almost completely exhausted. With many troops deployed, Putin now faces a shortage of workers for his munitions factories. Sanctions have also hindered Moscow’s ability to buy high-quality machine parts from the US and Germany, forcing them to rely on inferior Chinese-made components. Additionally, Iran is supplying Russia with drones, North Korea is selling them missiles, and China is reportedly providing money and non-lethal aid.
Pavel Luzin, a Non-resident Senior Fellow with the Democratic Resilience Program at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), suggests that Russian political and military leaders are playing a waiting game. Alongside efforts to produce or acquire weapons, they anticipate a reduction in Western assistance.
Moscow closely monitors US news and social media, observing debates surrounding ongoing support for Ukraine. This reinforces Putin’s belief that time is on his side—he simply needs to wait until Ukraine exhausts US funding and resolve.
The post Ukraine: A War of Attrition and Funding appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
As Israel prepares for the final push through Rafah, President Biden announced that he will pause the delivery of some US weapons and ammunition to Israel, which is a huge mistake. It will embolden Hamas. Until a few days before, he was using US taxpayer money and US military personnel to build a pier to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, while simultaneously providing weapons to Israel. Ironically, the US also halted funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the primary humanitarian agency operating in Gaza. Cutting funding to UNRWA was justified by the fact that some of its members were found to have been terrorists who participated in the October 7th attack on Israel. But now, Biden is giving aid, more or less directly, to Hamas.
Biden is playing both sides at the same time. It is a dangerous game, and it will win him nothing. Israel supporters hate him for it. And the pro-Hamas crowd is not going to be happy until he stops supporting Israel altogether, which will never happen.
In a recent survey, only 38% of voters believe the US is doing too much to support Israel, while 50% more voters trust Trump than Biden to handle the situation.
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has fought their way through to the final pocket of Rafah, which borders Egypt. The humanitarian crisis in Rafah is worsened by Egypt closing its border to keep out Hamas. With aid unable to enter through Egypt, Biden devised his nonsensical plan to airdrop aid to Gaza, helping Hamas hang on that much longer, prolonging the conflict and increasing civilian casualties.
Most of the world community is trying to stop Israel from carrying out its Rafah operation. Despite the unpleasant prospect of more destruction, Prime Minister Netanyahu believes he must push all the way through to destroy Hamas, as he sees it as the only path to peace for Israel. Biden’s decision to cut off weapons to Israel is not likely to halt the fighting. Netanyahu has emphasized that Israel will continue the fight with or without US munitions. However, without them, the conflict will continue and more civilians will die.
Furthermore, the US withholding military aid could lead to an increase in casualties for another reason. It may embolden Hezbollah to launch an attack, recognizing that Israel will be forced to prioritize its remaining munitions against multiple threats.
Ironically, if Hezbollah were to enter the conflict, the US is likely to become directly involved. Israel remains the US’s most important ally in the Middle East, and this alliance won’t be altered by the Israel-Gaza conflict. If the US ends up deploying troops or conducting targeted airstrikes and artillery barrages against Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, it would seem absurd if the Biden administration still refused to provide Israel with weapons. Additionally, it’s improbable that liberals would acknowledge and appreciate his restraint.
An unforeseen consequence of this conflict is that Palestine is closer to international recognition now than at any time in history. So far, 144 countries have voted to grant Palestine statehood. The Israeli ambassador to the UN has said that granting statehood to Palestine, with no mention of the October 7th massacre, would be like handing a reward to the Nazis for the Holocaust. Fortunately, the US blocked the resolution on Palestinian statehood.
The UN later voted to grant Palestine expanded rights and privileges; however, the US again vetoed. President Biden stated that the US would not agree until Israel had been consulted and until details such as “boundaries, security, and the future of Jerusalem” had been agreed upon. The president’s stance aligns with the US position of the last 75 years, which is also supported by most American Conservatives, but it has put Biden at odds with liberals. Nonetheless, there is no chance that liberals will vote for Trump. Therefore, in reality, Biden is taking no electoral risk.
Biden bailed on Afghanistan. Hopefully, he will not abandon Israel. Legally, he is not permitted to completely forsake Israel and is obligated to defend Israel at the United Nations. The Kirk-McCain Bill prohibits the US from contributing to U.N. agencies that grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority or the Palestine Liberation Organization. Consequently, if a U.N. agency were to grant full membership to a Palestinian state, the United States would be required to halt funding to that agency, which could encompass both dues and voluntary contributions. The US ceased funding to UNESCO in 2011 when it granted Palestine full membership.
Netanyahu believes that allowing the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to push through Rafah will terminate Hamas. However, many US military experts say it will not, as Hamas and its leadership would be cowering in tunnels and hiding among the civilian population. On the other hand, preventing Israel from attempting to do so would severely damage US-Israeli relations. It would also reinforce a message propagated by Russia and China, that the US is an unreliable partner. Additionally, it would embolden Hamas and Hezbollah, and demonstrate weakness on the part of the US.
Whether the Rafah operation succeeds in decimating Hamas or not, it needs to be attempted. Israel and the US have already employed a limited response strategy against Hamas and other Iran-backed terror groups for the past 70 years, with no discernible effect. Maybe an extreme response is what is needed. Also, a full-scale military operation might yield additional benefits.
The post The Debate over the IDF’s Rafah Operation and Joe Biden’s Interference appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has just released its new book, “An America First Approach to U.S. National Security,” edited by Fred Fleitz, former Trump Administration National Security Council Chief of Staff. It features sections on the largest security threats facing the country and the world, as well as the policies recommended by key members of the Trump Administration on how to address them. There are sections on the ongoing China threat, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Hamas attack on Israel. It also addresses the southern border, as well as military policy.
The new book explores the America First approach to national security, highlighting successful elements from the Trump administration while pointing out foreign policy failures under Biden. It emphasizes the need to implement America First policies to counter the numerous threats currently facing the country. The editor hopes that the book will serve as a guidebook for a second Trump administration, helping the incoming president avoid the missteps of the early part of his first term when he seemed unprepared to address foreign policy issues.
One of the book’s authors, Lt. General (Ret.) Keith Kellogg, former Chief of Staff and Executive Secretary of the National Security Council, asserts that the country is at a foreign policy crossroads and must decide which way to go. One option is to follow the failed foreign policy of the Biden Administration. The other is the America First policy of Donald Trump, which has been proven to be successful.
Critics often misinterpret the phrase “America First.” General Kellogg clarified that “America First foreign policy is not isolationism. America First does not mean America alone.” Morgan Ortagus, another of the book’s authors and a former spokesperson for the Trump State Department, echoed this sentiment, stating that while America First prioritizes U.S. interests, it does so through active engagement with the global community. She emphasized the importance of the U.S. strengthening its global position by forming strong alliances.
General Kellogg and Mr. Fleitz suggest that the Ukraine conflict is a tragic outcome of Biden’s incompetence and chaotic foreign policy, arguing it wouldn’t have happened under Trump. While Putin prefers Biden for his predictability, Trump and his supporters see this as a sign of weakness. The book acknowledges the war’s divisive nature among conservatives and Americans on America’s role and global stability. Nonetheless, they propose a way forward to protect American interests and resolve the conflict.
They predict that Ukraine will begin losing ground as the conflict drags on. Consequently, Kellogg and Fleitz recommend that additional military aid to Ukraine must be conditional on Kyiv’s agreement to enter into peace talks with Moscow. They believe that it will be difficult to get Ukraine and its supporters to agree to give up territory; however, they see this as the only way to stop people from dying.
One recommendation is that as part of the negotiation with Putin, there could be an agreement to delay Ukraine’s NATO entry for many years. Meanwhile, this doesn’t prevent Washington from entering into bilateral defense agreements with Kyiv. This approach would achieve the dual goals of ending the war and ensuring Ukraine’s safety in the future.
The China section, featuring Steve Yates, former National Security Advisor on China to Vice President Dick Cheney, and Adam Savit, the Director for the China Policy Initiative at AFPI, outlines a strategy to counter China’s malign influence while rendering CCP policies irrelevant to average Americans. Measures include prohibiting Chinese nationals from purchasing land within a 50-mile radius of US government buildings. The book highlights China as the foremost national security threat, echoed by the Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community, the FBI China Threat Report, and the Department of Defense’s Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China report. It emphasizes China’s aim to challenge US hegemony across economic, military, diplomatic, technological, and even space and underwater domains. Recommendations include banning TikTok and CCP-affiliated apps, as well as imposing visa restrictions on Chinese students and researchers.
The Middle East section, penned by Ellie Cohanim, former Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at the United States Department of State during the Trump administration, emphasizes that peace in the region hinges on reasserting American strength. Cohanim highlights President Trump as one of the most pro-Israel presidents in history, reaffirming the historical commitment of the United States to support Israel as its key ally in the region. Israel’s significance to U.S. interests lies in intelligence sharing, defense cooperation, and safeguarding American interests in the Middle East. The book proposes providing Israel with a laundry list of advanced military equipment and billions of dollars in military aid to finish the conflict with Hamas.
In the section on the current state of the military, Robert Wilkie, former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Undersecretary of Defense, stated that the Biden Administration has lowered physical fitness standards and undermined the morale of the United States military. He also accuses the White House of squandering tax dollars promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology.
Regarding border security, former Acting Secretary Chad F. Wolf, AFPI’s Executive Director, Chief Strategy Officer, and Chair for the Center for Homeland Security & Immigration, along with Rob Law, the Director of the Center for Homeland Security and Immigration and Senior Editor at AFPI, assert that the US cannot be considered a sovereign state unless the border is secure. They maintain that the Biden Administration currently has sufficient resources to promptly secure the border, halt human trafficking, and combat drug cartels.
For most conservatives, The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) new book, “An America First Approach to U.S. National Security,” will come across as a wish list of foreign policies aimed at ensuring national security and upholding the country’s global standing.
The post AFPI’s New Book Outlines the National Security Plan for a Second Trump Presidency appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Biden administration wants to protect the public from “predatory credit cards.” He is also trying to fight the inflation he created through reckless spending and borrowing by demanding companies earn lower profits. It is dangerous to allow the government to decide what qualifies as predatory or what rate of profit or interest is enough for private companies. Price controls always result in shortages, loss of income, and lower standards of living for the majority of the population. If you need proof, look at Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or the old Soviet Union.
This administration claims to have “forgiven” $1.2 billion in student loan debt. But the debt has not been forgiven; it will just be paid by people other than the borrowers, the taxpayers. Paying this debt incentivizes more reckless borrowing to fund majors that do not translate to a job. The government paying for student loans removes the supply and demand factor from university tuition prices, which will continue to rise. Other than the Covid lockdowns, this is about the most destructive economic policy of the Biden White House.
An administration with so little grasp on how the economy works should not be making decisions about credit cards.
Biden is right that poor people pay higher rates for credit. The annual effective rates for payday loans are 15% to 30%, title loans 300%, rent-to-own furniture up to 60%, high-risk credit cards over 24%, pawn shops 20% to 24%, credit card cash advance 17.99% to 29.99%, and cash advance apps up to 28%.
One way that consumers, in a free country, can avoid these high interest rates is by not borrowing—a solution that requires no legislation or government regulation. The fact that people agree to borrow at such high rates suggests that they truly need the credit. And if a lower-rate option were available elsewhere, they would likely take it. Ostensibly, there is no cheaper option for them. Therefore, if these sources of credit were driven out of business by government price controls, poor people would have no access to credit.
When Biden describes lenders as “predators,” he is wrong. There is no such thing as predatory lending. People with low credit ratings pay higher rates because of the high probability that they will default. The credit cards that are sent to poor people and students, unsolicited, have high interest rates attached to them because the target audience has no credit, poor credit, or so much debt that other issuers will not lend them more money.
Biden claims that by capping the credit card late fee at $8, he has somehow added $10 billion to the economy. He is most likely under the misapprehension that by capping the fee, he is enabling people to spend the difference. His error, however, is that whether the money goes to the credit card company or stays with the cardholder, it will be spent in the economy. However, if it is paid to the credit card company, they will have even more money to loan out, which will have a multiplier effect in the economy.
Similar to the rationale about high interest rates, people can avoid the high late fee by paying their bills on time. And this solution would require no legislation or regulation.
No one likes paying fees. However, fees help keep prices down. With the late fee capped at $8, the additional money the bank would have earned on late fees will now be added to the service fees for all bank customers, even those who pay their bills on time.
Biden keeps talking about wanting to pass legislation prohibiting nuisance airline fees. But if the government made a law tomorrow that airlines could no longer charge $50 for luggage, ticket prices would go up by $50. However, with the current system, some people can avoid the $50 fee by not checking luggage. If airlines were prohibited from charging different passengers different prices, then everyone would wind up paying the additional $50 in their ticket price, even those without checked baggage.
The term “price discrimination” has a negative connotation in common parlance, but actually, it is the fairest and most efficient way to price anything, including credit. Examples would be toll roads charging more during rush hour or movie theaters charging more on Saturday night than on Wednesday afternoon. Those who are willing to pay the higher price for the prime time can do so, while people who want to save money can use these services during unpopular times.
The same is true for credit. The banks must be free to determine who is and is not creditworthy and to calculate what amount of interest or fees they would require in order to lend to that individual. And the customer is free to decide where or if to borrow based on their willingness to pay the price demanded. This is the essence of a capitalist system: that there are numerous buyers and sellers, and each is free to agree or disagree to accept the deal.
If the government limited the interest rates and fees that credit cards and other lenders could charge, then poor people would not be able to obtain credit.
Just like the order kiosks that replaced workers in municipalities with a $17 minimum wage, this is one more example of the socialists hurting the very people they were allegedly trying to help.
The post Biden’s Latest Credit Card Gambit Shows He Has Little Grasp of How the Economy Works appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Within weeks of the Hamas attack on Israel, charities aligned with Hamas had already received $260 million in donations.
Over the years, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other Islamic extremist groups have relied on Iran, known as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, for financial support. They employ various illicit means, including kidnapping for ransom, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and extortion, to generate funds. Additionally, Hamas benefits significantly from funding through charitable organizations, some of which are led by Hamas members or supporters. Moreover, they receive financial backing from development grants offered by Western NGOs and governments.
Since the 1980s, Islamic extremist groups have exploited the charitable sector for funding, with registered charities and nonprofit organizations in the US and UK channeling funds to extremism in various countries. The UK’s Commission for Countering Extremism found that Islamist groups took advantage of COVID-19 lockdowns and aid to expand their networks, while Western countries redirected resources from counterterrorism efforts to COVID relief.
Support is sometimes indirect, with Western-based charities serving as conduits, redirecting aid money to terrorists. Another avenue for funding is through educational, health, or other organizations under Hamas control. These sources pose challenges for authorities as they often dissolve, change names, reopen, and resume funneling money. Additionally, funds are frequently transmitted through registered banks in masked transactions or via unregistered banks or cash.
Some of the charities accused of funding terrorism include Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), KinderUSA, and Human Appeal. IRW, which operates in 40 countries as a humanitarian organization, has been removed from the charities pages of numerous global media outlets, and banks like HSBC have closed its accounts. In 2020, the EU Parliament discovered links between IRW and Islamic terrorist organizations. Consequently, IRW has been banned in Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Bangladesh. Senior members of IRW have posted antisemitic content on Facebook, as well as support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite these allegations, the UN has continued to fund Islamic Relief.
Many charities currently supporting terrorists were originally established to fund the Mujahideen, who fought to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Afghanistan plunged into civil war, marked by clashes between various Mujahideen factions and the collapse of central authority. Amid this instability, some Mujahideen factions transformed into or aligned with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Notably, prominent Qataris have been identified by the US Treasury for aiding the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatari charities have also raised tens of millions of dollars for Hamas over the past two decades.
Americans, whether knowingly or unknowingly, have also contributed funds to Al-Qaeda, with some of these transactions being processed through money service businesses (MSBs). Individuals in the United States have been arrested for providing financial support to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda, through charitable donations intended to aid widows and orphans. Additionally, Americans have faced indictments for transferring cryptocurrency to a terrorist group known as al-Nusra Front (ANF), which operated in Syria and Lebanon.
Terrorist financing has evolved from exploiting legitimate charities and establishing fraudulent ones to leveraging various online funding methods, including crowdfunding and online fundraisers. These groups also seek financial support from donors, whether knowingly or unknowingly, who contribute to their cause. Following a Hamas attack on Israel last October, supporters worldwide quickly established crowdfunding platforms to solicit charitable or humanitarian donations for Gaza. The US Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an independent inter-governmental body combating money laundering and terrorist financing, has found evidence of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al-Qaeda utilizing crowdfunding.
Terrorist organizations have increasingly turned to cryptocurrency and Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) to transfer funds anonymously across international borders. The US Treasury Department has designated a Gaza-based VASP called Buy Cash Money and Money Transfer Company, which has been found to fund Hamas and other terrorist groups.
To counter terrorism funding, the Department of Justice and the FBI established the Financial Review Group (FRG), an inter-agency organization that includes the CIA, DEA, elements of the Treasury Department, and others. The FRG has frozen millions of dollars flowing to various terrorist-linked charities, including Al-Barakaat, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and the Benevolence International Foundation. Additionally, numerous individuals associated with these organizations and their funding have been arrested.
In the United States, Canada, the UK, and the European Union, Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization, making funding Hamas a criminal offense. Authorities have the power to shut down organizations that raise money for Hamas and other designated terrorist groups. These regulations should apply to any organization supporting designated terrorist groups. By this reasoning, the UN could be implicated for its support of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). Similarly, one could argue that the Biden administration and other governments are also complicit for providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, which flows directly to Hamas.
The post Middle East Charities Funding Terrorism appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Chinese interest in the Middle East boils down to a single word: oil. China has investments in the Middle East and encourages countries to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as well as the expanded BRICS grouping. However, all of these economic and diplomatic efforts stem from a single source: China is the world’s largest importer of oil, and Beijing wants to ensure an uninterrupted and cheap supply of energy.
China has become the world’s largest consumer and importer of oil. At the same time, Xi Jinping’s vision for the People’s Republic is to surpass the US economically, militarily, and diplomatically by the year 2049. To do this, China needs unfettered access to cheap energy.
Energy plays such an important role in China’s economic rise that oil and coal consumption, as well as emissions rates, are used by China analysts as proxy measures for the general health of the Chinese economy. When energy consumption or pollution increases, the factories are churning out products, exports are up, and Beijing is raking in the cash it needs to develop more advanced weapons.
The trajectory of both the Middle East region and global affairs underwent a significant shift in the 1970s when an agreement between the US and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia effectively gave rise to the petrodollar.
Under this agreement, Saudi Arabia committed to pricing oil in dollars and persuading other OPEC members to follow suit. In return, the US not only became a major buyer of Saudi oil but also pledged military protection, including stationing US troops within Saudi territory, as well as selling the Kingdom advanced weaponry. This arrangement served the interests of both nations, particularly given Saudi Arabia’s hostile relations with many of the countries in the region, particularly Shia-led Iran.
A lesser-known advantage Saudi Arabia gains from its agreement with the US is the privilege of purchasing US debt before it is available to other global investors. This arrangement enables the Kingdom to invest its surplus petrodollar revenues in US Treasury securities preemptively, avoiding potential price increases that may occur when other buyers enter the market. The United States, for its part, benefits from a stable source of financing.
Now that the US is no longer the most important customer in the Middle East, China sees an opening to co-opt the region, displace the US, and become the prominent geopolitical force in the region.
The ability of the US to maintain its influence in the Middle East has always hinged on its relationships with key countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). However, two pivotal players have consistently shaped US policy in the region: Saudi Arabia, with its significant oil production, robust economy, and formidable military; and Israel, a non-Muslim, non-Arab nation boasting stable governance, economic strength, and military prowess. Iran, with its large population, powerful military, and capacity to sway regional politics, has also emerged as a major influencer, for good or for ill.
Beijing attempted to present itself to the Middle East and the world as a peacemaker by brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. If Beijing could convince Saudi Arabia that there was no threat from Iran, the Kingdom would no longer need US military protection. Additionally, since China is now the largest purchaser of oil, it would be easier for Beijing to convince Saudi Arabia to trade in yuan rather than dollars.
Additionally, as China inches up the scales of global power, it would be in a position to convince UN members to vote to remove sanctions on Iran. This would be welcomed news to Tehran and would provide China with a stronger, although subservient partner.
The real diplomatic hat trick in the Middle East would be for the US or China to get Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel on the same side. The successful alignment of the three would redefine power balances and alliances in the Middle East and beyond. The country that manages to broker such a historic agreement would ascend to a level of hegemony unparalleled in modern geopolitics.
And Trump was off to a good start with the Abraham Accords, getting two out of three. Unfortunately, his term came to an end, and the Biden Administration allowed the whole region to catch fire once again.
China and Saudi Arabia have steadily increased their level of cooperation, and now the Kingdom has become a BRICS member. Iran is economically dependent on China, as Beijing is one of the only countries willing to flout international sanctions, becoming the largest purchaser of Iranian oil. Over the past decade, Beijing has worked to build closer ties with Israel as well as attempting to broker peace between Israel and its neighbors.
Never missing an opportunity for propaganda, Beijing blamed its inability to implement a two-state solution on US meddling and warmongering.
The Israel-Hamas conflict appears to be a turning point in China’s strategy for its relations with the three key countries. Iran, because of its role in supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, is being further ostracized from the US-led order and pushed toward Beijing.
China has not given up on courting Saudi Arabia; however, so far, the Kingdom sees no benefit in dropping the US dollar, the currency to which the Saudi Riyal is pegged and in which the majority of its oil profits of the last fifty years are invested. And no country, not even the Philippines under Duterte, has ever become so disillusioned with the US that they would allow Chinese troops on their territory.
Xi Jinping probably recognizes that he cannot negotiate a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. It seems that he has decided, instead, to cut his losses with Israel. Beijing already has a “Strategic Partnership” Agreement with the Palestinian Authority and has hinted that it would be the first country to recognize and normalize relations with an independent Palestine. By no longer trying to include Israel in its list of friends, China hopes to gain the support of the entire Muslim world. He is letting go of one country in exchange for 49 others.
The post China’s Interest in Gaza: Trading Israel for the Rest appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Court documents showed Kandic had multiple responsibilities, including recruiting foreign fighters (ISIS photo)
On January 4, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) called for worldwide targeting of Jews and Christians, which it later claimed resulted in 610 people wounded or killed in 110 attacks across 12 countries.
Avril D. Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, told a Senate panel, “The threat from ISIS remains a significant counterterrorism concern,” while noting that the majority of its attacks have been carried out by “parts of ISIS that are outside of Afghanistan.”
The main body of ISIS is active in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, but it is also absorbing other groups. In the Philippines, Abu Sayyaf has been the primary terrorist organization.
However, in 2014, a faction of Abu Sayyaf pledged allegiance to ISIS, and in 2016, a new branch was formed called ISIS-East Asia or ISEA-Philippines. ISIS also has affiliations with groups in West Africa, including factions of the Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram.
An ISIS faction, the Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), has been rising in infamy and is believed to be responsible for the Moscow concert attack, as well as an attack in Iran that killed 100 people. Director Haines warns that ISIS-K may be ready to launch attacks in the U.S. and the West in as little as six months.
Established in 2015, ISIS-K comprises mainly fighters from Central Asia, along with members of the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
Its prominence escalated into a global jihadist organization after the Taliban seized control of the Afghan government in 2021. Named after “the Khorasan” territory, encompassing Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Central Asia, and Iran, ISIS-K aims to establish a caliphate there. It receives funding from ISIS in Syria and anti-Taliban sources in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and ISIS-K are both Islamist groups, but they have significant ideological differences. ISIS-K follows a much stricter and more violent interpretation of Islam. They see the Taliban as insufficiently extreme and have clashed with them for control of territory and influence.
Both groups seek control of Afghanistan and its resources. ISIS-K considers the Taliban’s rule as illegitimate and aims to overthrow them. This competition for power prompts some Afghans to support ISIS-K in opposition to the Taliban.
Additionally, some former Taliban members, who either disagree with the group’s leadership or perceive them as not radical enough, join or support ISIS-K. The group also exploits local grievances against the Taliban, such as perceived corruption or heavy-handed rule, to garner support.
The Taliban has been fighting against ISIS-K in Afghanistan but has been unable to eradicate the group, which is also active in Pakistan and Iran. ISIS-K has been implicated in a number of thwarted terrorist plots in Europe. Members of ISIS-K networks have been arrested in Germany and the Netherlands.
ISIS-K claimed responsibility for an attack on a Roman Catholic Church in Istanbul, resulting in one fatality. The Turkey attack highlights the observations of some terrorism experts, indicating that ISIS-K has predominantly relied on inadequately trained individuals, with many of their attacks either failing or being thwarted.
However, the group is progressively gaining experience and augmenting its capabilities through the integration of other terrorist organizations. Conversely, if ISIS-K is indeed accountable for the Moscow and Iran attacks, it signifies them as one of the most lethal terrorist organizations currently active. Both of these attacks demonstrate a significant level of planning and competence.
ISIS-K’s recruitment strategies have proven notably successful, which is evident in its rapid growth. The group targets disenchanted Muslims across South and Central Asia, capitalizing on various local grievances such as poverty, government corruption, or ethnic tensions. These grievances are woven into a singular narrative, attributing blame to external forces or weak local governments while positioning ISIS-K as the sole solution.
They employ sophisticated online propaganda, often tailored to specific regions. ISIS-K emphasizes sectarian divisions, particularly targeting Shia Muslims, to stoke anger and fuel their narrative of oppression against Muslims.
This propaganda utilizes social media and messaging apps to disseminate their message and glorify violence. They also distribute publications in local languages to reach those who may not be active online. The group provides a sense of belonging and purpose to the marginalized or isolated. They exploit feelings of hopelessness and promise an opportunity to combat perceived injustices.
ISIS-K detests Jews, Christians, Shia Muslims, Iranians, and even terrorist organizations that it deems not extreme enough, like the Taliban. Essentially, if you exist and are not a member, ISIS-K hates you and wants to kill you. With wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and looming threats from Iran, China, and Russia, the resurgence of Islamic extremist terrorism and ISIS-K presents yet another threat for America to deal with.
The post ISIS-K: The New Variant appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat, was recently implicated for accepting a $600,000 bribe from an oil company in Azerbaijan. He is being charged with working as an agent for a foreign entity while a U.S. government official because he lobbied Congress on the company’s behalf. The bribe was tied to a money laundering scheme that cycled through a bank in Mexico. Cuellar is also being accused of attempting to weaken US money laundering rules, particularly those that would hurt Mexican banks. Frighteningly, Cuellar is the leading Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
Cuellar being coopted by foreign forces is a serious national security concern. Sadly, this is just the most recent case of a foreign entity or foreign government buying influence with elected officials in the US.
Last year, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, along with his wife, was charged with accepting bribes from corporations in Egypt.
In 2013, the government-owned State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) provided $750,000 for 10 members of Congress and 32 staffers to go on a junket to Baku, the country’s capital. In addition to the all-expense-paid luxury trip, the invitees also received thousands of dollars in gifts. Among the beneficiaries of Baku’s largesse were three former top aides to President Obama.
Apart from the obvious violation of ethics and the public trust, there was a national security angle to this trip as well. At that time, SOCAR was partnered with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and they needed the US to provide exemptions from US sanctions against Iran.
In 2020-2023, Utah lawmakers became the targets of investigation when it was found that they had accepted paid trips to China and later pushed legislation that would benefit the PRC. Similar allegations were made against two Utah lawmakers who accepted trips to Qatar.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) poses the greatest and most persistent threat to US national security. Additionally, China has deep pockets, and the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is actively engaged in co-opting American officials. As far back as 1997, the FBI warned Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and five other members of Congress, that the PRC was targeting them for illegal campaign contributions funneled through foreign corporations.
The granddaddy of all foreign influence scandals involves the Biden family. In 2013, Hunter Biden traveled to China with his father, who was then vice president. On that trip, Hunter and a Chinese banker, Jonathan Li, formed a state-backed private equity fund, Bohai Harvest RST (BHR Partners). Chinese government shareholders controlled 80% of the company.
In the spring of 2014, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma. At that time, his father was leading US policy efforts toward Ukraine. Hunter Biden was paid $1 million per year, and there are allegations that his father received some of the money.
In 2015, BHR partnered with the Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) to purchase an American technology company, Henniges, which manufactured dual-use components with military and civilian applications. Perhaps BHR’s most concerning investment was in China General Nuclear Power Company (CGN), a state-backed nuclear firm.
Companies controlled by Hunter Biden entered into several deals with Chinese entities, including China’s state-owned banks and other companies that had ties to the CCP. He was paid at least $4.8 million, and once again there were allegations that Joe Biden benefited from these transactions. While proving definitively that money flowed to the president may prove difficult, Hunter’s activity — funding dual-use technology, aviation, and nuclear projects in cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — raises significant national security concerns.
Some US officials make trips to foreign countries that appear unnecessary, lacking clear justification or mandate from their roles. While not directly accused of corruption, these trips seem to stretch beyond their duties and may run counter to US foreign policy objectives. Additionally, these travels, funded by US taxpayers, raise concerns about potential corruption or undisclosed agreements. This was the case with California Governor Newsom, who recently visited China; New York Mayor Eric Adams, who went to Mexico, as well as Greece and Qatar; and New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell, who had trips scheduled for Dubai and Kenya. San Francisco Mayor London N. Breed also visited China, as did Menlo Park City Councilwoman Kirsten Keith.
The post Growing Trend of U.S. Politicians Co-opted by Foreign Governments appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Vaunce News