At War? (Part One)

Dear reader, I am somewhat reluctant to begin this blog post ... in effect, opening up this frightening can of worms ... but it seems to be writing itself.

Are we at war with China? I am unfortunately concluding that we are. Let’s look at events:

For decades, China has been striving for worldwide hegemony ... by forced technology transfer, by undercutting other nations’ manufacturing with cheap, even slave labor, by spying and espionage on developed nations,, by manipulating its currency, by buying up critical Western assets, by commercial extortions, by infiltrating UN agencies, by bribing Western politicians  (and their relatives), by assembling belligerent nation proxies, by insidious propaganda campaigns, by huge military spending, by territorial expansions ... and on and on.

And until President Trump appeared, the rest of the world was hypnotized under the rubric of “globalism” ... a term invented by those commercial interests that were profiting through China’s expansion. This incredibly stupid world leader was the first to recognize this Sino-threat publicly ... and started pushing back. He imposed tariffs on strategic products that China was dumping on the world. He began the process of putting some of China’s proxy nations in a box. He began using his bully pulpit to point out exactly what China had been doing. He rebuilt America’s and NATO’s military. He gradually increased the scope and size of tariffs on China. He assembled our other trading partners in bulwarks against China. He exposed “global warming” hysteria as just another tool of the globalists. He cut a huge trade deal with China that helped level the playing field ... and on and on.

And he was making a big difference in slowing China’s march to world domination ... remarkable for such an orange-tinted ignoramus! So, what did China do to respond? Tune in next time, dear readers, and you will see much of the rest of the story ...

Change

Barack Obama promised “hope and change” when he ran for president. Once elected, he did institute change ... lots of change ... change that favored immigrants, the greenies, China, Russia, the Ukraine, Muslim countries and those south of the US border. But never came through with the “hope” part. When Trump took over, he too has changed things ... mostly by reversing those damaging Democrat policies.

So why were Obama’s changes so readily accepted and Trump’s so vehemently resisted?

May I suggest that Obama’s changes advantaged those above-noted third parties while disadvantaging the unaware American middle class. Trump’s changes have mostly reversed these Obama wealth and hegemony flows.

And the resisters to this change are the environmentalists, globalists, media, Deep State and some foreign governments ... all whom had benefitted under Obama’s reign.

Middle Americans sense this u-turn and the resulting relief to their political frustrations. This is why Trump’s rallies are overflowing and why he will likely be re-elected with a larger electoral margin than he received in 2016. Americans will not be whipsawed once again with re-heated Democrat give-aways.

Fractured Definition

Hegemony — a very big privet barrier surrounding the Mutual of New York building

Obummer's Legacy

Obummer may not be the worst president in American history, but he still has six more months to sew up the title. He promised us hope and change ... and he certainly changed most things for the worse ... to the point where many of us are willing to take a flyer on a loud-mouth self promoter who just might repair enough things to save our nation's bacon. To reprise Obummer's last 7 1/2 years, here is the legacy he has left us with:

- More than a doubling of our national debt to an unsustainable level

- Race relations at an all-time low

- Corruption tainting almost every cabinet department

- Growing income inequality squeezing the middle class

- Urban crime rates back on the rise

- Economic and wage growth in the toilet

- Negative balance of payment at an all-time high

- Number of people dropping out of the workforce at an all-time high

- Swarms of illegal immigrants from Latin America countries

- An open door policy for unvetted Muslim immigrants

- A doubling of families receiving food stamps

- Zero tax reform

- Zero entitlement reform

- Huge increase in burdensome government regulations

- A gutting of our military

- Disastrous remaking of our health-care system

- The Middle East in smoking ruins

- Much more belligerent Russia, China, North Korea and Iran

- An alienated and abandoned Israel

- Deteriorating national infrastructure

- Serious loss of our international hegemony


And Hellery Clinton has promised to continue us down Obummer's primrose path!

!

Conflicted

President Erdogan of Turkey has just claimed that Muslims discovered the new world and not Columbus (nor, presumably, the Norsemen) ... see: Yahoo News Story. Now this machismo boast presents an interesting opportunity to push back against the growing hegemony of Islam. There are many loony liberals in this country who are prone to embrace sharia law while at the same time denouncing Columbus for what his voyages wrought upon the indigenous people of the Americas ... see: Minneapolis Star Tribune Story and Atlas Shrugs Story.

Perhaps if we were to relinquish the kudos for discovering America to the Muslims, then these very same liberals would be so conflicted that they might screw themselves into the ground?

Afterward: To see some of the details of Erdogan's claim ... see: Powerline Blog Entry.

The World Map

I've just coined a new word, "neo-iso." Neo-iso stands for neo-isolationism (or ist) … apparently this is the Obama administration’s new and evolving foreign policy.  Ever since he drew and then erased the red line in Syria, President Obama has become less interested in insinuating the United States into foreign adventures. This inward-turning policy toward world conflicts could perhaps reflect our country’s legacy distaste for our role in resolving international disputes. But I am somewhat doubtful that, in the majority, the American people have become dyed-in-the-wool neo-isos.

Clearly President Obama’s previous more belligerent stances in Afghanistan and Libya may have been … as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested in his recent book … merely for political purposes.  But realizing that these blunted excursions onto the world’s battlefields brought him little leadership purchase or respect from those world political A-listers whose adoration he craves, I believe that our "leader of the free world" has now opted for the new pre-qualifier -- “former.”

Into this vacuum created by this floundering disinterest on the United States’ part has stepped the wanna-be despots of the world … Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.  They see their opportunity and are seizing it … and we have, I am afraid, just begun to see the mischief that they can create for the free-world. This expansionist muscle-flexing on their parts is likely to last for decades.

If free Europe and Japan do not step up to counter this power eschewing on the United States’ part, I’m afraid that the map of the world may need considerable revisions before our fearless leader leaves office in 2017.  Then, the rebuilding of American hegemony will not occur overnight … if our next President can accomplish it  … or even if he/she so chooses.

For the strategic high ground, once surrendered, is very costly to retake. And it is very doubtful whether China or others would front us the funds for such an effort ... or, if not, whether our welfare state could be pared back enough in order to pay for our return to a position of military dominance.

Yes, Obama has clearly fulfilled his campaign promise “to fundamentally change America.”  However, I believe that our voters might have been better off to have asked for a few more specifics.

The Poker Game

President Obama has unilaterally given away another big pot in the poker game of world hegemony. He has shown our hand to many of the other players and, as is his all-too-frequent wont, gotten nothing in return. See NY Times Article. He now boasts that the U.S would not use nuclear weapons in a number of situations where, in the past, our enemies were wary of how we would react ... and were therefore constrained. Now these other players have been gifted many more degrees of freedom in there strategic planning. Why Obama pulls these bone-headed moves can perhaps be explained by his over-weaning ego. He may indeed believe in his demigod invincibility: "What if I give up some minor game advantage, since I know that my vision of a world utopia is ordained by my birthright?"

Or, can it be that he is just plain stupid?