Joe Biden Pathetically BLAMES Trump. Again.

The next war will be Afghanistan. *This was not an accident - it was treason.*

 The next war will be Afghanistan. *This was not an accident - it was treason.* Treason with a purpose.

 #1 military/industrial complex is the main cash cow for America.

#2 Most elites in Washington or business in one way or another profit from it.

#3 A different kind of president gets in and wants to start wars and wants to stop them.

#4 That president's philosophy doesn't start wars and is ending a 20+ year cash cow (war)

#5 That will kill the cash cow that the Oligarchy have been living high on the hog of the military/industrial complex for decades.

#6 The "Deep State" (the ruling class/elites) have to get rid of the peace-loving president so the entire "Deep State" works and rigs the election.

#7 Biden makes a blunder so bad. It strikes me more as a deliberate attempt at setting up our withdrawal so bad that we will have to return!

This decision can not be a matter of judgment. It is either insane or deliberate. Biden may be senile and cognitively challenged, but he is not insane.

#8 By pulling out troops first and not communicating that to allies, American citizens, or moving our weapons and equipment. This was a deliberate move.

#9 By leaving Americans, there will be atrocities committed on them, which we will watch televised by CN,N, etc. Raising our anger and making us want to back and save them.

The nightly media propaganda will start.

#10. We go back in with all new generation weapons to defeat our old weapons, and the military/industrial is churning out cash like a cow churns out butter. The elites are happy with the new cash flow.

Bidens deliberate plan

 Of course we do. Wasn't that the plan all along? That sort of catastrophic failure was not done unintentionally. It had to be deliberate.

You cannot blame that on senility or even insanity. That was an insane decision.

Others around him would have stopped an insane order.

We keep asking ,"how could they have planned it that way' The way they did it as intentionally. The why is that the war had to go on. The military/industrial complex is the PRIME cash cow of the political class and the elite.

And Here we had Donald Trump stopping wars was killing the cash cow. A very profitable 20+year cash cow. Trump had to begotten rid of.

So the shaky possibly stolen election by the people who live luxuriously in that cash filled cow.

Afghanistan already being completely stocked of weapons and equipment was a slowing soft market. Mostly replacing things already there.

So the plan was hatched ?? Pull out in the middle of the night. Leaving the Americans and friendlies behind make a poor attempt of getting them out.

When the atrocities begin and Americans see it on the nightly news. They will get worked up and we'll have to go back in "the public demands". Thousand of working class kids will go and die so Biden and his friends can make more money.

Meanwhile the military/industrial complex will have to develop and manufacture expensive new generation of weapons and equipment to replace the weapons we left behind.

The cash cow will be up and running.

Jan. 6 The Flaw in the Argument if Babbit was a legal shot?

 In April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”

Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.

Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:

Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door.Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside. Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.

“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.

But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.

“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”

Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.

Watch an edited version of the interview below:

The extended interview can be viewed here.

Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:

He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:

Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers.

[…]

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.

I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

 

The Surprising Origins of Critical Race Theory

By L.K. Samuels

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been cited as an offshoot of Karl Marx’s theory of class struggle, which was designed to pit one class against another so as to foment worker-led revolutions. It is also widely accepted that the Marxian Frankfurt School in Germany reworked Marx’s “social conflict theory” in the 1950s by adding “race” to their long list of “oppressed” minorities. But historically, the Frankfurt School theorists were latecomers to the racial theory table. They were not the originators of Critical Race Theory. A revolutionary socialist movement had already existed decades before in Germany. These racial justice warriors sought to pit one race against another and encourage the oppressed to overthrow the oppressor. They called themselves German National Socialists.

After World War II, the Frankfurt School intellectuals and academics began to plagiarize the “racial struggle” and “victimhood” theories that had originated with Nazi theorists in the mid-1920s. It is true that the Nazi theorists, many with Marxist leanings, were less sophisticated in their racial superiority approach. But their long-term goals on racial disparity and struggle were remarkably similar.

The National Socialists, like the Marxian Frankfurt School leaders, dedicated themselves to fighting racial oppression imposed by other advantaged races. But in the case of the Nazis, they identified the “oppressed race” as the Aryan and German people and the “oppressor race” as the Jews. They believed that the Jews controlled the world as members of a wealthy and privileged race that supposedly mistreated the so-called Aryan races. 

To demean the so-called “Jewish oppressors,” the National Socialists taught German children that the Jews, Jewish-run banks, and capitalists were persecuting the German nation and its people. This “oppressor versus oppressed” narrative is pure classical Marxism, which had devastating effects across the annals of modern history. Such racist nonsense divides society, creating hostile tribalism and unending ethnic violence.

Of course, this racial struggle was exactly what the Nazi propagandists intended in their effort to purge certain “oppressor” races. They wanted only one race to exist in German-controlled lands. That is why Critical Race Theory is so poisonous. Its endgame almost always results in horrific final solutions to punish so-called privileged and oppressor races.

The march towards securing superiority over an oppressor race began in earnest after the Nazis nationalized most German schools in 1933.  School administrators quickly inserted racist policies into newly rewritten textbooks and school policies. With the assistance of the National Socialist Teachers League, (the official Nazis teacher’s union), students were inundated with racial theories that invaded most disciplines. Nazi party officials promoted the Führer’s Volksgemeinschaft concept of equality, which included social engineering, social justice, racial tribalism, national collectivity, and social Darwinism. But their biggest mission was to implant biased ethnic-racial studies into Germany’s classrooms.

According to Richard J. Evans in The Third Reich in Power 1933-1939, Nazi educators and administrators from the Education Ministry mandated that the topics of “racial biology” and “racial science” be inserted into almost every school course across Germany. Biology was heralded as the key to understanding and identifying racial differences. The National Socialists even developed a racial-social arithmetic for their textbooks to indoctrinate students. For example, this racial mathematics used formulas to design calculations that would determine how many blond Aryans lived in a German population.

The German language did not escape this politicization of education.  Language had to focus on speech patterns to provide a racial background that would subliminally implant German schoolchildren with the racial-socialist ideology of Nazism.  The study of geography had to bow to a racial makeover that required Nazi ideology to be more compatible with heroism, home, and race. Amazingly, Nazi educators even found ways to link climate to race.

Not surprisingly, such old-style racism is now returning to our world, mostly voiced by progressives, the woke mob, and Black Lives Matter. Similar to the National Socialists, this orthodoxy is a hodgepodge of social justice, oppressor-versus-oppressed victimhood, and racial tribalism. A German poster from 1933 highlights the Nazi’s dedication to a socially just racial state, proclaiming, “Because Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich wants social justice, big Jewish capitalism is the worst enemy of this Reich and its Führer.”

A number of present-day “anti-racist” activists are emulating the National Socialists’ pogrom policies. For instance, co-founder of Black Lives Matter in Toronto, Yusra Khogali, called for the extermination of certain races. Taking jabs at white privilege and oppressor races and gender, she mused in 2016 that she had an urge “to kill men and white folks.” Moreover, she tweeted that “white skin is subhuman.” Hitler and his Nazi horde spouted the same “subhuman” accusations against Jews, and eventually acted upon their convictions in the Holocausts.

The origins of Critical Race Theory have a dark history.  Why would anyone justify racism, racial superiority, or racial inferiority in today’s world? Such inflammatory rhetoric has never led to racial or social equality. CRT must be discarded into the ashbin of history, along with any resurgence of National Socialism and its socialist-racist narratives.

L.K. Samuels is the author of Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum (2019)

Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-00089

americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/the_surprising_origins_of_critical_race_theory.html

Afghan withdrawal plan that Biden scrapped

 "I don't even know that anyone could have made this awful scenario up," former National Security Council Senior Director Kash Patel told Just the News. "It's literally worse than you could possibly conjure."

The Biden team has failed to prepare for evacuating American citizens and Afghans who helped the U.S. government, Patel said, and has allowed other important issues to founder.

"There's no plan to secure our weaponry or machinery, we're just giving it over to terrorists," Patel said. "And there's no plan to secure a Kabul International Airport so that at least flights can get in and out."

Careful plans, though, already were laid out by the Trump administration, and were offered to Team Biden, Patel said. 

The overarching theme was a conditions-based withdrawal, whereby the U.S. military would leave Afghanistan in increments if the Taliban met clear conditions, according to Patel. Among other things, the Taliban were required to reject and repudiate Al Qaeda, and would have to negotiate in good faith. The U.S. would also maintain a special operations contingent in place, and would retain the capacity to launch air strikes under specific circumstances.

The Trump plan included retaining control of Bagram Air Base until all Americans were withdrawn from Afghanistan. A large, sprawling site, Bagram has multiple airfields and other facilities that safely can handle significant amounts of traffic and also host a large population.

Handing control of Bagram to Afghanistan set up the sequence of events that saw the Taliban seize the facility, Patel said.

"We would not have ever relinquished control of Bagram Airfield, because that is our command and control node for the entire region," Patel said. "And that's where we would fly in and out securely." 

Bagram also was home to a prison where the U.S. held accused terrorists who were set to be prosecuted. Among them were alleged senior Al Qaeda operatives. The Taliban released thousands of prisoners who were considered to be a high threat to the West. 

The U.S. never planned simply to release those prisoners. 

"We were working with allies and partners to prosecute them either in America or prosecute them in their home countries of origin as we successfully did under President Trump," Patel said. The prosecutions take time, he said. "We had a plan in place and we were doing it. Releasing terrorists is never an option. It was never an option under President Trump," Patel said. 

The overall arrangement under Trump included a robust air presence, with armed and unarmed aircraft and drones to collect intelligence or launch air strikes. That plan, too, appears to have been jettisoned, the former security official said.

In a war zone, the U.S. always is ready to enact pre-established procedures to evacuate Americans, their local allies, and their families. The situation in Kabul, particularly at the airport, where humanitarian crises were on full display, stems from a lack of proper planning, Patel said. 

"The only way you are surprised by this sort of situation is if you don't plan for it, if you don't prepare for it," he said.

"We lost not one American casualty under President Trump's conditions based withdrawal. Look at the chaos and death that is occurring now under Biden's [so-called] plan for Afghanistan."

People on the ground inside Kabul and the airport told Just the News on Thursday that the situation continues to be both chaotic and dangerous.

Census, Fed data on minorities challenge critical race theory narratives of white suppression

 

1.  ECONOMY

Black wealth rose significantly over the last ten years, while neighborhood segregation declined, data shows.

Updated: August 19, 2021 - 10:59pMinorities have increased their mobility and financial standing over the last decade, according to federal data that challenges some of the narratives of the so-called Critical Race Theory spreading through schools and media. While the Federal Reserve reports that “the typical white family has eight times the wealth of the typical black family and five times the wealth of the typical Hispanic family” it also acknowledges that African-American and Hispanic families have made significant gains,While income inequality exists among racial and ethnic groups, the Brookings Institute points out in several reports that black and Hispanic households have made statistically significant economic progress especially in the years prior to pandemic-related shutdowns in 2020.An analysis by the Federal Reserve, for instance, found wealth for African Americans and Hispanic Americans grew far faster during the Trump years than for whites.Between 2016 and 2019, median wealth rose for all race and ethnicity groups, the Fed report states, but growth rates during this period “were faster for Black and Hispanic families.” Wealth increased for Black families by 33 percent and for Hispanic families by 65 percent during this period, compared to white families, whose wealth only increased by three percent.The Federal Reserve defines wealth as the difference between families' gross assets and their liabilities and describes patterns related to median and mean incomes.                 And while minorities still have a higher rate of poverty, their poverty rate reached record lows in 2019, according to Census data. The Black poverty rate of 18.8 percent was the lowest it has been since 1959 when poverty estimates were first recorded for this group.

In 2019, the poverty rate for Hispanics, 15.7 percent, was also the lowest on record since data for this group was first recorded in 1972. The poverty rate for Asians was also the lowest on record of 7.3 percent. The poverty rate of 7.3 percent for non-Hispanic Whites in 2019 was the same as the poverty rate of 7.3 percent in 1973.

The dream of reaching middle class and suburbia also substantially improved in recent years.

African Americans now make up 12 percent of the middle class and 13 percent of the population. To put that in perspective, 84 percent of the middle class in 1979 was white, nine percent was Black, five percent Hispanic, and two percent “other.”

By 2019, whites had fallen to 59 percent of the middle class, while 12 percent was Black, 18 percent was Hispanic, and 10 percent was listed as “other.” 

Another Brookings analysis found that Black household median incomes also increased. In 2018 Black household median income was $41,511 compared to a 2007 pre-recession peak of $41,134. Income increases in this group were also geographically widespread. Among the 50 metropolitan areas with the largest black populations, 18 saw a statistically significant increase in black median household income between 2013 and 2018. 

Census data also indicates that the real median income among African Americans grew by 7.9 percent in 2019, outpacing 2018’s income growth of 2.6 percent and 2017’s income decline of 2.4 percent. Black median income growth in 2019 under former President Donald Trump surpassed income growth rates under previous administrations.

Ken Blackwell, a former mayor, state treasurer and Ohio Secretary of State, told Just The News that black families want public safety, quality education and the ability to work and be self-sufficient.

“That's what most black folks in this country want, because that's what most Americans want. They're not locked into this battle of ethnicity, ethnic groups or racial groups. They want to be part of an opportunity society," he said. "And when you see leaders, political leaders in our cities, choosing not to make our cities fields of dreams, but because they are talking about defunding the police. They're talking about racial and ethnic division. They're turning our cities into killing fields not fields with dreams, and people are going to start pushing back against that.”

Raynard Jackson, founder of Black Americans for a Better Future, who has been working with black entrepreneurs nationwide, told Just The News, that at his events hundreds of young black, Asian, and Hispanic individuals are looking for business opportunities, not government handouts. “We need to get more of these corporate executive to talk about business opportunities within Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen SAIC” to attract a younger generation, he said. “We just want to be treated like a part of the team. And we're looking for opportunity to expand our businesses.”

He also said blacks in his network are vehemently opposed to so-called Critical Race Theory. “We're vehemently against this whole notion that you're going to tell a five-year-old black kid that his classmate and a five-year-old white kid is superior to you strictly because of the color of his skin when he came out of his mother's womb. That's crazy. You're poisoning the mind of pure, innocent kids and black parents, specifically, are vehemently against it. I cannot tell you the level of hostility they have to that notion.”

According to a RedFin survey that analyzed U.S. Census data and its own housing market data, Redfin found that people of color accounted for 28 percent of suburban populations nationwide in 2018, an increase of nearly two percent from 2010.

The biggest increase in suburban areas analyzed was in Las Vegas, where people of color accounted for 40.2 percent of its suburban population in 2018, up from 30.5 percent in 2010, the report found. Salt Lake City and Seattle suburbs saw the next largest increases.

Suburbs of major cities nationwide also increased in ethnic diversity, including outside of Atlanta, Birmingham, Cincinnati, Dallas, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Phoenix.

One factor contributing to an increase in people of color moving to suburbs is the cost of living in cities became prohibitive, Redfin notes.

Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather notes “there’s an important distinction between suburbs close to cities and those farther away. When Americans who are priced out of big cities move for more affordable housing, they tend to settle in nearby suburbs where they can still enjoy urban amenities.

“As many big coastal cities have grown too expensive for most Americans, people are spilling out into areas further away from city centers in search of affordable housing, resulting in more dense and more diverse suburban neighborhoods. The sprawl has changed some suburbs from bedroom communities into mini cities, with walkable restaurants and shops, and it’s changed the way we think about suburbs. Living near the center of a city is no longer so important, especially with the surge in remote work since the pandemic began.”

Another trend noted by the Census Bureau in its 2013-2017 American Community Survey five-year estimates, found that segregation by race and ethnicity had also declined since 2000.

Among 51 metro areas analyzed, 45 metro areas saw a decline among black-white segregation since 2000. While the majority saw reductions of only 1 to 4 percent, 16 areas saw declines of 5 percent or more.

Detroit saw the greatest decline of nearly 12 percentage points, followed by the metro areas of Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Minneapolis in the Midwest region. In Southern and Western metro areas, noticeable drops in segregation were found in Tampa, Louisville, Orlando, Houston, Memphis, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Miami. Segregation by race declined even though in some of these areas black populations increased both in metro and suburban areas.

In the largest 100 metro areas analyzed, Blacks accounted for 52 percent of neighborhood populations in 2000 compared to 45 percent from 2013-2017.

The Definition Of ‘Fascism’ Applys To The Biden Administration

Erasing the line between government and private enterprise. Ensuring only government-approved messages are heard. Squashing dissent. Intruding government into every aspect of our lives.

By Ben Carson

AUGUST 20, 2021

Here is a challenge: Define fascism without reference to a historical event or proper noun.

It’s harder than it seems. Most people associate fascism with European dictatorships of the 1920s and ’30s. That is with good reason: those were the first fascist regimes.

The term itself originated in Italy to describe the political philosophy of Benito Mussolini, who borrowed from the Italian word fascio, literally meaning “bundle” (usually of rods or sticks). Mussolini used the term to mean a group of people who are stronger together than individually, such as how a bundle of sticks bound together is much more difficult to snap than any individual stick.

While most fascist regimes had racial or nationalist elements, it was not racism or nationalism that defined them; there have been plenty of racist or nationalist governing structures that do not merit the label “fascism.” Rather, the necessary ingredient for fascism is the state’s total domination of all aspects of life, including economic life.

Mussolini defined “fascism” as “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Consistent with this, the American Heritage Dictionary includes in its definition of fascism “a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls.” By hook or by crook, and many times using violence, a fascist government will brook no dissent and will enlist all of the country’s institutions to further its ends.

During the Trump administration, the left took every opportunity to falsely claim that fascism was descending upon the land. But anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knew those claims were outlandish.

There was plenty “outside the State” and “against the State” during the Trump administration (he is still banned on all major social media platforms, for example) and plenty of dissent. There were plenty of institutions that explicitly declared themselves in opposition to the aims of the government.

Nothing Outside of or Against the Regime

Fully cognizant of George Orwell’s quip that “Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable,’” I am becoming concerned that what many claimed to be happening under the Trump administration is becoming reality under the Biden administration.

I do not make that statement lightly. But events over the past several weeks suggest that the Biden administration, in concert with powerful American institutions, is working to ensure that there is nothing outside of or against the official government line.

Last month White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted the administration works closely with Facebook and other social media companies to identify posts it deems objectionable. While Psaki claimed the White House does not “take anything down” or “block anything,” there would be no reason for the White House to point out these statements if not in the hope of social media platforms taking action against posts contrary to the government’s preferred narrative.

Also, more news continues to come out about how the Biden administration is coordinating with private businesses to further its agenda. According to Politico, the White House is “back channeling” with various media organizations about COVID coverage, particularly arguing that the media’s focus on breakthrough infections of people who have already been vaccinated undermines the administration’s efforts to get more people vaccinated. Relatedly, the New York Times has reported the administration “continues to pressure private companies to introduce coronavirus vaccine mandates to help the U.S. raise its inoculation rates.”

Using Private Businesses to Implement Policy

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the wisdom of the administration’s policies, it should be concerning to all to have the White House directly involved in the operations of private companies. This is especially true when the White House’s focus is on heavily regulated companies, such as broadcast networks. Those are the companies least likely to be able to resist government requests, which always carry the implicit terms of, “Nice business you got there; it would be a shame if anything happened to it.”

It is all the more troubling that the White House is leaning on private companies to do that which the federal government cannot do itself, namely censoring individuals from expressing opinions contrary to the government’s preferred message, and mandating that everyone in America take a certain medicine. This should concern everyone because once you have endorsed the idea that the federal government can and should use private businesses as a tool to implement policy it cannot establish through legal means, there is no limiting principle. Should the government “pressure private companies” to not hire women who have had abortions? Not hire anyone who supported Trump?

It is not enough to claim the administration is doing this only in response to the COVID emergency. Washington is full of programs that were instituted in response to an “emergency” that has well since passed. This fusion of government goals and private action will just find a new problem to solve. Today it is COVID. Tomorrow it will be climate change or systemic racism.

You do not need to take my word for it: in just the past few days the administration announced “goals” for the adoption of electric vehicles in the United States (why it is the federal government’s business to set “goals” for consumer behavior was left unsaid). Standing there right behind the administration were the largest automakers in the country, cheering on the policy so long as there were sufficient government-funded “investments” and “consumer incentives” (read: subsidies). This hand-in-glove cooperation between big government and big business is exactly the kind of “corporatism” that was an essential feature of fascist states of the past.

Erasing the line between government and private enterprise. Ensuring only government-approved messages are heard. Squashing dissent. Intruding government into every aspect of our lives. The Biden administration’s actions are nothing less than creeping fascism.

I pray that the administration, and the American people, recognize this and change course before it is too late.

Dr. Ben Carson served as the 17th Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is the Founder & Chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute.

Photo Anthony Majanlahti / Flickr

Raheem Kassam Asks - Then Reveals A Far More Sinister Explanation For His ‘Bungling’ Of Afghanistan

 …This fecklessness over Afghanistan, I do not believe is simply incompetence, I believe it is treason to one’s own nation. I believe he does not care about the Americans on the ground let alone the Afghanis on the ground…This goes right to the heart of who Jake Sullivan really works for.” – Raheem Kassam. Catch the fiery segment here on Rumble.

The level of incompetence in the bungled, immoral, and obscene way Afghanistan has been handled by this administration begs the question, are we witnessing an inept administration brutally botching a planned troop withdrawal, or is there something darker and more ominous taking place?

Wednesday morning, Raheem Kassam tweeted: Do you think Joe Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan is really as incompetent as the Afghanistan debacle makes him out to be? …or was this all on purpose?  

Save up to 66% on MyPillow products. Use promo code FedUp, and save up to 66%.

Sullivan has some pretty sketchy links to the CCP, who are chomping at the bit to expand their influence in Afghanistan.

Harvard University’s Belfer Center  – which counts participation from a host of current and former Joe Biden advisers – has repeatedly hosted conferences alongside the Chinese Communist Party, frequently publishing papers peddling CCP narratives, all while refusing to disclose its source of funding.

A host of high-level advisers in the Biden White House appear to have no issues with the aforementioned liaising with the Chinese Communist Party and its military:

• Ash Carter, an Obama-era Secretary of Defense, leads the Belfer Center, and Eric Rosenbach, fellow Obama administration national security alum, leads the China initiative.
• Jake Sullivan, Biden’s National Security Adviser, has served as a Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center.
• Avril Haines, Biden’s Director of National Security, recently hesitated to call China a “competitor” instead of a “global competitor”.

The Pulse reports that Haines, Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken also signed a Belfer Center-backed letter advocating for collaboration between the U.S. and China to “develop” a vaccine and insisting the U.S. can rely on China for “protective gear and medicines needed to fight the virus.”

And former Fellow Paul Rosen served as Counsel to then-Senator Biden, former Associate Jon Wolfsthal served as a Special Advisor to Vice President Biden for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and current Senior Fellow Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall previously served as then-Senator Biden’s Chief Adviser on foreign and defense policy.

The group also fails to disclose its funding on its website, although Harvard as an institution leads its peers in accepting nearly $1 billion in donations from the country.

President Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emailed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Al-Qaeda was “on our side” during the Obama administration.

We Helped create the conditions of stability and security in East Asia that allowed China to have this remarkable economic rise. So that it’s rising, in a way, is not the failure of American foreign policy; it’s the success of creating those stable conditions.”

 

Kassam ends his thread tweeting: Don’t discount the fact that these people literally worked for CCP funded think tanks and have consistently promoted Chinese Communist geopolitical interests.

Raheem Kassam’s in-depth reporting on the suspicious Chinese loyalties within the Biden administration casts an even more ominous shadow on the already horrific Afghanistan debacle.

https://100percentfedup.com/raheem-kassam-asks-is-bidens-national-security-advisor-incompetent-then-reveals-a-far-more-sinister-explanation-for-his-bungling-of-afghanistan/