Biden’s Position On Abortion Is So Extreme, The White House Won’t Even Say It Out Loud

Biden’s Position On Abortion Is So Extreme, The White House Won’t Even Say It Out Loud

The vast majority of Americans support restricting abortion but Democrats, including those running the Biden administration, are unwilling to support any protections for unborn life.

That became especially apparent on Friday when the White House, after being repeatedly pressed by Fox News, refused to answer whether President Joe Biden supported limits on abortion.

The White House isn’t just dodging questions about abortion restrictions in private, it’s also refusing to answer them in public.

When Fox News White House Correspondent Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre a similar question during a press briefing that same day, she evaded it with a long-winded regurgitation of the Biden administration’s disdain for pro-life Republicans.

“Republicans are saying ‘we don’t want abortion after 15 weeks.’ Why can’t you say how many weeks?” Doocy asked again.

“Peter, I’m answering your question,” Jean-Pierre said after a brief back-and-forth. “What Republicans are trying to do is take us backwards. They’re trying to take away the rights and freedoms of Americans. That’s what we’re calling out.”

Graham’s bill isn’t taking the country backward. If anything, it will finally bring the U.S. up to speed with what other civilized countries already have and what American voters, including some Democrats, want. That’s reflected in new polling from CRC Research which suggests that 55 percent of likely voters are less likely to vote for a candidate who “opposed any protections for the unborn.”

Yet the White House clearly opposes straying from Democrats’ radical midterm abortion agenda — so much so that the administration is refusing to acknowledge that Graham’s proposed 15-week ban is not the extreme war on voters’ wishes corporate media say it is.

Despite the White House’s reluctance to disclose the president’s position on abortion restrictions, President Joe Biden made his stance perfectly clear when he used a lie about the Catholic Church’s view of abortion to justify smearing Graham’s legislation.

“My generic point — and I happen to be a practicing Roman Catholic — my church doesn’t even make that argument now,” Biden said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in New York City. “And so we’re in a situation where things have changed a lot. But they’ve gotten more extreme in their positions.”

The truth is, the Catholic Church not only condemns abortion as wrong for any reason because life begins at conception, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) even endorsed Graham’s bill.

Much like his Democrat allies in the Senate, Biden wants to leverage the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision to influence voters in the upcoming midterms. Biden might think that ignoring the truth about abortion will be all the ammunition he needs to justify his administration’s radical abortion goals, but it won’t. Not only does Biden’s reluctance to support abortion restrictions betray his Catholic faith, but it also betrays voters.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Source

Biden Hosts Atlanta Braves At White House After Pushing MLB To Boycott Their City For All-Star Game

Biden Hosts Atlanta Braves At White House After Pushing MLB To Boycott Their City For All-Star Game

President Joe Biden hosted the Atlanta Braves at the White House on Monday to celebrate the Major League Baseball (MLB) team’s 2021 World Series win. The event comes after Biden and other high-profile Democrats called for the professional baseball league to move its annual All-Star game out of Atlanta to protest Georgia’s recently passed election integrity law.

“This team has literally been part of American history for over 150 years,” Biden said. “But none of it came easy … people counting you out. Heck, I know something about being counted out.”

During the event, Biden was presented with a customized jersey bearing his name and the number 46, in reference to him being the nation’s 46th president. In a separate moment, America’s commander-in-chief bizarrely beckoned “everybody under 15” to come near him for a group photo.

Despite Democrats and their media sycophants’ efforts to cast Biden as a folksy, kind old man, the president has routinely shown himself to be anything but. Following the Georgia legislature’s passage of a bill last year to enhance the integrity of the state’s election laws, Biden proceeded to call for the MLB to relocate its 2021 All-Star game out of Atlanta in protest.

“I think today’s professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly. I would strongly support them [moving the all-star game out of Atlanta],” Biden told ESPN last year.

In the same interview, Biden went on to label the Georgia bill as “Jim Crow on steroids” and falsely asserted that the law “prohibited food and drink at polling places and mandated the polls close at 5 p.m.”

“Imagine passing a law saying you cannot provide water or food for someone standing in line to vote? Can’t do that? Come on,” he said. “Or you’re going to close a polling place at five o’clock when working people just get off? This is all about keeping working folks and ordinary folks that I grew up with from being able to vote.”

As noted by The Daily Wire, however, “[t]he Georgia law implements restrictions on handing out food and drink near polling places similar to restrictions already in place in New York and Biden’s home state of Delaware” and “are designed to prevent lobbyists or special interest from handing out concessions at polling places. It does not ban voters from bringing or ordering food, nor does it prohibit polling workers from setting out self-service water stations or distributing food donated for general use.”

Moreover, the Georgia bill does not require polls to close by 5 p.m., as Election Day voting in the state lasts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

While Biden attempted to walk back his pro-boycott rhetoric a week later, the damage had already been done. Two days after the president called for moving the All-Star game out of Georgia, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred announced that the MLB would be relocating the annual event to Colorado.

The move ultimately had devastating effects on Georgia’s economy, with Job Creators Network (JCN) CEO Alfredo Ortiz estimating that the decision cost the state “upwards of $100 million” in revenue. Ortiz has since released a statement blasting Biden for hosting the Braves at the White House, saying that the president should “be embarrassed” for playing a role in “costing the Greater Atlanta area” millions in revenue.

“Biden and left-wing activists pressured MLB to move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta, lying about the Georgia election reform law,” Ortiz said. “MLB caved to Biden and the far left in a pitiful case of virtue-signaling. … Biden should apologize to the Greater Atlanta community today, instead of joining them in celebration.”

Other notable Democrats who assisted in fueling the push for the MLB to pull its All-Star game out of Atlanta include Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock and Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.


Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Source

Biden Hosts Atlanta Braves At White House After Pushing MLB To Boycott Their City For All-Star Game

Biden Hosts Atlanta Braves At White House After Pushing MLB To Boycott Their City For All-Star Game

President Joe Biden hosted the Atlanta Braves at the White House on Monday to celebrate the Major League Baseball (MLB) team’s 2021 World Series win. The event comes after Biden and other high-profile Democrats called for the professional baseball league to move its annual All-Star game out of Atlanta to protest Georgia’s recently passed election integrity law.

“This team has literally been part of American history for over 150 years,” Biden said. “But none of it came easy … people counting you out. Heck, I know something about being counted out.”

During the event, Biden was presented with a customized jersey bearing his name and the number 46, in reference to him being the nation’s 46th president. In a separate moment, America’s commander-in-chief bizarrely beckoned “everybody under 15” to come near him for a group photo.

Despite Democrats and their media sycophants’ efforts to cast Biden as a folksy, kind old man, the president has routinely shown himself to be anything but. Following the Georgia legislature’s passage of a bill last year to enhance the integrity of the state’s election laws, Biden proceeded to call for the MLB to relocate its 2021 All-Star game out of Atlanta in protest.

“I think today’s professional athletes are acting incredibly responsibly. I would strongly support them [moving the all-star game out of Atlanta],” Biden told ESPN last year.

In the same interview, Biden went on to label the Georgia bill as “Jim Crow on steroids” and falsely asserted that the law “prohibited food and drink at polling places and mandated the polls close at 5 p.m.”

“Imagine passing a law saying you cannot provide water or food for someone standing in line to vote? Can’t do that? Come on,” he said. “Or you’re going to close a polling place at five o’clock when working people just get off? This is all about keeping working folks and ordinary folks that I grew up with from being able to vote.”

As noted by The Daily Wire, however, “[t]he Georgia law implements restrictions on handing out food and drink near polling places similar to restrictions already in place in New York and Biden’s home state of Delaware” and “are designed to prevent lobbyists or special interest from handing out concessions at polling places. It does not ban voters from bringing or ordering food, nor does it prohibit polling workers from setting out self-service water stations or distributing food donated for general use.”

Moreover, the Georgia bill does not require polls to close by 5 p.m., as Election Day voting in the state lasts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

While Biden attempted to walk back his pro-boycott rhetoric a week later, the damage had already been done. Two days after the president called for moving the All-Star game out of Georgia, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred announced that the MLB would be relocating the annual event to Colorado.

The move ultimately had devastating effects on Georgia’s economy, with Job Creators Network (JCN) CEO Alfredo Ortiz estimating that the decision cost the state “upwards of $100 million” in revenue. Ortiz has since released a statement blasting Biden for hosting the Braves at the White House, saying that the president should “be embarrassed” for playing a role in “costing the Greater Atlanta area” millions in revenue.

“Biden and left-wing activists pressured MLB to move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta, lying about the Georgia election reform law,” Ortiz said. “MLB caved to Biden and the far left in a pitiful case of virtue-signaling. … Biden should apologize to the Greater Atlanta community today, instead of joining them in celebration.”

Other notable Democrats who assisted in fueling the push for the MLB to pull its All-Star game out of Atlanta include Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock and Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.


Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Source

White House Waffles on ‘Complicated’ Rising Crime Rates and Safety in Major Cities

White House Waffles on ‘Complicated’ Rising Crime Rates and Safety in Major Cities

The White House on Monday tried to downplay President Joe Biden’s responsibilities on crime, telling reporters that the problem is “complicated.”

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy questioned White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about crime during the daily briefing, asking her whether Biden believes that America’s major cities are safe.

Referring to a recent New York Times article on rising crime, Jean-Pierre noted “the crime is complicated and multifaceted” and pivoted to promoting Biden’s spending bills.

Doocy noted murder rates in major cities were still stubbornly high, and that thefts and robberies in major cities increased by around 20 percent in the first half of 2022.

Jean-Pierre responded by blaming high crime rates on former President Donald Trump, noting that Biden “inherited a rising crime rate” when he took office.

When Doocy asked again whether Americans in major cities should feel safe, she replied, “It is not a yes or no question, it is very much a question of what has he done, that’s how we see the question.”

Doocy further pressed the questions on crime and safety, asking Jean-Pierre about her predecessor, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, warning Democrats about their vulnerabilities on crime.

“In Pennsylvania, the Republicans have been spending millions of dollars on the air on crime ads against Fetterman because that’s where they see his vulnerability,” Psaki said in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday adding that crime was “a huge issue” in Pennsylvania.

But Jean-Pierre dismissed the comments from her former boss, accusing Doocy of mischaracterizing the comments.

“I don’t agree with your characterization of what she actually said,” she replied.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki speaks during a press briefing on January 29, 2021, in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki speaks during a press briefing on January 29, 2021, in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

Source

Wisconsin Senator Documents Big Tech Rigging The 2022 Election Against Republicans

Wisconsin Senator Documents Big Tech Rigging The 2022 Election Against Republicans

Fed up with the repeated censorship of his work, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson penned a letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki demanding the Big Tech company answer for its deliberate attempts to silence him online.

For more than a year, YouTube censors have suppressed, banned, and limited content from Johnson and his team. These attempts to limit Johnson’s reach aren’t just censorship, they are blatant meddling in Johnson’s reelection chances.

Big Tech’s efforts to subdue Johnson’s rigorous commitment to exposing the truth are joined by corporate media and Democrats, both of which are working to ensure that the Wisconsin Republican is replaced by a radical Democrat this fall.

Knowledge about Johnson’s work in the Senate is key to his reelection chances but if Big Tech’s track record suggests anything, there’s nothing stopping companies like YouTube from privately limiting key information voters need to formulate an opinion about Johnson and his opponent.

As Johnson documents in his letter, Big Tech was more than willing to publicly blacklist the senator over discussions about Covid-19, early treatments, the jab, and the 2020 election.

“YouTube has displayed a troubling track record of censoring a sitting United States Senator, the proceedings of the United States Senate, journalists that interview me, and the display of data that is entirely generated from U.S. government health agencies,” Johnson explained. He demanded that Google-owned YouTube cough up documents by Oct. 5 related to the company’s long history of hiding Johnson’s work from the public.

At the behest of Democrat-controlled federal agencies, YouTube wielded its censorship power against Johnson during crucial moments. That included banning him from uploading new content for days at a time.

In January 2021, YouTube denied Americans the right to explore questions about early Covid-19 treatments by removing footage of a U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing from the senator’s YouTube page. Days later, YouTube took down the same video, which garnered nearly 8 million views, from a Fox News YouTube channel.

YouTube justified the censorship to The Federalist by claiming the video was “removed for violating our COVID-19 misinformation policy,” something the company admitted it developed to comply with demands from unelected government employees.

In October 2021, YouTube removed yet another HSGAC hearing from Johnson’s page. That time, Johnson says, YouTube claimed the clip featuring a congressional discussion on public record about election integrity and laws “alleges widespread fraud or errors that changed the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential Election.”

“The video was uploaded on December 20, 2020, meaning YouTube waited nearly a year to remove the video,” Johnson noted in his letter.

Just one month later, YouTube personalized its vendetta by suspending Johnson’s account over a Covid-19 roundtable he hosted. In it, several highly credentialed, world-recognized medical experts “discussed the importance of natural immunity, heard stories on the disastrous consequences of vaccine mandates, highlighted the lack of transparency from the federal health agencies, and gave a voice to the vaccine injured.”

Other things Big Tech didn’t want Americans to know about Johnson included his interview about vaccine mandates and “the FDA’s rushed approval of the vaccination for children” with Wisconsin talk show host Dan O’Donnell and his speech at the Milwaukee Press Club newsmaker luncheon about how “ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are both safe and effective drugs.” YouTube didn’t just penalize Johnson for those comments but also extended its suspensions to O’Donnell, who posted the relevant interview on his website.

YouTube’s interference with election outcomes by manipulating public opinion is not lost on Americans searching for answers about Covid and election integrity, nor on Johnson. In fact, his letter shows how Big Tech censorship is consistently brandished against facts that might lead people to vote for Republicans, and not against facts that would lead to voting for Democrats. It’s likely not a coincidence that a major lawsuit recently exposed the Democrat-run White House has been secretly telling companies including Twitter, Google, and Facebook specific information to hide from Americans.

That’s why, during a recent HSGAC hearing, Johnson asked why Democrats’ false statements were never flagged as “misinformation.” President Joe Biden has repeatedly lied that you can’t get the virus, be hospitalized, or die from Covid if you’re vaccinated but he’s faced no punishment from social media moderators. Big Tech execs from YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Facebook, however, never “even attempted to answer” acknowledge Johnson’s inquiry.

“Who do you think you are to censor information from eminently qualified doctors who had the courage and compassion to treat Covid patients?” Johnson asked during the hearing. “You guys bear a fair amount of responsibility for hundreds of thousands of people not being treated — and I would say probably dying, that didn’t have to die. Hope you’re proud of yourselves.”

Big Tech’s acts of information suppression against Johnson aren’t just concerning, they are deliberate election meddling. Controlling what voters can learn about issues of public importance and candidates’ stances on them is a way of controlling election outcomes.

When voters don’t have access to the full story, they can’t make an informed choice. They believe they are choosing, but if Big Tech controls what messages people can read, voters’ choices are predetermined by these huge companies that obey a Democrat-controlled White House and federal bureaucracy.

Johnson’s reelection bid this November is reportedly tight. No one knows how tight it would be if Big Tech wasn’t controlling what Wisconsin voters are allowed to learn about his record — and his opponent. And that’s a huge problem.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Source

Exclusive — The Power of the Purse: McCarthy Says ‘Every Means Possible’ on Table for GOP to Roll Biden with Leverage

Exclusive — The Power of the Purse: McCarthy Says ‘Every Means Possible’ on Table for GOP to Roll Biden with Leverage

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania — House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News exclusively that all options are on the table when it comes to how a Republican majority next would pressure Democrat President Joe Biden to achieve the GOP “Commitment to America” agenda and roll back the Biden agenda.

“We’re going to use every means possible to have the pressure to implement the Commitment to America and at the same time put America back on the right track,” McCarthy said. “This runaway spending that the Democrats have been doing — you’ve got to rein it in. You have to be willing to do that.”

McCarthy’s interview came Thursday evening before a Friday morning rollout of the House Republican “Commitment to America” agenda ahead of the midterm elections. If the GOP retakes the House majority in November, McCarthy is the easy favorite to lead the chamber as the next Speaker of the House.

Specifically, McCarthy said, House Republicans are prepared to use the power of the purse — the Appropriations process by which Congress disburses money for the government to spend — to implement the agenda. McCarthy also pointed to using the Congressional Review Act to claw back regulations the Biden administration has put in place. And if Republicans get control of the U.S. Senate as well, he suggested reconciliation as a possibility to force bills onto Biden’s desk for the president to either veto or sign. McCarthy said House Republicans are preparing for all scenarios, hoping they have the Senate as well, but ready to rock and roll if they just get the House.

“There are a number of areas you can do it in,” McCarthy said. “But what you really need to have happen is we need to win the House and the Senate. So the day after the election, we’re preparing for both items, right? Do we just win the House? Or if we win the House and the Senate, we have more options. You have the Congressional Review Act. You can repeal regulations within a specific timeframe with just 51 votes in the Senate. We’re preparing for a number of those. You have the Appropriations process where you can go through to be able to do this. But if we win both of them, you also have reconciliation where we can go through and put something on his desk in the process.”

McCarthy’s comments come after Biden warned two weeks ago that if the GOP takes both chambers of Congress in November, he will be facing a “difficult two years” and expects to spend much time “with the veto pen.”

“If we lose the House and we lose the Senate, it’s going to be a really difficult two years,” Biden told donors this month according to the Associated Press. “I’ll be spending more time with the veto pen than getting anything done.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) introduces President Joe Biden before he addressed the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference in Philadelphia, PA, on Friday, March 11, 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Asked about the big “bipartisan” bills that have been passing Congress with universal Democrat support, but also big groups of Republican support in the Senate, McCarthy predicted that that would end if and when Republicans retake the House. He also noted that up-and-coming Republican Senate candidates this year are much bolder than outgoing GOP establishment senators, so he expects that mindset of seeking deals with Democrats to fade next year.

“I don’t think you’re going to see that out of the Senate. I really like the candidates I see going. If they get the majority, that all stops,” McCarthy said. “You also need to think about — is the Senate going to generate or is the House? We’re the only ones with the plan. You’ve got to realize the Democrats have no plan. They created these problems with no plan to fix them.”

McCarthy noted that the reason those types of bills are passing this Congress is because Democrats know they need to work around the filibuster so they generate bills mostly from the Senate to get them past the filibuster and get at least ten Republicans on board — then have the House pass them. That dynamic, he said, will shift next year as he said the House will be generating the bulk of the bills.

“Now the House is sending it to them,” McCarthy said, referring to how he expects next year’s Congress to work. “If they send that from the Senate to the House it’s not going anywhere. That’s why the House is so important. That’s why all your viewers and listeners go to TaketheHouse.com, and they need to join with us. It’s not just putting it out there, it’s join with us and not just join with us on election but help us get this through. We’ll get it through the House, but we’ll need their help getting it through the Senate.”

McCarthy said that if Republicans take the Senate as well, the fight shifts immediately purely onto Biden and his agenda. But if they take just the House, he predicted the heat will be on a battle between the two chambers — and looking down Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House. Having both chambers, McCarthy said, will allow the Republicans more leverage, including on things Senate confirmation fights.

“If we end up with just the House, this is where the battle is going to be,” McCarthy said. “They’re going to come after us every step of the way. But they already do this to us now. The difference now is we are going to have committees. We have a responsibility for a check and balance. They’re not just going to have free rein anymore. I suspect that [Dr. Anthony] Fauci will resign before we’re sworn in. If we win the House and the Senate, and he resigns, his replacement will need to get confirmed and that gives us a lot of ability to help get in the Commitment to America.”

Source

79 Yr Old Retired CIA Agent Confesses On His Deathbed – ‘We Blew Up WTC 7 On 9/11’

NIGHTBREED – September 24th, 2022

79 Yr Old Retired CIA Agent Confesses On His Deathbed – ‘We Blew Up WTC 7 On 9/11’
www.seekingthetruth.info

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

The Biden Administration Must Clarify U.S. Commitments To Taiwan Before Things Get Ugly

The Biden Administration Must Clarify U.S. Commitments To Taiwan Before Things Get Ugly

When asked point blank by “60 Minutes’s” Scott Pelley if the United States would come to Taiwan’s aid should China invade, President Joe Biden responded with a clear and firm answer.

Pelley: So unlike Ukraine, to be clear sir, U.S. forces, U.S. men and women, would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?

President Biden: Yes.

However, before the interview even made it to air, an unnamed White House official contradicted the president, saying that U.S. policy had not changed, meaning that the U.S. makes no official declaration of whether it would come to Taiwan’s aid if China decided to invade. This policy is known as strategic ambiguity.

Were this the first instance of Biden pledging to come to Taiwan’s aid only to be rebuked by his own White House, it might be making more headlines. Alas, this isn’t the first time Biden has made such a promise. In fact, this whole dance between Biden and his officials has become somewhat of a pattern.

In October 2021 and May 2022, Biden made similar remarks, only to be rebuked by the White House both times. The latter declaration was all the more awkward considering it was made by Biden at a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. 

When asked if the U.S. was prepared to defend Taiwan, standing next to Kishida, Biden answered, “Yes, that’s the commitment we made.” He continued:

We support the One China Policy, but that does not mean that China has the ability — excuse me — the jurisdiction to go in and use force to take over Taiwan. So, we stand firmly with Japan and with other nations not to let that happen.

The first issue with this statement that should be noted is that Japan itself has no official policy on how it would act if China were to invade Taiwan. Though Japan has recently been more prone to expressing pro-Taiwan sentiment, there is no official alliance between Tokyo and Taipei.

The ‘One China Policy’ Fallacy

Aside from putting Kishida in an awkward position, Biden’s entire answer was drenched in contradiction.

To support the “One China Policy” means to maintain that Taiwan is nothing more than a part of China and that the rightful government resides in Beijing, not Taipei. So, if this is the case, why would China not have the right to use force to take over Taiwan?

Consider Hawaii. If officials in Honolulu decided to reject Washington and elect their own autonomous government, would the U.S. not have the authority to use force to solve the problem?

Of course, it’s not just Biden’s statement on the “One China Policy” that makes no sense. The policy itself is a Cold War-era relic that was never meant to make sense in the first place.

The “One China Policy” was enacted in 1979 when the Carter administration switched diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China (ROC) government in Taipei to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing. The reasoning for the decision was both political and economic.

Politically, the Carter administration intended to form closer ties with Beijing to essentially encircle the Soviet Union and exert further pressure on the Kremlin. Given that 1979 was right in the middle of the Sino-Soviet split, Washington and Beijing shared the same fears when it came to the Soviet Union, so an official partnership made pragmatic sense.

Carter also wanted to expand opportunities for American business in China, given the massive market potential China represented. Furthermore, closer economic integration with Beijing, as policy modernization theory predicts, would eventually transform China into a capitalist liberal democracy.

The “One China Policy” served as a means to both of these ends. Washington would pretend Taiwan was part of China, without officially recognizing that Beijing has sovereignty over the island. Try as the experts might to make sense of this agreement, it just doesn’t. Washington and Beijing both knew that, but logical language wasn’t the priority at the time.

Fast forward 43 years, and both the preconditions for implementing the “One China Policy” no longer exist, at least to the extent that they necessitate the maintenance of such an incoherent and potentially destructive policy. Russia is no longer the geopolitical threat it once was, as evidenced by its amateur efforts in taking over Ukraine. And even if Russia was a juggernaut, it is as close to a staunch ally as China has, so that removes any notion that Washington might be able to use friendly relations with Beijing to influence the Kremlin.

As far as the economic portion of the equation, the U.S. is already actively seeking to decrease dependence on the Chinese market, and any pipe dream policymakers had that China would eventually moderate toward a liberal democracy have been firmly put to bed. Unless those same geniuses consider genocide, religious persecution, and locking millions of citizens in their own apartments to be moderate measures.

Whether or not switching diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC in 1979 was a good idea is debatable. What’s not debatable is that preconditions for doing so in the first place no longer exist. This not only renders the “One China Policy” illogical but impractical, as well.

Understanding then, that the “One China Policy” is nothing more than outdated gobbledygook, a serious reconsideration of strategic ambiguity is in order.

Strategic Ambiguity Will Backfire

The main idea behind strategic ambiguity is that by remaining vague about what it would do if China were to invade, the U.S. could dissuade Taiwan from declaring independence, a red line for Beijing, while at the same time dissuading China from using force against Taiwan. The logic being neither side knows exactly how the U.S. will react, so the best course of action is to preserve the status quo.

In reality, given the current circumstances, this logic no longer holds. Xi Jinping has made it abundantly clear that he intends on achieving the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation” by 2049, the 100-year anniversary of the founding of the PRC. Paramount in doing so is “resolving the Taiwan question.” In order to accomplish this feat, he has not ruled out using force if necessary.

Further evidence suggests that China’s window for taking Taiwan is narrowing. First of all, Xi Jinping is 69 years old, so if he intends to make good on his promise, he has an increasingly limited amount of time to make it happen.

Socio-economic considerations in China, including a rapidly aging population and slowing economic growth, also indicate China may reach the pinnacle of its national power sooner rather than later, meaning that the cost-benefit analysis necessary for achieving a large-scale invasion will also become increasingly grim.

And if Tsai Ing-wen’s government’s policy and Taiwanese national attitudes are any indication, if China plans to “re-unify” Taiwan, force will be the only option. After all, according to the latest survey data, only 6.4 percent of Taiwanese want to unify with China now or in the future, so the likelihood of any peaceful solution is fairy dust.

Maintaining a policy of strategic ambiguity isn’t fooling China, either. At this point, China is going to do what it wants based on its own domestic political calculations and the ambitions of its leader. The only thing that strategic ambiguity does is leave Taipei in limbo and our military underprepared.

Stop with the Word Games

Instead of playing word games where the president makes a declaration and the White House walks it back, the State Department should form a coherent policy. One that scraps strategic ambiguity altogether. This would allow the U.S. to take concrete steps to ensure the security of the Taiwan Strait. These would include formal military training exercises with the Taiwanese military, similar to those the U.S. conducts with South Korea, as well as potentially opening an embassy and stationing troops on the island.

Right now, in the wake of events in Afghanistan and Ukraine, U.S. credibility amongst its allies is seriously in question. By resolving to defend Taiwan, the U.S. could regain some of that credibility and convince other countries to join an anti-hegemonic coalition against China.

Moving away from strategic ambiguity toward concrete support of Taiwan would empower other regional players, namely Japan, to make similar declarations. If the U.S. and Japan are both firmly committed to coming to Taiwan’s aid, Beijing would have to deeply reconsider if invading the island would even be feasible, let alone worth the damage it would incur.

If the State Department wants to continue to perpetuate the myth of “One China” to allow Beijing to save face, fine. However, it should be abundantly clear how the U.S. will respond if China decides to push its luck and invade Taiwan.

Trashing strategic ambiguity would make war less, not more, likely. It would also save members of the White House comms team a lot of unnecessary effort presently dedicated to running interference on their own president.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)