CHINA, JAPAN, and AMERICA...in my humble opinion

A senior official in charge of the Communist Party of China's external activities expressed his wariness of Taiwan, where Japanese politicians continue to visit, when a delegation from the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan visited Beijing.

　On the 21st, Liu Jianchao, director of the Central Liaison Department of the Communist Party of China, met with a delegation from the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, including former Chairman Katsuya Okada, who visited Beijing. Liu reportedly mentioned the successive visits of Japanese politicians to Taiwan and the movement towards an Asian version of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Former Chairman Okada explained that "it is short-sighted to say that a Taiwan emergency is a Japanese emergency," but said that there are many Japanese businessmen and tourists in Taiwan, and that "if a Taiwan emergency were to occur, Japan would have no choice but to take a great interest in it.

　" In response to former Chairman Okada's statement that "disarmament should be discussed between Japan and China," Director Liu reportedly emphasized that China's increased military spending is "for the sake of protecting the country," saying that China's capabilities are inferior to those of Japan and the United States.

________Storm'n Norm'n OPINION_______

The thing that caught my eye was in that last paragraph:

China's increased military spending is "for the sake of protecting the country," saying that China's capabilities are inferior to those of Japan and the United States.

I don't believe for a minute that China's military spending is for "protecting" the country, but rather in preparation for an attack offensively against America. Their long range goals have been documented elsewhere and its Japan interests would be only if Japan would get in their way in accomplishing their long range goals.  

China has openly declared its desire to occupy America and in recent years have actually purchased thousands of acreage to establish a pre-invasion presence. (By the way... Where are all those military aged men who recently entered the country across our southern border?) You can read more about China's interests in America by clicking on the following statement by a previous Chinese Defense Minister:

"Only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to serve our needs for mass colonization."

As far as the inferiority/superiority assessment of Japan vs China I think it was fairly accurate described some years earlier than the above article; as follows:

China and Japan have distinct approaches to military readiness, with China prioritizing a large, modernizing military focused on maintaining CCP control and Japan focusing on defense and technological advancements, though both have been modernizing their militaries. 

Here's a more detailed comparison:

China:

• Focus:

  China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) is primarily focused on upholding the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) rule, rather than preparing for large-scale war. 
• Modernization:

  China is rapidly modernizing its military, investing heavily in advanced technologies like hypersonic weapons and artificial intelligence. 
• Naval Power:

  China has surpassed Japan in terms of aggregate tonnage of principal surface combatants, with the PLAN exceeding the JMSDF in total tonnage by about 40 percent by 2020. 
• VLS:

  China's catchup in vertical launch systems (VLS) has been stunning, with the PLAN having 75 percent more VLS cells than the JMSDF by 2020. 
• Doubtful Combat Readiness:

  Some analysts, including RAND, raise doubts about the PLA's combat readiness, citing internal corruption, political priorities, and a lack of combat experience. 
• Historical Lessons:

  China might be drawing lessons from Imperial Japan's World War II strategy, aiming for swift strikes to prevent U.S. interference in a potential conflict over Taiwan. 

Japan:

• Focus:

  Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF) prioritize defense and maintaining regional stability, rather than aggression. 
• Technological Advancements:

  Japan is known for its advanced military technologies, including the E-767 AWACS plane, which has a long flight range and high speed. 
• Naval Power:

  While China has surpassed Japan in terms of aggregate tonnage, Japan maintains a lead in average tonnage per combatant. 
• Strategic Alliances:

  Japan is strengthening its military and forging strategic alliances with other countries, particularly the United States, in response to growing threats from China. 
• Defense Capabilities:

  Japan is ramping up its military defenses, developing advanced technologies like railguns, and responding to China's actions in the region. 
• Historical Context:

  The relationship between China and Japan is deeply rooted in their long history of conflict, particularly during the "Century of Humiliation". 

FBI agent who publicly accused the agency of a pro-Trump bias has been arrested

ABC reporting that Jonathan Buma has been arrested for printing off internal FBI documents

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

Former agent who accused FBI of political bias is charged with disclosing confidential records

Politics Mar 20, 2025 5:26 PM EDT by Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — An FBI agent who publicly accused the agency of a pro-Trump bias has been arrested and charged with disclosing confidential records after authorities say he included sensitive material about investigations and informants into a draft of his memoir.

Johnathan Buma, who claimed in 2023 that the FBI went after President Joe Biden’s son Hunter while stifling his own investigation of President Donald Trump’s ally Rudy Giuliani, was arrested Monday evening at Kennedy Airport in New York as he was about to board a flight out of the country, authorities said.

In the draft of his book, Buma described himself as “the most significant whistleblower in FBI history.”

Federal prosecutors in California, where Buma had worked as a counterintelligence and counterproliferation agent, charged him on Tuesday with a single count of disclosure of confidential information. The charge is punishable by up to one year in prison.

Buma submitted a letter of resignation Sunday, according to an affidavit prepared by an FBI agent involved in the investigation. The probe into Buma’s conduct began well before Trump took office for his second term. The FBI searched Buma’s home in November 2023, when Biden was in office.

Messages seeking comment were left with Buma’s lawyer.

After filing a whistleblower complaint and testifying before Congress, the court affidavit said Buma went to his FBI office in Orange County, California, in October 2023 and printed copies of about 130 confidential files. The files included summaries of information provided by confidential informants, the identity of an informant and screenshots of text messages he exchanged with an informant, the affidavit said.

Some of that information also appeared in a draft of Buma’s book, the affidavit said.

After emailing his bosses that he was taking an unpaid leave of absence, Buma posted excerpts of the draft on social media and emailed copies to various people, some of whom were helping him negotiate a publishing deal, according to the affidavit. Among other things, the book contained information about an FBI investigation into a foreign country’s weapons of mass destruction program, the affidavit said.

Elon Musk: The visionary who infuriates the left

Courtesy of Storm'n Norm'n 

Elon Musk: The visionary who infuriates the left by Scott Brooks 

It’s a question worth asking, isn’t it? Why does Elon Musk, a man ostensibly embodying everything the progressive left once claimed to admire, elicit such unbridled fury from those who ought to celebrate him? The anger, the outrage, the sheer frenzy directed at this single human being is nothing short of astounding. What, pray tell, has Musk done to so deeply offend the sensibilities of the self-appointed guardians of righteousness?

Well, I am glad you asked.

Here is a man who is revolutionizing transportation. While I’m no fan of electric vehicles per se, Musk’s Tesla has not merely contributed to the electric vehicle market — it created the market. Long before other automakers found themselves tinkering with batteries and range anxieties, Musk was plowing forward, building sleek, high-performance electric cars that people actually wanted to drive.
Call me crazy, but isn’t a transition to clean energy exactly what the left has demanded for decades?
Wasn’t the internal combustion engine the villain in their apocalyptic narratives of climate catastrophe? Musk didn’t just dream up a solution; he put it into practice. He made the green transition desirable, even chic. Yet, curiously, the man who should be hailed as the green messiah is treated like a heretic. Could it be, dare I suggest, that the problem isn’t Musk’s lack of contribution but his refusal to grovel before the correct altar?

Then there is SpaceX. While bureaucracies bungle and stutter, Musk is launching rockets — actual rockets. Even as I write this, SpaceX is attempting to rescue astronauts abandoned in space months ago by Biden and his team of keystone cops. Imagine that. This is private industry doing at a fraction of the cost and double the pace what government agencies once did but. But no — the left isn’t thrilled about this either. Instead of marveling at how one man’s vision is making space travel attainable again, they mutter darkly about “billionaires in space” as though Musk’s achievements were somehow personally robbing them of their oat milk lattes. Isn’t this precisely what they’ve always demanded: less reliance on fossil fuels, more technological innovation, and renewed commitment to science?

But perhaps it’s Musk’s social media antics that drive the left to madness. He bought Twitter (or X, if you’re feeling cool) and dared to loosen its suffocating chokehold on dissenting opinions. For years, liberals complained about the dangers of monopolies, the corruption of big tech, and the need for platforms to uphold free speech. But when Musk rolled up his sleeves and took on precisely these issues, the response was not gratitude but hysteria. Why? Because he failed to ensure that certain ideas remained censored, quarantined, or otherwise banished from the public square. Apparently, free speech means nothing if people can say things that hurt your feelings.

Even Musk’s personality seems to offend. He is not appropriately self-flagellating, you see. He tweets jokes, spars with critics, and, worst of all, appears to enjoy himself. One imagines that, for the left, it is not merely Musk’s deeds that are unforgivable but his demeanor. He’s not solemn or somber enough about the “state of the world.” It is as if they’d prefer their innovators to walk around muttering apologies for their success while toiling away in obscurity. But Musk, to their horror, is having fun.

And let us not forget the job creation. Tesla alone employs tens of thousands of people. Add to that SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boing Company, and all the supporting industries benefiting from Musk’s enterprises. He has made immense contributions to the economy, created industries where none existed, and inspired countless engineers and scientists to dream big. Yet, somehow, all of this is overlooked or dismissed.

What, then, is Musk’s great crime? It cannot be his contribution to clean energy, space exploration, or free speech. Perhaps his real offense is that he has shown the left what progress actually looks like. Musk does not virtue signal; he acts. He does not pontificate endlessly about theoretical utopias; he builds things.

And that — that — is unforgivable. For Musk has revealed what the left’s endless lectures, protests, and manifestos truly are: empty words.

As for DOGE, despite the shrills of horror from the left, Musk is using his brilliance, his innovation, and, yes, even a joke of a cryptocurrency like DOGE to shine a light on corruption and fraud. That’s the very swamp the left has been promising to drain for decades. Yet here we are, watching them froth at the mouth over Musk’s efforts. They say they want fairness, but when someone steps up with solutions that bypass their bureaucratic machine, they lash out. Musk isn’t just leading the charge against fraud and abuse. He’s showing the world that the emperor has no clothes — and Democrats simply cannot handle it.

To witness the left’s response to Musk is to witness the purest form of ingratitude. Here is a man delivering precisely what they claimed to want: solutions to climate change, advances in science, platforms for free expression, and the end to fraud and abuse in the federal government. Yet they howl with rage because Musk’s methods — his audacity, his refusal to genuflect to their dogmas — expose their hypocrisy.

Elon Musk has shown us that progress does not come from shouting slogans or policing language. It comes from hard work, risk-taking, and a willingness to be unpopular. He has shown us that true innovation requires thick skin and a sense of humor. And for that, he is loathed.

So, to the left, I ask: Why are you so mad at Elon Musk? Is it because he has failed you, or because he has succeeded? Perhaps your rage is not really about Musk at all but about the uncomfortable truths he reveals about your own ineffectiveness. While you rage, he builds. While you complain, he creates. While you condemn, he dreams.

Musk’s life — imperfect, irreverent, and bold — stands as a rebuke to the pettiness of his detractors. His work is a reminder that progress is not achieved by appeasing the mob but by defying it.

So if that offends you, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate what your kind of progress really means.

Scott Brooks is publisher of The Waxahachie Sun and may be contacted at scott@waxahachiesun.com. Brooks can also be seen every Tuesday and Thursday from noon-1pm on the Sun's 'Grit and Good News' livestream show. The show airs live on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitch. You can also see video segments on TikTok under the 'Grit&GoodNews' brand.

Scott Brooks 

YOUR BEURACRACY AT WORK no wonder the Democrats hate Trump

 

49 out of 2900 went to work!!8

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

the CIA a rogue state within a state...Do we have an underground government?

"Underground government" often refers to the idea of a "shadow government" or "deep state," a conspiracy theory suggesting that true political power resides not with elected officials, but with unelected, secret organizations or individuals who manipulate policy and decision-making behind the scenes.  

Ep 3599b - Criminal Syndicate Is A “State Within A State”, What Did The Framers Fear The Most?

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

I love their logo, "LIVE FREE or DIE"

 

The 'American Dream' may not be here for my children: Chinese refugee

0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

SELF PRESERVATION IS GOD'S LAW ~ John Locke

A Further Perspective

The Spiritual Roots of the Second Amendment
The right to bear arms is not merely a constitutional guarantee but a sacred trust, rooted in a biblical worldview that fuses self-defense with the stewardship of liberty.
by Ronald Beaty   March 15, 2025, 10:20 PM

Jeffery Edwards/Shutterstock

In an age where the Second Amendment is caricatured as a relic of frontier nostalgia or a totem of reckless individualism, conservatives must reclaim its deeper truth: the right to bear arms is not merely a constitutional guarantee but a sacred trust, rooted in a biblical worldview that fuses self-defense with the stewardship of liberty. This is no mere legal debate — it’s a moral and spiritual imperative, one that echoes from ancient Israel to the American founding and reverberates in our fractious present. As the culture wars of 2025 intensify, Americans deserve a vision that transcends the tired tropes of gun control rhetoric and reasserts the divine dignity of an armed citizenry.

The Bible, that cornerstone of Western civilization, offers no ambiguity on self-defense. Exodus 22:2 declares, “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.” Nehemiah, rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, armed his people with swords and spears, urging them, “Fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes” (Nehemiah 4:14). Even Christ, in Luke 22:36, instructs his disciples to buy swords — a pragmatic nod to a fallen world where evil prowls. These are not calls to aggression but affirmations of a duty: to protect life, God’s first gift, against those who would steal it. The Second Amendment inherits this ethos, casting the armed citizen as a steward of liberty, answerable not just to government but to a higher authority.

America’s founders understood this. John Locke, whose natural rights philosophy shaped the Declaration of Independence, grounded self-preservation in God’s law — a right so elemental that no state could justly strip it away. Samuel Adams, a firebrand of the Revolution, saw armed resistance to tyranny as a Christian calling, a sentiment preached from colonial pulpits like that of Jonas Clark, whose Lexington sermon on April 19, 1775, rallied minutemen to face British muskets.

The Constitution’s framers, wary of centralized power — an echo of 1 Samuel 8’s warning against grasping kings — enshrined the militia, a citizenry armed by right and conscience, as liberty’s bulwark. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, is thus no secular artifact; it’s a covenantal compact, blending faith in divine order with distrust of human overreach.

Today, this vision faces siege. The FBI’s 2023 Uniform Crime Report noted a 5.8 percent rise in violent crime since 2020, with urban centers like Chicago reporting a 2024 homicide tally nearing 600 — yet progressive lawmakers clamor to disarm the law-abiding. Gallup’s October 2024 poll shows 56 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws, a refrain amplified by a media that frames firearms as tools of chaos rather than guardians of order. Against this tide, conservatives must articulate a counter-narrative: gun rights are not about sowing violence but about reaping security, a principle as old as Eden’s fall, when sin birthed the need to stand guard.

Consider the stakes in 2025. Rural families, far from police precincts — where response times average 11 minutes, per a 2023 Justice Department study — rely on shotguns to deter intruders emboldened by lawlessness. Churchgoers, recalling the 2019 White Settlement, Texas, shooting halted by an armed congregant, see firearms as shields for worship. These are not outliers but exemplars of a truth progressives ignore: government cannot always protect us, nor should it. The state’s failures — from Hurricane Katrina’s chaos to the 2021 Minneapolis riots — reveal its limits. An armed citizenry, by contrast, embodies the biblical call to “rescue the weak and the needy” (Psalm 82:4), a moral act of neighborly love.

Critics will protest. “Jesus taught peace,” they insist, citing Matthew 5:39’s “turn the other cheek.” Yet this is personal forbearance, not a surrender to human depravity — Christ himself wielded a whip when justice demanded (John 2:15). Others decry guns as escalators of conflict, pointing to the CDC’s 2023 tally of 48,830 firearm deaths. But this figure, inflated by suicides (54 percent) and urban gang violence, obscures the reality: law-abiding gun owners, numbering over 81 million per a 2021 National Firearms Survey, rarely misuse their weapons. Disarming them would not pacify the wicked but embolden them, a lesson etched in scripture and history alike — think David’s sling against Goliath, or Lexington’s farmers against Redcoats.
A Prudent Second Amendment

This is where the conservative vision shines. Liberty, like life, is a divine endowment, and stewardship demands readiness. The Second Amendment’s spiritual roots reject the secular fantasy of a utopia policed by bureaucrats; they affirm a grittier faith in human agency under God’s gaze. Contrast this with Europe’s disarmed societies — Britain’s 2024 knife crime surge (up 7 percent per Home Office data) proves bans don’t banish violence, only shift its form. America’s uniqueness lies in its trust in citizens, a legacy of both Sinai and Philadelphia, where freedom is not delegated but defended.

Yet balance beckons. No conservative denies the need for prudence—mental health screenings, enforced background checks (supported by 87 percent of NRA members in a 2023 poll), and penalties for negligence have their place. The goal is not anarchy but accountability, ensuring arms rest in responsible hands. Still, the left’s fetish for control — evident in 2025’s rumored red flag law push — threatens to invert this balance, punishing the virtuous to appease the fearful. Conservatives must resist, not with shrillness but with clarity: the Second Amendment is a moral compact, not a political bargaining chip.

The Second Amendment’s spiritual roots offer more than a defense of guns — they summon us to a higher calling: to guard what God has given, to stand as sentinels of a free society. This is not about fear but fidelity — to scripture, to history, to the unborn generations who inherit our resolve. Let us wield this truth as boldly as David’s stone, as humbly as Nehemiah’s trowel, and as fiercely as the minutemen’s muskets. For in the fusion of guns, God, and government lies America’s soul—and its salvation.

READ MORE from Ronald Beaty:

Greenland: America’s Arctic Imperative 

Tariffs: The Sword of Sovereignty

Storm'n Norm'n