Column: Current U.S. policy choices need to be scrutinized

UkraineMolotov
The war in Ukraine.
File photo

How many unnecessary disasters must the nation endure before very fundamental questions about the Biden administration are asked and answered?

Writers and broadcasters generally should refrain from broad statements about the intentions of leaders. Frequently, those descriptions can too easily devolve into armchair psychology or, even worse, conspiracy theories. However, the dire consequences of the Biden administration’s policies require intensive review. Individually, they could represent serious errors of judgement and policy. Collectively, they could be something far worse.

At a certain point, it is reasonable to examine whether absurd actions such as killing U.S. energy independence, opening up the southern border, continuous emphasis on racial division, leaving weapons for the Taliban, bankrupting the federal budget, and underfunding the military are merely foolish, or moves designed to weaken America.

These inexplicable policies present a serious challenge and pose an almost unthinkable question. Is this White House adhering to policies advocated by those who mistakenly believe the world would be better if America was knocked down several pegs?

Start with energy policy. There is no way that alternative energy sources can, with current technology, meet world needs; Biden’s assault on U.S. production is bizarre. Taken in isolation, one could say that it is merely excessive, if mistaken, green enthusiasm. No matter how much one loves “green” energy, there is no viable means that it can produce more than 20% of our needs with existing technology. That’s clearly unwise. But when it is replaced by fuel from nations like Venezuela, possibly Iran and previously Russia, it is utterly irrational. Those countries are on the same planet. How was replacing U.S. energy with foreign and dirtier supplies helping the environment? Now that the full impact of destroying American energy independence has produced extreme hardship for the citizenry and the worst inflation in decades, why will the White House not take immediate steps to relieve the suffering of both Americans and our allies?

Oklahoma Congressman Kevin Hern (R) notes that “Biden’s embargo on Russian oil must be partnered with an immediate reversal of his anti-American energy policies…companies are ready and willing to provide oil and gas to the American people, but Biden handcuffed them on Day 1 of his presidency. Instead of looking for energy in his own backyard, Biden is begging Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia for oil. We must stop the flow of American dollars to Russia, but we can never allow ourselves to become dependent on foreign autocrats for our energy supply again.”

Both Democrats and Republicans wanted to leave Afghanistan. But no one, other than the most anti-American extremists, wanted to leave U.S. weapons to the Taliban. This clearly borders on negligence at best, and malfeasance at worst.

Putin made no secret of his plans to invade Ukraine. For a considerable period of time, the Kremlin’s military openly prepared for war. Rather than a timely response to this with sanctions against Moscow as it prepared its invasion, or to provide arms to the Ukrainians to deter Putin, Biden chose to do very little until it was too late. Why?

To even the most casual observer, China’s growing power and belligerence, Russia’s nuclear threats, and more, signaled a need for a more powerful U.S. military. Biden’s first defense budget was essentially a 3% cut in spending. How is that justifiable? His new budget proposal, while larger, still amounts to a cut when inflation is added in.

It is obvious that the hard left dominates the policy choices of the current leadership in Washington, as well as in major cities. Its adherence to the same socialist policies that have failed for more than a century is intellectually unjustifiable. Similarly, no rational observer could deny that concepts such as no bail, releasing dangerous criminals, and ignoring the past successes of “three strikes and you are out” sentencing policies helped slash crimes down to a minimum in the past. Why were those ideas cast aside?

It is neither conspiratorial or inappropriate to demand that the motives of those responsible for the current policy choices of those be carefully examined.

More from Around NYC