Why China thinks it’s got a future President Biden in its pocket

By Steven W. Mosher

Enlarge Image

Xi Jinping is playing out the clock until after the 2020 election, when he hopes a President Biden will turn a blind eye to the theft of US jobs, factories and intellectual property.AP

Six months ago, the Chinese walked away from the trade negotiations.

The move caught nearly everyone by surprise.

After all, the talks had been going on, with increasing intensity, almost since President Trump took office. And they had made significant progress by early 2019.

By March the draft trade agreement had reached an impressive 150 single-spaced pages. In it, the Communist regime promised to abandon many of its predatory practices, from currency manipulation and the theft of intellectual property to the forced transfer of technology and its secret subsidies to its hi-tech companies.

Beijing even appeared ready to back these promised structural changes by agreeing to actual enforcement provisions similar to those imposed on North Korea. The draft called for heavy penalties to be imposed on Chinese companies, or levied on China itself, if the agreement was violated.

The cable that arrived in Washington late on Friday, May 3, changed everything. The draft agreement had been gutted. Section after section had been crossed out. Americans who saw it said that Beijing was reneging on nearly all the concessions it had made earlier.

Had China’s trade negotiators been acting in bad faith all along?

Perhaps. After all, Beijing has a long history of duplicitous behavior.

But I think the real reason that China backtracked is named “Joe Biden.” The former vice president had just ended months of speculation over his political future by announcing he was running for president on April 25.

Enlarge Image

Former Vice President Joe Biden poses with Chinese President Xi Jinping.AFP/Getty Images

The Chinese blew up the negotiations a few days later.

They had decided to run out the clock on President Trump’s first term, convinced that they would get a much better deal from a future President Biden.

Who can blame them? Biden has a long history of being a friendly voice for US-China relations. The Chinese side had every reason to expect that Biden, like Obama, would turn a blind eye to the theft of American jobs, factories, and intellectual property by an increasingly arrogant and rapacious PRC.

They probably even hoped that he, in return for a few empty promises, would quickly set aside the Trump tariffs that were crippling the Chinese economy.

But Beijing had another reason to bet on Biden: they had given sweetheart deals to his son, Hunter Biden.

As Peter Schweizer has documented in his book, “Secret Empires,” the vice president took his son along on Air Force Two when he flew to Beijing in December 2013.

Not long after the father and son duo returned to the US, Hunter Biden’s small firm received a $1 billion private equity deal from the Chinese government. This was later increased to a cool one-and-a-half billion.

As Schweizer wrote, “The Chinese government was literally funding a business that it co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision-makers.”

Now you see why Beijing’s leaders were convinced that they had Joe Biden in their pocket — or at least in their pocketbook.

At the time, the former vice president seemed like a sure bet — not just to Beijing but to many on this side of the Pacific. The early polls suggested that he was a shoo-in for the Democrat nomination, and the odds-on favorite to beat Trump.

Betting the farm on Biden, the Chinese likely stiffed Trump’s negotiators.

Now they seem to be having second thoughts. Negotiators are crisscrossing the Pacific again, and the Chinese have placed a couple of big orders for farm products.

Are they hedging their bet on Biden, or simply biding their time until they get the election result they want?

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, this being Trump, there is a price to pay for such perfidy. The tariffs are a little higher now and the terms of any future agreement will be even tougher.

Vice President Mike Pence did not mince words on Thursday when he said that the US will continue to insist that China make significant reforms to its economic system, including abandoning trade barriers, forced technology transfers and predatory subsidies for “national champion” businesses.

And Trump himself has made clear that, if no agreement is reached by the time of the 2020 election, Beijing will have an even steeper hill to climb during his second term.

Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of “Bully of Asia: Why China’s ’Dream’ is the New Threat to World Order.”

https://nypost.com/2019/09/28/why-china-thinks-its-got-a-future-president-biden-in-its-pocket/

The Bee Explains: Common Racist Hand Signals

The Bee Explains: Common Racist Hand Signals

45.3kShares

35kSHARE

4.7kSHARE

SHARE

If there’s one thing you’ve noticed about white nationalists, it’s that they have hands. And something they’ve been doing a lot with their hands lately is sending out secret messages in support of white supremacy. If you see anyone doing any of these hand gestures, you can be certain they are a racist and should report them to the nearest racism reporting facility (usually Twitter).

Racism is A-OK.

This racist hand symbol is very popular right now. It’s to say “OK” as in “Racism is A-OK.”

One Race to Rule Them All

This sign signals to other people that you believe one race is superior to all the others. Just say no to the One symbol.

V is for Violent Bigotry

This is very similar to the “One” symbol, but doubly racist because it is two fingers instead of one. Some people think this means “peace” or “two,” but they are probably secret racists.

The Palm of Hitler
This sign is formed by having all five fingers extended, five being approximately the number of letters in Hitler. Used extensively in World War II and the Trump administration.

The Rock of White Supremacy
This racist symbol represents “Rock,” which is used to crush scissors, scissors being two blades working together and thus a symbol of multiple races living in harmony. It is better to lose every game of rock-paper-scissors you ever play than to choose Rock.

The Evil Eye of Prejudice
In this classic racist sign propagated by notorious bigot and Satanist Ronnie James Dio, the index and pinky fingers are extended and kept separate to symbolize how races should be segregated.

Wiggly Fingers of Cthulhu
Wiggle your fingers rapidly back and forth. Commonly used by servants of Cthulhu to signal their hatred for all races as they summon the Great Sleeper to devour people of all colors.

Handshake of Hate
This may seem innocuous at first, but it implies racism by suggesting they own your hand. Slavery, anyone? If someone tries this one on you, punch them in the face (being careful not to make the “Fist” shape above).

Cool-Guy Finger Guns
This is the one hand gesture you can be sure is not meant to symbolize white supremacy as it is only used by cool people. Anyone doing double finger guns is definitely too cool to be a racist. (They might, however, be an NRA member and thus a domestic terrorist. Oh well. At least they are not racist).

What’s your favorite racist hand sign? Form it now!

https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-common-racist-hand-signals

Former CIA official on whistleblower: ‘How could this be an intelligence matter?’

By Fred Fleitz

Enlarge Image

AP

MORE ON:

TRUMP UKRAINE PROBE

Pence urged Trump not to release Ukraine call transcript

Trump calls on Adam Schiff to resign for 'lying to Congress'

Russia hoping Trump doesn't release his calls with Putin

In Ukraine scandal, Democrats refuse to wait for actual facts

Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, served in 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council. He previously held national-security jobs with the CIA, the DIA, the Department of State, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. He remarks on the whistleblower complaint.

I am troubled by the complaint and wonder how an intelligence officer could file it over something a president said to a foreign leader. How could this be an intelligence matter?

It appears likely to me that this so-called whistleblower was pursuing a political agenda.

I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.

My suspicions grew this morning when I saw the declassified whistleblowing complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified.

From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.

Moreover, it looks like more than a coincidence that this complaint surfaced and was directed to the House Intelligence Committee just after Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of President Trump, expressed numerous complaints in August 2019 accusing President Trump of abusing aid to Ukraine to hurt Joe Biden. This includes an August 28 tweet that closely resembled the whistleblowing complaint.

House Republicans need to ask the whistleblower under oath whether he spoke to the press or Congress about his complaint.

SEE ALSO

What we know — and don't know — about the Trump whistleblower

Also very concerning to me is how the complaint indicates intelligence officers and possibly other federal employees are violating the rules governing presidential phone calls with foreign leaders.

The content and transcripts of these calls are highly restricted. The whistleblower makes clear in his complaint that he did not listen to a call in question, nor did he read the transcript — he was told about the call by others. If true, intelligence officers have grossly violated the rules as well as the trust placed on them to protect this sensitive information.

I refuse to believe that the leaking, timing and presentation of this complaint is coincidence. I don’t think the American people will buy this either.

I’m more worried, however, that this latest instance of blatant politicization of intelligence by Trump haters will do long term damage to the relationship between the intelligence community and US presidents for many years to come.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/former-cia-official-on-whistleblower-how-could-this-be-an-intelligence-matter/

Comrade Bernie’s United Socialist States of America

Comrade Bernie’s United Socialist States of America

by Amanda Green in politics 6 Comments

Buried behind all the media screeching about Nancy Pelosi’s decision to move ahead with the impeachment inquiry is the latest from Bernie Sanders. The curmudgeon of “Democratic” politics continues to show his true colors as he attempts to prove he is the best socialist in the Democratic presidential race. What has he done this time? He announced his plan “the top 0.1% of U.S. households in order to reduce income inequality and fund his many proposals for new or expanded social programs.”

But that’s not all good ole Bernie had to say:

Asked if he thought billionaires should exist in the United States, Mr. Sanders said, “I hope the day comes when they don’t.” He added, “It’s not going to be tomorrow. . . I don’t think that billionaires should exist,” he said, adding that there would always be rich people and others with less money. “This proposal does not eliminate billionaires, but it eliminates a lot of the wealth that billionaires have, and I think that’s exactly what we should be doing.”

Think about that for a moment. He doesn’t think billionaires should exist here, in a country where being a good businessman was once encouraged. He has no qualms saying he will use the power of the government to take away their legally earned assets. How will that go over with those oh-so-woke liberal drum bearers for the party when they realize their monies will also be forfeit?

I doubt they will be such good little socialist water bearers then.

But it goes beyond that. What is Comrade Bernie going to do when these same billionaires shield their money in trusts and the like? Is the government going to take away money or assets when the person or family involved doesn’t have actual control over it? How are the Kennedys or the Rockefellers or the Bill Gates of the world going to react then?

Bernie Sanders

✔@BernieSanders

There is no justice when three billionaires are able to own more wealth than the bottom half of the entire country.

20.6K

6:45 AM - Sep 24, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

4,118 people are talking about this

And there is no justice when a rich man decides those with more wealth than he has should forfeit monies and assets without due process and without any reason other than the fact Comrade Bernie wants to turn the U.S. into a his version of a socialist paradise.

At least he isn’t so cowardly as to deny what he’s doing is raising taxes. He simply tries to couch it in terms of taxing the few for the good of the many. What he doesn’t discuss is that there will come a time when those who aren’t part of the 0.1% will feel the brunt of this new taxation as well.

Ah, socialism. Stealing for the many for the good of the few.

Here is the Sanders plan in a nutshell:

• 1 percent on married couples with a net worth above $32 million (meaning a couple worth $32.5 million would pay $5,000 annually in taxes)
• 2 percent on those worth $50 million to $250 million
• 3 percent on $250 million to $500 million
• 4 percent on $500 million to $1 billion
• 5 percent on $1 billion to $2.5 billion
• 6 percent from $2.5 billion to $5 billion
• 7 percent from $5 billion to $10 billion
• 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion
• For individuals, all of the brackets would be cut in half

There is so much about plans like this that should bother all of us. First, it penalizes those who have been innovators, those who helped make this country what it is today. Second, by doing so, it will discourage most everyone from taking any sort of financial risk because the potential for reward has been diminished, not only for the person taking the risk but for their children and grandchildren. Third, this is such an abuse of power that it is almost unfathomable.

It goes beyond that. It goes beyond stealing from many whose only “crime” has been to be successful. It is the desire to put the government in control of even more of our daily lives, ignoring the lessons history has taught us. Not only in socialist countries but here at home.

Think about the failures or near failures of the federal government. The postal service is a mess. It lost $3.9 billion in fiscal 2018 with warnings it would continue to lose even more money in the future.

For years, we’ve heard horror stories about the V.A. Yet Comrade Bernie and his cohort, Elizabeth “Don’t tell me I’m not Native American” Warren, and others continue to push for even more governmental presence in our medical care. That is exactly what Medicare for all would be. And, let me tell you, if you haven’t deal with Medicare lately, it’s a pain in the ass. It doesn’t pay for everything. If you are lucky, you can find–and afford–a decent supplemental insurance. Then you have to worry about whether your primary care physician will accept 1) Medicare and 2) your supplemental. If not, good luck finding a doctor you like and who can see you any time soon.

Here is something else to consider. According to CNN, this tax would decrease the wealth of those impacted by one-half in 15 years. How many people are going to sit back quietly as this happens? As noted earlier, they will either find new ways to shield their assets or they will leave the country, taking their money with them. Then where will we be?

And where will the various charities and other social programs that are currently being supported by these billionaires be when this tax goes into effect? When it does, how many of these men and women will continue giving as they have in the past? That is one question neither Comrade Bernie or Warren or any of the others ever address. It doesn’t fit their narrative and they don’t want those families who currently rely on some of those programs to consider the possibility that this new world Bernie is promising will actually hurt more than help.

CNBC calls it correctly, whether it meant to or not. When comparing Warren’s plan to that of Sanders, it said:

While Warren’s proposal also taxes billionaires at a higher rate than multimillionaires, Sanders’ plan, announced Tuesday, is far more punitive to those at the very top — reflecting the strong support for taxing the rich among certain voters.”

All of these taxes–hell, let’s face it, all taxes pretty much–are punitive. But pushing for legislation that will steal half of someone’s assets in a relatively short period of time “for the good of others” should be an anathema to all of us. After all, where will they stop?

They want us to agree with the tax on the wealthy. Then it will be easier for them to point to our previous agreement and say, “See, the precedent is there” when they need more money.

There is a quote from Martin Niemöller that has been repeated numerous times when people discuss Nazi Germany.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Except, today, it must be rewritten.

First they came for the straight, white males and I did not speak out–because I was not one.

Then they came for the billionaires, and I did not speak out–because I was not rich.

Then they came for the conservatives, and I did not speak out–because I could not believe it.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me (or for thee).

We cannot let this happen. We cannot hand over control of our country to those who would destroy it. Do not let this become the Dystopian States of America I wrote about last week. Do not buy into their propaganda. Do no accede to their demands that we kneel before the altar of socialism. Do not be distracted by their demands for yet more investigations and the impeachment of Trump. Those are smoke screens as they try to put into place even more seeds for our destruction.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Stand up. Speak up. Do not go gentle into the good night.

https://victorygirlsblog.com/united-socialist-states-america/

What superpower does Trump have?

You know that game people sometimes play? The one where you choose which superpower you’d want?

Sometimes the choices are limited, such as in this typical group: “Telepathy, teleportation, super-strength, invisibility or the ability to regenerate your cells.”

But I’ve never seen a list that includes the one Donald Trump seems to possess, which is the ability to drive your enemies crazy and make them do stupid things.

We first saw this in evidence, at least somewhat, during the 2016 campaign. The Republican challengers were surprisingly flat-footed against him. And since his election we’ve seen it over and over and over with Democrats, the press, and NeverTrumpers.

I think what’s going on is twofold. The first is that Trump is very very different from their usual opponents. He’s unpredictable. He hits below the belt and above the belt. Whatever he does, they don’t see it coming.

But the second is that they really truly are convinced that he is the crazy stupid one. Therefore, if they can just rile him enough, he’ll reveal this unequivocally to the world. Plus, he’s not just crazy and stupid, he’s also corrupt, and so – like the boy in the joke about shoveling manure in the barn because he knows there must be a pony somewhere – they know that if they just dig and dig and dig they will find the pony that will sink Trump. This is not a pose on their part; they believe it.

https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/09/26/what-superpower-does-trump-have/

Like Russian Collusion, Ukraine Hysteria Is Pure Projection By Media And Democrats

Like Russian Collusion, Ukraine Hysteria Is Pure Projection By Media And Democrats

The only 2016 campaign that colluded with Russia was Hillary Clinton's, and the only 2020 candidate who bragged about threatening Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating corruption is Joe Biden.

By Sean Davis

If the latest media-manufactured hysteria over President Donald Trump’s interactions with the Ukrainian government looks familiar, it’s because it is. The same tired playbook is being run by the same discredited people with the same goal: get rid of Trump, by any means necessary.

Just as the Clinton campaign, Obama administration holdovers, and complicit media allies peddled lies about Russian collusion while engaging in literal Russian collusion during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, so too did Joseph Biden literally threaten to withhold money from Ukraine if it failed to fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.

To hear the media tell it, Trump committed treason. The walls are closing in. The end is nigh. Why? Well, the details there are a little fuzzy, as they always seem to be. Somebody heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that Trump had threatened Ukraine that it must investigate Hunter Biden, the troubled son of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden…or else.

The media initially hyped their latest faux scandal by claiming a deeply connected “whistleblower” listened to a phone call between Trump and the head of Ukraine’s government, in which Trump allegedly threatened to withhold money if the Eastern European nation failed to investigate allegations of corruption by Hunter Biden. Then it morphed into the source reading a transcript or readout of the phone call. And eventually it was buried in the 22nd paragraph of a breathless CNN story that the alleged “whistleblower” hadn’t in fact directly read or seen or heard anything he or she was allegedly blowing the whistle on:

The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

There’s burying the lede, and then there’s fitting the lede for cement boots, pushing it down an elevator shaft into a pool of bullets, and then tossing the remains overboard somewhere over the Marianas Trench. CNN opted for the latter. One man’s “whistleblower” is apparently another man’s rumor-monger or anonymous gossip columnist. The Wall Street Journal later disclosed that there was no quid pro quo and no discussion of U.S. financial aid during the call the whistleblower cum axe-grinder never even heard.

On Sunday, Trump did admit that he raised the topic of Biden and his son Hunter with the Ukrainian president within the context of needing to root out corruption in Ukraine, which raises all sorts of questions Democrats and their media allies would desperately like to avoid, such as: did Hunter Biden have sketchy business dealings in Ukraine? Did he benefit financially from those arrangements? Were any Ukrainian companies he worked for being investigated? Did his father, as the vice president of the United States, personally intervene to shut down Ukrainian officials who were investigating Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business arrangements?

The answer to all those questions is a resounding YES. Despite being kicked out of the Navy for cocaine abuse and having no demonstrable business acumen, Hunter Biden nonetheless in 2014 landed a $50,000 per month gig on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas concern.

Coincidentally, the law firm that helped arrange the sinecure, Boies Schiller, previously hired Fusion GPS, the shady opposition research firm retained by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee to concoct the Russian collusion hoax, to run interference for Theranos, the infamous fake blood testing company whose founder was charged with wire fraud.

When Burisma later attracted the attention of Ukrainian law enforcement, Joe Biden personally intervened to make sure Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor looking into the company’s finances, was fired. You don’t have to take my word for this, because Joe Biden bragged about his efforts to fire the prosecutor investigating the company that paid Hunter Biden a $50,000 per month sinecure. On camera. In detail. Last year (the specific statement from Biden begins at 52:20 in the video):

And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Well, then.

The similarities between the anti-Trump Russian collusion operation and the fledgling anti-Trump Ukraine operation are eerie. If not for the utter implosion of the Russian collusion nonsense, culminating in a two-year special counsel investigation run by anti-Trump partisans that nonetheless found zero collusion, the Ukraine operation might almost be believable.

The thinly sourced rumors, the bombshell evidence that was always just around the next corner, the hyperventilating media coverage, the demands for ever more invasive investigative enemas from left-wing lawmakers like Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the fact that the alleged crimes were all committed not by Trump, but by his political opponents. If we hadn’t already been shown this same movie over and over and over again for three years, it might actually be interesting.

Instead, it’s just another manufactured narrative peddled by partisans desperate to prevent anyone from shining a spotlight on their own shenanigans. Just as the Russian collusion conspiracy begins and ends with Hillary Clinton, the Ukraine corruption scandal begins and ends with Joe and Hunter Biden. And just as they did with the investigation of the Russia hoax, their media allies will do everything in their power to make sure that evidence never sees the light of day.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/23/like-russian-collusion-ukraine-hysteria-is-pure-projection-by-media-and-democrats/

Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.