NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck made his third appearance in as many weeks Monday on the Fox News Channel’s Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher and, alongside former Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon, he blasted the liberal media for their wavering cowardice in the wake of President Biden’s disastrous debate performance. Gallagher went first to Dixon, telling her the left and their media allies are “trying to gaslight us all over again” into thinking “you didn’t see what you saw” with Biden last week and “it wasn’t really that bad.”     Dixon noted these sudden and years-late acknowledgment that Biden’s mental state has slipped:  They started it the week before with the whole cheap fakes thing. You’re not seeing — these are your — don’t believe your lion eyes. You’re not seeing what you’re actually seeing. And now they’re coming out, and they realize that their lies can no longer be held up. They can’t continue lying to the American people. The American people saw him, and we don’t even know if that was at his worst. That’s the scary part and now they’ve come out with all of these stories. Well, he’s good for six hours a day....The American people have seen the truth. Gallagher then went to Houck with a tweet from former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki defending her former White House colleagues who prepped the President for the debate and have been blamed by some for what happened. Houck said the overly prepared narrative “remind[ed]” him “of the liberal narrative that we hear all the time that, when liberal policies fail, it’s cause they care too much or they didn’t communicate well enough,” or “our ideas are great that people just don’t know what we’re doing.” Houck added that, in Psaki’s case, she’s being a team player while also “thanking her lucky stars that she’s not the White House podium.” As for those still there, Houck noted that they must be appreciative since their jobs working for an elected Democrat is usually “the easiest job in politics,” but hasn’t thanks to Biden. Gallagher then had Dixon react to Friday’s Real Time on HBO as host Bill Maher and former MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews said Biden needs to drop out, but they fear he’ll stubbornly stay in. Dixon agreed with that prediction since Biden’s such “an egotistical maniac that can’t possibly comprehend the idea of leaving” even though “the vultures are circling” like her former opponent: [Y]ou already have the story that broke that Gretchen Whitmer was calling people that night saying, we’ve lost Michigan. [GALLAGHER LAUGHS] And, you know, she doesn’t know the national scene. So, she doesn’t know that that was like a faux pas and then, all of a sudden, she gets her hand slapped and they’re like, this isn’t how you work the presidential race, lady. So, it’s like the Democrats are in full meltdown mode. And I think it’s kind of beautiful, because they brought this on themselves. They knew exactly who Joe Biden was. Jill knows who he is. But all the staff, they knew this is not — people didn’t find out for the first time Thursday night. Voters — some voters found out for the first time Thursday night. With time running out, Houck wrapped with a prediction the liberal media will not only circle the wagons around Biden, but try to gaslight the American people into ignoring their moments of moral clarity: [W]e’re definitely starting to see that — ABC, NBC. I mean, you’ve got trained operatives inside these networks. People like George Stephanopoulos anchoring ABC’s morning show. I mean, you have seasoned veterans here of the Obama campaigns, the Clinton campaigns — who covered those candidacies and they all got in line. They’ll be shamed into doing this. Houck said that, if the two are talking next week or in the near future, the conversation will be different with the liberal media saying “it’s time to move on.” To see the relevant FNC transcript from July 1, click “expand.” FNC’s Fox News @ Night with Trace Gallagher July 1, 2024 11:15 p.m. Eastern [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Biden Blame Game Ramps Up in Wake of Rough Debate] TRACE GALLAGHER: Let’s bring in former GOP candidate for Michigan governor and host of The Tudor Dixon Podcast, Tudor Dixon, along with NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck. Thank you both for coming on. Tudor, to you first. I was watching Jake Tapper, of course, one of the moderators of the debate. He was saying, you know, you have this whole — this whole list of Democrats trying to come out saying you didn’t see what you saw. It wasn’t really that bad. It’s not — it — you know, it starts — it’s the switching of the narrative. They’re trying to gaslight us all over again. TUDOR DIXON: Oh yes, sure. They started it the week before with the whole cheap fakes thing. You’re not seeing — these are your — don’t believe your lion eyes. You’re not seeing what you’re actually seeing. And now they’re coming out, and they realize that their lies can no longer be held up. They can’t continue lying to the American people. The American people saw him, and we don’t even know if that was at his worst. That’s the scary part and now they’ve come out with all of these stories. Well, he’s good for six hours a day. Oh no. Now we’re going to have him come out and talk at 7:45 p.m. and show you two and a half minutes where he can be really strong. [GALLAGHER LAUGHS] Don’t you believe in him now? The American people have seen the truth. GALLAGHER: Yes, they really have. And that’s the whole thing. I went back to this. I was telling people, listen, I’m reading a teleprompter, right? It’s easy. You read a teleprompter. Yeah, you know, I’m doing it really well, Tudor, don’t get me wrong but it’s easy. [DIXON, HOUCK LAUGH] It’s when you have to process information and then you have to regurgitate it. Where it gets difficult. Jen Psaki, Curtis Houck, said the following here. He [sic] talked about Biden blaming his debate prep team — or she talked about it, saying, “[t]he notion that the issue at the debate was the prep process done by people like Ronald Klain and Anita Dunn who have successfully prepped many candidates, including Obama, Clinton and Biden is absurd.” I mean, he’s the same President who blamed all his generals for Afghanistan. Now he’s blaming the debate people, the preppers. CURTIS HOUCK: Yeah, Trace. This one’s a real head scratcher. I mean, this reminds me a lot of the liberal narrative that we hear all the time that, when liberal policies fail, it’s cause they care too much or they didn’t communicate well enough. You know, our ideas are great that people just don’t know what we’re doing. I mean, it just completely falls on deaf ears, so they moved on to this other crazy, insane narrative. Jen Psaki, of course, is doing complete damage control. I mean, she’s probably thanking her lucky stars that she’s not the White House podium. And, you know, if you’re the Biden White House, you think, oh my gosh, well, at least somebody is on our side because the rest of the media sure seemed to not be getting in line right now. GALLAGHER: Right. HOUCK: If you’re someone in the press office at the White House, you must think, you know, I thought I had the easiest job in politics. I guess not anymore, because your boss is Joe Biden. GALLAGHER: Right. Bill Maher was talking to Chris Matthews when he said the following, Tudor. Watch. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Liberal Hosts Think Biden Will Lose to Trump] BILL MAHER [on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, 06/28/24]: The whole rationale for Biden running has always been, I’m the only guy who can beat him. CHRIS MMATTHEWS [on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, 06/28/24]: Yeah. MAHER [on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, 06/28/24]: Now I think it’s inverted. I think he’s the only guy who could lose too him. MATTHEWS [on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, 06/28/24]: I think you’re — MAHER [on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, 06/28/24]: Or the guy who’s sure — you’re great. So, shouldn’t they replace him? MATTHEWS [on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, 06/28/24]: — I’m talking about what has to happen, but probably won’t. GALLAGHER: Yeah. I mean, the whole concept here, Tudor is that, you know, Biden is staying. The question is, why is he staying? DIXON: Well, we know why he’s staying, because he is an egotistical maniac that can’t possibly comprehend the idea of leaving. However, the vultures are circling. GALLAGHER: Mmhmm. DIXON: I mean, you hear that conversation, you know that you’ve got Gavin Newsom, you already have the story that broke that Gretchen Whitmer was calling people that night saying, we’ve lost Michigan. [GALLAGHER LAUGHS] And, you know, she doesn’t know the national scene. So, she doesn’t know that that was like a faux pas and then, all of a sudden, she gets her hand slapped and they’re like, this isn’t how you work the presidential race, lady. GALLAGHER: Yeah. DIXON: So, it’s like the Democrats are in full meltdown mode. And I think it’s kind of beautiful, because they brought this on themselves. They knew exactly who Joe Biden was. Jill knows who he is. GALLAGHER: Yeah. DIXON: But all the staff, they knew this is not — people didn’t find out for the first time Thursday night. Voters — some voters found out for the first time Thursday night. GALLAGHER: Right. DIXON: But everybody around him, they knew how bad this was. GALLAGHER: Yeah. Curtis, I got 30 seconds left. But she says the vultures are out. I want to know, in your opinion, how long before the media coalesces around Biden again and starts gaslighting us all over again? HOUCK: Well, Trace, I — we’re definitely starting to see that ABC, NBC. I mean, you’ve got trained operatives inside these networks. People like George Stephanopoulos anchoring ABC’s morning show. I mean, you have seasoned veterans here of the Obama campaigns, the Clinton campaigns — who covered those candidacies and they all got in line. GALLAGHER: Mmhmm HOUCK: They’ll be shamed into doing this. You know, try to memory hold these tough couple of days that they saw, but because they were caught flat footed — GALLAGHER: Right. HOUCK: — you know, now they’ve got their talking points in order and just wait. Give it another week if we’re talking here, in another week, we’ll see the media just say, hey, it’s time to move on. GALLAGHER: It wasn’t just flat footed. It was red handed, pants down. I mean, they got busted on this one. Tudor Dixon, Curtis Houck, thank you both. HOUCK: Thanks, Trace.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, whereon liberals make up the majority, ruled unanimously in favor of Christian pro-life advocate Brian Aish on Thursday, undoing an injunction that prevented him from peacefully protesting abortion at locations where a specific nurse was present. Aish has spent years protesting the slaughter of the unborn. He frequently did so on the public sidewalk outside the former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Blair, Wisconsin. Court documents indicate he would "warn women [seeking abortions] they will be accountable to God on the day of judgment if they proceed" and would also quote Bible verses and hold up signs. After several interactions with Aish, nurse Nancy Kindschy sought a harassment injunction in March 2020 against the pro-life advocate. On Feb. 18, 2020, Aish was recorded as saying to Kindschy, "I pray you guys make it home safely for another day or two until you turn to Christ and repent. You still have time." This and other alleged remarks had apparently set off the nurse. The circuit court acknowledged that Aish's pleading with the abortion nurse came "from a place of love or nonaggression" and were made in the context of "convey[ing] a message of repentance." Aish had, after all, testified that his aim was to "warn those going in there that if they're going to even consider torturing and murdering their child for convenience or choice, they're being misled and they're going to be accountable [to God] because they're shedding innocent blood of a child." He indicated further that his warnings to Kindschy and others about traffic accidents were to emphasize "we don't know if we'll have a tomorrow. So God warns us, don't assume you're going to have a tomorrow" to repent. Despite recognizing his intent, the lower court concluded Aish's statements were nevertheless intimidating and did not serve a "legitimate purpose." 'No reasonable factfinder could have made such a finding based on the record.' Aish was slapped with a four-year restraining order, which barred him from speaking to the nurse and effectively prevented him from protesting outside the abortion clinic where she sometimes worked. The pro-life advocate appealed, but the appellate court upheld the injunction. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Counterman v. Colorado. The Wisconsin justices indicated that in Counterman, the SCOTUS held "that in a criminal prosecution for harassment premised on true threats, the First Amendment requires the government to prove at a minimum that the defendant 'consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.'" In light of the Counterman ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court found that even if Aish's statements were legitimate threats, the harassment injunction still violated the First Amendment because the lower court failed to establish that Aish exhibited such a conscious disregard. Justice Rebecca Bradley underscored in her concurring opinion that Aish's statements were not real threats to begin with and that "no reasonable factfinder could have made such a finding based on the record before the circuit court." Bradley noted that to constitute a true threat, "The communication must express, explicitly or implicitly, that the speaker or a co-conspirator intends to inflict imminent or future injury on the victim. ... This element is essential. Speech cannot be punished or restricted on the ground that a listener 'fears a generalized harm because of what the speaker has suggested.'" The Wisconsin Supreme Court underscored in its majority opinion that the injunction amounted to "a content-based restriction on Aish's speech and that it fails to satisfy strict scrutiny" and thereby "violates the First Amendment." It ruled, accordingly, to ax the injunction. Joan Mannix, the executive vice president of the Thomas More Society whose attorneys represented Aish in the case, stated the ruling "reaffirms that the First Amendment embodies a paramount American value of protecting free speech, even if the viewpoint expressed may be unpopular or controversial — a value that transcends partisan divides." The Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University indicated that Kindschy has since retired, and the clinic where she worked has been shuttered. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Conservative commentator Larry Elder blasted hurdler Alaysha Johnson for saying "this is for everybody that looks like me" after she took second place in the 100-meter hurdles final at the U.S. Olympic Trials Sunday, which earned her a spot on the team heading to the Paris Games later this month.A clip Elder posted on X showed Johnson after the race saying, "It was all God. ... everybody all the time said that I wasn’t good enough, said that I didn’t deserve. And so I did this my way, my team’s way, and just the way that it was meant to be. This is for the hood babies. This is for the people who are poor and come from nothing. This is for everybody that looks like me that was ever doubted, and I did it with a black designer on my chest. This is what I stand for, and I’m making a way for everybody in my position.”'If you know me then you know EXACTLY what I meant by my speech. If you don’t, it wasn’t for you & that is OK!'Elder's reaction? "Alaysha 'Lay' Johnson (@ImJustLaylay), congrats on making the Olympics. But why the, 'This is for everybody who [sic] looks like me' crap? There was but ONE non-black runner — and she finished next to last. Can we quit this 'we shall overcome' BS? For crying out loud, this is 2024!"The post from Elder — who has 1.5 million followers on X — has attracted about 50,000 likes since it went live Sunday and has garnered over 2,000 comments. Here are a few of them:"Thank God we can finally see a strong black woman representing the U.S. in the Olympics!" one commenter quipped. "It's long overdue!""Why do people look for skin color everywhere? It does not matter! Be proud of who you are and what you have achieved. America is not racist, we had for 8 years a black president, if that is not enough, I do not know what it is!" another commenter stated."I’m old enough to remember watching [black sprinter] Wilma Rudolph run in the (televised) 1960 Olympics in Rome. I was 4 [years old]. I remember my mother yelling at the TV, 'Run, Wilma, run!' That was something special," another user recalled."I can’t imagine how this would’ve made me feel if the black athletes I admired growing up made comments like this," another commenter said. "The first biography I ever read was Herschel Walker’s. I idolized him after that. I’m glad I grew up in a time when looking like someone wasn’t a prerequisite to admiring or wanting to be like them."The day after the race, Johnson posted the following message on X: "If you know me then you know EXACTLY what I meant by my speech. If you don’t, it wasn’t for you & that is OK!"Anything else?Johnson's personal-best 12.31 in the finals put her a hair behind winner Masai Russell's 12.25, USA Today reported, adding that Russell's time broke Gail Devers' 24-year-old meet record and was the fastest time in the world this year.“People like me who come from the inner city of Houston ... it’s hard for us to get opportunities,” Johnson — a 27-year-old who ran at the University of Oregon and Texas Tech — told the Associated Press. “It always takes what I say is double the effort to get half as far. I always tell people if we had a little bit more support, I probably could have been here a long time ago. But it made me understand that regardless of how many people have your back, I’m still strong enough to do this on my own two feet.”Johnson has hypothyroidism, which causes fatigue, and she told the outlet she cut back on her warm-up Sunday “to make sure I can conserve as much as I could to be able to get through 10 hurdles." The AP added that Johnson also ran on borrowed spikes after the “bubble popped” on the only pair she took with her to the trials.“We did this ground up," Johnson also told the outlet. "So honestly, I just hope that somebody sees that I’ve worked my tail off — my team has worked their tails off — to get this far. We could have been this far a long time ago, had we had a little bit of help.”Johnson, Russell, and third-place 100-meter hurdles finisher Grace Stark are all first-time Olympians, USA Today said.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden’s disastrous debate performance has caused all kinds of speculation regarding whether or not he will continue his election campaign for 2024. Bill O’Reilly has his own theory. “The people in charge of this are Barack Obama and Ron Klain,” O’Reilly tells Glenn Beck, noting that they've told Biden: “You can’t win. You cannot beat Trump, and he’s the devil, he’s evil. So if you don’t get out, you are helping evil.” Meanwhile, he believes the first lady is fighting their suggestion. “It’s his wife that’s making all the calls,” O’Reilly says. “And she is going ‘No way, no way we’re leaving, we’re fighting this to the end.’” “The fight is now between the party elders and Jill Biden,” he adds. However, he believes that Jill Biden will lose this fight. “All Biden has to do is say 'I’m retiring for health reasons,' which you’re going to see, and 'I’m going to give my delegates to whomever the party wants,' and then Biden will be totally out of it and they’ll tell him to give the delegates to Kamala, to Newsom, to Whitmer, whatever,” O’Reilly explains. Not only does O’Reilly believe that Biden’s clear mental decline is good enough reason to oust him, but he never had the support that Trump has in the first place. “Biden’s support was thin to begin with. He doesn’t have a core support. It’s all hate Trump support,” he says. “So there aren’t many Democrats, if you believe the CBS poll, that care if Biden’s the nominee. They don’t have an emotional investment in Biden. They just want to see Trump lose.” What Glenn is most concerned about is who is going to replace the president. “Who do you think is most likely to replace him?” he asks O’Reilly. “I will tell you who wants it,” he says. “Kamala wants it. Kamala’s not gonna go quietly into the night, and she’ll play the race card.” O’Reilly believes Newsom and Whitmer are prime candidates as well. “What about big Mike?” Glenn asks, referencing Michelle Obama. “Obviously that would be the savior, right? But there isn’t any indication one way or the other that she wants to do it,” O’Reilly says. Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

American lawmakers, foreign policy wonks, and military officials frequently raise the possibility of a shooting war with China, particularly over Taiwan. Gen. Mike Minihan, commander of the U.S. Air Force's Air Mobility Command, noted in a memo early last year, "My gut tells me we will fight in 2025." The four-star general intimated that China would attempt to invade Taiwan in 2025 while America was still distracted with the results of the 2024 election. At a foreign policy conference months later, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) indicated there was an appetite for such a war among some of his colleagues on the Hill. "You come to my Republican caucus and you'll hear the beating of drums," said Paul, himself a critic of the "blathering about inevitability [of war]." "These are drums for war with whomever, but primarily war with China. Everything is about war with China." That drum beat, which recently payed out billions in taxpayer dollars to Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific partners to "counter communist China," has been echoed on the other side of the globe where China has not only engaged in saber rattling, but taken great strides to sharpen its blades — to grow and modernize its military in all domains of warfare, ending up with the largest navy in the world and the largest aviation force in the Indo-Pacific. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute revealed in its annual report last month that China — whose defense budget has more than doubled under President Xi Jinping over the past 11 years — is expanding its nuclear capabilities at such a rate where it could potentially deploy as many intercontinental ballistic missiles as either the U.S. or Russia in the coming decade. The Pentagon has estimated China will have 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030. Amidst this military buildup, Xi and other communist officials have spoken frankly about their desire to annex Taiwan, possibly by force, and routinized the buzzing of the island with military aircraft. While the stage is set for a Sino-American conflict over Taiwan, David P. Goldman underscored to Blaze News it would be an unmitigated disaster for all parties involved were it to happen sometime in the near future, highlighting critical considerations that tend to be glossed over in mainstream discussions. Goldman, the Spengler columnist for Asia Times Online and Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute, is the author of "You Will Be Assimilated: China’s Plan to Sino-Form the World." Goldman contributes to numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal, First Things, and Tablet Magazine, and has written extensively on China. At the outset, Blaze News presented Goldman with a concern he had expressed in 2022 — that "the knuckleheads who spent $6 trillion on forever wars and gutted our military by frittering away our resources will steer us into a confrontation with China that will lead to a war that nobody can win." When asked how likely it was now that such a confrontation might happen, Goldman indicated he couldn't assign a probability but detailed why the prospect should be loathsome to both the U.S. and China. "The problem is that the American Chinese military relationship is massively asymmetric. The United States military is more powerful than the Chinese military. We have many more nuclear missiles. We have many more modern aircraft. We don't have as many ships, but we have more tonnage, and we certainly have a military that has a great deal of combat experience," said Goldman. Where land forces are concerned, Goldman indicated that the U.S. spends 15-times as much per unit than China, which also lacks a main battle tank and doesn't execute large-scale maneuvers. Goldman noted further that China lacks fighting experience, having not fought a real war since Korea in the early 1950s. Barring experience, many of these advantages are immaterial when it comes to a conflict over Taiwan, suggested Goldman. After all, it is unlikely both that the U.S. would wage a land war with the People's Liberation Army and that the two countries' navies would engage one another in open waters. 'The fact that the Chinese can from their coast fire an arbitrarily large number of missiles at an American expeditionary force is a gigantic advantage.' Goldman suggested it would be foolhardy for China to attempt an amphibious D-Day-style assault on Taiwan, as it would suffer a "hideous number of casualties." Instead, it would blockade the island in order to starve out a surrender. Taiwan produces none of its own energy. There's no energy resources that has to import everything. It has perhaps 11 days storage of natural gas, which is its most important energy source, and with a blockade, the Chinese don't have to do anything but tell the shipping companies that if the natural gas LNG tanker gets too close to Taiwan, they will hit it with an anti-ship gun. At that point, the Taiwanese economy would shut down in three weeks, and the Taiwanese would have to accept Chinese terms. There's nothing that our navy can do to stop the blockade. An attempt to break such a blockade — or even to counter the more unlikely naval assault — would expose American forces to China's coastal defenses and "home theater advantage." "The short logistical lines are a fundamental feature of warfare, and in an era where missile warfare, missile and anti-missile warfare are probably the most important single factor in determining the outcome of an engagement, the fact that the Chinese can from their coast fire an arbitrarily large number of missiles at an American expeditionary force is a gigantic advantage," Goldman told Blaze News. Maj. Christopher Mihal, a nuclear and counter-WMD officer with the U.S. Army, noted years before China went into high gear with its military buildup, that it already had "enough antiship missiles to attack every U.S. surface combatant vessel in the South China Sea with enough firepower to overcome each ship's missile defense." The missiles at the PLA's disposal include long-range missiles, which Goldman indicated could hit the American Air Base in Guam; the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, which is regarded as an aircraft carrier killer; and hypersonic missiles, for which there presently is no counter. Absent hypersonic missiles, American forces in the South China Sea would still be in trouble. "Now there are anti-missile countermeasures, but the problem is the simple volume," continued Goldman. "An American destroyer, for example, can carry 100 interceptors, and those interceptors certainly can take down an ordinary cruise missile of the Tomahawk type. But once their interceptors are used up, they have to turn around and go away." "Because of a home theater advantage with China's ability to store and launch missiles from its mainland, the U.S. is at an enormous disadvantage. It would almost certainly lose such an engagement," said Goldman. "If, you know, God forbid, we got into a kinetic action and the Chinese destroyed an American aircraft carrier with 10,000 servicemen on board, I think the reaction would be enormous, and [Americans would] feel compelled to do something." Goldman indicated that payback for a destroyed carrier, such as F-18 strikes on mainland Chinese targets or missile strikes could easily lead to nuclear confrontation — a possibility explored in U.S. Navy Ret. Admiral James Stavridis' popular work of scenario fiction, "2034." Besides China's "arbitrarily" large number of mortar systems and ship-killing missiles, Goldman noted that China also has scores of diesel electric submarines that could lurk in wait for American ships. 'We should be developing different kinds of weapons that have the potential to counteract this inherent Chinese advantage.' Unlike certain personalities in Washington, Goldman noted that for these and other reasons, the "American military is extremely reluctant to engage [China]." The Pentagon's awareness of China's home theater advantage may itself diminish the risk of a direct confrontation in the short to medium term. Should such caution afford America some time, Goldman advocates that it be spent on research and development, largely with the aim of blunting China's military edge. "I think that we were very complacent investing in the same weapon systems we've had for many years, thinking that they would suffice," Goldman told Blaze News. "We were simply oblivious to the impact of the Chinese missile buildup." In order to succeed in the Chinese theater, Goldman stressed the need of anti-missile technologies, including directed energy weapons and drone swarms. "Given the technologies involved and our disadvantage against China's home theater arsenal, we should, in fact, be cautious, and we should be developing different kinds of weapons that have the potential to counteract this inherent Chinese advantage and try to develop them faster than the Chinese did, but that would take a while," said Goldman. Former President Donald Trump's proposed "great Iron Dome over our country" is the kind of thinking Goldman suggested was necessary — a government initiative that doesn't dish out subsidies to civilian contractors but executes with a sense of national security need on the model of the Apollo program or the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative. But in the meantime, "The best thing we could do is to try to keep the status quo on China's coast and not attempt to push any issue of our liking." The status quo has been maintained stateside in the form of the One-China policy, whereby the American government: acknowledges that Taiwan is technically part of China and that Beijing is the "sole legal government of China"; rejects the use of force to settle the dispute; will sell Taiwan weapons for its self-defense; sidesteps Beijing to maintain ties with Taipei; and reserves the ability to come to Taiwan's defense without formally committing to doing so. In theory, this approach enables the U.S. to support Taiwan without too greatly alienating Beijing. However, incidents such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) 2022 visit to Taiwan have revealed just how sensitive the status quo really is to disruption. Blaze News asked Goldman why China would not act now to capture Taiwan, given its awareness of its regional advantages as well as America's materiel exhaustion in Ukraine and the apparent weakness in the White House. "They would pay a very heavy price to do so," Goldman told Blaze News. While China could extract concessions and perhaps a surrender from a blockaded Taiwan in a matter of days or weeks, such would be a pyrrhic victory. "I think the outrage in the United States would push us to stop importing all the Chinese goods and possibly could encourage other people to do so. I think Europe and Japan would probably get involved, as well as South Korea," said Goldman. "There would be a global economic depression and a very severe depression in China." 'It will cease to be economically viable.' Although the "Chinese economy could probably limp through," America and allied nations would nevertheless find various ways to keep tripping them up, such as starving them off Persian oil by blockading the Straits of Malacca, or largely cutting off their supply of chicken and pork. Although China could see roughly half of its seaborne imports of food replaced by China over existing rail lines, the food embargoes will nevertheless prove impactful. Goldman noted further that the economic and resource warfare brought on in response to the annexation of Taiwan — which would be "horrible for all sides, but ... extremely uncomfortable for China" — would likely also prove to be domestically destabilizing for China, especially for its communist regime. "I think that would be very bad for the political standing of the Communist Party of China. I don't believe the Chinese people like the Communist Party of China. Now, that said, the Chinese have never particularly liked their emperors. They've always viewed them as a necessary evil, but they'll go along with pretty much any ruler as long as that ruler brings stability and prosperity," continued Goldman. "The economic devastation that I think would ensue from military action to acquire Taiwan would be a big net negative for the Chinese Communist Party. Would be an enormous risk for them to take." Bloomberg Economics estimated in January that a war over Taiwan would cost roughly $10 trillion — more than the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. The Chinese, cut off from major trade partners and at a loss for advanced semiconductors, would take an estimated 16.7% hit to its GDP. Taiwan's economy would be in tatters, suffering a 40% blow. The U.S. would reportedly suffer a 6.7% hit to its GDP. Global GDP would drop an estimated 10.2%. While the conquest of Taiwan is likely a matter of pride for Xi as well as a surefire way to establish his legacy, Goldman suggested he is far too much of a "rational, calculating man" to take such an excessive risk — especially when Taiwan is just one generation away from falling into Beijing's lap uncoerced. "Taiwan has the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world, maybe, except in South Korea. If you assume that that fertility remains constant, Taiwan's working age population will fall by 75% — will shrink by three quarters in the course of the century. It will cease to be economically viable," said Goldman. While China similarly has a shrinking population, it will still have at least 500 million people by 2100. Goldman suggested that Taiwan will "have no choice to open up to mainland immigrants that eventually will be absorbed back." "The Chinese never fight for what they think they can get without fighting," said Goldman. "They're patient. They have a long-term view. And therefore, unless there is a threat of a Taiwanese move to sovereignty, as long as the status quo is respected, we will not have a military action to acquire Taiwan." While Xi and other communists may be willing to play the waiting game, that won't stop them from continuing to cajole Taipei into reasserting ties with the mainland. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicated in its 2024 threat assessment that "Beijing will continue to apply military and economic pressure as well as public messaging and influence activities while promoting long-term cross-Strait economic and social integration to induce Taiwan to move toward unification." Goldman indicated the U.S. should simultaneously maintain that the penalty for aggression against Taiwan "would be extreme" and that "we would accept a great deal of economic pain ourselves to punish China for a military action" against the island but that the status quo is mutually beneficial and worth preserving for the time being. While, despite all the rhetoric, a war over Taiwan may be far off if inevitable to begin with, the U.S. still has to contend with China's ongoing efforts to displace its power worldwide, largely through the leveraging and co-option of the so-called Global South. While IP theft, cyber warfare, illegal Chinese communist police stations, and espionage efforts on the part of Beijing are all troubling, Goldman suggested that "focusing on these relatively minor issues distracts attention from what we really ought to be worried about, which is China becoming the dominant manufacturing power in the world, and one by one, gaining hegemony in critical technologies, and extending their influence throughout the world as a result." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT! First Democrat Officially Calls on Biden to Withdraw and Grab Yer Popcorn

DELIGHTFUL! Black Democrat Warns ‘We Gon' Blow The Party Up' if They Choose White Man Over Kamala (Watch)

The 'Bedwetting Brigade' Takes a Victory Lap as Several New Polls Suggest Biden Losing to Trump

Bidenomics, Baby! Salaries Have Fallen 8.2% Over the Last Five Years

Theorycraft's battle royale SUPERVIVE has dominated my evenings over the past week as its public playtest continues. It's bringing out the feeling I had when I first played League of Legends 9 years ago, a feeling of wanting to improve and sharing that experience of improvement with friends.