Op/Ed: The China Threat

The China Threat

 

By Allan Topol*

President Obama’s trip to the Asia Pacific Region in mid-November of 2011 demonstrated that at long last leaders in the administration recognize the military threat posed by China.  Unfortunately, Obama’s language and his actions are not sufficient to persuade China and other nations of the Region that the United States is a credible counterweight to China’s growing military power.

For five decades after the end of the Second World War, the United States has been far and away the dominant power, militarily and economically, in the Pacific.  While the U.S. maintained bases in Japan, Guam, and South Korea, except for the wars in Korea and Vietnam, no one threatened American interests or military superiority.  The U.S. and Japan have had an effective economic partnership; and Tokyo hasn’t made an effort to rebuild its military following the disastrous conclusion to the Second World War.

The United States was also the largest trading partner with the nations in the region. American Naval vessels moved freely in the Pacific.  The U.S. was the de facto policeman to ensure freedom of navigation throughout the entire area, including the critical navigation lanes of the South China Sea.  United States Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of the United States Pacific Command, has stated that these navigation lanes “account for $5.3 trillion in bilateral annual trade, of which $1.2 trillion is American.”[i]

All of this has changed in the last decade with the emergence of China as a Superpower.  The Chinese economy has been growing at roughly a ten percent annual rate.  China has become the largest trading partner with most of the countries in the region, undercutting American economic influence.  At the same time, the Chinese have undertaken one of the largest military expansions in history.  China’s defense spending has risen by twelve percent or more a year during this decade.[ii]

The Chinese now have 2.29 million active duty forces compared with 1.56 for the U.S.  Moreover, the Chinese arms expansion is characterized by quality as well as quantity, leaving no doubt that Beijing will be able to challenge the United States for military control in the Pacific.

In January of 2011, at the time of then U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates’ visit to Beijing, the Chinese, in a bold in your face move, tested their new stealth jet which will rival the U.S.’s F-22 Raptor, the world’s only operational stealth fighter.  Larger than the F-22, with bigger fuel tanks, the Chinese jet will fly higher, faster, and with less chance of detection.[iii]

On the seas, China has created the largest force of submarines and amphibious warfare ships in the Pacific.  It has launched its first aircraft carrier and is developing long range anti-ship missiles.[iv]

Moreover, China has been using its new military prowess for commercial advantage.  The Chinese Navy has destroyed oil and gas exploration equipment being used by Vietnam and the Philippines in maritime areas in which China is making a power grab for these natural resources.  The Chinese have also fired threatening missiles in the direction of Taiwan, which the United States has a duty to defend.[v]

Against the backdrop of these developments, commentators have warned of the risk of war between the United States and China.[vi]  In my new novel, The China Gambit, a Chinese General’s attempt to cut off the flow of oil to the United States, sets China and the U.S. on the path to war.

Despite all of this, the Obama Administration has until the President’s November trip to the Asia Pacific Region, been surprisingly mute about the increasing Chinese military threat in the Pacific.  Then suddenly, Obama focused on the issue.  Unfortunately, his rhetoric was weak.

Despite efforts by Administration officials to strengthen the message, here is what Obama said: “The notion that we fear China is mistaken.  Rather, the United States wants a clear set of principles that all of us can abide by so all of us can succeed.”

Then later, “If Beijing does not respect international rules, we will send a clear message to them that we think that they need to be on track in terms of accepting the rules and responsibilities that come with being a world power.”[vii]

This mumbo-jumbo was accompanied by equally weak action.  The United States will be sending 250 Marines to Australia for 6 month tours starting next summer.  No American base will be established.  They will be housed in Australian facilities.  Their mission was not specified.  Sounds like a vacation.

The size of the American force is so small that the move didn’t even evoke a strong rebuke from Beijing.  Instead, a Chinese spokesman merely questioned whether this “is in line with the common interest” of countries in the region.

It is unfortunate that Obama wasn’t stronger.  The Chinese leaders have watched the United States withdraw from Iraq leaving behind an unstable country.  They are following the ambivalent U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, which is increasingly criticized by a growing war weary American populace.

As our largest creditor, Beijing is following the United States financial travails, which are likely to result in a reduced defense budget.  In order to send a credible message to Beijing, Obama had to say more.  He had to do more than he did on his November trip.

We are dealing with the same party in Beijing which perpetrated the harsh massacre in Tiananmen’s Square.  The Chinese leaders are tough minded people who will not back down as a result of wishy-washy language and meaningless symbolic acts.

They will consider Obama’s words and action a green light for full steam ahead in their arrogant Pacific expansion.  They will never believe that the United States is prepared to go to war in the Pacific in defense of our allies and comme



* Allan Topol’s newest thriller novel, The China Gambit, will be published in January 2012.  Visit his website at www.AllanTopol.com.

[i] New York Times, November 16, 2011, p. A14.

[ii] Barron’s, June 27, 2011, p. 21.

[iii] Barron’s, June 27, 2011, p. 22.

[iv] USA Today, July 28, 2011, p. 2A.

[v] USA Today, July 28, 2011, p. 2A.

[vi] Glaser Charles, Will China’s Rise Lead to War?, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2011, pp. 86-88.

[vii] The quotes of Obama’s speech are from the Washington Post, November 17, 2011, p. A10.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.