Ex-CIA Insider Moves $1 Million Before Election Day

(Note: The information provided here or in any related communications is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial advice. We do not provide personalized investment, financial, or legal advice. Gateway Pundit benefits from purchases made through our sponsors. We appreciate your support!)

by Matt Insley

He called the 2008 crash before it hit…

He called Trump’s 2016 win when the models gave Trump less than a 1% chance…

He called the Covid crisis of 2020…

Now Jim Rickards, former advisor to the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House, has made his most shocking call yet.

A Midterm Meltdown. On November 3rd.

And he’s not just talking. He’s moved more than a million dollars of his own money to get ready.

Click here to see exactly where he put it.

Jim says millions of Americans are about to get wiped out. Some will never recover.

You don’t have to be one of them. But you have to move now.

Everything could change.

Click here now, before November 3rd.

The post Ex-CIA Insider Moves $1 Million Before Election Day appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Watch: El-Sayed Still Can’t Condemn Dead Ayatollah Khamenei, Man Who Killed and Oppressed His Own People

After all this time, it’s still worth asking the question of Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed: Whose side is he on?

I’m not just asking whether he’s a liberal. I’m asking whether he wants America to win, or if he’s one of those Democrats who only believes in America if it can be fundamentally changed to fit their own strange mold of good and evil.

In his case, the hard-left nominee in one of the oddest Senate races in many a year seems to have trouble distinguishing who’s the good guy in the Iran conflict, or whether the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — a despot who repressed his own people and murdered those who dissented — was worth condemning.

Yet again, on Friday, El-Sayed was asked about leaked audio where he discussed deliberately avoiding the subject while speaking in Dearborn, which is a Shia stronghold.

During the call with staff, El-Sayed noted that “there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad” about Khamenei’s death, and “I just don’t want to comment on Khamenei at all.”

“Like, I don’t think it’s worth even touching that,” he added.

During his appearance Friday, El-Sayed was asked by a reporter whether he regrets “the private comments you made on a leaked audio of a call, I think it was in early March, where you talked about the death of Ayatollah Khamenei and many people in Dearborn being sad that day.”

El-Sayed’s response was to say that reporters should give him questions he wants to answer.

“I know your readers will get you clicks, but it’s actually not relevant to people’s lives. I’m just not interested in this dog and pony show,” he said.

“So I’m just gonna tell you: I think if you look at the legacy of this war — if you look at all that’s happened under war, the gas prices, the grocery prices, all that Donald Trump has done to devastate the lives of Michiganders because of this war — I think all of us regret that this war ever happened.”

“And if you — even Mike Rogers, who flip-flopped on this issue, doesn’t even know where he stands. He says the war needs to end,” El-Sayed continued.

“So you should go ask Mike Rogers what he thinks about this ridiculous war. But I don’t do the work of that — justifying illegal, ridiculous wars — because you want to ask me a question about a piece of leaked audio. Like, ask smart questions.”

The reporter then noted that his position on Iran was relevant, given that he frequently talks about foreign policy. But El-Sayed moved on to another reporter — who, presumably, he thought would ask him “smarter questions.”

The problem is that the smartest question is the one he can’t answer. And this shouldn’t be a difficult one to answer, since he’s big on foreign policy but can’t decide whether or not Israel or Iran is a bigger threat to the United States, including when asked by the moderator of his recent debate against Rogers:

“I’m just going to say that that’s a ridiculous hypothetical because here’s what’s happening right now. Our ostensible ally, Israel, has lobbied us to go to war with Iran,” El-Sayed said.

“We have watched as Iran has responded by bombing all kinds of countries in the Middle East and then choking off the world’s energy supply. So this is a situation in which I don’t think we should be a part. I don’t want to be pushed into war by Israel.”

And he won’t even condemn the IRGC absent of Israel being involved in the equation. Here he is at a town hall last month:

No answer to the question. Again.

If you can’t say the IRGC is bad — a force that’s condemned as a terror organization, mind you — you’re not on America’s side.

And America shouldn’t let you change it to suit you, Mr. El-Sayed, because it will inarguably be for the worse.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Watch: El-Sayed Still Can’t Condemn Dead Ayatollah Khamenei, Man Who Killed and Oppressed His Own People appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Democrats Campaign Against Their Own Congressional Nominee Who Happens to Be in Federal Prison

Eric Hafner, 35, is running to strip Alaska’s lone House seat away from Republican incumbent Rep. Nicholas Begich. But can he win? After all, Hafner is the only Democrat on the ticket, and midterms historically punish the president’s party.

There’s just one problem: Eric Hafner is nearly 3,000 miles away from Juneau, serving out a 20-year prison sentence in Otisville, New York.

According to U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger, Hafner repeatedly threatened elected representatives, judges, law enforcement officers, and private citizens.

“He further victimized these public officials, private citizens, and the public generally by calling in numerous false bomb threats to a courthouse, a police department, law firms, businesses, and an elected official’s office,” Sellinger said.

Reporting by The Blue Alaskan revealed that in 2016, Inmate #00932-005 told a police department that the officer who arrested him “deserves to get shot,” that he knew where the officer lived, and that the officer’s minor child would “get his head bashed in.”

Data from Ballotpedia suggests that just 3.8 percent of voters filled in the bubble next to this man’s name.

It is unclear whether these voters knew Hafner’s background. The ballot may have been a protest vote or a knee-jerk reaction to the “D” next to his name.

Regardless, Hafner poses a real danger to Bill Hill, the Democrat-backed independent seeking to unseat Begich.

Politico reported, “Hafner may be behind bars, but Dems fear he could lock up enough votes to help Begich hold his seat.”

To counter this, Wheel Dog, the D.C. Super PAC backing Hill, launched an ad highlighting Hafner’s unusual place of residence.

“The D by his name? Yeah, it stands for Doing Time,” the ad says.

The ad ends with a screen that reads “Alaska Democrats Vote Bill Hill.” Despite clear backing from a Democrat-funded Super PAC, Hill refuses to align himself with either party.

When Alaska’s News Source suggested that he would caucus for the Democrats, Hill responded, “I guess we’ll find out when the election comes.”

Also in the race is Libertarian Jim McDermott. Ballotpedia recorded that he received even fewer votes than Hafner.

At the end of the day, this race is about Hill and Begich.

Neither Hafner nor McDermott will likely win. However, because Alaska uses ranked-choice voting, they can seriously affect Hill’s chances of beating Begich.

According to Alaskans for Better Elections, “Ranked Choice Voting allows voters to rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference: first, second, third, and fourth.”

In this system, if a candidate gets over 50 percent of first-choice votes, they win immediately. Otherwise, the last-place candidate is eliminated, and those votes transfer to each voter’s next preference. This repeats until one candidate holds a majority.

This means second-place and third-place votes carry significant weight. If all Republicans mark Hafner as their second choice, transferred preferences could consolidate behind Begich instead of Hill.

With ranked-choice voting, Hafner may end up casting the deciding vote in an Alaska House race thousands of miles away.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post Democrats Campaign Against Their Own Congressional Nominee Who Happens to Be in Federal Prison appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Remember This on Election Day: Minnesota Governor Signs Law Allowing Murder of Babies AFTER They Are Born – Sick Women Smile and Cheer at Signing!

Women smile and cheer as Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signs a law to allow the murder of babies AFTER they are born alive!

Never Forget… Minnesota Democratic Governor Tim Walz signed the REPEAL of “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” back in 2023.

This move by the governor repealed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act.”

This is murder in my opinion.

Look at the women smiling and cheering with delight at this event. They KNOW the governor just gave Minnesota doctors the right to kill born alive babies that were not wanted by their mothers.

This is the Democrat Party today.

Do we need to say more?

The Massachusetts governor recently signed a law allowing abortions up until birth – even at nine months!

Cold-Blooded Murder: Wicked Massachusetts Governor Signs Bill that Allows Abortions Up to Birth

Again the liberal women shrieked like demons in delight at the signing ceremony.

We must vote in November to stop this wickedness! Enough!

The post Remember This on Election Day: Minnesota Governor Signs Law Allowing Murder of Babies AFTER They Are Born – Sick Women Smile and Cheer at Signing! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Sophie Cunningham to Critics of Her Trans-Kids Statements: “I’m Going to Continue to Do Me… Suck It!” (Video)

Sophie Cunningham tells critics to “suck it” on the No Hesitation podcast with Drew Hanlen.

Sophie Cunningham, the second most popular athlete in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) responded to the latest derelict attacks by racist Sydney Colson.

Recently, Colson told Cunningham to “shut the f*ck up” after Cunningham said biological men should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports, a view that is popular with nearly 80% of Americans.

But the crazies in the “Womens” National Basketball Association, including Colson, disagree. They want to compete with dudes.

Sophie Cunningham responded to Syd Colson this week following the ignorant, racist attacks, “I literally don’t even care…if you’re going to live by the praise, you’re gonna die by the hate. They’re just thirsty to have attention or be relevant…I’m gonna continue to do me…whatever. SUCK IT!”

Here is the full exchange:

Sophie Cunningham: I literally don’t even care what anyone says about me anymore. Because I’ve said this so many times, if you’re going to live by the praise, you’re going to die by the hate. And the majority of these people have never picked up a ball in their entire lives. And they’re just like thirsty to, you know, have attention or be relevant in some type of way.

And like, no matter what anyone says to me, I’m going to continue to do me. I know what I bring to the table. It’s not always in the stat sheet.

And so for you to like not say I’m effective or any of that, whatever, suck it.

Anyway, let’s talk about some basketball because that’s why we’re here. And this is why we even started this pod. Let’s get into this first round. Yeah.

The post Sophie Cunningham to Critics of Her Trans-Kids Statements: “I’m Going to Continue to Do Me… Suck It!” (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Biden-Appointed Activist Judge Sparkle Sooknanan Blocks Trump DOJ’s Nationwide Voter Roll Cleanup Effort — Even in States That Voluntarily Cooperated

US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan / screen image

A Biden-appointed federal judge has once again stepped in to shield dirty voter rolls from federal scrutiny, striking down the Justice Department’s nationwide effort to collect registration records and identify suspected non-U.S. citizens on the rolls.

U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, who was born in Trinidad and Tobago, ruled that the Department of Justice overstepped its bounds by demanding unredacted voter registration lists and cross-referencing them using federal databases.

According to the 78-page ruling, the DOJ began requesting complete, unredacted statewide voter registration lists (including names, dates of birth, addresses, and driver’s license or partial Social Security numbers) from 49 states and the District of Columbia starting in May 2025. At least 18 states fully cooperated.

The department then shared the data with DHS for runs through the expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system and urged states to remove voters flagged as potentially ineligible.

The Justice Department maintained that its actions were authorized by federal laws governing voter registration and election administration.

Sooknanan rejected that argument.

Sooknanan concluded that the Justice Department’s policy violated the Privacy Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, exceeded the agency’s statutory authority, and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

She wrote that the policy “flies in the face of duly enacted laws designed to protect Americans” and accused the DOJ of attempting to “decide who gets to vote.” She claimed the administration failed to adequately weigh the risk that flawed federal databases could wrongly flag eligible citizens.

This is not the first time Judge Sooknanan has ruled against the Trump administration’s voter citizenship verification efforts.

As The Gateway Pundit reported in June, Sooknanan previously blocked the administration’s expanded Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system.

That June 22 ruling concerned modifications allowing federal agencies to combine citizenship and Social Security information to help states verify voter eligibility.

Sooknanan found that the expanded system violated federal privacy protections and other statutory requirements.

The administration challenged that ruling, setting off a separate legal battle over the government’s ability to maintain and operate the expanded citizenship database.

On September 4, Gateway Pundit reported that two Obama-appointed judges on the D.C. Circuit rejected an emergency request to restore the expanded SAVE system while the administration’s appeal proceeded.

Trump-appointed Judge Gregory Katsas dissented.

Then, on September 25, the Supreme Court temporarily permitted the government to resume certain expanded SAVE operations while litigation continued, as described in subsequent Gateway Pundit reporting.

Friday’s decision represents a separate challenge to the Justice Department’s nationwide voter-roll collection policy, rather than a reversal of the Supreme Court’s temporary order concerning SAVE.

Trump DOJ Previously Reported Thousands of Suspected Noncitizen Registrations

The Gateway Pundit reported in March that Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon had described a federal review of voter registration records provided by 16 cooperating states.

According to Dhillon’s reported findings, the investigation identified tens of thousands of suspected noncitizen registrations, along with duplicate records and registrations associated with deceased individuals.

The post Biden-Appointed Activist Judge Sparkle Sooknanan Blocks Trump DOJ’s Nationwide Voter Roll Cleanup Effort — Even in States That Voluntarily Cooperated appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Bill Maher Slams Democrats for Twisting Trump’s Words on Iran and Takes a Dig at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in the Process (VIDEO)

Screencap of Twitter/X video.

Democrats and the media have spent the last week going into convulsions over Trump’s recent comments about Iran ‘taking out’ the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego. They completely twisted his meaning and everyone knows it, even Bill Maher.

On his show on Friday night, Maher called out the Democrats for doing this and even took a completely justified dig at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in the process.

It was a pretty funny line, too.

The liberal Daily Beast is very upset that Maher is defending Trump:

Bill Maher, 70, Defends Trump Comments About Bombing L.A.

Bill Maher has defended President Donald Trump’s incendiary suggestion that Iran could “take out Los Angeles.”

Trump defended higher gas prices this week as a “small price to pay” for keeping Americans safe, then said, “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” Outrage ensued, while Trump insisted he was invoking the cities as examples of what a nuclear-armed Iran could attack, saying higher fuel costs were preferable to destruction.

Maher corroborated Trump’s defense on his Friday show, saying, “Let’s be fair.” He said the “small price” the president meant was high gas prices.

“He wasn’t saying that we were encouraging Iran,” Maher said, defending the president. “But still, you don’t want to say that to people in this city. We live here.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was among the California Democrats who called Trump’s slopiness out. She called the remarks horrifying and “egregious,” saying the president should not treat major American cities as expendable.

Maher, 70, ribbed Bass over her response, saying, “She immediately got on the phone with her travel agent.” That appears to refer to her trip to Ghana during the devastating January 2025 Los Angeles fires.

Here’s the video:

Did you think we would ever see a time when Bill Maher is more fair and balanced than 99% of the media?

The post Bill Maher Slams Democrats for Twisting Trump’s Words on Iran and Takes a Dig at Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in the Process (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Commercial, but Not Purely Commercial

Commercial, but Not Purely Commercial

The unvarying routines of doux commerce are the frame for civilized human life.

Exterior of village general store in Firle, East Sussex. England

Arriving back in the small town in England in which I live (at least part of the time) after an absence of three months, I was pleased, and reassured, to find the same shops and shopkeepers that I had left behind. Quite apart from the fact that I like the owners of these shops, and wish them well, I have reached the stage in life when I dislike change of almost any description in the small amenities of life that I now enjoy. Among other things, such change would be a reminder of  how little time I have left to enjoy them. I prefer the illusion of permanence.

How pleasant it is to enjoy an unvarying running joke with a young lady with laughing eyes who serves at an excellent fruit and vegetable stall every Friday and Saturday market under the arches of the 17th-century town hall! Once, having shopped there for essentials such as asparagus, strawberries, and artichokes, I accidentally left a bouquet of flowers I had bought earlier. When I returned to retrieve it, this young lady, with mock sorrow, said that she had thought that the bouquet had been for her. I said, “I am very sorry, not this week,” and ever since she asks for her flowers whenever I see her. Every week, I think up a new excuse.

This slight and silly running joke is very soothing. It reassures us that our relations, though they are commercial, are not purely commercial, but also human: that we are not simply interchangeable objects, mere functions of an economist’s analysis, and that we recognize one another as individuals. We do not make the same joke with everyone, only with one another. 

As I go round the town, it is the same with everyone I deal with. For example, when I returned home, one of the tires of my car was slightly flat, and the car in any case needed servicing. I learned to my chagrin (and with a very slight tinge of disappointed outrage, which I kept strictly to myself) that the manager, whom I have known for 17 years and who has always provided honest and reliable advice, was intending to retire in a year and a half’s time. How dare he! Here was a manifestation of mutability when it was immutability that I longed for.

I asked him what he intended to do in his retirement, and he told me that he had always been a keen photographer. One thing led to another in our conversation, and we were soon discussing the horrors of modern British architecture, which has left no town untouched and unruined. We had discussed many other things in the 17 years of our acquaintanceship, which was commercial in its origins, and no doubt fundamentally remained so, but it was not only commercial. Montesquieu, it was, who remarked on the softening of manners brought about by commerce, at least at this level. 

I discuss her back problems with the flower stallholder, who has recently undergone characteristically useless surgery, commiserating greatly with her; the weather and its vicissitudes with the delicatessen stallholder, for whom the temperature is never, and has never been, right; and the problems of fish-farming and declining fish stocks with the fish stallholder—who has come every week, almost unfailingly, for the last 35 years. If he does not come, it is because the boats have not been out for the previous two or three days owing to storms.

I admire someone greatly who can stick so long to his job and still say that he enjoys it. He always addresses me loudly as “Doctor,” as if he wants everyone to know that I was a doctor and is proud to have so august a personage as myself as a regular customer. How he discovered that I was a doctor, I do not know—but of course, in a small town, nothing remains secret for very long. Our first plumber, who died recently of a heart attack outside a pub in which he had had a slight altercation, had a brother who did time for murder—as everyone was to inform me many years ago.    

I suppose that humanity may be divided into those who are excited by change per se and those who are fearful of it per se. For myself, I always recall the opening lines of Doctor Johnson’s great fable, The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia:

Ye who listen with credulity to the whispers of fancy, and pursue with eagerness the phantoms of hope; who expect that age will perform the promises of youth, and that the deficiencies of the present day will be supplied by the morrow, attend to the history of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia.

Johnson proceeds to show that every form of life, however attractive, has its drawbacks, and that, simultaneous desires being contradictory, dissatisfaction is the permanent condition of mankind. As he says through one of his characters, you cannot simultaneously drink from the source and the mouth of the Nile. This is not depressing; it is reassuring.

No doubt those who are not avid for change might be accused, not altogether unjustifiably, of cowardice, complacency, and nostalgia. Nostalgia in particular is deprecated because it is apt to overlook dishonestly, or to brush over, the discomforts and tragedies of the past. But it seems to me that anyone who has lived for any length of time and does not experience nostalgia must either have had a truly and consistently terrible existence (as, no doubt, some people have had) or be a miserable ingrate, and dishonest in a way precisely opposite to that of a person who lets himself be dominated by nostalgia. 

The best-adjusted person is one who both hopes for progress in particularities and understands that there are inherent limits to progress as such. No glorious unclouded future awaits us; on the other hand, it is perfectly possible that in the years to come no one will die of malignant melanoma. Once that happy situation is reached, no one will look back and sigh for the days of fatal malignant melanoma. In fact, everyone will soon forget that they ever existed.  

A balance between a sense of personal agency to bring about progress and an acceptance of the inevitable limitations of human existence is the beginning of wisdom. Very few, however, are the wise, and I am not sure that I am among them.

The post Commercial, but Not Purely Commercial appeared first on The American Conservative.

China’s Gray-Zone Options Against Taiwan

China’s Gray-Zone Options Against Taiwan

Beijing could send a message by seizing an island claimed by Taipei.

CHINA-SPAIN-DIPLOMACY-ROYALS
(Photo by MAXIM SHEMETOV/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Worries in the United States that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) might launch a full-scale military assault on Taiwan have diminished since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. Both Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have sent strong signals that they do not want to disturb the status quo and create a crisis regarding the Taiwan issue. Trump seems to regard stable and cooperative bilateral relations with Beijing as a higher priority than Washington’s relations with Taipei.

The desire for stable relations between the two superpowers became quite evident during and immediately after the May summit in Beijing between Trump and Xi. The latter cautioned his counterpart not to become too supportive of Taiwan nor allow the current pro-independence government in Taipei to pursue reckless initiatives. The adverse consequences of such excessive tolerance, Xi emphasized, could be most unfortunate. Notably, Trump did not respond with defiant rhetoric stressing Washington’s firm support for Taipei. Indeed, shortly after the summit, he explicitly warned Taiwan not to push the envelope regarding formal independence.

Some conservatives in the United States fret that Trump already has been too accommodating toward Beijing and is thereby undermining the credibility of Washington’s longstanding commitment to Taipei’s defense. Hawkish analysts in the United States, led by former National Security Adviser John Bolton and the editors of the Wall Street Journal, have openly accused Trump of insufficient support for Taiwan. They pressure the administration to accelerate U.S. arms sales to Taipei and increase the quantity and quality of the weapons in future aid packages.

Thus far, though, Trump has remained consistent in wanting to avoid tensions with the PRC over the Taiwan issue. That became even more apparent during the recent September summit with Xi in Washington. Xi appeared to fully share Trump’s overall goal of fostering a stable period in Sino-American relations. At a minimum, Beijing wants such stability so that it can address an assortment of festering domestic social and economic challenges.

Given such developments, the prevailing belief that the PRC is unlikely to make a major military move against Taiwan in the near future is probably correct. But the desire of China’s Communist Party elite to intimidate or subdue the democratic-capitalist island located just off the mainland has not disappeared. Moreover, Beijing has numerous options milder than a direct military offensive against the Taiwanese homeland itself that could still create serious problems for both Taipei and Washington.

Such options run along a lengthy spectrum of so-called “gray-zone” warfare, including bullying or bribing small allies of the target country or conducting cyber disruptions of government agencies and private corporations. Some of the PRC’s military exercises also fit into that category: The number and scope of Chinese war games in the airspace and international waters surrounding Taiwan have noticeably increased over the past six years, during a time when Taiwan’s leadership has been in the hands of the officially pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Indeed, the presence of PRC aircraft and naval vessels has become substantially larger over that same period.

Most theoretical scenarios involving Chinese gray-zone operations focus on the possibility of Beijing imposing a selective or intermittent blockade on commercial ships entering or exiting Taiwan. Such measures would probably have a serious negative impact on the island’s economy. But the disruption would be deeply resented not only by the United States, but by nearly every other major player in the global economy. The negative consequences to high-tech industries would be especially acute. It is hard to visualize Washington and other key strategic actors standing by idly while such a PRC offensive proceeded.

In addition to that disincentive for Beijing, the Iran War has shown how difficult it is to close a key maritime transit point over the long term. Cutting off Taiwan’s connections to the outside world could prove even more difficult.

There is, however, another, less risky option for gray-zone action that may appeal to leaders in China. The option gained considerable attention a few years ago, and it remains quite viable today. The strategy would involve seizing one or more small islands, primarily in the South China Sea, over which the Taiwanese government claims sovereignty, but which lie far away from Taiwan itself.

Beijing has shown growing willingness over the past decade to challenge the competing territorial claims of neighboring countries in the South China Sea. Although most of the PRC’s quarrels have involved the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam, there also is noticeable hostility toward Taipei’s lingering claims as the “Republic of China”—the political entity that communist forces on the mainland overthrew in 1949 before establishing the PRC. 

Taipei claims sovereignty over two sets of tiny islands in the South China Sea, the largest of which is Taiping (Itu Aba) in the Spratly chain. Taipei also controls Pratas Island (along with some atolls) in another chain farther north. Those symbolic claims have served as a source of national pride for Taiwanese in general and followers of the DPP in particular.

Beijing thus has an opportunity to execute a gray-zone action that would humiliate Taipei and send a blunt message about its determination to prevent any additional manifestations of Taiwan’s de facto independence. Speculation among American foreign policy observers spiked in 2020 about that option for the PRC. The increase in speculation coincided with the rise of virulently anti-China public opinion in the United States due to Beijing’s clumsy, if not duplicitous, handling of the early stages of the Covid pandemic and the PRC’s possible culpability. 

Most military observers dismissed the possibility of this gray-zone initiative in 2020, noting that the islands had lost most of their strategic value for Beijing when the PRC built several artificial islands nearby. Yet a takeover would not be primarily for military reasons; coercive political symbolism would be the driving motive.

Such a peripheral provocation would put Washington in a bind. Would there be sufficient congressional and public support for a U.S. military showdown with China to back Taiwan’s claim to a few miniscule islets in the South China Sea? Such a reservoir of support seems questionable at best. 

Not only would PRC military pressure against any of those holdings create a dilemma for Washington, but it would put the Taiwanese government in a terrible bind as well. Could Taiwan mount an effective defense of such distant territorial holdings even if it wanted to? Would Washington be willing to assist Taipei in doing so, knowing that such aid might risk a dangerous military clash with the PRC?

Such scenarios may not be a major worry immediately, especially given President Trump’s rather conciliatory approach to overall relations with Beijing and the apparent determination that he and Xi share about keeping the Taiwan issue quiescent. But the PRC’s long-term ambitions to subdue Taiwan are not going away. A gray-zone initiative to seize Taiwanese-claimed islands on the periphery of Taipei’s area of control will very likely reemerge as a temptation for leaders in Beijing.

The post China’s Gray-Zone Options Against Taiwan appeared first on The American Conservative.

Vance Is Right About Socialism

Vance Is Right About Socialism

Conservatives don’t have to debate on leftist terms.

US-POLITICS-VANCE
Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images

“Government,” the late Rep. Barney Frank once said, “is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

This memorable quotation was uttered before socialists made their long march through the Democratic institutions, when government was something of a dirty word that Frank needed to clean up and render innocuous. 

Though containing a kernel of truth, it was always a bit nonsensical, even if it helped put a positive spin on the leviathan.

For family, friendship, church, private civic associations, and community are also things we choose to do together. Only one of those involves government at all, and not intrinsically so.

The nation is also a thing we do together—partially by choice, partially by our neighbors’ and ancestors’ choices—and that, too, is at least somewhat distinct from whichever political authorities happen to be in charge.

There are other less positive spins you can put on what government entails, depending on the motivation of those ruling authorities and their allied elites.

One was recently offered by Vice President J.D. Vance in response to a question about socialism: “I think in reality, what it actually means in the American context, is that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers, and you want boys to play in girls’ sports.”

That may not be the technical definition of socialism, but it is a pretty apt description of what the government might do to you if the modern adherents of this ideology ever attain political power.

Naturally, Vance’s online detractors were dismayed. They hurled their dictionaries and economic textbooks in the vice president’s general direction, seeing it as further confirmation that his idea of Infrastructure Week is leading us down the road to serfdom. (No wonder Vance is no fan of the dismal science.)

An internet hatedom and seizing the means of production are just things we can choose to do together, with the former involving more choice for everyone than the latter. 

But Vance is raising an interesting question, even if those who insist he be kept away from the 2028 Republican presidential nomination don’t want to hear it: As an alternative to socialism, is it better to offer libertarianism—or rather, the faux-libertarianism of big deficits and repeated Mideast wars long practiced by the GOP establishment—or a defense of the mixed economic system that we actually have?

There are times when the sharper contrast is certainly the way to go, no pale pastels and all that, and libertarians are an indispensable part of any antisocialist coalition. Justin Amash would have been a much more interesting candidate to debate Abdul el-Sayed than Mike Rogers, even if Michigan Republican primary voters were unlikely to see it that way. My own preference is that government be small enough that we—see, another thing we can simply choose to do together!—can drown it in a bathtub. 

But the American electorate by and large seems to have other ideas, and socialists appeal to these by retreating to Barney Frank–style repackagings of their underlying ideology. What, you don’t like government? What do you have against roads? Or the fire department? Do you prefer poverty, illiteracy, and meowing cats stuck in trees?

Notice that this list does not include liquidating the kulaks, imprisoning Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, forcing people into breadlines while wearing two left shoes, or invading Taiwan. Just nice little things that we do together. 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is very good at trying to rehabilitate Ronald Reagan’s nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” And while the “the warmth of collectivism” might not keep you from freezing in the breadlines, Mamdani is playing on the need for community that others—less radical than he—believe goes unmet by the “frigidity of rugged individualism.”

Among the main vulnerabilities of the new socialists are the government functions they want to do away with: defunding the police, abolishing ICE, forcing the Pentagon to hold a bake sale (what is it with these people and bread?) while Angela Davis Junior High School is fully funded.

To paraphrase the left-wing writer Ryan Grim, socialists will eventually need to abandon police abolition because the means of production won’t seize themselves, nor will the bank and healthcare CEOs put themselves in handcuffs.

But today’s left just isn’t that economically motivated—the DSA’s reemergence notwithstanding—and it certainly isn’t interested in genuine solidarity with the people Vance grew up with. 

Vance gets this, even if his critics do not.

That doesn’t mean that the current administration has gotten the size of government right, or that we couldn’t use a more robust answer to the country’s looming fiscal catastrophe than anything the GOP has managed to offer since Calvin Coolidge was president.

But it does convey the madness—to be perfectly Frank about it—of allowing your political opponents to call you whatever names they like, while accepting their own dishonest self-definitions as gospel truth.

The post Vance Is Right About Socialism appeared first on The American Conservative.