Saturday, November 23, 2019

The Democrat Party as well as bureaucrat/administrative state

How Our Administrative State Aids Communist China

A Senate investigation revealed thousands of Chinese nationals working for key U.S. agencies were secretly on Beijing’s payroll. Where’s the outrage?
November 22nd, 2019
November 22nd, 2019
Racked with “Orange Man Bad” onanism, the Left and its collusion media remain enthralled with their on-Beltway show trial, “The Spy Who Leaked Me”—produced by Deep State-False Light Pictures; directed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); scripted by Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and his committee staff in collaboration with a hearsay spouting “whistleblower.” As a result, they’ve little-noted a critically important bipartisan U.S. Senate investigative report.
Perchance a Greek chorus concocting bogus high crimes and misdemeanors and chanting “impeachment” may produce better ratings and circulation among the relatively sparse audience who follow these collusion media conspiracy peddlers for the daily, if not hourly, confirmation bias required by Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers.
Still, a U.S. Senate report about Communist China’s activities and aims to subjugate the United States, the free world, and the entire globe might bear a tad bit more coverage in the name of, you know, “the public interest.”
Thankfully, the Daily Caller News Foundation’s investigative reporter, Luke Rosiak, concurs; and, in his November 19 article, we glimpse the stark outlines of our betters in the administrative state as they offer their somnambulant response or, perhaps, their abetting of Communist Chinese spying on America’s national security.
Here is Rosiak’s synopsis of the Senate reports key findings:
Foreign-born researchers working for U.S. agencies were secretly on China’s payroll, signing side agreements to send sensitive research to that country as part of a recruitment operation called the Thousand Talents Plan”;
“10,000 Chinese nationals in 2018 conducted research in the Department of Energy’s National Labs, and one even had colleagues write him letters of recommendation to the Communist Party-run recruitment program”; and
“Agencies like NIH do not even track attempted foreign influence, the Department of State denies only 5% of suspicious visas, and the FBI shut down a key program, according to the report.”
As Rosiak apprises us, Communist “China’s Thousand Talents Plan (TTP) aims to get foreign governments to finance the communist power’s military and economy by buying off researchers who are doing work abroad. The experts apply to the program, and if approved by the Communist Party, they join China’s payroll and sign secret side agreements that the experts agree to share their research with that country, according to the investigation.”
Concerned with what the report discovered hiding in plain sight, U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said: “China wins twice. First, the American taxpayer funds China’s research and development. Second, China uses that research to improve its economic and military status.”
Equally disconcerted, his colleague on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) warned “there are serious consequences that come from giving a foreign government so much control over the vital research we rely on to drive our country’s economic competitiveness and bolster our national defense.”
Yes, there are “serious consequences” for America when, as the report states, “foreign-born researchers working at U.S. agencies secretly joined China’s payroll, sending sensitive U.S.-funded research to the country while U.S. government agencies took almost no defensive measures against a major recruitment operation.”
But what are the specific consequences—serious or otherwise—to the administrative state geniuses who willfully closed their eyes and furthered China’s spying and thereby jeopardized our national security?
Rosiak reports that John Brown, the FBI’s assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, testified: “With our present-day knowledge of the threat from Chinese talent plans, we wish we had taken more rapid and comprehensive action in the past, and the time to make up for that is now.”
It would seem a propitious moment. In addition to the information in the Senate report, we know that over time the bottom lines of many U.S. corporations have been impacted by communist China’s industrial espionage, intellectual property theft, and predatory trade practices.
Moreover, this has hastened the disintegration of the bipartisan “consensus” among political elites preemptively to surrender the 21st century to the Communist Chinese thanks to the wisdom of the American electorate. President Trump ran on and now has implemented a “clear-eyed engagement” policy, which rejects the bipartisan consensus to appease communist China across the board. This report should signal that there can be no going back.
Nonetheless, the administrative state, including much of academia, remains regrettably resilient, because it is taxpayer-funded. Their budgets’ bottom lines are positively impacted by an infusion of China’s grants and talent. In turn, our “betters” in the permanent bureaucracy for decades have been following and implementing the bipartisan delusion that America’s “greased palms appeasement policy” of unleashing riches upon the Communist Chinese regime will—despite all evidence to the contrary—one day turn this nuclear-armed totalitarian dictatorship into a strategic partner and reliable ally.
Given this lethal fantasy has worked to enrich a boatload of upper-incomes among the American corporate elite at the expense of U.S. workers and national security, it has led the administrative state to follow suit and enhance its myriad interests and budgets.
From their point of view, the administrative state’s “open palm diplomacy” only works to their benefit—well, to theirs and that of the Communist Chinese, too, but ignorance is bliss, no?
For the increasingly few in the administrative state who still harbor a faint, quaint notion of having a duty to protect, defend, and promote the well-being of our free republic, the calculus of a simple rationalization conflating their personal interests with America’s national interest balms an intermittent outbreak of a guilty conscience.
So there will be no “serious consequences” for the administrative state comrades of Communist China unless executive orders are issued and, better, statutory requirements with concomitant civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance are enacted. Then there must be continuing oversight by the executive branch, notably by those entrusted with counterintelligence duties; and by the legislative branch through the budgeting and appropriations processes.
In sum, if the administrative state finds obliviously abetting Communist Chinese espionage is a losing proposition, they’ll cease and desist.
Unfortunately, another bipartisan consensus makes the possibility of such reforms unlikely. Logrolling each other in Congress to pour taxpayers’ money into projects that drum up votes for their reelections makes it unlikely that Congress will use their power of the purse to pursue a more militant vigilance over communist Chinese infiltration into the administrative state.
Further, given the way the administrative state is flaunting its newfound celebrity during this impeachment potboiler and enjoying their role as the protagonist, it is not difficult to foresee a presidential successor who also pursues a clear-eyed engagement policy running up against similar deep state cabal that believes Communist China needs to be appeased.
And this is likely to happen to any presidential successor regardless of party, for the administrative state and its handmaiden media, as well as some holdouts in the corporate community, continue to kowtow to China; venally parroting the idiocy that the barbarous Beijing regime will magically become a responsible actor in the community of nations if only we open ourselves up to them.
So, despite a brief flurry of “concern” following the release of the Senate report, will the administrative state become a wholly owned subsidiary of Communist China, Inc.? Or, with the future of our free republic, our allies, and the entire globe precariously hanging in the balance, is it just possible our elected servants might actually gird their loins and do something to stop China’s infiltration of the administrative state?
Oh! Vindman just told Nunes to call him “Lieutenant Colonel”!
What were we talking about again . . . ?

No comments: