Archive for the ‘National Security’ Category

This LTE wasn’t written by a well-informed group of people. Either that or it was written by some exceptionally dishonest people. The LTE starts by saying “We are voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for a multitude of reasons. We want to see growth in our economy; focus on climate change and our environment; support for our farmers and small businesses; an end to COVID-19; peace, law and order in our cities without racial tension.”

Team Obama-Biden presided over the weakest recovery in US history. If you’re looking for explosive growth, you have to eliminate the Obama-Biden team. Since the Biden-Harris team’s economic policies are just a continuation of the Obama-Biden policies, we shouldn’t expect robust economic growth from them.

The writers say that they want “an end to COVID-19.” If they’re serious about that, they should be voting for President Trump. Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, 3 companies are in the final phase of developing a vaccine. It’s likely that they’ll get FDA approval before the end of 2020. They’re already manufacturing the vaccine so that it can be distributed the minute it’s approved.

If these clowns are serious about “law and order in our cities,” they should consider the fact that Joe Biden didn’t say a thing about the rioting until after Labor Day. The rioting started on Memorial Day. In other words, Biden was nowhere to be found for the entire summer on the subject.

We are voting for Biden and Harris to restore our dignity globally; restore the Voting Rights Act; strengthen our Social Security program for seniors; lift people out of poverty; re-join the Paris Climate Agreement; regain our status as a world leader in NATO.

That’s breathtakingly dishonest. President Trump has the world’s attention. Proof is found in the Bosnia-Kosovo peace agreement. More proof is found in the Abraham Accord between the US, Israel, UAE and Bahrain. As for NATO, President Trump has insisted on NATO countries paying their fair share of the budget. That’s triggered an increase of $500,000,000,000 in spending from US NATO allies. Under Obama-Biden, the US paid to defend western European nations. During the Trump administration, NATO’s budget has significantly increased, thanks to NATO allies paying a greater share. That’s what leadership looks like. We don’t need to return to the Obama administration’s lead-from-behind strategy.

This LTE was written by people who are either dishonest or ill-informed. Since they’re supporting Democrats, I’m betting that they’re dishonest. The Democrats’ attachment to the truth is limited at best.

After impeachment failed, COVID took our mind off of Adam Schiff’s dishonesty. Thanks to Schiff’s op-ed, published by USA Today, we’re reminded that Schiff is still a world-class liar. Liar might be too harsh a word, though. It’s entirely possible that Schiff actually thinks that he’s telling the truth.

That would make him delusional or psychotic, not dishonest. That would mean that he needs to be put in a padded room, not a prison cell. That’s certainly a possibility. But I digress. Let’s examine the depths of Schiff’s potential psychosis.

The opening paragraph is fairly mundane, stating “Last week, we witnessed the reemergence of John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, and the release of his book. In it, Bolton describes his personal experiences with Donald Trump and his great alarm at Trump’s incompetence, his dangerous subordination of our national security to his own personal interests, and his fundamental indecency.”

Schiff’s psychosis isn’t exposed until the second and third paragraphs:

In short, Bolton is telling Americans what we already know. That the president is exactly what he appears to be: petty, self-serving, ignorant and utterly supplicant to autocrats in China, Turkey, North Korea and Russia.

We proved during the impeachment trial that Trump withheld hundreds of millions in military aid to Ukraine to coerce that country into announcing a sham investigation of his political rival. Bolton confirms our case and provides additional evidence of that flagrant abuse of power by providing a firsthand account of how Trump confirmed this illicit quid pro quo during a conversation they had. Moreover, Bolton also corroborates the testimony of Gordon Sondland, the former U.S. ambassador to the European Union who testified that “everyone was in the loop.” Indeed they were, including the secretary of State, the Defense secretary and Attorney General Bill Barr.

Saying that President Trump is “utterly supplicant” to China is beyond delusional. It’s totally unhinged with reality. Saying that President Trump is utterly supplicant to Russia is psychotic, too. President Trump sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, something that the Obama-Biden administration never did. If sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine makes Trump utterly supplicant, does that make the Obama-Biden administration traitors or, at minimum, Russian assets? Remember this?

That’s what being utterly supplicant to Russia looks like. Sending anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, Russia’s neighbor, isn’t being supplicant, utterly or otherwise. That being said, Schiff was is lying when he said that Democrats “proved during the impeachment trial that Trump withheld hundreds of millions in military aid to Ukraine to coerce that country into announcing a sham investigation of his political rival.”

What was proven was that military aid was delayed until the Trump administration figured out whether the Zelenskiy administration was corrupt. The minute the Trump administration knew that President Zelenskiy could be trusted, the military aid was released. Mike Taylor proved that in this cross-examination of Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the EU:

KABOOM!!! Sondland’s testimony during Michael Turner’s cross-examination is proof that the Democrats didn’t prove that military aid wasn’t withheld from Ukraine to coerce Ukraine “into announcing a shame investigation” into Joe Biden. That’s irrefutable proof that didn’t happen. That’s the opposite of what Schiff said.

The rest of Schiff’s op-ed consists of Schiff quoting discredited Bolton quotes. While I won’t state that Schiff and Bolton are world-class liars, I wouldn’t hesitate in saying that Schiff is discredited Ambassador Joe Wilson’s equal in terms of lying. (The old joke about Wilson was ‘How can you tell Wilson is lying? A: If his lips are moving.’ That fits Mr. Schiff perfectly.)

Gen. Flynn won a major victory in court today. On the other hand, this was a difficult day for Joe Biden. Peter Strzok’s note is particularly troublesome:

Attending the meeting were Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, Jim Comey, the FBI Director, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. TRANSLATION: Susan Rice = NSA; Obama = P; Biden = VP; Comey = D & Yates = DAG

Remember that Biden was asked about what he knew about Gen. Flynn by George Stephanopoulos in this interview:

Stephanopoulos: I do want to ask you about Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to President Trump and the move by the Justice Department to dismiss the case against him for lying to the FBI. The President said yesterday that the move was justified because President Obama targeted Flynn. He called it, quote, the biggest political crime in US history. Your former Senate colleague Charles Grassley has added that Flynn was entrapped and asked on the Senate floor “What did Obama and Biden know? When did they know it?” So what did you know about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn and was there anything improper done?
BIDEN: I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn, number one, and number two, this is all about diversion. This is the game this guy plays all the time. The country is in a crisis. We’re in an economic crisis, a health crisis.

That’s about 2 minutes into the interview. After Biden’s full-throated denial, Stephanopoulos returned to the subject:

I want to press that. You say you didn’t know anything about but you were reported to be at a January 5, 2017 meeting where you and the President were briefed on the FBI’s plan to question Michael Flynn over those conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Biden: No, I thought you asked me about whether I had anything to do with him being prosecuted. I’m sorry. I was aware that they asked for an investigation but that’s all I know about it and nothing else.

I’ll bet most people didn’t notice the fatal flaw in Biden’s reply. Biden said “I thought you asked me whether I had anything to do with him getting prosecuted.” The FBI interview with Gen. Flynn didn’t happen until January 24, 2017, 4 full days after Biden became formerVice President Biden. As a private citizen, he wouldn’t have had any influence to get Flynn prosecuted. Further, Biden’s denial, which was categorical, was a lie. He knew much more about the investigation. According to Strzok’s note, he’s the person who brought up the Logan Act at the January 5, 2017 meeting as a way of investigating Gen. Flynn. Don’t forget that FBI field officers with the DC Bureau had interviewed Gen. Flynn and wanted to drop Operation Crossfire Razor, the FBI code name for the Flynn investigation:

On Jan. 4, 2017, two weeks before the Trump inauguration, FBI agents at a lower level, where the real work is done, prudently tried to close the Flynn investigation, citing the absence of any derogatory information or other facts that would enable the bureau to keep the case open.

Before the now-infamous January 5 meeting, FBI field agents tried closing the Flynn investigation. That investigation was kept open by “the 7th floor”, which is where then-FBI Director Jim Comey’s office was.

Thanks to the investigation into the investigators, Jim Comey refused to renew his security clearance. He allegedly did that to avoid getting asked questions about classified information.

Vice President Biden’s problem isn’t that a hard-nosed reporter will ask him about his dishonesty. It’s difficult to picture Biden’s campaign staff letting him get within a mile of a hard-nosed reporter. That’s if such a reporter exists outside of a handful of national security correspondents. Biden’s problem is that he’ll get pelted with this information by the Trump campaign in ads, by Trump-supporting PACs and by Trump himself during the presidential debates.

Biden can hide in his basement a little while longer but he’ll have to do real campaigning sooner rather than later. Last weekend, the MSM criticized the Trump campaign for only having 6,000 people in the arena. The story that they didn’t tell is that 7,700,000 people watched the rally on Fox and another 5,000,000 watched on C-SPAN. That’s before factoring in the people who watched the livestreaming via YouTube. Trump’s message is getting out and, as Charlie Hurt said this weekend, there’s nobody better at putting people on the defensive than President Trump.

It’s obvious that Gen. Jim Mattis was upset. It’s equally obvious that he wasn’t in touch with reality. In an op-ed, which I won’t link to, Gen. Mattis wrote “I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

What’s disgusting is that the police are protecting the protesters’ right to protest. Where politicians let them, the police have protected civilians, businesses and property. When idiots like Bill de Blasio, Andrew Cuomo, Jacob Frey and Tom Wolf have tied law enforcement’s hands, rioters have controlled this nation’s major cities after sunset.

Police officers were run over, shot in the head or murdered by rioters. Private property was demolished by the insurrectionists/terrorists. Minority businesses were burned to the ground after they were looted. Does Gen. Mattis think that we’d be better off letting these local officials make decisions that destroy minority neighborhoods while the liberal politicians give rioters room to riot?

Let’s not overlook Gen. Mattis’ statement about “those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.” Sending in military troops is constitutional. Article IV of he Constitution gives the commander-in-chief that authority. That isn’t making a “mockery of our Constitution.” That’s obeying the Constitution.

Mattis also wrote this:

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

With all due respect, Gen. Mattis, you’re relying on faulty intel. President Trump didn’t divide this nation. Antifa, Occupy Wall Street and other Democrat-aligned organizations have been dividing this nation for over 10 years. That’s a verified fact. According to this article, Antifa doesn’t hide its disgust for governance:

We spoke to secret Antifa groups in Oregon. They said they come from a variety of political backgrounds but they were united in their opposition to fascism, and they have an anti-government streak. They said they see creeping authoritarianism in the current American administration that they are looking to build “a movement that really insulates us from the policies of Donald Trump”.

That’s what division sounds like. Antifa/anarchist organizations have existed since the 1920s. That’s before President Trump was born.

It isn’t difficult to make the argument that the Obama administration abused the Constitution far more than the Trump administration has. Lois Lerner used the IRS to prevent TEA Party organizations from fully participating in the 2012 election. Lerner’s actions stripped these citizens of their First Amendment rights. The Obama FBI lied to the FISA Court to spy on Carter Page, thereby denying Page the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In his op-ed, Gen. Mattis wrote this:

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

That’s sour grapes. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” President Trump isn’t overstepping his constitutional authorities. He’s thinking about exercising his constitutional authorities. To date, he hasn’t utilized the authority of Article IV, nor has he used the authority of the Insurrection Act of 1807.

President Trump let Gen. Mattis have it in this statement:

It’s time for Gen. Mattis to fully retire. It’s apparent that he isn’t a constitutional scholar. It’s apparent, too, that he didn’t figure it out that the commander-in-chief has an affirmative responsibility to protect the people of this nation.

Finally, would Gen. Mattis utilize the tactics and strategies that civilian Mattis is advocating for? I wouldn’t bet on it.

John Solomon’s article goes a long ways towards explaining the difference between legitimate unmasking requests and illegitimate unmasking requests. By now, Washington, DC, is awash with the Democrats’ spin on why the Flynn unmasking wasn’t a big deal. It’s a new version of ‘no big deal, just keep moving.’ That isn’t the truth. This is a big deal.

For instance, Solomon explained that “If a Treasury official like Raskin or the U.N. ambassador requested the unmasking because they were trying to deal with a foreign official confused by U.S. policy during the transition, that likely would be deemed a lawful intelligence purpose. But if an official requested the information because they personally did not like the incoming Trump administration or wanted to thwart Flynn during the transition through leaking or other means, it could be deemed an act against a political adversary and a misuse of unmasking.”

According to this article, “The first request appears to have been made as part of a report on Nov. 30, 2016. Along with Biden, other Obama administration officials listed are Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.” That’s long before the Flynn-Kislyak call. The Flynn-Kislyak call happened in late December.

A final question for the investigators resides in the policy question about whether unmasking has become too easy to do and therefore infringes on Americans privacy, specifically the Constitution’s 4th Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. On that front, there are already troubling revelations. Power, whose name was invoked for hundreds of unmasking requests, testified to Congress she did not make most of those requests attributed to her. That suggests some dangerous looseness in the unmasking system.

The political people who requested these unmaskings haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt. They each have a history of dishonesty.

It’s worth noting that Solomon said that Flynn isn’t the only member of the Trump team that the Obama administration unmasked. I suspect that there’s a closet of shoes left to drop on this. It might not be an Imelda Marcos-sized shoe closet but it’s still a shoe closet.

In his analysis article for NBC, retired FBI special agent, Frank Figliuzzi wrote “Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the FBI transitioned from an investigative agency adept at investigating what happened after the fact to an intelligence agency capable of forecasting and preventing harm from happening in the future. Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues. And when it comes to assessing the trap Attorney General William Barr and President Donald Trump appear to be setting for us, the warning signs are plentiful. We don’t need to read tea leaves for this. We only need to review tweets.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi wrote that “Forecasting is a lot easier when there are clear clues.” Later, Figliuzzi wrote “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly. He therefore has a special interest in undermining accusations of Russian meddling, something he has done since entering the Oval Office. What better way to do this than to flip the script? He didn’t have an advantage; in fact, he was the victim.”

It’s interesting that Figliuzzi is reading tea leaves that don’t exist. What is Figliuzzi basing his opinion on that “Trump is clearly still sensitive about the 2016 election, and especially about concerns that he may not have beaten former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fairly?” In transcript after transcript released last Thursday, the Obama administration’s best tea leave readers testified under oath that they couldn’t even find a hint of gossip that then-Candidate Trump or anyone associated with his campaign conspired with Russians. While testifying under oath, Jim Clapper said “I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That’s not to say that there weren’t concerns about the evidence we were seeing, anecdotal evidence. … But I do not recall any instance where I had direct evidence.”

Isn’t that interesting? This is more interesting:

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said there was no smoking gun. “To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause. I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence that I saw…conspiracy prior to my departure.”

Just where are these tea leaves, Mr. Figliuzzi? President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence and National Security Adviser testified under oath that they didn’t see anything that came close to being considered evidence of Russian collusion/conspiracy. We know that they searched hard for that proof. We’ve verified that they really wanted it to be true.

If President Obama’s top clue sniffers couldn’t find those clues, perhaps it’s a good thing that Mr. Figliuzzi retired rather than misread other nonexistent tea leaves. Check out this interview with Brian Williams:

What’s astonishing is that Figliuzzi totally ignored the aforementioned transcripts. The statements speak for themselves, Mr. Figliuzzi. Res ipsa loquitur. Translated, that Latin sentence literally means “the facts speak for themselves.” That likely means that Mr. Figliuzzi either is a disgruntled ex-FBI employee who got passed over for a job or he’s another Deep State agent sent out to mislead the public. The other possibility is that he’s a Deep Stater because he got passed over for a job. This is rich:


President Trump is constantly accused of being a dictator by Democrats. They’ll never learn. In this interview, Pelosi accused President Trump of wasting time, which led to people dying:

Dictators are known for taking their time and letting the chips fall where they may. NOT. Whether it’s Figliuzzi or Pelosi, Democrats can’t quite figure out if he’s a dictator, a traitor or someone who’s just a lot smarter than they are. I’ll go with C.

The keys to this election, at least in terms of themes, will be trust and performance over the past 2 years. That’s the headwind working against the Democrats this year, both here in Minnesota and nationwide. Let’s start with what’s happening in Minnesota.

Gov. Walz has grudgingly started reopening Minnesota’s economy. That’s happening only because of multiple protests and the threat from some business owners who simply started threatening to open with or without Gov. Walz’s permission. Even then, Gov. Walz has been pathetically slow. LFR was told that protecting the most vulnerable in LTC facilities were a high priority for this administration. Despite that prioritization, 81% of Minnesota’s COVID deaths have happened in LTC facilities.

In terms of Minnesota’s economy, it’s in the crapper. Rep. Anne Neu debated House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler on Friday night’s Almanac. It didn’t turn out well for Winkler:

When Cathy Wurzer asked about the possibility of laying off or furloughing state workers, things got interesting fast.

WINKLER: I think that should be one of the last resorts that we should consider. State workers are providing essential services throughout Minnesota, from people who are processing unemployment insurance checks to epidemiologists at the Department of Health to correction officers engaged at the Department of Corrections to making sure that that doesn’t become a hotspot. We have people working to protect the meatpacking industry. We have people working to make sure our state parks are able to operate. … I also think that layoffs or wage cuts doesn’t help the economy, doesn’t help any of us if some people are making less money and so that’s why I hope that’s one of the last things we would look at.
REP. NEU: Well, I certainly think that salary freezes are appropriate. … The reality is that we’re looking at a significant deficit. We’re at $2.4 billion right now. There’s a good chance that will go up by the November forecast. And frankly, we have asked our private sector businesses, our mom and pop shops, are devastated right now and it really is not fair to those businesses to take the hits that they have taken and then to say that, no, as a government, we are going to fund everything at the levels that we always have.

We shouldn’t trust the DFL, aka the party of big government. Walz’s campaign slogan was One Minnesota. The policy that Winkler defended sounded like one of the private sector getting tossed table scraps after the government has feasted and had seconds. That isn’t my definition of One Minnesota.

Nationally, Democrats like Gretchen Whitmer keep tightening the screws on Blue Collar Americans with arbitrary (and unilateral) executive orders. It’s apparent that Democrat governors don’t want to return to sharing power with GOP legislatures. They’d rather act unilaterally rather than work with Republicans.

Why trust Democrats who want to act unilaterally and without the consent of the governed? This isn’t a third-world dictatorship. This is the nation whose Declaration of Independence emphatically states that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

Democrats have dragged their feet in terms of reopening the economy and restoring our God-given rights. Democrats have jailed patriots like Shelley Luther:

Democrats even tried jailing a 3-star general because Donald Trump had the audacity to win the 2016 presidential election. Listen to the condescension of this pundit:

He’s perplexed after reading the deposition transcripts? When Jim Clapper said that he hadn’t seen “any direct empirical evidence” of conspiracy between Russia and Trump or anyone in Trump’s campaign, does this idiot still think that there was justification for prosecuting Gen. Flynn? If he thinks that, the next question is why he’s that stupid.

None of this engenders trust for Democrats. Finally, if Biden is elected, why think that he wouldn’t return Clapper, Comey, Mueller, et al, to his national security team? Why trust any of these people in positions of power after what they’ve done?

The best way to limit Chinese communists, which should be the goal, is through limiting the Chinese communists’ economy. The best way to do that has already started. For years, pharmaceutical companies moved their operations to China. That’s changing, thanks in large part to President Trump.

At a recent COVID-19 task force meeting, Peter Navarro, one of President Trump’s economic advisers, said “One of the things that this crisis has taught us, sir, is that we are dangerously overdependent on a global supply chain. Never again should we rely on the rest of the world for our essential medicines and countermeasures.” He’s exactly right.

The Chinese communists lied to us about COVID-19, then lied to the world when they said that U.S. soldiers had spread it into Wuhan Province. The Chinese communists then threatened to cut off our medication if we kept telling the world that the Chinese communists had started this virus. The U.S. can’t be put in that position again. That’s a threat to our sovereignty and security.

Let’s let LeBron James know that Nike gear will have a stamp on it like the Surgeon General’s stamp on each pack of cigarette. It can say something like ‘These shoes were built by Chinese kids, who worked 60 hours a week and were paid $10 a month. Then let him know that anything with his name on them that’s manufactured in China will have a 250% tariff on them. Let’s call it a Social Justice Tariff for proper attribution.

Through PSAs, let’s tell Americans that Mike Bloomberg sold his soul to Chinese censors for a few extra $$. Let’s see how that information plays in Peoria.

The concern is bipartisan. Three Senate Democrats backed legislation put forward by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) last month that advocates for the U.S. to reprioritize its productive capability in order to achieve less supply chain dependence on China, particularly as it relates to products used in the federal health care system.

This is a priority. It’s foolish to put ourselves in a position to be held hostage by despots like the Chinese communists. On matters of national security, it’s best to be in control. Giving Chinese communists the opportunity to hold us hostage over life-saving medications is dangerous. Tom Cotton is, besides Sen. Rubio, the top expert on national security on China. Let’s listen to what he said a month ago:

Let’s restrict China’s influence. It’s the right thing to do.

In light of how dependent the US pharmaceutical industry is on China, it’s painfully obvious that Tom Cotton’s op-ed is must reading. Sen. Cotton’s op-ed highlights Vice President Biden’s pro-China bent. Sen. Cotton emphasizes his willingness to work with other Democrats on trade issues.

For instance, Sen. Cotton wrote “I’ve worked extensively with Democrats on China, with Chuck Schumer on cracking down on Chinese fentanyl trafficking, with Chris Van Hollen and numerous others on Huawei’s threat to the world’s telecommunications infrastructure. I don’t exactly hear Biden hammering on these important issues on the campaign trail. And when a few weeks ago President Trump acted to impose travel restrictions on China as a consequence of its abysmal handling of the Wuhan coronavirus, Biden was right there and ready to act as Beijing’s lawyer, slamming the policy as ‘hysterical xenophobia.'”

Now that President Trump has imposed a month-long travel ban on Europe (minus the British), where is Biden’s hysterical calls that President Trump is engaged in “hysterical xenophobia”? The answer comes in this paragraph:

Now Biden’s back on the campaign trail, and no one could be more thrilled than the Chinese Communist Party. (A Forbes headline last year summed up the situation well: “Joe Biden Is the Only Man Who Can Save China in 2020.”) Biden’s announcement of his campaign alone was enough to encourage Beijing suddenly to take a harder line on trade negotiations with the Trump administration. As Biden’s star seemed to fade, China suddenly got easier to deal with, striking a “Phase 1” deal with us in January. It’s a safe prediction that they are about to take a tougher line again. Meanwhile, Biden offers gems like these on the campaign trail. From May: China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. They’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us.” And just the next month: “Our workers are literally three times as productive as workers … in Asia. So what are we worried about?”

For China Joe, stealing America’s pharmaceutical infrastructure apparently isn’t cause for worry. It isn’t just about competitiveness. It’s about putting in place a foundation where China owns something that we rely on for our public health. That makes it a national security issue. We can’t put that at risk. We’re an economic powerhouse because we’re innovators and because we figure out efficiencies all the time.

Now that he’s the prohibitive frontrunner for the Democrat nomination, it’s time to think about how a Biden administration would sell us out to the Chinese. This isn’t something we can afford to get wrong. Lives literally are at stake.

The joint statement from Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Schumer is disappointing in that it’s a purely partisan document. While President Trump delivered a measured, serious speech to the nation in which he called for both sides to work together, Pelosi and Schumer chose to push division on Capitol Hill:

We have a public health crisis in this country and the best way to help keep the American people safe and ensure their economic security is for the president to focus on fighting the spread of the coronavirus itself. Alarmingly, the president did not say how the administration will address the lack of coronavirus testing kits throughout the United States.

Tomorrow, we urge Republicans in the House and Senate to help immediately pass the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The bill will include free coronavirus testing, paid emergency leave for workers, food security assistance, help to states overburdened by Medicaid costs, and strengthened Unemployment Insurance, among other much-needed measures to keep the American people safe.

Notice that the Democrats’ leadership on Capitol Hill didn’t acknowledge President Trump’s month-long travel ban of people coming from Europe, with the exception of the British. That’s a major step. When the Trump administration implemented the travel ban with China, Democrats called President Trump xenophobic. Tonight’s travel ban was met with crickets.

The Democrats’ plan is government-centric. President Trump’s plan is a mix of making sure that the US health care system stays strong, reducing international travel, financially helping workers who get infected with the virus and relying on the best public health system in the world to get us through this crisis. This isn’t just a ‘whole of government’ approach. President Trump’s plan is a whole of America plan.

Compare the Pelosi-Schumer 2 paragraph statement with this Rubio-Gingrich op-ed:

First, the U.S. government should empower our robust private business sector to expand in order to meet new demand for medical supplies. Congress should cut taxes on manufacturers committing to new capital spending in America by making permanent the accelerated cost depreciation measures in the 2017 Republican tax law. New medical structures and equipment should be temporarily singled out for additional reductions.

Second, agencies with lending operations like the U.S. Small Business Administration should make low-cost capital available to businesses seeking to solve their supply chain problems by bringing production in-house to America, or otherwise buying from American small businesses.

Third, as American businesses struggle with supply chain disruptions due to the coronavirus, the U.S. government must resolve any tax, regulatory or capital barrier preventing a new, trusted source from emerging.

The Pelosi-Schumer plan does nothing to address this frightening situation. The thought that China has this much of a grip on our medicines is totally unacceptable. From the start of his administration, President Trump has worked hard to eliminate US reliance on Chinese products. This proves that he’s right, especially in light of this crisis. This isn’t just a health crisis. It’s a national security crisis, too.

It’s time for Pelosi and Schumer to start putting America first rather than playing partisan games. They’re welcome to join the Put America First Team anytime.