Biden Loves this Economy: From Evergrande crisis to tech crackdown: The biggest business stories from China in 2021

---------- It's been a tumultuous year for business in China. A sweeping regulatory crackdown, championed by President Xi Jinping, has shaken private enterprises in sectors as diverse as tech, finance, property, education, gaming and entertainment. Beijing has said it wants to fix longstanding concerns about economic inequality in the country and promote "common prosperity." But analysts say the unprecedented regulatory action is also about Beijing's desire to rein in the growing power of Big Tech and reassert the Communist Party's dominance in every aspect of the economy and society. However, the world's second-largest economy is also looking a lot shakier now than it did at the start of this year. Faced with the prospect of an economic hard landing, Beijing appears to be backing off the tough stance it took on the private sector for most of this year and may focus on maintaining stability in 2022. Here are the business stories that have shaped China over the past 12 months. Economic recovery meets speed bumps China was the only major economy to grow in 2020 — but expansion slowed this year as the country faced repeated Covid outbreaks, supply chain disruptions, and a deepening real estate slump. That could threaten social and political stability in the country and have serious consequences for the global economy. Beijing's regulatory crackdown triggered huge layoffs among many companies, pressuring the job sector as it tries to recover from the pandemic. China's economy is still expected to grow significantly in 2021 — but not as quickly as previously projected, with the World Bank cutting its forecasts for the country's economic expansion this year and next. Power shortages hit manufacturing A boom in construction and manufacturing drove much of China's economic recovery this year, and continues to play a vital role in growth. But that work requires tons of power and thus massive amounts of coal. Power shortages began to bite in June, and worsened in the fall when coal prices soared. For weeks, the power crunch triggered blackouts for households and forced factories to cut production — a threat to the country's vast economy. And Beijing's targets to reduce carbon emissions only added to the pressure. Finally as winter approached, factories began recovering from the impact with the help of a big jump in coal supply. Power shortages eased, and the price of raw materials had dropped significantly by the start of December. China's disappearing ships Ships in Chinese waters are disappearing from industry tracking systems, creating yet another headache for the global supply chain. China's growing isolation from the rest of the world — along with a deepening mistrust of foreign influence — may be to blame. Analysts say they started noticing the drop-off in shipping traffic toward the end of October, as China prepared to enact a new legislation to increase government control over data and information. A loss of information from mainland China — home to six of the world's 10 busiest container ports — could create more problems for an already troubled global shipping industry. Supply chains have been under strain this year as badly congested ports struggle to keep up with a rapidly rebounding demand for goods. China's desire to retain absolute control over all data and information within its borders isn't surprising. The country has been pushing for economic self-sufficiency as it faces external threats, such as US sanctions on key technologies. Didi to delist from New York after disastrous IPO Ride-hailing giant Didi announced in early December that it would delist from the New York Stock Exchange and move to Hong Kong. The move came just five months after Didi launched its blockbuster, $4.4 billion IPO in the United States — a decision that turned into a fiasco for the company. Its share price collapsed as Beijing cracked down on the firm, saying shortly after the offering that it would ban Didi from app stores in China because it broke privacy laws and posed cybersecurity risks. Beijing's decision to target Didi was widely seen as punishment for its decision to go public overseas, and the company became a poster child of China's efforts to rein in what the government sees as unruly Big Tech firms. In the weeks after the IPO, Chinese authorities proposed that companies with data on more than 1 million users seek approval before listing overseas. Evergrande's debt default Evergrande, the embattled Chinese property developer, has defaulted on its debt. Now Beijing is intervening to prevent a disorderly collapse of the indebted real estate group that could wreak havoc on the economy. Fitch Ratings earlier this month declared the property developer has entered "restricted default," reflecting its inability to pay overdue interest on two dollar bonds. Evergrande's apparent failure to pay that interest has revived fears about the future of the company, which is reeling under more than $300 billion of total liabilities. Evergrande is massive — it has about 200,000 employees, raked in more than $110 billion in sales last year, and owns more than 1,300 developments in over 280 cities, according to the company. Analysts have long been concerned that a collapse could trigger wider risks for China's property market, hurting homeowners and the broader financial system. Real estate and related industries account for as much as 30% of GDP. The US Federal Reserve warned in November that trouble in Chinese real estate could damage the global economy. There's already plenty of evidence that Beijing is taking a leading role in guiding Evergrande through a restructuring of its debt and sprawling business operations. But analysts warned the real estate crisis remains a looming threat for China. Laura He, Reporter & Digital Producer, CNN Business Laura He is a reporter and digital producer for CNN Business. She covers

California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to flip from reformer to crime-fighter. Newsom & his Libtardian cronies created this mess! Now the Lapdog Fake News Media have turned against them & covered the Democrats “weak on crime-looting & thuggery program”…! The cesspool of Marxist Socialist Democratic California now has a solution to it’s spawning problem! They’re about to try claim credit for addressing their Protégé! Follow the $$$ see who actually gets the $$$ … Democratic Socialist FATCATS looting California at the highest levels! #UsefulIdiots will applaud Newsome crime fighter, cesspool kingpin!

Gov. Gavin Newsom turns on criminals with $300M smash-and-grab proposal Mary Kay Linge AP The Democrat, who positioned himself for years as a criminal justice advocate, aims to spend $300 million to combat smash-and-grab robberies after a spate of brazen attacks on retailers across the state. “The rules are the rules, the laws are the laws, and we just want people to be held to account,” Newsom said Friday as he announced his pricey plan to crack down on the criminal rings that he said are organizing the terrifying thefts. In Los Angeles, nearly a dozen “flash-mob” raids resulted in $350 million worth of losses over a 10-day period in November. Newsom’s spending proposal, which he will add to his annual budget package in January, includes $255 million to place local law enforcement officers in stores, $18 million to launch a new “organized theft” unit in the state attorney general’s office, and $20 million to help victimized small businesses. Workers remove a broken window at a Yves Saint Laurent in San Francisco. A recent spate of smash-and-grab robberies have terrorized the city’s high-end retailers. AP “These organized retail mobs … (have) a profound impact on our feelings of safety here in this state, this region and as I note, this country,” Newsom said. But critics said the plan is too little, too late. “The Democrats’ relentless push for their ‘criminals first’ agenda has turned this once-majestic state into a sanctuary for criminals,” GOP state senate leader Scott Wilk said after Newsom unveiled the plan. Republicans have blamed reforms championed by Newsom and other progressive Democrats for the frightening crime wave. Gov. Newsom, above, is flipped from reformer to crime fighter after the latest rash of attack. MediaNews Group via Getty Images Proposition 47, a 2014 law that Newsom backed as a compassionate measure to keep low-level criminals out of crowded prisons, doubled the amount a suspect could steal to be considered a felony from $450 to $950. “It’s a s–t show over here,” LAPD Det. Jamie McBride, a director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League police union, told The Post this month. McBride and other critics also point to no-bail policies set by left-wing district attorneys like Los Angeles DA George Gascón and San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin for the retail theft explosion. Surveillance footage of a recent smash-and-grab robbery in Los Angeles. MediaNews Group via Getty Images

Another Player wants to get in the game….Biden’s Blundering Agenda’s Flubberby Certainly Offers Opportunities…!

Iran Tests the Defenses of the U.S. Navy in the Strait of Hormuz Kris Osborn Here's What You Need to Remember: Although unlikely to cause catastrophic structural damage to larger U.S. Navy ship with small arms fire or missiles, Iranian small boats packed with explosives for suicide bombing missions could present a very serious threat to a large surface ship. Swarms of Iranian small boats harassed and tried to intimidate a group of U.S. Navy ships as they transited the Strait of Hormuz on May 10, prompting the U.S. warships to repeatedly fire warning shots in an effort to diffuse the situation. Several U.S. Navy Patrol boats, a Navy guided-missile cruiser and several U.S. Coast Guard ships were escorting a guided missile submarine, the USS Georgia, when they were approached at provocative high-speeds by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy boats with, as a Navy report describes it, “their weapons uncovered and manned.” The Iranian high-speed approaches, which closed within just 150 yards of the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Maui traveling at speeds above 30 knots, were conducted by Iranian Fast In-Shore Attack Craft vessels. “After the two IRGCN vessels failed to respond to repeated warnings and closed within 300 yards, Maui exercised lawful de-escalatory measures by firing warning shots. The two IRGCN vessels again failed to respond to warnings and closed to within 150 yards of Maui, at which time Maui fired additional warning shots,” according to the Navy report. While the Navy report referred to the Iranian actions as “unsafe and unprofessional,” reactions among service and Pentagon leaders may have been even more pronounced. Certainly, the kind of event is by no means new or unprecedented, as Iran has long been known to operate in this fashion, regularly stopping short of actually starting a lethal weapons engagement. The narrow Strait of Hormuz is also well known as a high-tension flashpoint close to the Iranian border where large portions of the region’s commercial and military shipping traffic travel. The Strait of Hormuz is also known for being an area with a high risk for mines and even some kinds of land-fired ballistic missiles. Apart from simply engaging in harassing or provocative behavior, there does not appear to be a sensible explanation for the Iranian small boat actions, unless, of course, the small boat swarming included some kind of serious attack contingency. The strategic aim of a small boat attack would of course be to simply overwhelm ship defenses and deck-mounted guns by approaching in close proximity in a dispersed fashion to “flood the zone” so to speak, and breach the protective perimeter or envelope surrounding a surface ship and it’s close-in weapons ranges with speed and volume. Although unlikely to cause catastrophic structural damage to larger U.S. Navy ship with small arms fire or missiles, Iranian small boats packed with explosives for suicide bombing missions could present a very serious threat to a large surface ship, depending upon the size and scope of a blast radius. Destroying numerous small boats approaching simultaneously would, it seems, present a kind of ship defense predicament for certain ships such as Navy Cruisers or U.S. Coast Guard ships armed with medium-caliber deck-mounted guns. However, alongside deck-mounted guns or other weapons, U.S. Navy warships could be armed with Close-in-Weapons-Systems (CIWS) phalanx guns able to fire hundreds of projectiles per minute to blanket areas with defensive fire. A deck-mounted Phalanx, such as the Navy’s current CIWS weapon, would fire hundreds of small steel penetrating projectile rods at approaching small boats, potentially disabling or even destroying them as they seek to approach. CIWS can also blanket a large area and, interestingly, the Navy began a massive fleet-wide upgrade of its CIWS weapons system years ago for the specific purpose of destroying small boat attacks. As far back as 2014, the U.S. Navy began implementing a CIWS 1B variant upgrade which greatly expanded the protective aperture beyond air defense to incorporate surface defenses as well, in part to specifically counter the kinds of small boat threats regularly presented by Iran. Therefore, upgraded CIWS weapons can now destroy close-in threats that are on the surface and not just coming from the air, a protective technology of great relevance to these kinds of provocation. Should the small boats simply be too fast and too numerous for deck mounted guns or larger munitions to intercept, then a surface-firing CIWS weapon could prevent an attacking small boat from being able to closely approach or penetrate the ship’s hull. However, the group of Navy ships only included one navy cruiser along with several U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Boats, according to the Navy report. While some Coast Guard Cutters do have CIWS, most of the smaller Navy and Coast Guard patrol ships do not. Therefore, perhaps the Iranian small boats were extra provocative, at least in part, because they knew they might not have to face CIWS should they approach closer in. Regardless, for a host of obvious reasons, there is little rationale or basis upon which it might appear to make any sense for the Iranian fast-attack craft to engage U.S. Navy warships in any kind of serious exchange of fire. Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a master’s degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. This article first appeared earlier in 2021 and is being republished due to reader interest.

US sends China and Russia horrifying warning by blasting target with 'futuristic laser'

Jacob Paul The laser beam test was fired from USS Portland and destroyed its practice target in the Gulf of Ade, which is between East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The weapon could be a "game-changer" in conflicts at sea, according to US officials. This laser test also comes after the weapon was first tested at sea in May last year, when the USS Portland used it to take out a flying drone. And is the most recent laser test, the Navy said its "Laser Weapon System" had "successfully engaged" the target, which was this time floating in the sea. But lasers are no new phenomenon for the US Navy. In fact, they have been working on these kinds of weapons since way back in the Cold War. But now, as tension heats up in the South China Sea, American officials warned that these weapons could be used in a potential war against China. This would mean that US ships would not have to waste time reloading their guns and missiles if the Chinese launch an attack.And the lasers could be used to provide cover while US ships launch attack missiles. The commanding officer of the USS Portland has said that the laser weapon is "redefining war at sea for the Navy". It could be used against drone boats carrying explosives and deployed by Yemen's Houthi rebels in the Red Sea, US officials have said. In 2018 a Congressional report called what are known as "directed energy" weapons, such as lasers, "game-changer". The report said that these lasers are "regarded as a 'game changer' for defending Navy surface ships against enemy missiles". The report also made clear that there has been "substantial progress toward deploying high-energy solid-state lasers on ships". It read: "Navy surface ships would use high-energy solid-state lasers initially for countering small boats, UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and potentially in the future for countering ASCMs [anti-ship cruise missiles] and ASBMs [anti-ship ballistic missiles]. "They would be short-range defensive weapons. They would counter targets at ranges of about one mile to perhaps eventually a few miles." This comes as tension with China has nearly reached boiling point. It comes as China's military presence in the South China Sea has put increasing pressure on Taiwan, which China claims it owns. READ MORE: Covid horror as ANOTHER new variant discovered in France But the US, who back Taiwan, which wants independence, has warned that if China invades it will be prepared to step in. Henry Boyd, a Britain-based defence analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies said: "The need to stand up to China is a strong enough motivating factor that not taking this fight would also be seen as a betrayal of American national interests." And on the Russia-Ukraine border, the US has become increasingly concerned about the build-up of around 100,000 Russian troops sent there by Vladimir Putin. DON'T MISS EU supply chain crisis as HGV drivers protest green taxes [REPORT] Mystery illness sweeps through South Sudan as 89 dead [REVEAL] Einstein's theory rewritten to solve universe's greatest mystery [INSIGHT] President Joe Biden has urged Mr Putin not to launch an invasion of Ukraine. While Mr Biden has said that sending U.S. ground combat troops to Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion was "never on the table", he did say that Russia will pay "a terrible price".

The Disaster at Our Southern Border

August 2021 • Volume 50, Number 8 • Mark Morgan Mark Morgan Former Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Mark Morgan is a visiting fellow at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and at the Heritage Foundation. He served as acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Trump administration and as chief of U.S. Border Patrol in the Obama administration. A Marine veteran and a former officer in the LAPD, he served for over 20 years in the FBI, including as the assistant section chief of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Branch; deputy on-scene commander in Baghdad, Iraq; special agent in charge of the El Paso Division; and assistant director in charge of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. He has a B.S. in engineering from Central Missouri State University and a J.D. from the University of Missouri, Kansas City. FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintEmail Download Issue The following is adapted from a speech delivered on July 22, 2021, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. In just a few short months, the Biden administration has created a disaster on the southern border of the United States. It did so by methodically—and by all indications intentionally—undoing every meaningful border security measure that had been in place. As a result, we have had five straight months of over 170,000 illegal immigrants apprehended at the border. The number in June was the highest in over 20 years. And Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been effectively shut down. Our national discussion of border security is generally misleading, and it is designed to be misleading by those who favor open borders. They frame the issue as if the American people face a binary choice: either let all immigrants in because they are “looking for a better life” or close our borders completely and inhumanely. But this is a false choice. The unspoken alternative is to enforce the law, taking in immigrants who enter the U.S. legally while securing our borders against those who attempt to enter illegally—particularly those meaning to do us harm. Illegal immigration is, of course, nothing new. It has been a problem in our country for many decades. What is relatively new is the total lack of concern we see in the Biden administration, especially in terms of the national security aspect of border control. Unbelievable as it may seem to us today, it was only 15 years ago—with the 9/11 terrorist attacks still fresh in our minds—when Congress came together in a bipartisan effort to pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The Secure Fence Act directed the Department of Homeland Security to take appropriate actions to achieve “operational control” over U.S. land and maritime borders to “prevent unlawful entry.” It defined operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S., including terrorists, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. And it specifically set the goal of “provid[ing] at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors.” It added thousands of Border Patrol personnel, mandated the acquisition of new technologies, and resulted in the construction of more than 650 miles of physical barrier along the southern border of the U.S. between 2006 and 2011. To repeat, this legislation was passed in a bipartisan spirit, with 80 members of the U.S. Senate voting to approve it. This included Senator Barack Obama, who said in 2005: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” It included Senator Chuck Schumer, who said in 2009: “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. . . . People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally.” And it included Senator Joe Biden, who said in 2006: “Let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons—hear me, tons—of everything from byproducts from methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin, and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico.” Some attribute the breakdown of the bipartisan consensus on securing the border to the fact that Democrats came to look on illegal immigrants as much-needed Democrat voters. For whatever reason, a decade later these same Democratic leaders were lambasting President Trump’s border wall policy as “immoral and ineffective,” even “racist,” and fiercely opposing any and every serious proposal aimed at enforcing immigration law. *** When I say that the Biden administration methodically undid every meaningful border security policy that it inherited, what specifically do I mean? I’ve mentioned the border wall. And it is a demonstrable fact that border walls, placed in strategic locations, act as effective impediments and improve the ability of law enforcement to drive and dictate the behavior of criminal organizations rather than being driven and dictated to themselves. One of the most ridiculous criticisms I’ve heard is that the wall is “a fourteenth century solution for a twenty-first century problem.” The same could be said of the wheel, which also still works pretty well. In any case, the first bullet point of President Biden’s budget for the Department of Homeland Security this year trumpets the fact that not a cent will go towards the construction of border walls. Yet despite the amount of intense debate the border wall engendered, it was not the only or even the most important border security measure instituted under the Trump administration. Let me outline two other key game changers. Prior to Trump’s presidency, a combination of three things had the effect of forcing the Department of Homeland Security to institute a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants: the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which mandated that the U.S. detain all unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries (countries other than Mexico and Canada); Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an executive policy adopted in 2012 to allow some of the migrants brought into the country illegally as children to receive a renewable deferred action from deportation; and the Flores Settlement Agreement, a 1997 court decree that was reinterpreted in 2015 to prevent the U.S. from detaining migrant families and unaccompanied minors for more than 20 days. In addition to catch and release, these things combined to bring about a demographic shift in illegal immigration that was immediately exploited by smuggling organizations—a shift from the influx of predominantly single adult males from Mexico to an explosive influx of families and unaccompanied minors from far and wide, and particularly from Central America. By 2016, the message had been sent and received that America’s southern border was wide open. In response to this, the Trump administration negotiated the Migrant Protection Protocol, a bilateral agreement with Mexico more commonly known as the Remain in Mexico Program. Under this agreement, people illegally entering or being smuggled into the U.S. with a minor would no longer be able to stay simply by asking for asylum. It was chiefly this Remain in Mexico Program that ended catch and release, removing the greatest incentive for people to try to enter the U.S. illegally. Prior to the full implementation of the Remain in Mexico Program—at the height of the 2019 border crisis when Department of Homeland Security facilities were overwhelmed—the Flores Settlement Agreement had forced Border Patrol to release illegal alien families, often just hours after they were apprehended. In May of that year, Customs and Border Protection were apprehending over 5,000 illegals per day. After full implementation of Remain in Mexico, illegals who applied for asylum were returned to Mexico to await their hearings. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants, especially of families and unaccompanied minors. By February 2020, we had seen a 75 percent reduction in families attempting to enter illegally. Many chose to return home—either on their own or with the assistance of the Mexican government—since catch and release was no longer in effect. It was a big victory for the rule of law. The current out-of-control surge at the border stems chiefly from the fact that the Biden administration acted quickly to halt the Remain in Mexico Program and return to catch and release. In response to a lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General, a federal judge has recently ruled that Remain in Mexico must be reinstated, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to overturn that ruling. How this will play out remains to be seen. Another game-changing development under the Trump administration was a series of Asylum Cooperative Agreements made between the U.S. and the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These Asylum Cooperative Agreements codified accepted international practices governing asylum seekers, which encourage migrants to seek relief from the first safe country able to assist them. Migrants from these countries seeking asylum in the U.S. were traversing thousands of miles, across multiple countries, and our policies were encouraging that. The Agreements not only encouraged migrants to obtain immediate assistance closer to home, they also served as a deterrent to those with fraudulent claims. Less than three weeks after President Biden took office, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that “in line with the President’s vision” the U.S. had suspended, and was in the process of terminating, the Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In the same announcement, Blinken said that the new U.S. approach to the problem of migration from these countries would be to address the “root causes” of that migration—especially economic underdevelopment and poverty, although, oddly enough, climate change has been mentioned as a root cause as well. We are hearing more and more subsequently about root causes—especially from Vice President Harris, who President Biden charged with developing a “Root Causes Strategy.” But what we are hearing is bunk. The fact is that when the U.S. opens its borders—which is what it amounts to when we return to a catch and release policy—illegal immigrants flock to the U.S. That’s the root cause of the crisis on our southern border. Compare the numbers in April of last year to those of this April: there was a 900 percent increase in illegal immigration. The economic conditions in Central America didn’t markedly change during that period. The climate didn’t markedly change. Our policies changed! That’s the root cause. There is a second important point to make in this regard. The basic legal premise of asylum is that the migrant must have a valid claim to be the victim of persecution in his or her home country due to race, religion, nationality, political affiliation, or membership in a protected class. Under current law, a desire to improve one’s economic status is not a valid asylum claim. If it were, the overwhelming majority of people in the world would have a valid claim to seek asylum here. Open borders advocates, including those in the Biden administration who harp on root causes, cultivate the myth that a desire for economic betterment is a valid reason by itself to seek asylum. That would require a radical change in U.S. law that I don’t think the American people would accept. *** The incoming Biden team received exhaustive briefings on the situation at the border and was warned about the consequences of undoing the security policies they inherited. They were told clearly that Border Patrol stations didn’t have adequate capacity to handle the surge of illegal immigrants that would follow a reversal of policy; they were told clearly that the Department of Health and Human Services did not have the detention capacity to handle it. They were told that smuggling organizations and other criminal groups would exploit a return to catch and release. Despite this, they rushed to dismantle the entire system. And with the results becoming evident to the public, they resorted to deception. I’ve served in federal law enforcement in various capacities for more than 35 years, under six different administrations. And while I’ve become numb to the spin and misdirection that is commonplace in Washington, I have never seen as blatant a disinformation campaign as this one. Initially, this campaign involved outright denial: “Our message has been straightforward—the border is closed,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on March 21, in the midst of a surge across the border of families and unaccompanied minors. There was also deflection: Mayorkas blamed the surge on the Trump administration, which he claimed had “torn down” the “entire [immigration] system” that had been in place. This took a lot of gall, given that the surge was so obviously a direct response to the termination of Trump’s Remain in Mexico Program and Asylum Cooperative Agreements and the revival of catch and release. We were also treated to a fictitious narrative according to which the surge was the reflection of seasonal trends. A “significant increase” in migration “happens every year” in the winter months, President Biden claimed at his first presidential press conference, since that is when migrants “can travel with the least likelihood of dying on the way.” The problem is that this year’s winter numbers dwarfed those of 2020—not to mention the fact that the surge has continued unabated into the spring and summer. The June apprehension number exceeded 180,000, and in July it exceeded 210,000. Year-to-date apprehensions are over one million, including more than 100,000 unaccompanied minors—a 444 percent year-to-year increase. At the point when the administration could no longer deny the dangerously overcrowded conditions at Border Patrol facilities, some operating at more than 400 percent capacity, it adopted a shell game strategy, first moving migrants into newly-constructed facilities and then surreptitiously flying families and unaccompanied minors to cities throughout the U.S. The point of this ongoing shell game is not to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into our country, but to improve the political “optics” of the crisis. *** Make no mistake, criminal organizations—which are adept at exploiting weak and ambiguous U.S. immigration policies—are paying close attention to what’s happening and will adapt their tactics and procedures accordingly. The commonsense reality is that by incentivizing and facilitating illegal immigration, the Biden administration is making it easier for drugs to pour into the U.S., for human trafficking to expand, and for criminal aliens to infiltrate our society. Simply consider that between 40 and 50 percent of Border Patrol and other Customs and Border Protection enforcement resources have been pulled off the front lines to provide humanitarian aid, leaving large areas of the border unmonitored and unsecured. It is estimated that the number of “got aways”—not the illegal immigrants being relocated around the country, but those who have successfully entered undetected—already surpasses 260,000, more than the population of the city of Arlington, Virginia. And we can safely assume that not all of them are good upstanding people. In the past decade, the Border Patrol has apprehended tens of thousands of criminal aliens and gang members. It is estimated that just this year, the Border Patrol has apprehended 8,000 criminal aliens—including 46 murderers, 393 sex offenders, and 880 assailants. Over the July 4 weekend, it apprehended several members of MS-13, the most violent transnational gang operating in the U.S. It also recently apprehended two Yemeni nationals who were listed on the U.S. Terrorist Screening Database. In 2020, ICE made more than 100,000 arrests, with 90 percent of those arrested having a criminal conviction or pending criminal charges. In addition to utilizing illegal immigration as a distraction technique, smuggling organizations often force migrants to carry drugs across the border as a means of payment. And they use their profits from human smuggling activities to finance increasingly more sophisticated drug smuggling techniques that involve tunnels, drones, ultra-light aircraft, and maritime operations. So far this year, Customs and Border Protection assets have participated in the seizure of more than 600,000 pounds of drugs. Fentanyl seizures have skyrocketed in 2021, with more than 6,000 pounds being seized by Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection—a 300 percent increase over this time last year. Let me end by saying something about what is bureaucratically called the 287(g) program—it is called that because it was established in Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996. This is the program that makes it possible for local law enforcement to work with ICE in removing illegal criminal aliens. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of so-called sanctuary cities, which are disastrous in terms of public safety. What they might not realize is that every city is now threatened with becoming a sanctuary city. Why? Because the Biden administration has effectively shut down ICE. So today, for instance, a sheriff’s department can arrest a known gang member who is in the U.S. illegally for a non-violent felony such as burglary or drunk driving. But if that sheriff calls ICE, he will be told that is not a priority and that he should release the criminal gang member back into the community. Thomas Feeley—until recently the director of ICE in New York State—resigned from ICE out of frustration that the Biden administration is, in his words, “doing everything [it] can to cripple [enforcement and removal operations].” In an interview following his resignation, Feeley related an incident where he was told to release an illegal immigrant who was a convicted arsonist. The rationale for releasing the illegal was that he hadn’t been arrested in the past ten years. He hadn’t been arrested, Feeley pointed out, because he had been in prison during that period. But that didn’t matter. He was released into the community anyway. *** In conclusion, it is simply common sense to view border security as national security. If you make this point today, you risk being called a racist or worse. But it needs to be said over and over until we fight our way back to the point where we have a bipartisan consensus that immigration laws should be enforced. This is not going to be easy. Even as the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, I had my official government Twitter account blocked prior to the 2020 election for posting a photograph of the border wall and explaining that it is an integral part of effective border security. The powers-that-be eventually reversed this decision, but it is an indication of what the American people—who overwhelmingly support border security—are up against. What we need is widespread active public involvement. Illegal immigration, border security, the erosion of the rule of law, and the loss of our nation’s sovereignty are interconnected, and should be debated as important issues in local and state politics as well as national. When I was the chief of U.S. Border Patrol in the Obama administration, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson told us that 1,000 illegal immigrants a day is a bad day. Today that number is approaching 7,000, and nothing is being done about it. This can’t be allowed to continue. A country that cannot control its borders is not a country, and I’m sad to say that we are facing that eventuality.

A Few Thousand Javelins Could Seriously Impact/Sink Putin’s Invasion Plans! (The article suggests there are only a few available, however, I believe there are several 1000 available in the theater)

Could Javelin Missiles Tip a War With Russia in Ukraine’s Favor? The FGM-148 Javelin is a great anti-tank missile, but there may be too few of them. BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 10, 2021 ukrainian servicemen are seen holding javelin antitankSOPA IMAGESGETTY IMAGES A major weapon in Ukraine’s arsenal is the American-made Javelin missile. Javelin was designed to destroy Russian tanks, and is by all accounts an excellent weapon. Ukraine has far too few Javelins for the weapon to make a difference on the battlefield. The American-made Javelin anti-tank missile has recently appeared in the news as one possible way Ukraine might defend itself from a Russian ground assault. Although the missiles are highly effective against the kinds of main battle tanks fielded by the Russian Ground Forces, Ukraine has purchased too few to make much of an impact on the battlefield. The missiles, and their launch teams, would also be vulnerable to Russia’s battlefield specialty: artillery. MORE ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE Is Russia Planning a January Invasion of Ukraine? How the U.S. Military Could Intervene in Ukraine The FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile was introduced in the 1990s as a replacement for the M-47 Dragon in U.S. Army and Marine Corps service. The Javelin was a significant upgrade over the Dragon, featuring twice the range, an improved warhead, shorter time to target, and the ability to climb sharply and then strike a tank from above, punching through the thin overhead armor. MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS The UH-60 Black Hawk Play Video Importantly for the missile crews, Javelin is an infra-red guided “fire and forget” weapon, meaning the gunner can locate a tank, lock onto a target, fire, and then run away to safety. Javelin is in use with armies worldwide, including Australia, France, Norway, Taiwan, and Ukraine. president poroshenko visits testing grounds as ukrainian military test javelin missile systems US-supplied Javelin anti-tank missile systems are tested by Ukrainian military at undisclosed testing grounds. MIKHAIL PALINCHAKGETTY IMAGES The U.S. has sold Ukraine Javelin missiles twice. The first sale in 2018 was for 210 missiles and 37 command launch units (CLUs), for an estimated cost of $47 million. A second sale involved 10 additional CLUs and 150 missiles. “Ukraine’s twenty-eight combat battalions would need about 450 antitank weapons, based on U.S. practice,” Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel and analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Popular Mechanics. “(Ukraine) could likely use a lot more anti-tank weapons. During the Cold War, the U.S. strategy to offset the large numbers of Soviet tanks was to proliferate anti-tank weapons on the battlefield.” In other words, Ukraine has only enough Javelins to equip three of twenty-eight battalions, though Cancian said that it does have stocks of older anti-tank missiles from the Cold War era. Ukraine’s army also has an unknown number of locally produced Skif laser-guided anti-tank missiles. Furthermore, three battalions are only enough troops to cover about seven miles of front line—while Ukraine’s border with Russia is 1,400 miles long. Russian intelligence could merely identify Ukrainian units outfitted with Javelins and then have tank and mechanized infantry forces skirt around them. russian army holds artillery training exercise in kemerovo region 2A65 Msta-B towed howitzers fire during a military exercise by an artillery unit of Russian Armed Force’s Central Military District at Yurginsky military training ground, August 2021. KIRILL KUKHMARGETTY IMAGES Or it could pound them into oblivion. Another problem with the Javelin is that launch teams are susceptible to artillery fire—a Russian specialty. Javelins are typically carried on foot by infantry or mounted in light armored vehicles, modes of transport that lack the heavy armor protection of tanks. In July 2014, a Russian artillery strike on Ukrainian forces at Zelenopillya, preceded by reconnaissance drones and cyberattacks, resulted in, “thirty Ukrainian soldiers dead, hundreds more wounded, and over two battalions’ worth of combat vehicles destroyed.” RELATED STORY Watch the Army's Javelin Anti-Tank Missile Blow St In the event of a major attack by the Russian Ground Forces, “made in the USA” Javelin missiles would likely only have a secondary role. It’s a great missile, but in current numbers is just not a threat to Russia’s armored spearheads. The real threat to an invasion force are the thousands of other, more local missiles, old and new, in Ukraine’s arsenal. KYLE MIZOKAMI Writer on Defense and Security issues, lives in San Francisco.

If Russia Strikes Ukraine, Here's How the Pentagon Could Bring the Heat!

This could be the U.S. military's playbook for a war in Eastern Europe. BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 8, 2021 russian army t72 b3m tanks are seen during the annual armySOPA IMAGESGETTY IMAGES U.S. intelligence officials now believe that Russia's military buildup on its border with Ukraine is a prelude to attack. While an attack is not certain, the stockpiling of forces would allow Moscow to stage a limited invasion of its rival. The Pentagon has a range of options to deal with a potential conflict, from sending Ukraine intelligence data, to deploying U.S. troops to Eastern Europe. Following a virtual summit on Tuesday between U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Washington believes that the Kremlin is preparing to attack its neighbor, Ukraine, and may do so as early as January. The leaders' meeting—which seemed mostly unproductive—centered on Russia's massing of up to 175,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and what the U.S. may (or may not) do about it. Washington has a range of options to deter Moscow, from providing Kiev with key intelligence, to sending troops, aircraft, and ships to Europe. Yet as much as Putin understands the use of force, it may ultimately be the economic sanctions that Biden foreshadowed in their virtual meeting that will prompt Russia to reconsider its bad neighbor policy. If it does come down to a physical conflict—or perhaps even war—the U.S. has a wide range of options to deal with Russia, though. ✅ GET THE FACTS What You Need to Know About a Russia-Ukraine War How Many Russian Troops Have Massed Ukraine? In late November, Bloomberg reported that U.S. intelligence officers had briefed its NATO allies about a Russian massing of ground forces. The buildup, along Russia's border with its neighbor Ukraine, consisted of about 50 battalion tactical groups, or about the equivalent of five divisions of combat troops. Battalion tactical groups (BTGs) are self-contained combat groups consisting of armor, motorized rifle, artillery, and air defense forces capable of independent operations. Intelligence sources believe that the buildup ultimately could consist of about 100 BTGs, or about 175,000 troops. In August, Russian state media reported that the entire Russian Ground Forces fielded "about" 170 BTGs. MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS The UH-60 Black Hawk Play Video russia holds amphibious landing exercise The Saratov large landing ship and Mil Mi-8AMTSh helicopters take part in an exercise in amphibious landing, Crimea, October 2021. Ukraine SERGEI MALGAVKOGETTY IMAGES The U.S. and NATO still don't know what Putin truly intends to do with his assembled armies, but during the Tuesday videoconference with President Biden, he said that Russia will not attack. Still, the Kremlin is paranoid about eastward NATO expansion, and wants guarantees that member nations will not deploy weapons near Russia, per the BBC. Those are negotiations that the U.S. and NATO may not be interested in, however. Meanwhile, Putin could be attempting to intimidate Ukraine and its people, hoping they would elect a government more bent on Russian appeasement, if not with a pro-Russian bent. Or, he might be planning limited attacks to seize small tracts of Ukrainian territory. In the worst-case-scenario, Russia might even stage an all-out attack on Ukraine, though Putin seems to understand it would be risky to get himself dragged into an Iraq-style guerrilla war with a country the size of Texas. How Could the U.S. Military Respond to Conflict in Ukraine? rq 4 global hawk The RQ-4 Global Hawk can survey an area the size of Illinois in 24 hours, making it an important surveillance tool in the U.S. arsenal. GETTY IMAGESGETTY IMAGES The first (and arguably most important) tactic is to increase surveillance of Russian forces to figure out what they're up to. The U.S. Army could redeploy RC-12 Guardrail spy aircraft, which typically operate from the Baltic states to monitor Russian communications in and around Kaliningrad (a Russian province between between Poland and Lithuania), to keep watch over the Russian-Ukrainian border. Meanwhile, the Air Force could increase surveillance missions with RQ-4 Global Hawk drones. Those operations typically begin in Sicily and involve the giant 737-sized drones flying eastward over Ukraine and the Black Sea, while looking into Russia itself. Special operations forces might engage on the ground in Ukraine, probing Russian ground forces and collecting information. ➡️ READ THIS NEXT Why the M1A1 Abrams Is Such a Badass Tank If the U.S. detects that Russia is preparing for imminent attack in the coming weeks, there are options that could dissuade it from doing so, all while laying the groundwork for a more forceful response. Activating the U.S. Military Sealift Command fleet—the force that would transport tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy equipment across the Atlantic—would send a strong signal that the Pentagon is prepared to send ground forces to Europe. (The sealift fleet is also old, and the earlier it's activated, the better.) m2a3 A M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle with 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, fires a 25-millimeter tracer round during an integrated night live-fire exercise for Winter Shield 2021 at Camp Ādaži, Ādaži, Latvia, November 25, 2021. U.S. ARMY PHOTO BY SPC. MICHAEL BAUMBERGER/DVIDS The Army could also redeploy existing forces in Europe to prepare to counter a Russian buildup. The 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division is in Europe, training with NATO and other European allies, but many of its subunits are widely separated across the continent. Reforming the brigade in eastern Poland would create a potent, on-the- ground intervention force. Other troops that could mass in Poland include the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. Activating National Guard combat units—like Mississippi's 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team and the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division—would send a signal that the U.S. is preparing for an extended crisis, even disrupting the lives of reservists. This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. Naturally, the Navy would also get in on the action. U.S. aircraft carrier assets are thin right now, with just one carrier operating between the East Coast and the Philippine Sea. The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group departed Norfolk, Virginia on November 30 for a regularly scheduled deployment. Truman and her escorts will likely end up off Europe in the coming weeks, and moving the strike group into the Baltic Sea would enable her strike fighters and Tomahawk cruise missiles to threaten Russian forces massing against northern Ukraine. Another option is to send one or more Ohio-class guided-missile submarines to Europe, making visible appearances in local ports. Each is equipped with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. b 1b craft Originally designed as a low-altitude penetrator, the B-1B is now capable of attacking up to two dozen targets from as far as 575 miles away. ETHAN MILLERGETTY IMAGES The Air Force, with its stealth fighters and long-range cruise missiles, might well be the most decisive arm. Fighters and bombers, including F-22 Raptors, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and F-15E Strike Eagles could cross the Atlantic and touch down at bases in NATO countries such as Poland and Romania, both of which share a border with Ukraine. U.S. Strategic Command might forward-deploy bombers, laden with cruise missiles, to bases in the United Kingdom. American military planners would likely elect to send B-1B Lancer bombers due to their ability to carry up to 24 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles at a time. A force of just ten B-1Bs, armed with JASSM cruise missiles, can strike up to 240 separate targets, devastating the Russian military's ability to sustain an invasion force. B-1Bs also have the benefit of being incapable of carrying nuclear weapons, reassuring Moscow that Washington isn't deploying nuclear arms to Europe. Yet. ✈︎ BEFORE YOU GO... Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane Why the F-35 Is Such a Badass Plane The Pentagon's capabilities are so vast that these are just some possible military options. Yet as much as the Pentagon can do, nothing would hit Putin as hard as economic sanctions. Testimony in the U.S. Senate in 2017 claimed that Putin himself had a net worth of $200 billion at the time—making him one one of richest men in the world. The dominance of Western financial institutions and the interconnected nature of the global economy makes his fortune, and those of his allies, vulnerable to economic sanctions. But are threats of military action and sanctions enough to keep Russia out of Ukraine? Only Putin could tell you. KYLE MIZOKAMI Writer on Defense and Security issues, lives in San Francisco.