Features of Red Handed by Peter Schweizer PDF
Red Handed by Peter Schweizer PDF -Peter Schweizer says that, in a quarter-century as an investigative journalist, this is the scariest investigation he has ever conducted.
That the Chinese government seeks to infiltrate American institutions is hardly surprising. What is wholly new, however, are the number of American elites who are eager to help the Chinese dictatorship in its quest for global hegemony.
Presidential families, Silicon Valley gurus, Wall Street high rollers, Ivy League universities, even professional athletes—all willing to sacrifice American strength and security on the altar of personal enrichment.
In Red-Handed, six-time New York Times bestselling investigator Peter Schweizer presents his most alarming findings to date by revealing the secret deals wealthy Americans have cut to help China build its military, technological, and economic might. Equally as astonishing, many of these elites quietly believe the Chinese dictatorial regime is superior to American democracy.
Schweizer and his team of forensic investigators spent over a year scouring a massive trove of global corporate records and legal filings to expose the hidden transactions China’s enablers hoped would never see the light of day. And as Schweizer’s past bombshells like Profiles in Corruption, Secret Empires, and Clinton Cash all made clear, there are bad actors on both ends of the political spectrum.
Exhaustively researched, crisply told, and chilling, Red-Handed will expose the nexus of power between the Chinese government and the American elites who do its bidding.
Recommended Books For You
Description of Red Handed by Peter Schweizer PDF
Red Handed by Peter Schweizer PDF This is the best book for anyone around the world to download and must read whether of any age or any profession as they will improve the thinking with which you live your life dramatically.
Peter Schweizer is the author of, among other books, “Clinton Cash,” “Extortion,” “Throw Them All Out,” and “Architects of Ruin.” He has been featured throughout the media, including on “60 Minutes” and in the “New York Times.” He is the cofounder and president of the Government Accountability Institute, a team of investigative researchers and journalists committed to exposing crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance. He lives in Tallahassee, Florida.
Dimensions and Characteristics of Red Handed by Peter Schweizer PDF
- Publisher : Harper (January 25, 2022)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 352 pages
- International Standard Book Number-10 : 0063061147
- International Standard Book Number-13 : 978-0063061149
- Item Weight : 1.1 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 1.13 x 9 inches
- Book Name : Red Handed by Peter Schweizer PDF
Download Link 1 PDF
linda galella “safe from the investigations conducted by Peter Schweizer and a crew of forensic investigators.
Peter is president of the non-partisan Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and a senior contributor to Breitbart News. They spent over a year investigating for this book that many of the political elite as well, as their families, will be less than happy about its publication. Schweizer took away all the excuses by carefully untangling events where ever they lead.
First up in the book is the Biden Family and how deep the entanglements with China reach. Involvement begins when Joe was a congressman, magnifies while VP with Hunter, his brother and others joining in and the subterfuge becomes more pronounced. Laptop issues are discussed as are the President’s “claims of knowledge”.
After the chapter on the Biden Family, Schweizer moves on to Senator Feinstein and her husband, Speaker Pelosi and her Family, Mitch McConnell and his wife, just to mention a few of the elites! Each of these power couples will be none to happy about seeing themselves in print in this book.
Big Tech and Wall Street have been in the news along with their very wealthy owners and their lobbying with various committees in DC. Reading about it here is clearly organized and doesn’t have the inflammatory emotional rhetoric involved with mainstream infauxtainment folks.
Schweizer goes back and looks at how/when the US relationship with China started down this path to trouble and we have Reagan, Albright, Kissinger, Clinton, the Bush Family, Obama and Trump. It’s really sobering to look at the changes in business & technology over this timeline and to compare the US growth with China’s. He believes that many agree with a Kissinger idea that at some point in the not too distant future, Beijing won’t have need of the US and when that happens, “they will be difficult to handle.” Basically, they have paid to play; the elite have their fortunes tied to China and the rest of us are learning now just how much our daily lives are tied to them. We’ve been caught “Red Handed””
carla “I read the review that gave this book low rating and I feel like they’re missing Haidt’s main point/ reason to write about this book. Haidt is concerned about social cohesion. And the thing is social cohesion comes from homogeneity or at least shared values or activities. Considering that the left is all about diversity, newness and difference, it makes sense that he would portray it in a somewhat negative light. The problem with insisting on difference and individuality, is that instead of making society adapt to you, it makes society notice your difference even more and hence, cause more bigotry and racism. Furthermore, I would like to point out something about diversity and multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a pretty word that is tossed around when we’re talking about diversity, but it seems to me that very few people understand it.
Multiculturalism hardly means people living together as a community, it means having community within a larger community. Take the example of London, you have people from Eastern Europe on one side, the Polish only stays with the Polish, the Slovakian with the Slovakian and so on and so forth. Then, you have Black Jamaican who make up another unit. You have Black African (Anglophone and Francophone) – Nigerian, Ghanaian, Ugandan, Ivorian, Congolese…etc. Obviously nobody actually mix together. Nigerian stays with Nigerian, Ivorian with Ivorian and so on and so forth. Then you have Indians and Pakistani who stays with people who come from the same country as them. Even Italian in London usually stays with Italians. In fact not long ago, an Italian told me that there was a big association for Italian in London and that he was a member. There are many other group that I skipped because I couldn’t be bothered but you understand what I mean. And then you have the English – some accept this diversity (usually easier in good economic time), others merely tolerate it.
All group have a natural tendency toward self-segregation. But on top of that, these days we have an external pressure from the Left. The Left does everything it can to remind people how different they are from another, besides picking nonsense battle which erode social trust and our already tenuous social cohesion (i.e tearing statues, protests on university…etc).
The left in its haste to remake fail to understand that a) the world as it is though not perfect is way better than it use to be and b)that if they continue it will only lead us to a civil war. There is still poverty but anyone who’d read history would know that it’s nothing as it used to be (read for example Way to Wigan Road), racism though still a major issue is better now than it ever was. I should also point out something people always talk about how Trump brought a fascist state, about how much of a Nazi he is and so on and so forth. Do they not realise that if they were living in a true Nazi state they could not insult him, or his supporter the way they do on TV or even anonymously on social media? Trump is bad, but no he’s isn’t creating a new Nazi Germany or URSS. And really saying such things is terribly insensitive to the people who lived through those time.
By the way, I do not mean to say that injustice should not be tackled, but it has to be done in a pragmatic and useful way. Concretely, though I understand why he did this, what has Kaeparnick protesting the American flag accomplished besides increasing polarisation? Similarly, for the last couple of years I have heard using terms such as white privilege, white supremacists, old white men, patriarchy and other similar words in almost in every sense and often when they aren’t warranted. But what has it accomplished? It has created a backlash from conservative and annoyed liberals. You also have white liberals who have accepted those terms. But I believe for some, it is only a cool trend they have stumbled into, for other it is a form of religion which I’m not entirely sure they fully believe into, and the last group simply feel obliged.
To be clear, I do believe that in an unfair world, black people are more likely to suffer from unfairness than white people. There are various reasons for this bias and prejudice, the fact that black people are a numeral minority (10% of black in US, only 2% in UK and probably also about 2% in France) whereas white are the majority, lack of economic power of black people in the country they live, lack of economic country of African countries and cultural difference. So, in a sense I believe that white privilege exists, but I think that the way we go about talking about it is simply too divisive and does not promote understanding or even compassion.
I am very well aware of all the wrong white led country have done in history. Though if we’re being very fair about it, Arab countries (slavery) and Asian countries (mostly Japon have done the same [severe colonisation of neighbours]) have done similar misdeed. But really, we can’t expect someone to understand our point of view when we scream have him that the colour of his skin make him a bad person, even if he personally hasn’t done anything. Or when we say that all white people are basically evil. I understand where people are coming from when they say that. Exchanging with someone who has entrenched beliefs about you & your people, who simply cannot imagine that his experience is not the experience of everybody else or someone who is wilfully ignorant/ selectively chose morsel of history (many Conservative) can be very trying. Nonetheless, if our objective is to make a positive change then we need to change how we communicate.
Going back to the book, though Haidt says that Conservative have six moral foundation rather than the Liberal’s three, he does point out the flaws within the Conservative movement. Besides, Haidt never said that having the six moral foundation mean that you can’t be biases or that your reasoning is perfect. In fact, you could argue that he said the contrary. One more thing, someone pointed out that if Conservative score high in Loyalty how come they distrust the government. Well, this reading is wrong. Conservative do trust government to provide a good environment/ market, they trust the government’s words, including its lies. Essentially, they gov to rule the environment but not the individual. You should remember that they also score high in Liberty. Hence, it isn’t surprising that they do not want an external force to rule them.
I suppose some people aren’t happy just because he didn’t call them racist idiots. By the way, even after reading this book, I still have trouble reconciling my initial views with the picture Haidt presented. What I’m trying to say is that though Haidt’s book gave me a lot of insight, I still have much to digest.
I would recommend this book to anyone who want to understand politics and their neighbours with different political opinion.
There’s only one thing which the book is missing for me. It is a niggle and really, Haidt already did enough and couldn’t have looked at this. But I wonder how morality work/ develop across race. For example, a lot of black people are liberal/ democrats because this side have generally been against injustice and willing to do something for the lower section of society. But, could it be that some despite their skin colour are actually closer in their moral spectrum to the white conservative they despise (and who in turn may despise them)? More bluntly said, if instead of being black, they had been born white, could their political leaning be completely different because being white and conservative doesn’t come with the same baggage has being black and conservative? Really, if they white conservative could leave out his bias, could the black who have the same moral makeup as him get along better with him than with fellow black who do not have the same moral buds?
Really, I can’t help wondering how much who you are outside influence your political leaning despite who you are inside. If I had the opportunity I would have done a Phd on this. But ah…I’m way too busy. Has anyone ever thought about this?
In any case, as I said, highly recommended!”
This site complies with DMCA Digital Copyright Laws. Please bear in mind that we do not own copyrights to this book/software. We’re sharing this with our audience ONLY for educational purposes and we highly encourage our visitors to purchase the original licensed software/Books. If someone with copyrights wants us to remove this software/Book, please contact us. immediately.
You may send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org for all DMCA / Removal Requests.