Month: January 2021

Facebook received ample, and well deserved, criticism during the 2020 election cycle for its proclivity towards censorship.   The social media giant’s tendency is not restricted to America.  Observers across the planet have levied charges against Facebook for its apparent comfort in cooperating with repressive regimes who seek to censor contrary views.

The BBC has reported that Facebook worked on special software that accommodates China’s censorship demands. In 2016, Reuters reported that Facebook Inc. developed a censorship tool to persuade Beijing to allow it to work there.

Freedom House explains that leaders in Beijing have stepped up efforts to use digital media to increase their own power, both at home and abroad…[in 2018] its government hosted media officials from dozens of countries for two- and three-week seminars on its sprawling system of censorship and surveillance. Moreover, its companies have supplied telecommunications hardware, advanced facial-recognition technology, and data-analytics tools to a variety of governments with poor human rights records, which could benefit Chinese intelligence services as well as repressive local authorities.”

It is fair to ask whether its efforts to kowtow to the China include its 2020 campaign of censorship against the re-election candidacy of Donald Trump, who made opposing Beijing’s global aggression a keystone of his administration. At Senate hearings held in November, Facebook was severely criticized for its censorship of pro-Trump material.

The international publication Zinfos-Moris noted in September that “Facebook’s collusion with the corrupt wealthy and the dictators around the world has been happening for many years now…it has not gone unnoticed that entrenched authoritarian states, like Russia and China, have become very good at manipulating these platforms to marginalize domestic dissidents and destabilize democracies abroad.”

The latest example comes from Vietnam. An Amnesty International analysis demands that “Facebook must immediately reverse its decision to censor posts deemed critical of the government in Viet Nam.”

Last April, Reuters reported that Facebook’s local servers in Vietnam were taken offline until it agreed to significantly increase the censorship of “anti-state” posts for local users. Facebook officials have confirmed that it has  complied with the government’s request to “restrict access to content which [Hanoi] deemed to be illegal”.

Amnesty has sharply criticized the social media giant’s acquiescence. William Nee, Business and Human Rights Advisor at Amnesty International, states that “Facebook must base its content regulation on international human rights standards for freedom of expression, not on the arbitrary whims of a rights-abusing government. Facebook has a responsibility to respect freedom of expression by refusing to cooperate with these indefensible takedown requests.”

It is important to note that the objected-to content is not violent or “criminal” in nature. The material was a political objection to the authoritarian practices of the Hanoi government. Vietnamese authorities have a long track record of characterizing legitimate criticism as “anti-state” and prosecuting human rights defenders for “conducting propaganda against the state.”

Nee adds that “Facebook’s compliance with these demands sets a dangerous precedent. Governments around the world will see this as an open invitation to enlist Facebook in the service of state censorship. It does all tech firms a terrible disservice by making them vulnerable to the same type of pressure and harassment from repressive governments.”

Facebook’s growing comfort with censorship at home and abroad is a vastly troubling reality. In nations such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Vietnam, censorship is a tool of government.  In free nations, many presumed that the threat of censorship had become obsolete. But with the proclivity of social media giants to accept, either on behalf of their interests in operating in authoritarian governments abroad or in the pursuit of their own generally leftist ideological agendas at home, the problem has re-arisen and has emerged as the most significant threat to free speech in many decades.

Illustration: Pixabay

Judge John H. Wilson concludes his analysis of the radicalization of a Congressional delegation.

Do the “solutions” of the American Left sound familiar?  For instance, “Housing as a human right?”

“In the Soviet Union, housing in cities belonged to the government. It was distributed by municipal authorities or by government departments based on an established number of square meters per person. As a rule, tenants had no choice in the housing they were offered. Rent and payment for communal services like water and electricity did not form a significant part of a family’s budget. They did not cover the real costs, and were subsidized by the government.” 

What about a “Living Wage?”

In 2012, then-New York City Council speaker Christine Quinn proposed a living-wage law.  Then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg said “The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR and that didn’t work out so well…. You just cannot force employers to pay a rate that isn’t sustainable in their business. And it’s not the government’s business to do this.” 

Then there is “free college tuition.”  As described by Theodore Hsi-en Chen, a Professor of Education at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles,  

“The (Chinese) communist revolution aimed at being total revolution, demanding no less than the establishing of a new society radically different from what the orthodox communists called the feudal society of traditional China. This new society called for people with new loyalties, new motivations, and new concepts of individual and group life. Education was recognized as playing a strategic role in achieving this revolution and development. Specifically, education was called upon to produce…zealous revolutionaries ready to rebel against the old society and fight to establish a new order… The People’s Republic of China generally makes no distinction between education and propaganda or indoctrination…Ideological and political indoctrination was indispensable to all levels of schools…It consisted of learning basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism…to engender enthusiasm for the proletarian-socialist revolution and fervent support for the new regime. Class and class struggle were related concepts that occupied a central place in the ideology, and a specific aim of education was to develop class consciousness so that all citizens, young and old, would become valiant fighters in the class struggle. School regulations stipulated that 10 percent of the curriculum should be set aside for ideological and political study, but, in practice, ideology and politics were taught and studied in many other subjects, such as language, arithmetic, and history. Ideology and politics permeated the entire curriculum and school life, completely dominating extracurricular activities.” 

But let us also not forget the “federal jobs guarantee” proposed by the Justice Democrats.

“Historically, Communism has been found to not foster good work ethics…’the actual Communist choice is almost certainly that ‘socialism’ defined in Communist terms, is a more important objective tha(n) productivity or raising the standard of living.’  Hence, in all transitional societies working toward Communism, work ethic and motivation appear to be extremely lacking even though everyone is assigned some task or job.  For example, in a study conducted in the former USSR, over 50% of the work force admitted to drinking alcohol while on the job…” 

When you hear the Marxist concepts of the Justice Democrats being parroted by a Bowman, or an Ocasio Cortes, remember these words from Economist Thomas Sowell; “the existing subsidies of college have led many people to go to college who have very little interest in, or benefit from, going to college, except for enjoying the social scene while postponing adult responsibilities for a few years… If college becomes “free,” even more people can attend college without bothering to become educated and without acquiring any economically meaningful skills… More fundamentally, making all sorts of other things “free” means…putting more and more of the decisions that shape our lives into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who control the purse strings.” 

This, then, is the real goal of the Communists of the Justice Democrats, and their puppet Congressional representatives – government control over our lives and decisions.  Mainstream Democrats may downplay the danger presented by Ocasio Cortes and Bowman.  But their elections represent a dangerous new wave of Marxist-inspired revolutionaries in high public office.

Illustration: Pixabay

An exclusive analysis from Judge John H. Wilson, (ret.)

From 1999 until 2018, Democrat Joseph Crowley served as a Congressman for New York, first in the 7^th District, and then, after redistricting in 2012, he served the 14^th District, which was spread across parts of Queens and the Bronx. Joe Crowley was not a conservative democrat; according to his campaign website “(a)s Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I’m focused on organizing resistance to the extreme GOP agenda that is threatening our middle class. Congress should be working on increasing access to health care and housing, protecting seniors’ hard-earned benefits, and creating greater opportunity for students and families.”  Crowley also had endorsements from such left-leaning groups as “NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood” as well as “Courage to Fight Gun Violence and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.” 

Yet, despite these liberal bona fides, in 2018, Crowley lost the Democratic primary to new-comer Alexandria Ocasio Cortes.  Not content to be “focused on organizing resistance to the extreme GOP agenda,” as Crowley was, Ocasio Cortes has broader ambitions; “Our campaign is fighting for a powerful set of policies that will reshape our economy, minimize inequality and reverse the effects of climate change…and we’re not stopping there – our platform calls for federal limits on rent increases, transformative criminal justice reform, Medicare for ALL and tuition-free public college.”

Since her election, Ocasio Cortes has been something of an outsider, an extremist even by New York’s far-left standards.  However, Ms Ocasio Cortes now has an ally in New York’s Congressional delegation.

Eliot Engel served as “Chairman on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He also serve(d) on the Energy and Commerce Committee including the Subcommittee on Health. He is the founder and (former) Co-Chair of the House Energy and National Security Caucus…He also (sat) on the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, the Bipartisan Task Force for Combatting Anti-Semitism, the HIV/AIDS Caucus, the Long Island Sound Caucus, and the Animal Protection Caucus, among others.” 

Engel served in the House of Representatives for 16 terms, over 32 years – yet he lost the Democratic primary to former middle school principal Jaamal Bowman.  Recognizing Bowman as a potential comrade, Ocasio Cortes broke with the New York Democratic organization to endorse Bowman to replace Engel.    For his part, upon his election, Bowman wasted no time signaling his “progressive” ideals.  “I believe our current system of capitalism is slavery by another name. We’ve moved from physical chattel enslavement and physical racial segregation to a plantation economic system.” 

As described by John Hawkins of the Don Bongino Show, “Bowman is right out of the AOC, ‘Defund the police, capitalism bad, socialism good’ school of thinking and he defeated Democrat Eliot Engel…by running against him from the left. In other words, Engel, who had an American Conservative Union rating of 4% in 2018 (Meaning he voted conservative 4% of the time) wasn’t liberal enough for his district, which apparently wants straight from the tap socialism.” 

Refusing to acknowledge the obvious trend here, Bloomberg minimizes the appeal of Bowman and Ocasio Cortes, stating their appeal is “concentrated in the Northeast and a few other big cities…elsewhere the Democratic majority in the House depends on the votes of members elected from moderate districts.” 

But the organization that supported the candidacies of both Ocasio Cortes and Bowman, Justice Democrats, has big plans.  According to their website, “Our goal is to build a mission-driven caucus in Congress…who will represent our communities…and fight for bold, progressive solutions to our current crisis.”   That “mission” and those “progressive solutions?’  “Cancel Student Debt,” “Federal Jobs guarantee,” “Free public college and trade school,” “Secure a living wage,” “Housing as a human right,” and a “Third Reconstruction,” described as the creation of “a national Truth and Reconciliation Commission to lead our nation through a process that investigates the generational harms caused by slavery and Jim Crow and propose necessary reparations.” 

Judge Wilson’s analysis concludes tomorrow.

Photo: U.S. Congress official site

Several years ago, in a Washington Times article, I proposed that outlets such as Facebook, Twitter and Google be treated as “common carriers.” Common carriers, such as airlines and railroads, are not allowed to discriminate against customers based on race, color, creed or political viewpoint.  The same should apply to internet giants.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) frees these corporate giants of certain liability in return for allowing all to post online. It also provides, according to Internet Association.org,  the right to exclude users under certain conditions. Having violated the provision mandating fair use by all, 230 should be repealed.

There are other solutions to the growing power of internet giants to dominate the national conversation and engage in practices intended to exclude the growth of competing services.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently announced that his state  is leading a multistate coalition in a lawsuit against Google for multiple violations of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, including anticompetitive conduct, exclusionary practices and deceptive misrepresentations in connection with its role in the multi-trillion-dollar online display advertising industry. Google’s monopolization of online-display advertising includes an anticompetitive agreement with Facebook, making misrepresentations to users and customers, and suppressing competition.

According to a release from Paxton, Google competes directly against the buyers and sellers they separately represent—all while operating the largest exchange on which these ad products are bought and sold. Google’s exchange trades in billions of ad impressions a day.

“Google is a trillion-dollar monopoly brazenly abusing its monopolistic power, going so far as to induce senior Facebook executives to agree to a contractual scheme that undermines the heart of competitive process. In this advertising monopoly on an electronically traded market, Google is essentially trading on ‘insider information’ by acting as the pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire, all at the same time. This isn’t the ‘free market’ at work here. This is anti-market and illegal under state and federal law,” said Attorney General Ken Paxton. “Google’s monopolization of the display-advertising industry and its misleading business practices stifle innovation, limit consumer choice and reduce competition. Texas and its coalition of allied states bring this action to lift the veil on Google’s secret practices and secure relief to prevent it from engaging in future deceptive and misleading practices.”

This lawsuit alleges that Google monopolized or attempted to monopolize products and services used by advertisers and publishers in online-display advertising. The complaint also alleges that Google engaged in false, misleading and deceptive acts while selling, buying and auctioning online-display ads. These anticompetitive and deceptive practices demonstrably diminished publishers’ ability to monetize content, increased advertisers’ costs to advertise and directly harmed consumers.

The Office of the Attorney General hired The Lanier Law Firm and Keller Lenkner, LLC to aid the State of Texas in its claims against Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. OAG’s contracts with these law firms comply with Chapter 2254 of the Texas Government Code, which requires that outside counsel in cases like this be compensated by a “lodestar” method derived from their hourly billing rates.

The key points of the lawsuit include:

1. The States of Texas, ArkansasIdaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by and through their Attorneys General (collectively, the “Plaintiff States”), bring this action against Google LLC (“Google”) under federal and state antitrust laws and deceptive trade practices laws and allege as follows:
2. As internal Google documents reveal, Google sought to kill competition and has done so through an array of exclusionary tactics, including an unlawful agreement with Facebook, its largest potential competitive threat, to PDQLSXODWH advertising auctions. The Supreme Court has warned that there are such things as antitrust evils. This litigation will establish that Googe is guilty of such antitrust evils, and it seeks to ensure that Google won’t be evil anymore.
3. Google has repeatedly and brazenly violated antitrust and consumer protection laws. Its modus operandi is to monopolize and misrepresent. Google uses its powerful position on every side of the online display markets to unlawfully exclude competition. It also boldly claims that “we’ll never sell your personal information to anyone,” but its entire business model is targeted advertising—the purchase and sale of advertisements targeted to individual users based on their personal information. From its earliest days, Google’s carefully curated public reputation of “don’t be evil” has enabled it to act with wide latitude. That latitude is enhanced by the extreme opacity and complexity of digital advertising markets, which are at least as complex as the most sophisticated financial markets in the world.

Illustration: Pixabay

HONG KONG

Before leaving office Secretary of State Michael Pompeo designated six PRC and Hong Kong officials in connection with the draconian National Security Law (NSL), pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13936, “The President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization.” This was in response to the  January 6 arrest of more than 50 people by Hong Kong authorities. The crackdown was on pro-democracy politicians and activists who were trying to advance fair and open primary elections for Hong Kong’s Legislative Council.  According to Pompeo, thirteen former Legislative Council members, an American lawyer, and a former law professor were among those reportedly detained before being released on bail.  

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

The Biden Administration is rejoining the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United States will be the primary funder for the organization. This comes on the heels of an announcement by Secretary of State Pompeo last week calling for a transparent and thorough investigation into the origin of COVID-19. Pompeo said that “Understanding the origin of this pandemic is essential for global public health, economic recovery, and international security.”

He urged the WHO to press the government of China to address the illnesses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). It was learned that several researchers inside the Institute became sick in early fall 2019 with systems consistent with the COVID-19 virus. According to Pompeo, this appears to contradict Shi Zhengli, a senior WIV researcher’s claim that there was “zero infection” among staff and students. 

Pompeo pointed out that the WIV has secret links to, and has participated in, secret military research since 2017. The research included laboratory animal experiments, including possible “gain of function” experiments to enhance transmissibility or lethality of viruses. .

“Any responsible country would have invited world health investigators to Wuhan within days of an outbreak. China instead refused offers of help – including from the United States – and punished brave Chinese doctors, scientists, and journalists who tried to alert the world to the dangers of the virus. Beijing continues today to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one,” according to Pompeo.

CHINA

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced a State Department “determination” that since at least March 2017, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), under the direction and control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), “has committed crimes against humanity against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other members of ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.” Pompeo said that these crimes are ongoing and include: the arbitrary imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty of more than one million civilians, forced sterilization, torture of a large number of those arbitrarily detained, forced labor, and the imposition of draconian restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement. 

He noted that the Nuremberg Tribunals at the end of World War II prosecuted perpetrators for crimes against humanity, the same crimes being perpetrated in Xinjiang. He added that the Department has determined that the PRC has “committed genocide against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.” Pompeo said the genocide is ongoing, and that it is a systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state.  

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

On January 19, 2021, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo released a final Trump Administration statement condemning China for its atrocities in Xinjiang against the minority Uyghur Muslim population. As we move into 2021 under the new Biden Administration it seems appropriate to look at the current state of relations among the big three: US, China, and Russia. Although there remains an underlying current of distrust between Beijing and Moscow, the leaders of the two communist states continue to work together to undermine the status of the United States as leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on earth.

President Biden assumes office at a time when the United States cannot afford to underestimate the short—term geopolitical consequences of expanding and deepening China-Russia cooperation. For the duration of the Cold War, the US was able to play the “China card.” During the Nixon years when Beijing decided it needed a market for its fledgling export trade, it moved toward the US. The time was ripe for rapprochement. The great state players remain the same today, but the game has changed. 

President Xi Jinping over the last decade has driven his country to develop advanced, offensive military capabilities, a large and relatively sophisticated export-based economy, and he has carved out a global political role he believes is befitting that of the head of the former Middle Kingdom. Neither China nor Russia abide by the norms of the international rules-based system. Unlike the Soviet Cold War era, however, China is a rising aggressive state that poses the greatest national security to the US and the entire West in modern times. President Xi has stated that his goal is no less than to remake the world in China’s image. 

Until President Trump assumed office no Administration since that of President Reagan had the political willpower to push back against the Chinese state. In 2021 the China-Russia alignment represents a very real and present threat to West. Russia’s expanding support of its ally in the east extends from joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean to acting as a force multiplier by complementing China’s military adventurism. Again, the amplified challenge is real. Russia is supplying its ally with advanced weapons that are speeding China’s takeover of the South China Sea and reducing the likelihood that the United States will be able to maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific in the future.

A report published last week from the Center for New American Security says: “Russia and China are popularizing authoritarian governance, exporting their best practices, watering down human rights norms, backing each other up to defend strategic interests in multilateral forums, creating norms around cyber and internet sovereignty, and bolstering illiberal leaders and helping them stay in power.” The anti-democratic synergy these states create is magnified across a number of fields and designed to push authoritarian systems as the solution while diminishing the influence and power of the United States.

By working together Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping are teaming up to reduce the impact of American sanctions and export controls. If they are successful Washington will have little leverage over China’s actions abroad in the near-term. Although the two communist giants do not agree on all issues, they have a unity in purpose when it involves working in tandem to counter-balance US global influence. Now that China and Russia have resolved most of their territorial issues, and the 1950’s dispute over Russia’s reneging on its promise to give China the bomb are fading, the world cannot count on the Russian-Chinese relationship deteriorating any time soon. Moscow’s political analysts view Washington as the immediate threat. That means playing the “China card.” In the defense sector, on democracy and human rights issues, inside the world of technology and cyberwarfare, and the economic realm China and Russia today find more reasons for synergy than cynicism. That should greatly concern the incoming Biden Administration.

Photo: China Defence Ministry

On January 13, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (formerly the Office of Economic Adjustment) released its Fiscal Year 2019 Defense Spending by State report, usable by states and communities to better understand defense personnel and contract spending in their localities. The analysis helps state and local leaders assess a region’s dependence on defense spending and target assistance.

Defense spending rose in Fiscal Year 2019. DoD contract obligations and payroll spending in the 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by $64.3 billion, or 19 percent, over the prior year. This was driven by a 19 percent increase in DoD contract obligations. Personnel spending in the 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by 4 percent. 

DoD contract obligations and payroll spending in the 50 states and the District of Columbia totaled $550.9 billion, which is 2.5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). If the total spending were divided across every U.S. resident, it would amount to $1,678 per U.S. citizen. Of those funds, $403.9 billion (73 percent) were spent on contracts for products and services, while the remaining $146.9 billion (27 percent) paid the salaries of DOD personnel.  

California, Virginia, and Texas topped the list of recipients for overall defense spending. However, Virginia, Hawaii, and Alabama ranked highest when considering defense spending’s impact on their states’ GDP.  

The top ten states for total Defense spending in Fiscal Year 2019 were:

RANK    STATE        DEFENSE SPENDING (billions)
1.            California               $66.2
2.            Virginia                    $60.3
3.            Texas                         $54.8
4.            Florida                      $29.8
5.           Maryland                 $26.1
6.          Connecticut            $19.7
7.          Pennsylvania          $18.1
8.         Washington             $17.8
9.         Alabama                     $16.0
10.       Massachusetts      $15.8

West Virginia, Maine and Wisconsin had the largest increases in DoD spending from Fiscal Year 2018 to 2019. This was driven by large contracts to Northrop Grumman in West Virginia, General Dynamics in Maine, and Oshkosh Corp. and Fincantieri Marine Systems in Wisconsin. These contracts were related to rocket motor production, shipbuilding and military vehicle production.

The top ten recipients of Defense contracts in Fiscal Year 2019 were:

RANK    COMPANY              DEFENSE SPENDING (billions)
1.          Lockheed Martin           $45.6 
2.          Boeing                                  $25.7 
3.          Northrop Grumman     $19.5 
4.          General Dynamics         $18.6 
5.          Raytheon                             $15.7 
6.          United Technologies     $10.3 
7.          BAE Systems                     $7.3 
8.          Huntington Ingalls         $6.7 
9.          Humana                                $6.7 
10.        L3 Technologies             $4.9 

All ten companies were on this list in Fiscal Year 2018. United Technologies (47 percent), Northrop Grumman (41 percent), and General Dynamics (29 percent) had the largest year over year increases.

“The report compiled by the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation can be a great tool to state and local officials,” said Ellen Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. “All of our work is aimed at supporting the National Defense Strategy and this report is key as we look to continue defense reform and modernization efforts.” 

Patrick O’Brien, the Director of the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation, states the report is an opportunity for governors and local officials to use its data to strengthen their defense presence and supply chains.  Mr. O’Brien further indicates “state and local officials need to use this information to better understand the essential continuum of investments across people, equipment, weapons systems, real estate, and services required to maintain our National Defense. Across these areas, they should determine if there are opportunities to further develop workforce skills, enhance and improve innovativeness and buying power, and partner to strengthen the resilience of our installations and industrial base.”

Conducted between March and December 2020, the analysis primarily entailed an examination of DoD­funded prime- and sub-award contract data and defense personnel and payroll figures.

Photo: Pixabay