Archive for March, 2018


March 31, 2018

The Diplomat on March 29, 2018 reported on growing American concern about Chinese harm to national interests in the trade and investment area. Excerpts below:

[President Donald] Trump’s increasing anti-Chinese turn on U.S. industrial policy [has largely gone unnoticed].

Over the last five years, Chinese acquisitions in the United States boomed. As reported by the Rhodium Group, during this period Chinese companies invested $116 billion in the United States, raising the overall investments in the country to $138 billion. This sharp increase has produced several concerns in Washington, leaving many questioning the real intentions of the investors and their possible connections to the Chinese government.

A good share of these investments, indeed, have been directed toward strategic sectors with a high concentration of advanced technologies. Concerns stemmed from the possibility that these acquisitions could enable China to transfer cutting-edge technologies to its own companies, reinforce its high-tech industry, and pose a significant challenge to Washington’s technological supremacy.

Central to the reshaping of the relationship is the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States (CFIUS), an interagency committee tasked with reviewing inbound investments for national security concerns. Among its members, CFIUS includes the heads of the Department of Treasury (who chairs it), Commerce, Energy, State, Homeland Security, Defense, and other offices. Although usually working behind closed doors, it has the power to block multibillion dollar deals if they are judged detrimental to national interests.

The first evidence of the administration’s change of approach came last September, when CFIUS did not approve the acquisition of U.S. chipmaker Lattice by Canyon Bridge, a semiconductor investment fund sponsored by a Chinese state-owned asset manager.

Since December, the administration made its stance even more clear regarding the high-tech industry. The National Security Strategy document released that month labeled China as a “strategic competitor”and fixed as a priority the protection of the U.S. “innovation base” from IP theft by the Chinese in order to preserve the United States’ long-term competitive advantage.

Therefore, since January, a string of interventions highlighted this new outlook. First, the deal for Moneygram, the second biggest money transfer provider globally, came under fire. The acquisition for $1.2 billion had been agreed with Ant Financial, the financial arm of Alibaba specializing in internet and mobile payments. Alex Holmes, director general of Moneygram, acknowledged the changes in the geopolitical environment as one of the reasons behind CFIUS’ refusal to give the green light.

Shortly after, CFIUS discreetly raised its voice once more when it put on hold two investments by the Chinese conglomerate HNA into U.S. hedge fund SkyBridge Capital and miner Glencore until the the buyer provided adequate information about its shareholding structure.

A month later, the committee intervened again in order to make clear that it was unlikely that it could approve the acquisition of Xcerra, a U.S. semiconductor testing company.

Only a few days after the Moneygram deal collapse, Chinese smartphone manufacturer Huawei was going to announce a deal with U.S. telecom carrier AT&T, marking a breakthrough for its penetration into the U.S. market, when suddenly the partner company backed away.

Indeed, Washington has a long record of mistrust toward Huawei and the last move appears motivated by concerns over Beijing’s espionage and presence in a strategic sector like telecommunications.

…the most prominent chapter of this saga occurred this month, when CFIUS took some unusual steps to kill the biggest deal ever in the technology industry. Broadcom, a Singapore-based formerly U.S. tech company, offered $117 billion for the acquisition of rival Qualcomm, one of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturers and a prominent developer in the race for the next-generation high-speed wireless network known as 5G. Before the deal was even concluded, CFIUS made clear that it might not let the acquisition go through and soon Trump, building on the committee’s decision, issued an order to block the takeover.

This is probably the most interesting case to date because it shows a shift in how CFIUS thinks about the protection of national security.

After all, the massive bank borrowing required for the deal did anything but assuage that concern. Against that backdrop, CFIUS warned that China would be able to fill any void left by a “hostile” Qualcomm takeover: reducing its competitiveness and its standard-setting abilities, the committee said, would have a negative impact on U.S. national interests as Chinese companies such as Huawei would finally be able to take the lead in the development of the most advanced technologies. This, of course, could bear great military implications.

Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to reinforce CFIUS’ scrutiny powers. The reform, which appears to have bipartisan backing, would expand its jurisdiction to outbound investments from U.S. companies in order to fight China’s practices of forcing foreign enterprises to share their technologies in exchange for market access.

…economic tensions between Washington and Beijing are heightening. Despite Prime Minister Li Keqiang’s latest endeavors to reassure his counterparts, the U.S. perception that Chinese trade and investment practices are unfair and harmful for national interests is highly unlikely to go away and Trump’s announcement of a new round of tariffs last week proves that.


March 29, 2018

Washington Times on March 28, 2018 published a commentary by Lt. Colonel L. Scott Lingamfelter on the necessary shift in United States foreign policy. Excerpts below:

Mr. Trump [early on] understood the importance of Saudi Arabia in not only reshaping the Middle East but in dealing with the emerging threat Iran poses to regional and world peace. Indeed, Mr. Trump is a practitioner of realpolitik. In that regard, his selection of former Ambassador John Bolton, who adheres to that philosophy,…represents a profound fulcrum shift in the crafting and orchestration of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy agenda.

Mr. Bolton’s arrival could not be timelier. Here some context would be illustrative. Consider the diametrically opposed foreign policy views of Mr. Trump and his predecessor, Barrack Obama. President Obama drew “redlines” in Syria as a warning to Damascus to refrain from chemical warfare, a threat he failed to keep. Mr. Trump attacked the Syrian regime with 60 cruise missiles for using those chemical weapons, even while having dessert with the president of China.

Mr. Obama was caught off-guard by the rise of ISIS. Mr. Trump destroyed them mercilessly. Mr. Obama placed U.S. and world security at risk by agreeing to a horribly constructed Iranian nuclear deal. Mr. Trump is poised to abrogate it. Mr. Obama continued the legacy of effete diplomatic efforts to contain North Korea’s nuclear and missile ambitions. Mr. Trump is moving to end it. Mr. Trump’s practical view of the world stands in stark contrast to the disoriented approach by Mr. Obama.

Indeed, the distinction between these men is further apparent in the difference between the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) Document, the road map for achieving…vital national interests,…Under Mr. Obama, the NSS read like a community organizer’s handbook. His NSS was filled with lofty nostrums about leadership, keeping “pressure” on the war on terror (as opposed to destroying it), and of course, climate change.

…Mr. Trump has taken a decidedly realpolitik view more appropriate for the challenges before us. His strategy is based on four pillars: (1) Protect the homeland, the American people, and the American way of life, (2) Promote American prosperity, (3) Preserve peace through strength, and (4) Advance American influence.

Mr. Bolton’s clear-eyed view of the world will be additive to the president’s instincts to see things as they are, not as he would wish them to be, which is why Mr. Trump has tapped him for the job. The former U.N. ambassador knows firsthand the nature of today’s international actors — some who are quite malevolent — in the multi-polar world we live in.

Mr. Bolton will be a wise and patient counselor in helping the president realize the foreign policy objectives that are clearly articulated in his NSS.

Indeed, Mr. Bolton’s arrival is a fulcrum shift…And there is much to do. The war on terror, the nuclear threat from both North Korea and Iran, the revolution in Syria and the military ambitions of China all pose profound challenges to the vital interests of the United States. None may be more exigent than a resurgent Russia in the hands of Vladimir Putin.

Here the weight of Mr. Bolton’s expertise is precisely what is needed to help the president navigate very turbulent waters.

Comment: Lt. Colonel Lingamfelter in the article above well describes the importance of a realist view in foreign policy.

Russia in the heartland of Eurasia and China as well as Iran/Persia are the present challengers to the United States and the rest of the West.

Russia under Putin has a strong military and the Russian president has shown willingness to use that force against neighbour Ukraine.

The goal of China is to surpass the United States as world leading power and with that the risk of military aggression in the South China Sea and in the rest of the Pacific. Both China and Russia have a tradition of centralized political authority based on what Karl Wittfogel (1896 – 1988) in his important book “Oriental Despotism” described as “hydraulic bureaucratic despotism” based on irrigation in agriculture. This tradition of despotism was brought to Russia by the Tartars in the Middle Ages and continued in Czarist Russia and now under Putin’s rule.

Iran (Persia) is a classical challenger to the West. Much of the present chaos in the Middle East is a result of Iranian intervention. Like in other cultures in the area Iran accepts and even values conflict, conspiracy and war. Muslim rulers have for a long time and are still relying on psychological warfare, espionage and subversion in the search to weaken the influence of Western civilization. Iran is supporting terrorist organizations in Lebanon and Gaza and is a constant threat to mainly Israel but also the rest of the West.


March 28, 2018

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan according to Washington Times on March 27, 2018, told legislators in central Europe on March 26 that the U.S. and its allies “will not tolerate” Russia’s efforts to destabilize democracies, as he promoted a more robust U.S. military presence in Europe. Excerpts below:

A day after the U.S. and at least 21 other countries expelled more than 130 Russian diplomats, Mr. Ryan told the parliament in the Czech Republic that Russia “meddles in democratic elections throughout Europe, as it did in the United States.”

“More furtively, it spreads disinformation, and engages in cyber attacks,” Mr. Ryan said in remarks prepared for delivery. “We must see this for what it is: an attempt to sow discord among our peoples, divide allies, and destabilize democratic institutions. We cannot and we will not tolerate it.”

The Czech Republic …was under the control of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, also has expelled Russian operatives.

Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Trump last week signed a spending bill that added about $1.4 billion this year for the European Deterrence Initiative, created to reassure allies in Eastern European and deter Russia from further incursions after its illegal annexation of Crimea.

“It includes beginning the build-up of a division’s worth of equipment being prepositioned over five locations on this continent,” Mr. Ryan said. “We want you to see that America is committed to an enduring presence in Europe.”

The EDI funding would grow by another $1.7 billion in fiscal 2019, to $6.5 billion according to the Pentagon’s budget request.

Mr. Ryan said the Czech people “are no strangers to Russian influence, whether in the guise of oppression or subversion.”

“Solidarity on this frontier of freedom is more important than ever. It is everything, really,” he said.

“All of the nations that once suffered under Soviet rule have a common interest in building security and prosperity,” Mr. Ryan said. “And we look forward to seeing you take on a larger share of the defense responsibility. This is not simply about meeting a benchmark. It is about expanding our capabilities to address evolving threats.”


March 27, 2018

American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, in an article published on March 23, 2018, commented on the ongoing decline of the Left in Europe using Netherlands as an example. Excerpts below:

The Netherlands held local elections on [in March 2018] in most of the country…

Let’s have a quick look at the local election results… The Labor Party (PvdA), traditionally the second-largest force in Dutch politics, continued its decline by underperforming relative to its disappointing 2014 results. Coupled with the shellacking it received in last year’s general-election vote, when it became the seventh-largest party in Parliament, it is hard to still think of the PvdA as a major political party.

[Its voters] have been taken over by the resurgent Green Left as the major player on the left. This fits a broad, continent-wide pattern of traditional social-democratic parties losing significant ground (France, Germany, Italy, Spain), practically disappearing (Greece), or taking a sharp turn toward the populist left (Great Britain).

Comment: As usual Sweden is an exception with the Labor Party (SAP) receiving between 25 and 30 percent in opinion polls in advance of national elections in September 2018. It remains the largest politicial party. SAP is governing in Sweden with the Green Left (MP), which according to recent polls will not make it to parliament in September (under 4 percent of the votes). Denmark, Finland and Norway all have center-right governments.


March 26, 2018

On March 25, 2018, Newt Gingrich, speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, on Fox News reported on a visit to an American university. He was hosted by Dr. Kiron Skinner at Carnegie Mellon University of Pittsburgh. Carnegie Mellon has a top level artificial intelligence (AI) program. Mr. Gingrich, a futurist of some note himself, wanted to learn more about technical developments that might evolve into something important in the future. Excerpts below:

…in 1965, as an undergraduate student at Emory University, I began working with Pete Jensen at what would later become the Rich Computer Center at Georgia Tech. Pete was one of the great pioneers of computing and in a few years introduced me to ideas…which evolved over the next half century into the Internet and modern computing. My own activities had been dramatically enriched by Pete’s ideas and teaching.

…(later) I had been privileged to work with Alvin and Heidi Toffler as their thinking evolved from their bestselling book, “Future Shock,” to their even more important book, “The Third Wave.” The observations and insights they developed for “The Third Wave” are still valid over three decades later. They gave me an entirely different perspective on the scale of change our civilization was going through. The Tofflers and their work were very influential in the thinking that led to the Contract with America in 1994.

Starting in 2001, I began looking at nanoscale science and technology, quantum computing and the revolution these two systems would bring about – a revolution that is still only in its infancy.

Around 2007, I began talking with oil and gas experts about the revolutionary breakthroughs in fracking, and their inevitable impact on our ability to produce oil and gas. In 2008 that led me, in collaboration with my former colleague Vince Haley and Sean Hannity, to launch “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.”

My wife Callista and I also made a documentary, “We Have the Power.”

Influenced by the growth of fracking, in 2012 I wrote the book, “$2.50 a Gallon.”

…in Pittsburgh, I saw another powerful glimmering of technologies that will change our world. The ability to develop intelligent systems that can learn and adjust is rapidly evolving. These systems will give us new capabilities and new insights in ways we have never imagined.

In a few brief hours at Carnegie Mellon, I saw a voice analysis system that could be combined with cellphone technology to enable remote medical analysis of virtually everyone on the planet. It would create an extraordinary new approach to early diagnostics and constant monitoring at an astonishingly low cost.

I watched a robotic assistant reduce the invasiveness of heart surgery so that instead of patients taking 14 days to recover, they could leave the hospital after one day.

And the potential for 3-D printing and robotics, combined with reusable rockets, will totally change how we think about space. This is just astonishing.

Artificial intelligence will displace many traditional service jobs, while also creating new jobs. The challenge will be helping adults make the transition from outdated skills to the new, higher-paying and more interesting skills made possible by artificial intelligence.

Of course, during this development, we must constantly work to improve these systems to make sure they are safe.

We must learn from and continuously work to prevent tragic accidents…

It is also clear that we have to invest heavily in artificial intelligence if we are going to maintain our competitive and national security advantages in the face of massive Chinese investment in the artificial intelligence field. We already know Chinese companies are working to build a huge fleet of self-driving vehicles. You can bet they will use and apply everything they learn in this endeavor in their military programs.

As I learn more over the next few months I will report on additional exciting new developments.

The future is going to be amazing,..There is much more to come.


March 25, 2018

Media on March 25, 2018 reported on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes’ comments following the Committee’s Russia Report. He slammed the Department of Justice for obstructing House and Senate requests for documents and said if they are not provided within two weeks DOJ officials should be held in contempt. He offered “paper ballots” as his top recommendation, and added that the committee found no evidence of any links between Trump and Russia.

Nunes further said that the Committee had 70 recommendations and that media allied with the Democratic Party ignored the report.

They came out with the narrative that the House Republicans were never interested in doing an investigation, however, the opposite is true — we have 70 findings and recommendations. To avoid future meddling Nunes recommended paper ballots in future elections.

We’ve been listening, Nunes said, for over a year to the Democrats scare the American people saying they have evidence of collusion with the Russians — no they don’t. They can’t prove it, they’ve been saying it, you have these investigations ongoing, you have these FBI officials getting fired.

There is no collusion between the Trump campaign but we did find links between the Clinton [campaign] and the Democratic Party to the Russians, Nunes added.


March 25, 2018

Sirius XM on March 23, 2018 hosted China expert Michael Pillsbury, Hudson Institute, and author of The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower (2015). Excerpts below:

Pillsbury noted that Trump praised Chinese President Xi and thanked China for its assistance with the North Korean nuclear missile crisis even as tariffs were announced, framing the situation as a “major negotiation” between friendly states with competing interests rather than an all-out “trade war.

He’s offering them some solutions that he hopes they’ll move toward,” Pillsbury said. “One of them is, they simply purchase $100 billion worth of U.S. exports.

Pillsbury found it necessary for Trump to take aggressive action to move negotiations forward because China simply has not taken American concerns seriously until now. Adding to the pressure on China is the release of a study that details “what China really has been trying to do to the United States.”

The Chinese treatment of the United States has gotten more unfair [since 2015], if I can put it that way, than was the case three years ago when I wrote my book trying to sound the alarm.

“They’re going to put enormous tariffs on American imports to China, they’re going to stop buying soybeans and sorghum and live hogs — three of our biggest products in the farm states — and so the farmers are going to be angry at President Trump, and this is all going to be terrible for world trade, because everybody sort of knows that as tariffs go up it’s a tax on all the countries involved so the world growth rate will drop.

“My own view is quite different from the critics of President Trump,” Pillsbury countered. “I think he’s on the right track and this is really a historic decision that takes the past presidents, like…Obama – [he] whined and they complained and they made speeches about Chinese unfair trade practices, but they really wouldn’t do anything about it.”

Pillsbury cautioned that many Americans retain an “out of date” image of China as poor, technologically backwards, and reluctant to provoke economic warfare with wealthier nations while so many of its people struggle with poverty.

“I wrote my book against that idea,” he said. “One of President Trump’s key advisers, who was obviously present today at the meeting with the president and has gone on television since, is a gentleman – a professor, actually, University of California Irvine in the past – named Peter Navarro. Very courageous fellow, he wrote three books blowing the whistle on Chinese unfair trade practices.”

“One of his books is called Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World. What this caused is the opening of a debate among China experts in America: are the Chinese really as friendly and poor? Often people say they will collapse soon. They sort of present a picture of China as about to collapse. While all this debate has been going on, the Chinese have doubled their economy again. They’re quite close to passing us. This is really a shock to most people. How can a poor, backward country surpass the size of the American economy? It’s just astonishing,” he said.

Pillsbury pointed to the new United States lawsuit against China in the World Trade Organization over the behavior outlined in yesterday’s report as another serious measure against Chinese trade practices, and further evidence that President Trump appreciates the scope of the problem.

“We’ve sued China before. China is the country we’ve sued the most in the World Trade Organization, but never this scale of criticism,” he noted.

The products targeted by the new tariffs and the rationale for including them will send a strong message to China. “It’s going to be examples, as this report explained today, the examples are based on a kind of reciprocity that if China has stolen intellectual property, stolen trade secrets and then made money off of it, that is the kind of product that will have the tariff placed on it. It’s kind of like a stiletto, if you will, not a sledgehammer,” he explained.

Pillsbury predicted that the Chinese will now understand Trump means business, and will make concessions to hold off further sanctions.

“I happen to think they need us more than we need them,” he said. “I don’t measure just trade. I measure all the things we’ve essentially — I hate to use this phrase — given away to China over the last 30 or more years. They still need our investment, our technology, our goodwill, our buying their products, the scientific programs we share with them – there’s an extremely long list of the benefits China gets from the United States, counting everything.”

“My own forecast is there’s not going to be a big trade war. The Chinese are quite afraid of being demonized in the United States and around Asia…I think what’s actually going to happen is we’re going to have some successful negotiations for the first time,” he said.

“The kind of stonewalling they were doing last year is going to end. They’re not going to roll over and just suddenly buy $100 billion worth of products in the month of April, but I think we will see a number of steps by the Chinese that will justify what President Trump did today in this historic decision,” he anticipated.

Pillsbury lamented that many people don’t appreciate the severity of the challenge to American interests posed by China.

“But they will when China begins to fight back, at least rhetorically,” he told Mansour. “They don’t understand…that China is wrapped up with the loss of jobs, the competition for resources in Africa and Latin America – just a whole range of competitive things we’re engaged in with the Chinese.”

Even as the Trump administration pursues what Vice President Mike Pence described yesterday as “the end of the era of economic surrender,” Pillsbury advised keeping areas of productive cooperation with China in mind, most notably North Korea.

“That’s a brilliant way to start out,” he said of President Trump’s remarks on Thursday. “He didn’t say, ‘You’re bastards, I hate you, I’m going to bring China to its knees with my memorandum today.’ He didn’t say anything like that.”

Furthermore, he noted that even the American freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea, which the Chinese frequently complain about, do not represent an aggressive challenge because the American ships follow “innocent passage” protocols, keeping their weapons radars off and avoiding military maneuvers as they cruise through the area.

“We have not challenged China in the South China Sea yet. That’s the important thing to understand. Some people think we should.

Pillsbury quoted U.S. trade representative Ambassador Robert Lighthizer’s statement that in addition to imposing tariffs and blocking intellectual property theft, one of the Trump administration’s top goals is to place “restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States.”

“They blocked large sectors of their own country, and they say, ‘We will not permit foreign investment in this sector,’” Pillsbury said of the Chinese. “We’ve negotiated with them for more than ten years to try to reduce that list – it’s called the ‘negative list,’ for lack of a better phrase – and the Chinese just won’t budge.”

Pillsbury found it telling and encouraging that two days ago, with the Trump tariffs looming, Beijing for the first time signaled a willingness to open new sectors to foreign investment.

“The Chinese anticipated this, and they’re trying to deal with it calmly.

“They want to continue what I described in Hundred-Year Marathon as a kind of stealthy acquisition of the role of the Number One economy in the world.

“We need to harden our own economy against Chinese theft, Chinese investment,” Pillsbury recommended. “Sometimes it can come in a small company. They will buy a technology in a joint venture or through a small company, let’s say in Silicon Valley, that no one’s ever heard of. Back in the days when robotics and artificial intelligence wasn’t a household word, they were acquiring these high technology companies, sometimes very small.”

“So China will be not only the dominant economy in the world, which they’re well on their way to doing, but they’ll be the dominant military power in the world. Now, this isn’t in the next few months or the next few years, but this is the trend. What President Trump is doing is trying to halt that too with these restrictions on Chinese investment in our high-tech sectors,” said Pillsbury.

Comment: Opening up to China was a wise move by President Nixon and Secretary Kissinger during the Cold War. The failed policies of Democratic administrations in the United States in relation to the Soviet Union were based on the false belief that the communist society in Russia would with time become open. The same failed policies have been dominating in regard to China. The rising economic wealth in that country would create an open society in the worlds’s most populous nation. Progressive elites in the West allowed China to rise to become a serious challenger to the West. President Trump is taking action to prevent China’s continuing rise. March 2018 is an important turning point.


March 25, 2018

American Greatness on March 23, 2018, published an article by Thaddeus McCotter on the choice oj John Bolton as National Security Adviser of President Donald Trump. McCotter wished Bolton well in his new role. Excerpts below:

Philosophically, Bolton fully shares President Trump’s foundational security policy principles that an administration’s first priorities are to defend America and secure her strategic national interests. This is not “America alone,” as some critics claim. Rather, it is the starting point of harmonizing the mutual strategic interests of America and her allies, who also make their determinations based upon their own national interests.

Further, like the president, Bolton understands these foundational security principles have well served past administrations (with but a few aberrations notable for their failures); and, importantly, agrees with Presidents Trump (and Reagan) that the way to preserve and promote America’s strategic interests is by pursuing “peace through strength.” Clearly, President Trump and Bolton believe America is an exceptional nation; a force for moral good in the world; and, consequently, must be ever vigilant and prepared to defend herself. A free people’s very existence belies the oppressive ideologies of the world’s autocrats, tyrants, and terrorists so we must expect and anticipate challenges to our security. In these challenging days of the 21st century, where totalitarian and repressive regimes pursue their aims presenting themselves as legitimate rivals to free nations as models of government, Bolton will be a sage, candid adviser to and clarion messenger for President Trump’s vision that freedom is and must be the future.

Practically, few can match Bolton’s preparation for assuming the momentous responsibilities of National Security Advisor. His government service has included: general counsel, then assistant administrator for program and policy coordination, USAID; assistant attorney general, Department of Justice; assistant secretary for international organization affairs, then third undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, Department of State; and the 25th United States ambassador to the United Nations.

Bolton is well versed in the Byzantine ways of the federal bureaucracy. With the president’s approval, Bolton will know where, how, and when to appropriately and fully realize the president’s national security policies inside and outside the swamp. This will have an immediate and salubrious remedial effect upon those bureaucrats—Obama holdovers or others—bent upon subverting the president’s policies.

What could be more necessary now, in the chaotic, dangerous international arena, than the unambiguous articulation of America’s national security policies, whereby our allies and our enemies know where America stands?

…like President Trump, Bolton will never, ever “lead from behind” and passively allow America’s vital strategic national interests—nor those of her allies—be dismissed, disregarded and endangered.

As President Trump rightly determined in naming his new national security advisor, throughout his years of service John Bolton has understood, articulated and advanced an abiding truth: the only revolution worthy of being “permanent” is the American Revolution; and it must endure and inspire the world with what we free people can achieve.

Comment: One can only hope that the appointment of John Bolton will be the start of a US/Western policy to actively counter the grave challenges to the West of China and Iran/Persia in the Eurasian rimland. A good start would be the denuclearization of North Korea by moving the nuclear arsenal of Kim Jong-Un to the United States. Then talks and perhaps negotations can start in earnest.