Here's how Communist China is using American universities to power its military
7 stories today
DonnyFerguson.com
“It's important to realize that whenever you give power to politicians or bureaucrats, it will be used for what they want, not for what you want.”- Harry Browne
Wednesday, December 22, 2021
In this issue:
WORLD
>>>> Here's How Communist China Is Using American Universities To Power Its Military
WASHINGTON
>>>> After Two Years Of COVID, Biden Offers Only Fear And Fake Science
>>>> Judicial Watch Sues Maryland For Gerrymandered Congressional Districts – Voters Challenge Unconstitutional Plan
>>>> New Poll Finds Grassley Trouncing Abby Finkenauer By 14 Points
>>>> Whistleblower Reveals Widespread Harassment And Discrimination By Federal Regulators
UNION BOSSES
>>>> LiUNA Bosses Demand Employee “Prove Her Beliefs” In Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
>>>> Construction Workers’ Unanimous Vote To Remove Union Certified, Union Officials Drop Bid To Overturn Election
>>>> Here's how Communist China is using American universities to power its military
Many institutions of higher education are not taking the threat of China seriously. A recent report by the Foundation For Defense of Democracies (FDD) makes clear that Confucius Institutes (CIs) are not the only way the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) is trying to gain a foothold in the United States. There are multiple other ways the CCP is infiltrating college campuses, including leveraging Chinese researchers and students studying in the U.S. to steal sensitive research and intellectual property on behalf of the CCP’s military.
Unfortunately, the report highlights how many colleges and universities are still willing to turn a blind eye to the threat of partnering with the CCP despite clear evidence that these partnerships pose a major national security threat.
Below are key excerpts from FDD’s report by Craig Singleton entitled “The Middle Kingdom Meets Higher Education: How U.S. Universities Support China’s Military-Industrial Complex.”
What are Confucius Institutes and why are they dangerous
"Confucius Institutes are Chinese government-sponsored organizations offering Chinese-language, cultural, and historical programming at the primary, secondary, and university levels worldwide. CIs are also a key element in China’s “united front,” a network of groups and key individuals that seek to co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition to the policies and legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. CIs further serve as platforms that advance facets of China’s military-civil fusion (MCF), a national strategy aimed at acquiring the world’s cutting-edge technologies — including through theft — to achieve Chinese military dominance. China’s CI-enabled initiatives include the establishment of academic and research partnerships between top-tier American institutions and Chinese universities supporting Beijing’s military-industrial complex.
…
"At the subnational level, CI programs allow the CCP to propagate its own version of China’s political history, blur its record of human rights abuses, and portray Taiwan and Tibet as undisputed Chinese possessions. CIs also provide Chinese civilian universities under the control of the Chinese party-state — and, by extension, the CCP itself — with access to U.S. college campuses and academic elites. Unfortunately, such access typically endures long after a CI is shuttered.
…
"The academic and research associations that flow from a CI relationship involve three parties: the U.S. university, the CCP, and a Chinese sister university selected by the CCP to support the CI’s programming. U.S. universities enter into separate, multi-year contractual relationships with both the CCP and the Chinese sister university. The CCP retains final approval over the contract between the U.S. university hosting the CI and the Chinese sister university.
…
"The CCP’s selection of the U.S. and Chinese universities associated with each CI program is not indiscriminate. The CCP focuses on establishing CIs at America’s top R&D centers rather than at the 4,000 non-research-focused colleges and universities across the country. Specifically, of the 113 CIs active in 2018, 71 (or 63 percent) were at America’s top research universities.
…
"Of the 28 universities currently hosting a CI, 10 maintain sister-university relationships with Chinese universities directly supporting China’s MCF program and/or China’s broader defense establishment."
China’s Influence does not end when Confucius Institutes close
"Between 2018 and 2021, the number of CIs operating in the United States fell from 113 to 34. Only four of these 79 closures were attributed to national security concerns, despite ample evidence that China leverages relationships with U.S. universities to acquire the technology and talent Beijing needs to win its strategic competition with the United States…
"Troublingly, a CI closure often does not result in the severance of ties between its American host and the CCP-selected Chinese sister university that supported the CI’s programming. Following at least 28 of the 79 documented closures, U.S. universities that shuttered their CIs chose to maintain, and in some cases expand, their relationships with their Chinese sister universities, many of which support China’s defense industry. This support includes directly enabling Beijing’s intelligence apparatus as well as underwriting China’s nuclear weapons sector and cyber-espionage platforms."
The cost of doing business with China
"In 2020, William Evanina, the then-director of the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center, stated that Chinese IP theft costs U.S. companies between $300 billion and $600 billion annually… [I]ncreasingly, China has acquired IP and other sensitive R&D through academic channels in ways that are both active and passive. Such efforts include leveraging Chinese researchers and students studying at U.S. universities to acquire sensitive information on Beijing’s behalf."
What the United States should do to resist Chinese influence on college campuses
"The closure of 79 CIs over the last three years is a net positive in terms of combating Chinese influence on U.S. college campuses. These closures hindered the CCP’s “united front” objectives, including its efforts to shape public perceptions about China. These closures also diminished the Chinese government’s ability to undermine free-speech protections and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses.
"Nevertheless, CI closures alone are unlikely to meaningfully erode China’s grip on U.S. higher education. Nor will they block Beijing from accessing foundational knowledge taught at U.S. universities or cutting-edge research being conducted on U.S. college campuses. The reason is straightforward: While CI closures can degrade some of the collaboration between U.S. universities and the Chinese government, that collaboration often endures via separate partnership agreements. Moreover, U.S. universities have been reluctant to terminate their ties to Chinese entities absent threats of financial cuts from the federal government.
…
"[W]hile U.S. higher education institutions assiduously track (down to the cent) funds owed to them by students, they have failed to accurately report anonymous donations from countries such as China, Qatar, and Russia, which exceeded $1.14 billion since 2012.
…
"American efforts should include increasing transparency surrounding CI-enabled agreements between U.S. and Chinese universities and better educating U.S. universities about the risks of partnering with entities affiliated with China’s defense buildup. Additionally, the U.S. government should foster alternative Chinese-language initiatives to outcompete CI language programming. The U.S. government should also establish legal and regulatory guardrails to neutralize China’s ability either to acquire foundational knowledge or to access more sensitive research being conducted on U.S. college campuses."
# # # #
>>>> After two years of COVID, Biden offers only fear and fake science
Energy and Commerce Committee Republican Leader Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement following President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 remarks on December 21, 2021:
“This has been a long two years. It’s been full of anxiety and despair, especially for those who have lost someone they loved to this virus, an overdose, or a mental health emergency. Everyone knows someone in need of hope and healing. America’s frontline heroes are also tired and continue to earn my sincerest gratitude for the sacrifices they’ve made. We all want this pandemic to end. Due to funding provided by Congress in a bipartisan way, and leadership of the Trump administration, we are in a stronger place to face this new variant with treatments and safe and effective vaccines.
“This spike in COVID-19 cases because of the omicron variant is proof that President Biden spreading fear and building resentment will not stop this virus. His authoritarian actions for unconstitutional mandates will never build people’s trust. Instead of using force, he should continue to focus on increasing access to testing and urge people to talk to their doctors about the facts, including how the vaccines prevent severe illness and save lives.
“If this administration is serious about rebuilding trust it has eroded in public health, it must extend trust in the American people to make the best health care decisions for themselves. The best thing President Biden can do is provide us with clear information to assess risks and protect our families, including the overall wellbeing of our children. It’s time to lead with facts, not fear. I remain deeply troubled that today President Biden failed to apologize for the CDC Director pushing junk science to justify mask mandates on children in schools. Our children and young adults must have their lives back. They are at low risk for COVID-19 and are experiencing unprecedented mental health emergencies made worse by school shutdowns prolonged by the President’s political allies.
“Before the Biden administration makes any requests for more spending, it must first provide us with details on how it spent the funds from the Democrats’ nearly $2 trillion spending bill they rushed through Congress in February. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have also asked for details on unspent money from previous COVID-19 packages. To date, we have not received this information to ensure accountability over the administration’s pandemic response. Unlike the Democrats’ $2 trillion package that funded programs that have nothing to do with COVID-19, we want to ensure relief is targeted and used appropriately.”
Note: On February 4, 2021, Energy and Commerce Republicans sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget to request details on the amount of remaining funds unspent from the CARES Act (H.R. 748), the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (H.R. 266), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (H.R. 133). CLICK HERE to read the letter. To date, the administration has not responded to this request.
On October 27, 2021, Energy and Commerce Republicans sent a letter to Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) requesting he schedule a hearing on the Biden Administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
# # # #
>>>> Judicial Watch Sues Maryland for Gerrymandered Congressional Districts – Voters Challenge Unconstitutional Plan
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of 12 registered Maryland voters who object to Maryland’s 2021 congressional redistricting plan on the grounds that it diminishes their rights to participate in elections for the U.S. Congress on an equal basis with other Maryland voters, in violation of the Maryland Constitution (Parrott et al. v Lamone et al. (No. 8683397)).
The lawsuit details:
Maryland’s recent history of partisan gerrymandering is no secret. [its 2011] congressional district map…remains one of the most notorious partisan gerrymanders in U.S. history. A federal district judge openly doubted that it could provide “fair and effective representation for all citizens.” Another called it “absurd” to suggest ‘that there is a community of interest” in a district described as a “Rorschach-like eyesore.” [A federal appeals court] famously described the same district as “a broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate across the center of the state.”
The lawsuit relates that a bipartisan commission recommended a map to Maryland Governor Larry Hogan on November 5 that he approved, but the legislature passed a different proposal in a straight party-line vote. On December 9, 2021, Hogan vetoed this proposal, and, the same day, the state legislature overrode his veto on another party-line vote.
Judicial Watch’s suit points out that the new map “is similar to the gerrymandered map that was the subject of universal abuse ten years ago as the worst gerrymander in the country.” The lawsuit details how the map distorts district lines, deviates from and crosses existing political boundaries, and fractures and divides communities of interest:
Maryland’s Plan splits Anne Arundel County into three congressional districts. The middle of Anne Arundel County is … connected to the Eastern Shore’s First Congressional District. The two areas are held together solely via the Chesapeake Bay Bridge…. Baltimore is divided among three congressional districts…. Montgomery County is divided among four congressional districts…. A roughly 20-mile trip north on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway from Cheverly, Maryland, a DC suburb, to Jessup, Maryland, an area outside [BWI] Airport, would cross congressional boundaries six times and lead a traveler through five different congressional districts.
The lawsuit highlights how Maryland’s Fifth District features an “umbilical cord” designed to include Democratic voters in College Park to “counterbalance” the more Republican voters in the southern part of the state. And the Sixth Congressional District connects Garrett County, “the westernmost rural county which borders Pennsylvania and West Virginia,” with Potomac, Maryland, a wealthy DC suburb:
As a federal court commented about the Sixth District in 2011, which made a similar linkage between these populations, it brings together voters “who have an interest in farming, mining, tourism, paper production, and the hunting of bears … with voters who abhor the hunting of bears and do not know what a coal mine or paper mill even looks like.” These two groups have “different climate[s], root for different sports teams, and read different newspapers.”
Outside experts agree that the plan is flawed, with the nonpartisan Princeton Gerrymandering Project giving it a grade of “F” for fairness and geographic compactness. In 2020, Republicans accounted for approximately 35% of Maryland’s Congressional votes, but they’re unlikely to win even a single seat under this plan. This outcome wouldn’t be possible without political gerrymandering.
Judicial Watch argues that the plan violates Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, which guarantees voters the right to “free and frequent” elections and the “right of suffrage.” Article 7 has been held to be “even more protective of rights of political participation than the provisions of the federal Constitution.”
Additionally, the plan violates Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution, which provides, “Each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population. Due regard shall be given to natural boundaries and the boundaries of political subdivisions.”
“Unfortunately, Democrats in the legislature went beyond politics into abuse of power in setting up Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional maps,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This lawsuit seeks to protect the rights of all voters and citizens. Simply put: politicians shouldn’t get to pick their voters.”
In June 2015, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s gerrymandered congressional district map in federal court. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of voters in each of Maryland’s congressional districts—including Maryland Delegate Neil Parrott, who is also the lead plaintiff in this new state-court lawsuit. In December 2016, Judicial Watch filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in response to Maryland’s attempt to retain the gerrymandered voter districting plan.
Judicial Watch is being assisted by William J. Holtzinger, Esq., of Frederick, Maryland.
# # # #
>>>> New Poll Finds Grassley Trouncing Abby Finkenauer By 14 Points
Just when Abby Finkenauer thought her long shot bid for Iowa Senate couldn’t get any worse, it does. According to a new poll from far-left Data for Progress, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley trounces failed, one-term Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer 53% to 39%.
The Data for Progress poll also found 56% of voters approve of Senator Grassley’s work on behalf of all Iowans in the Senate. Meanwhile, Abby Finkenauer’s approval is nearly underwater with voters who know of her hard work supporting Nancy Pelosi’s radical House agenda. President Biden – who Abby Finkenauer gleefully endorsed and worked for – also continues to drag down Democrats nationwide, especially in Iowa, where only 33% of Iowans approve of the job he’s doing.
Less than a year before Election Day, Finkenauer has a lot of work to do; this isn’t the first poll showing her losing to Senator Grassley by double-digits. Earlier this year, the gold-standard Des Moines Register poll found Grassley would win in an 18-point landslide against radical Abby Finkenauer.
Voters will continue to reject Abby Finkenauer and her radical, anti-Iowa agenda.
# # # #
>>>> Whistleblower reveals widespread harassment and discrimination by federal regulators
In the wake of new confidential whistleblower allegations, U.S. Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) is encouraging individuals with knowledge of misconduct—such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation—at Federal financial regulators and other agencies in the Committee’s jurisdiction to report such information confidentially to the Committee.
“It has come to my attention through confidential whistleblowers that federal employees at multiple agencies…have alleged experiencing harassment, discrimination, or other forms of abuse by agency officials in recent months,” Ranking Member Toomey wrote in a letter to the National Treasury Employees Union.
“In an effort to help address any federal employee mistreatment, I request that you advise employees at the agencies you represent that they may confidentially contact my Committee staff with any information they possess concerning misconduct or abuse, such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, as well as the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and fraud in federal programs,” the senator continued.
In May, Committee staff launched a new whistleblower resource to encourage individuals possessing information concerning the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, fraud in federal programs, abuse—such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation—or any other misconduct occurring within the Federal government to report such information to the Committee.
In June, the press reported that the Biden administration was removing senior career officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in order to replace them with handpicked loyalists, raising the question of whether the agency potentially violated civil service protections. Since then, the Committee has received reports of misconduct occurring across federal agencies within the Committee’s jurisdiction.
To share such information with Committee staff, whistleblowers may email RepWhistleblowers@banking.senate.gov or call 202-224-4287. Individuals are encouraged to include their agency or organization, details of their allegation, and a phone number or email address they may be reached. Information submitted to the Committee will remain confidential.
Read Ranking Member Toomey’s full letter below.
Anthony Reardon
President
National Treasury Employees Union
800 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20001
Dear President Reardon:
It has come to my attention through confidential whistleblowers that federal employees at multiple agencies covered by the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and represented by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), have alleged experiencing harassment, discrimination, or other forms of abuse by agency officials in recent months. As the president of the NTEU, I trust that you share my view that no federal employee should be mistreated by a manager or senior employee in the course of carrying out government duties, and that individuals who unlawfully harass, discriminate, or retaliate against federal employees should be held to account.
In an effort to help address any federal employee mistreatment, I request that you advise employees at the agencies you represent that they may confidentially contact my Committee staff with any information they possess concerning misconduct or abuse, such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, as well as the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and fraud in federal programs. To share such information with my Committee staff, individuals may email RepWhistleblowers@banking.senate.gov or call 202-224-4287. Information submitted to my Committee staff will remain confidential.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Pat Toomey
Ranking Member
# # # #
>>>> LIUNA Bosses Demand Employee “Prove Her Beliefs” in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit
Tennessee hospital worker Dorothy Frame recently filed a lawsuit against LIUNA (Laborers’ International Union of North America) for religious discrimination. The union actively uses union dues to donate to pro-abortion groups. Frame, being a Catholic, claims this goes against her religious beliefs and therefore has tried to request omission from paying union dues. However, LIUNA officials are now demanding that she “prove her beliefs”.
Here’s what Kristin Mosher, Frame’s attorney on the case, has to say about these demands from the union:
“It’s a very brash argument and it’s not even the law,” Mosher said. “It takes quite a bit of hubris to tell a Catholic priest you know the law more than he does or that particular person (Frame) that they don’t know their faith the way they should.” […]
“That’s not even the legal standard,” Mosher said. “If Ms. Frame has that religious belief, that’s all it takes.” […]
“If the publicity from this lawsuit now let’s others know they have the same rights and would like to challenge, then we would consider representing them,” Mosher said.
KRISTIN MOSHER, AS QUOTED IN THE LEAF CHRONICLE
National Right to Work President Mark Mix also encourages anyone who feels their religious rights are being violated by a union to reach out and join in on the lawsuit.
# # # #
>>>> Construction Workers’ Unanimous Vote to Remove Union Certified, Union Officials Drop Bid to Overturn Election
2020 Labor Board reforms stopped union boss attempt to block election, resulting in 13-0 vote against union ‘representation’
Last week the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) formally certified the results of a union decertification election in which workers at MDS Boring & Drilling in Houston voted unanimously to remove International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) officials from their workplace. The overwhelming election results were finalized after union officials dropped charges they had filed against the company that could have used by union lawyers to overturn the result.
Ballots were mailed to eligible employees on October 22 after Seth Patrick, an MDS Boring employee, petitioned the NLRB for a vote to remove IUOE officials from his workplace. He filed his petition with free legal assistance from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, and collected signatures from enough of his coworkers to trigger an NLRB-conducted decertification election.
On November 19, the NLRB tallied the results and announced that the workers had voted unanimously 13-0 to remove IUOE Local 450 officials. However, the NLRB would not then certify the result because union officials had previously filed unfair labor practice charges against MDS Boring that served to delay certification of the election results.
Under the NLRB’s old rules, such “blocking charge” allegations against an employer would have been grounds for cancelling the vote or delaying it for months or even years until the charges were resolved. Using the “blocking charge” tactic, sometimes repeatedly, union officials often trapped workers into union ranks nearly indefinitely, despite overwhelming worker opposition to union affiliation. In states without Right to Work laws that make financial support of unions voluntary, this incentivized union bosses to drag out the process so they could collect more forced dues from workers.
However, thanks to Foundation-backed “blocking charge” reforms adopted by the NLRB in 2020, elections themselves cannot be delayed by union litigation. Instead, a vote is held, and any extraneous litigation occurs after the election results are announced. In the case of MDS Boring, the vote demonstrated that IUOE officials lacked the support of even a single worker, making it far more difficult for union officials to justify a drawn-out effort to remain in power.
“A unanimous vote proved beyond a doubt that MDS Boring workers didn’t want IUOE officials’ so-called ‘representation,’” said National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix. “Under the old system, union officials could have stalled the election for months or years to retain power. Thanks to the new Foundation-backed NLRB reforms, these workers were able to promptly hold the vote, which then demonstrated that each and every worker wanted the union out of their workplace.”
# # # #