- Obama's chief of Cyber security now working for Chinese firm Huawei on cybersecurity.
- US political apparatus and laws assist advance of globalism.
- China needs no military victory, they seek economic superpower status through globalist ties.
Steve Hilton of Fox News runs a show called “Swamp Watch” in which he regularly takes members of the Washington DC political establishment to the rhetorical woodshed over their involvement in unquestionably elitist moves of the rich and powerful. In the following video, released on YouTube on the 9th of September, Mr. Hilton took up what appeared to be the recent narrative of American politicals that Huawei, the Chinese telecom giant, is a threat to American security. However, Mr. Hilton did something different in his report, and he came up with a point that is well worth considering, one which has President Trump’s attention as well – that of political and presidential administration officials ability to work for foreign agencies after they retire from political work, on the grounds that such activity advances globalism.
I have detailed in several pieces of late how Huawei became the latest target of attack from a paranoid American political and media apparatus. Speculation that Huawei uses its equipment which already exists on regional cell networks in the United States to spy on American people, the military and the like was shown to be unfounded and absolutely ludicrous. The simple logic to that is this: that the Western world is well aware that Huawei is a Chinese company operating in COMMUNIST China. If the company were to be caught but one time using its equipment to perform espionage on any Western, especially American interests, this would be curtains for not only Huawei but any other Chinese tech company, for the West would immediately slam the doors of commerce shut to China.
To date, there has been absolutely zero evidence that the Chinese government uses Chinese companies as a conduit for espionage.
But that does not mean that there is not a problem. In fact, the problem is even worse than China using its companies to spy on the West. It is more serious than intellectual property theft, or copy-cat product manufacturing, or any of the other popular tropes that get trotted out to try to scare Americans about China.
The real problem is the advance of globalism through the compromising of the US’ own policy advisers and political wonks from previous presidential adminstrations. Lure them into a nice job working with Chinese business, get them in bed with the Chinese interests and then – bingo! It becomes increasingly difficult to take truly sovereign actions against the Chinese. This is where business expands into politics, and that is Globalism.
Steve Hilton hit the nail on the head exactly in his report:
In Mr. Hilton’s own words:
Now, here is what in many ways is the worst thing about this: It’s all completely legal! Completely aboveboard. Nobody broke any law or contravened any regulation – not Samir Jain, not Jones Day, not Huawei itself. Still, I would argue, given that China is clearly America’s enemy and has been at war with us for decades, that helping Huawei amounts to aiding and abetting an enemy. So, what is the right way to handle this obvious national security crisis?
While the language Mr. Hilton uses is, in my opinion, spun up a bit, with rhetoric like China “has been at war with us for decades” and calling the country an “enemy” – Mr. Hilton nonetheless is onto something very big here.
China is in this for the business of world domination, not for the military crusade of the same. China wants what the United States wants, which is ecomonic power across the world Unlike the United States, China chooses not to cast its military might all over the world to help achieve that economic dominance, but rather, the country’s business leaders have become extremely savvy at doing what they do. Huawei joins companies like Xiaomi and other Chinese concerns in delivering quality products to the world at really amazing prices contrasted with the Nokias and Samsungs of the world.
The key to China’s success is the use of globalism, and a method of “capturing” nations as business partners that is also intermingled with politics and foreign policy. This is why we see the aforementioned Samir Jain, who was President Obama’s Head of Cybersecurity, now working as a lobbyist for Huawei. And guess what he helps them with? Cybersecurity matters, according to Mr. Hilton. The video shows some of the text from a letter written by Wisconsin US Representative Mike Gallagher to FBI Director Christopher Wray on April 22 of this year. He states:
Mr. Jain’s seniority and intimate knowledge of US cyber security policy are now in the service of state-directed company that according to recent reports, has received funding from the National Security Commission of the Chinese Communist Party, the People’s Liberation Army and Chinese intelligence services. I am deeply concerned that his current employment may jeopardize American national security and undermine efforts by the United States to rally the international community against threats posed by Huawei.”
In other words, an American former pol is helping the Chinese communists. Legally.
Again, as someone who has worked together with Huawei professionally, I share no sense of threat from this company or any of its operations on American soil. Unfortunately, in this, it appears that Mr. Hilton tends to follow the “Huawei is a security risk in reality for the US” line, and as someone quite knowledgeable in the field of wireless cellular communications, I see no greater threat from Huawei than from AT&T, and probably less. AT&T and the NSA are more likely to spy on Americans than a Chinese concern that would lose all of its business in a second were it to be caught using its facilities to conduct espionage.
But Huawei is a tool of the Chinese government to maintain a globalized economy, by compromising more nationalist or sovereign viewpoints through hiring American nationals to work with them. As in my own personal case, working with the company makes me feel more friendly towards them, because I know the inner picture to some extent and I think the people there are good people. But such relationships work to break down the sense of sovereignty in nations, too, by imagining that we are no longer participants in a national economy but in a worldwide venture.
This is one of the alluring features of globalism. The idea of commerce across borders, trade and interaction with one another does indeed do a lot to soften fears and antagonistic feelings and thoughts about other nations. But as part of the entangling web of globalism, this is a powerful inducement to forego one’s own sovereignty.
In China’s case though, we see that that nation’s own sense of sovereignty is as strong as ever, while the American sense has taken hit after hit. Current Democrat narratives, as expressed by President Obama, indicate that the United States does not have the right to her own sovereignty. We are too rich, too powerful; we impose our will unjustly upon the world, the liberals say. So therefore the US must atone for this by playing nice with the rest of the world and by opening its borders, even as other supposed “members of the global community” tighten their own borders.
Consider how many Chinese emigrate to the US. Consider how many people emigrate to China. And then consider our enormous border traffic along the Mexican border and the efforts by the liberals in Congress to keep the border open to anyone who wants to come in. There is a difference that is not equitable, and Huawei’s actions ARE helping keep our own sovereignty weak.
In the closing minutes of the video, Steve Hilton interviewed President Trump to get his take on this practice, which is entirely legal, but sells away US sovereignty to foreign powers. President Trump expressed his assent that a lifetime ban on such job acceptance for high-ranking officials of any presidential administration should be in effect. He also said he is trying for at least a five year ban.
A lifetime ban does seem to be a good idea. And as to the howls of displeasure with this, the answer seems simple enough: If you serve your country at such an important level, it is a lifetime venture, and it should never be compromised later as it appears to be here.