Month: May 2022

The news spread faster than Covid 19 in Shanghai -a draft of an opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was published by Politico. Moreover, the proposed opinion is a bombshell – the overturning, and utter repudiation of the notorious Roe v. Wade.  

The document has been authenticated by Chief Justice Roberts, who cautioned that “the draft opinion, dated from February…does not represent the ‘final position of any member on the issues in the case.'”    In fact, “Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the Court’s confidential deliberative work…the document… does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

Anyone familiar with the internal workings of the Supreme Court can verify that a draft opinion is subject to a variety of revisions, changes and sometimes, does not become the majority opinion.  According to NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, “(t)here’s always a chance that the draft opinion doesn’t end up looking similar to the final opinion, noting that this has happened numerous times. A majority of justices must ‘sign onto’ the court’s opinion before it can be delivered publicly…’No opinion is considered the official opinion of the Court until it is delivered in open Court (or at least made available to the public)…'”

Totenberg went on to describe the impact of the disclosure of Alito’s draft opinion.  “Leaks of any kind are rare at the Supreme Court, and…there hasn’t been such a massive breach in modern history. She called it a ‘bomb at the court’ that undermines everything the body stands for internally and institutionally, including its members’ trust in their law clerks and in each other. ‘No fully-formed draft opinion has been leaked to the press or outside the court,’ Totenberg says. ‘Once or twice there may have been leaks that say how is something going to turn out, or after-the-fact that somebody may have changed his or her mind. But this is a full-blown, Pentagon Papers-type compromise of the court’s work.'” 

Conservative pundit Laura Ingram stated that, “(i)t’s incumbent upon (Chief Justice Roberts) to bring in every law clerk before him or the FBI. ‘Give me your phone. We want all your accounts. We’ve got to do our own — look at every device you’ve ever used and find out who did this.'”  Meanwhile, US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) stated the obvious; “I think it’s plainly an attempt by the Left to try and change the outcome in this case and corrupt the process, and the court must not allow that to happen.”

The Court was clearly cognizant of both issues; “U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts…directed the court’s marshal to launch an investigation into the source of the leak. ‘To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the court will not be affected in any way,’ Roberts said.” 

“The marshal is the court’s chief security officer and facilities administrator, overseeing the court’s police force. Gail Curley, former chief of the National Security Law Division in the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General office, took up the post last year.” There are only so many employees of the US Supreme Court who could have access to a draft opinion.  Thus, it shouldn’t be too hard for Marshal Curley to figure out who “let the cat out of the bag.”  But what repercussions are in store for the leaker?

If you ask former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy, “(t)he leak is a corrupt act that was patently intended to influence the outcome of the Dobbs case. That makes it a criminal obstruction of that judicial proceeding. Obstruction is the charge that the Biden Justice Department has brought against some of the most serious Capitol riot defendants, whose corrupt acts were intended to influence and intimidate Congress into changing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. It is even more clearly applicable to court cases — we don’t call it obstruction of justice for nothing.”

Further, McCarthy believes that “(u)nder federal law, it is a crime to embezzle government records or to convert them to one’s own use. The leaker, who took the draft opinion — the government’s property — and disseminated it outside the court’s established processes to someone not authorized to access it, has stolen a record and converted it to his or her own political purposes. That’s a crime.”

“Finally, federal law has long criminalized conspiracies to defraud the United States. As long interpreted by the Supreme Court, fraud in this context is not limited to schemes to swindle the government out of money or property. It includes deceptive acts that are intended to have, and can have, the effect of undermining government processes. Here, the leak was precisely intended to undermine the Supreme Court’s regular process for crafting, deliberating and issuing opinions that create binding United States law.” 

But there are those who disagree.  “‘Right now, it’s unclear whether the leaker broke any law at all,’ says Trevor Timm, a First Amendment–focused lawyer and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. ‘Even the people claiming this act is beyond the pale and the FBI must investigate haven’t pointed to a definitive law this leaker allegedly broke.’ Timm cites a lengthy Twitter thread published…by the well-known UC Berkeley legal scholar Orin Kerr, who responded to the leak…by pointing out that a Supreme Court draft doesn’t meet any of the obvious criteria that would make it an illegal document to hand to a journalist: Most important, it’s not classified, so leaking it doesn’t open the leaker to prosecution under the Espionage Act. ‘As far as I can tell, there is no federal criminal law that directly prohibits disclosure of a draft legal opinion,’ Kerr concluded.” 

Obviously Timm either didn’t read, or has not been made aware of McCarthy’s extensive list of laws that may have been broken by whoever revealed the draft opinion.  Timm may also be guilty of selectively quoting Kerr – Reuters gives a more complete elaboration of the Berkeley legal scholar’s views on the matter;

“Drafts of Supreme Court opinions are not classified documents like national security files, said…Kerr, meaning their disclosure would not automatically trigger a criminal investigation. But even a leaker with authority to handle a draft opinion could potentially be charged with stealing or converting federal government property for their own use, he said.”  Further, “(a)nyone who lies to an investigator as part of the court’s leak probe could also face a federal false statement charge, said Kel McClanahan, an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School who specializes in national security law.” 

Judge Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

“While the cat’s away the mice will play” is an old childhood adage applicable to international politics today. While all media eyes are cast toward the war in Ukraine another area of the world is heating up without much commentary. All is not quiet on the Indian subcontinent. India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are wrestling with issues that raise the threat environment in the region. 

In Islamabad the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, accused the US government of colluding to depose him and publicly called out the new leadership as traitors to Pakistan. Members of his political party, the Tehreek-e-Insaf jeered the current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as he led a senior government delegation visiting the Prophet’s Mosque in the holy city of Medina, Saudi Arabia. In response Pakistani police charged the former prime minister and the hecklers with blasphemy. According to the country’s Interior Minister Rana Sanallah, who is supportive of the charges, Khan may be formerly arrested if Pakistan can link him directly to the events in Saudi Arabia. The sentence for blasphemy in Pakistan can be death. In the past such sentences could be carried out by mob lynchings and typically often to other violence. Also inside Pakistan, the Database of People with Extremist Linkages (DOPEL), is reporting that Allan Nazar, the leader of a banned militant group called the Baluchistan Liberation Front (BLF), is emerging as the face of a separatist movement in Pakistan’s Baluchistan province. Syed Fazl-e-Haider, of the Jamestown Foundation points out the separatist leader’s group has “carried out hundreds of terrorist attacks on Pakistan’s armed forces and civilians” and that “Nazar himself has become a new face of Baluch separatism, despite coming from a middle-class, as opposed to upper-class, family background.”
 
In Sri Lanka, according to the publication Ceylon Today, the country is being “pushed towards anarchy.” Inflation is over 20 percent and Colombo is about to default on $50 billion in foreign debt. In April, to stem expanding protests, the entire cabinet, except the president and his brother, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa, resigned. In an attempt to stabilize the situation Rajapaksa  secured $2 billion in aid from India and is working on obtaining debt relief from the IMF. The government has made a number of errors in recent years that have hurt the economy and place the country in danger of collapse. The latest economic crisis, according to economic analysts familiar with Sri Lanka, caution that the “current environment may push it over the edge” toward anarchy.

India itself is negotiating a tough course over its military purchases from Russia and determination to maintain its oil imports despite the war in Ukraine. It won’t be easy for India to delink. “About 97 percent of India’s main battle tanks, 100 percent of its armored fighting vehicles, 67 percent of its submarines, 68 percent of the anti-ship cruise missiles aboard its guided-missile destroyers and frigates, and 97 percent of its fighter aircraft were acquired from Russia (or its predecessor, the Soviet Union).  Even India’s most successful domestically manufactured anti-ship cruise missile, the BrahMos, was co-developed with Russia,” according to Felix Chang of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.  India, in a typical year, imports over 80 percent of its oil and nearly half of its natural gas as it has few natural energy resources. Chang suggests that India’s tilt toward Russia may be explained by its strategic dependence on Russia for low cots oil and other commodities it needs. Some analysts argue that India’s relationship with Russia serves as a counterbalance to Chinese threats. In recent years there have been a number of small armed clashes between the two nations. Chang points out that should India find itself in a conflict with China, “full-throated Western support could prove critical,” especially if Russia fails to aid the country. “While India may be assured of some level of support from the West, will the West go the extra distance for India as it did for Ukraine?  If the West does not, India’s Russia-leaning neutrality might begin to look less like strategic independence and more like strategic seclusion.” If the situation in Russia deteriorates, India could find itself without the support of any  major power and facing a belligerent China alone.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

For over 4,000 years, from the Chinese perspective, the Silk Road Spirit was one of “peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit” that aided in the development of countries along the ancient Silk Road. The economic land bridge extended from Eastern China into Europe and Western Russia. The ancient maritime section of the Silk Route, often referred to as the spice network, connected Chinese commerce with the Indian subcontinent, Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, and Europe by sea. The 21st century version of the ancient Silk Route, Yīdài yīlù chàngyì (一带一路”倡议), is known collectively today as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It is composed of six economic corridors; five of which are land-based. The newest, a sixth corridor, is a maritime strategy designed to create a modern global transport network from China’s coastline to the Mediterranean Sea states. 

China’s shift from a solely continental-based approach to a dual sea-based strategy utilizing its modernized, blue water navy to secure trade routes has raised national security concerns among nation-states from the Indo-Pacific to Western Europe and the United States. China’s BRI spans 80 nations and covers 2/3 of the world’s population. According to Jonathan Hillman, writing in a CSIS Brief, Chinese investments are approaching $1 trillion, making the BRI seven times larger than what the US spent under the post-WWII Marshall Plan. The Initiative, he says, is “breathtakingly ambiguous” with no official definition of what qualifies as a project. 

Touted by Beijing merely as an economic initiative supporting “connectiveness” and “mutually beneficial cooperation,” there are veiled overtones of a new, developing Sinocentric maritime environment that presents a geopolitical security threat to states located along the yī chuàn zhēnzhū or “String of Pearls” (一串珍珠) countries. To understand the causal logic behind China’s current commercial maritime strategy, one needs to examine where the country is shifting its resources and what it may indicate in terms of Beijing’s long-term, blue water, military power projection. Perhaps most revealing are the underlying holes in the current trade strategy that bely a more substantive threat to the rules-based world order. 

When China reopened to the West in the 1980’s, it revitalized and expanded its maritime trade routes. By 2008 Chinese naval leaders began urging the CCP leadership in Beijing to establish overseas naval bases under the guise of supporting its counter-piracy operations along the African coastline. Shortly after Xi Jinping assumed power in March 2013, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang spoke about China’s desire to orient a new trade corridor towards the ASEAN states to “create propellers for hinterland development.” Public statements now are couched in terms of economic modernization, peaceful cooperation, and joint interests. When President Xi Jinping announced the start of the BRI, he declared that it is “all the more important for us to carry on the Silk Road spirit in face of the weak recovery of the global economy, and complex international and regional situations.” Xi was not transparent about what the Chinese government considered “complex,” what constituted a “situation,” or how China planned to impact the global economy. What is inferred from the summation of his speech is that Beijing views the great wall of water composing the seas near China as a strategic opportunity to reduce US influence and prestige in Asia. 

The People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) core pillar of strength today is a sea-oriented, economic strategy designed as an extension of China’s long-range power projection as well as a natural expansion of its overseas trade policy. 

Of the 3,700 major ports worldwide, 2,000 of which are located on the Maritime Silk Road, China only is interested in 17-18 of them. Each of these is capable of handling large, military ships. The world is fast approaching a period where the various forms of Chinese overseas interactions, both civilian and military, are no longer confined to the littoral waters around Taiwan or the South China Sea. When President Xi speaks in terms of a Chinese tiānxià (天下) he means far more than just “empire;” he is merging the concept of the modern nation-state and the civilized world into one. It is a world order viewed from a Chinese perspective where the “middle kingdom” presides over the center. Tiānxià is a soft power approach based on the symbolic recognition of the charismatic authority of the Chinese emperor as prerequisite to engage in the exchange of goods. There are nascent indicators of such a transformation today in China’s geopolitical, great power strategy that are ingrained in the reconstruction of older ordering principles which is rooted in the history of China’s ancient Silk Road. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Photo taken on April 8, 2022 shows a frigate maneuvers in full speed during a combat training exercise somewhere in the South China Sea staged by a frigate flotilla with the navy under the PLA Southern Theatre Command in early April, 2022.(eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Zhang Bin)

Despite broad-based speculation about the deteriorating health of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he remains in command of the war in Ukraine and now may be harboring grander geopolitical ambitions beyond Ukrainian territory. Recent reports coming out of Central Asia this week point to increased Russian interference in Kazakhstan that could be indicative of a future Russian “special military action” in the country. Over the last three decades Kazakh leaders have heard Russian threats repeated regularly about Moscow’s designs on Kazakhstan. Only six months after Russia annexed Crimean, Putin boldly proclaimed that Kazakhstan never was a country and that “Kazakhs never had any statehood….” Just over a month ago, Communist Party member Sergei Savostyanov, a deputy in the Moscow City Duma (Council), in a written statement supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, added Kazakhstan to the list of locations where Russia should take similar action to that in Ukraine. The other states included the Baltics, Moldova, and Poland. 

Moscow has long labeled Kazakhstan’s Guryev Province (now called Atyrau) and Tselinograd Province (now called Akmola) “ancient Russian territories,” although Russians make up only 35% of its population. “Throughout the 1990’s, there were Russian and Cossack groups in Kazakhstan who called for areas in northern Kazakhstan to join Russia,” according to Pannier. Ethnic Kazakhs make up more than 63% of the population today. Gennady Zyuganov, head of the Russian Communist Party, said that northern Kazakhstan was historically Russian territory and that Putin needed to “protect the Russian-speaking population against the “national arbitrariness that is happening in Kazakhstan.” Zyuganov also suggested that Putin should take control of its Baikonur Cosmodrome, located in Kazakhstan, along with the country’s uranium mining industry. Today, Kazakhstan is the world’s leading producer and exporter of uranium.

On December 10, 2020, Vyacheslav Nikonov, a Russian Duma deputy and head of its Education and Science Committee, in December 2020 said on a Russian television that when the Soviet Union formed in 1917, “Kazakhstan simply did not exist as a country, its northern territories were basically uninhabited,” according to Pannier. Three days later, he adds, Duma deputy Yevgeny Fedorov announced that the Belavezha Accords that dissolved the Soviet Union were illegal and Kazakhstan was effectively “easing” Russian land. The worries about Russian designs on Kazakhstan appear to be increasing, according to Pannier. At the end of March, Kazakh Deputy Prosecutor General Bulat Dembayev blatantly issued a warning to the country’s citizenry to take care in what they posted about the “conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine” on social networks. Dembayev pointed out that some Kazakh users of social networks have publicly commented on the ongoing events in Ukraine and posted separatist calls regarding the integrity of the territory of Kazakhstan. He reminded them, “Deliberate actions aimed at inciting ethnic hatred, public calls to violate the integrity of Kazakhstan” and are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. 

A rally opposing the Russian war was cancelled recently when Kazakh officials refused the group a permit to gather. Pannier says Kazakh leaders can try to “downplay the significance of these comments, but it is troubling that Russian officials continue to make them. And even more so since there has been no effort from Putin or any other Russian official to put an end to it.” 

Malcolm Davis, writing in Clear Defense this week, notes that if Putin does not go nuclear “It’s also possible that Russia could decide to escalate at a conventional level by extending its attacks beyond Ukraine.” He points out that Russia is already making implied threats of extending the war to the disputed Transnistria region of Moldova. That would dramatically increase the threat to Romania, a NATO member, and destabilize the Moldovan state, many of whose residents are ethnically Romanian. Kazakhstan might not be that far behind. 

Last month Kazakhstan’s deputy foreign minister, Roman Vassilenko,  said the country would welcome companies leaving Russia that wanted to relocate there and that his country would not want to be on the wrong side of a new “iron curtain.” Recently, Kazakhstan officials have refrained from criticizing Russian military actions in Ukraine although Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev is reported in Al Jazeera had earlier this year stated that that all countries must strictly adhere to the norms and principles of the United Nations charter.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

The Contract with America was a legislative agenda advocated by the Republican Party during the 1994 congressional election campaign, during the Clinton Administration.  It proved successful both with the voters and in practice.

As the U.S. reels from Washington’s increasing power and extensively poor decision making, the concept of a new version of the Contract is becoming popular again. Expect many Republican candidates to produce their own updated takes on the idea.

Richard Scott (R), the junior United States senator from Florida, has released his approach:

Our kids will say the pledge of allegiance, salute the Flag, learn that America is a great country, and choose the school that best fits them. We will inspire patriotism and stop teaching the revisionist history of the radical left; our kids will learn about the wisdom of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the founding fathers. Public schools will focus on the 3 R’s, not indoctrinate children with critical race theory or any other political ideology.

Government will never again ask American citizens to disclose their race, ethnicity, or skin color on any government form. We are going to eliminate racial politics in America. No government policy will be based on race. People “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We are all made in the image of God; to judge a person on the color of their epidermis is immoral.

The soft-on-crime days of coddling criminal behavior will end. We will re-fund and respect the police because, they, not the criminals, are the good guys. We will enforce our laws, all of them, and increase penalties for theft and violent crime. We will clean up our cities and stop pretending that crime is OK. We have zero tolerance for “mostly peaceful protests” that attack police officers, loot businesses, and burn down our cities.

We will secure our border, finish building the wall, and name it after President Donald Trump.

Nations have borders. We should give that a try. President Trump’s plan to build a wall was right. We welcome those who want to join us in building the American dream, immigrants who want to be Americans, not change America. We are a stronger nation because we are a nation of immigrants, but immigration without assimilation makes us weaker. Politicians from both parties talk big about border security and do nothing. We are done with that.

We will grow America’s economy, starve Washington’s economy, and stop Socialism. Socialism is un-American and always leads to poverty and oppression. We will stop it. We will shrink the federal government, reduce the government workforce by 25% in 5 years, sell government buildings and assets, and get rid of the old, slow, closed, top-down, government-run-everything system we have today.

We will eliminate all federal programs that can be done locally, and enact term limits for federal bureaucrats and Congress.

Many government agencies should be either moved out of Washington or shuttered entirely. Yesterday’s old government is fundamentally incompatible with the digital era. The permanent ruling class in Washington is bankrupting us with inflation and debt, so they must be removed. For you to have more, Washington must have less.

We will protect the integrity of American Democracy and stop left-wing efforts to rig elections. Today’s Democrat Party is trying to rig elections and pack the courts because they have given up on Democracy. They don’t believe they can win based on their ideas, so they want to game the system and legalize voter fraud to stay in power. In true Orwellian fashion, Democrats refer to their election rigging plans as “voting rights”. We won’t allow the radical left to destroy our democracy by institutionalizing dishonesty and fraud.

We will protect, defend, and promote the American Family at all costs. The nuclear family is crucial to civilization, it is God’s design for humanity, and it must be protected and celebrated. To say otherwise is to deny science. The fanatical left seeks to devalue and redefine the traditional family, as they undermine parents and attempt to replace them with government programs. We will not allow Socialism to place the needs of the state ahead of the family.

Men are men, women are women, and unborn babies are babies. We believe in science: Men and women are biologically different, “male and female He created them.” Modern technology has confirmed that abortion takes a human life. Facts are facts, the earth is round, the sun is hot, there are two genders, and abortion stops a beating heart. To say otherwise is to deny science.

Americans will be free to welcome God into all aspects of our lives, and we will stop all government efforts to deny our religious freedom and freedom of speech. The Democrat Party and their Big Tech allies are not merely secular; they have virtually created a new religion of wokeness that is increasingly hostile toward people of faith, particularly Christians and Jews. They are determined to drive all mention of God out of public view. We will not be silenced, canceled, or told what words to use by the politically correct crowd.

We are Americans, not globalists.  America will be dependent on NO other country. We will conduct no trade that takes away jobs or displaces American workers. Countries who oppose us at the UN will get zero financial help from us. We will be energy-independent and build supply chains that never rely on our adversaries. We will only help countries that are willing to defend themselves, like Israel.

Despite rising and imminent threats from Russia and China, the Biden Administration is pursing a unilateral course of limiting America’s deterrent.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Defense cancelled a test of an advanced missile, out of  concern that it would “provoke Russia.” In response, Moscow test-launched one of its advanced Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles, also known as “Satan 2.” The Russian defense ministry reported that the long-range missile test began in western Russia, north of Moscow, and landed on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the country’s far east. It has unprecedented power.

The White House has also announced that it would no longer test America’s Anti-satellite  (ASAT) weaponry.  Neither China nor Russia has followed suite.

The move is consistent with the President’s other ill-advised defense moves.

While China has dramatically increased the size of its navy, and continues to build more warships, the Biden defense budget proposal would reduce the size of America’s navy. U.S. Representatives Mike Rogers (R-AL), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rob Wittman (R-VA), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Sea Power and Projection Forces noted that “China is the pacing threat – this is something we’ve consistently heard from our military Commanders. However, it seems that President Biden has chosen to once again ignore his military advisors to the detriment of our Navy and Marine Corps’ readiness. The Biden administration’s 30 year shipbuilding plan reduces our ability to protect our aircraft carrier strike groups, reduces Navy’s ability to eliminate an enemy’s minefield, reduces the Marine Corps ability to conduct forcible entry missions and reduces almost 10% of our fleet’s ability to launch missiles. Most disconcerting is that the administration may have known the depths of these reductions and decided to not provide Congress with this information, hiding it with a one year shipbuilding plan presented to Congress last year. It takes years to build a ship and we no longer have the industrial strength we had during WWII to nearly instantaneously produce thousands of ships in times of conflict. Reducing our naval power to save a couple of dollars now puts our warfighters in a dangerous and incurable position when faced with China’s growing naval power.”

It’s more than missiles and ships. As Russia ravages Ukraine and China prepares to conquer Taiwan, the White House seeks to slash the U.S. army.  The Army Times reports that “the Biden administration’s fiscal 2023 budget request would temporarily shrink the active duty Army to 473,000 troops…That could leave the service at its smallest size since 1940, when it had just over 269,000 troops.”

As Russia and China dramatically modernize their strategic nuclear weaponry and China engages in a rapid increase in the size of its force, America’s atomic deterrent dissolves into obsolescence.  The Biden Administration has slow-walked a review that would outline the challenge and respond to the deadly threats now faced.  Indeed, it continues to push for an Iranian nuclear deal that would only add to that threat.

Members of Congress have desperately complained.  Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) worries that “For the second year in a row, the White House’s proposed defense budget fails to keep up with soaring inflation levels. …[and] weakens our national defense by reducing the size of our Army, Navy and Marine Corps, cutting funding for new nuclear deterrent capabilities, and reducing our ships and aircrafts. This signals to our adversaries and allies that our country is weak and unwilling to defend itself or protect our allies.”

This is not the usual Washington wrangling over marginal changes in a portion of the federal budget.  Indeed, an entire weapons system, the sea launched cruise missile has been entirely eliminated. Ignoring the reality of an exceptional increase in the threat level combined with the devastating effect of inflation on American defense programs, it is an unprecedented and reckless assault on the security of the nation.

Photo: China’s DF-41 nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles

A recent House of Representatives vote, held in November, on a resolution (Res 760) expressing solidarity with the long-oppressed people of Cuban in their quest for basic rights appeared to be the type of feel-good gesture that would pass unanimously. There were no monetary or other strings attached to it. It was a symbolic gesture issued largely in response to a Human Rights Watch report issued over the summer.

Instead, 40 Democrats voted against it. Representatives such as Jerry Nadler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illian Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Maxine Waters, and the rest of the progressive caucus refused to endorse the measure.

Their action was despicable. Whatever differences Americans may have, support for personal freedom should be a unifying factor.  Despite that, we should be grateful for how they voted.  Any vague misconception that the leftist Democrats who populate the progressive movement and who clearly dominate the leadership of their party, are anything but would-be authoritarian despots can now be totally dispelled.

The true nature of the Progressive Movement is becoming more evident by the hour.

 In New York, Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Hawk Newsome has threatened the newly elected mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, with “Riots and Bloodshed” if he merely sought to enforce criminal laws. Eric Adams, by the way, is a black man.

That authoritarian impulse thoroughly infects the Democratic Party leadership. The entire concept of a nation governed by laws is under attack.  Rep. Maxine Waters has urged protestors to be more “confrontational.”  The left, and their media allies, looked the other way as their storm troopers invaded police stations, attempted to burn federal court houses, set up an “autonomous zone,” burned buildings, looted stores, and attacked passers-by. Senator Schumer introduced a measure to limit the protection of the First Amendment in certain areas. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have used the IRS and the Department of Justice to intimidate those individuals and organizations that peacefully and legally disagree with their policies.

Progressive-dominated media outlets have used every dictatorial strategy to suppress contrary voices. Conservative views are frequently censored on social media sites.  Leftist- influenced search engine results omit or relegate moderate to conservative views to obscure back pages.

When parents, during the Covid era, discovered that progressive propaganda was being force-fed to students, they began to dissent. The response by the Biden Administration was rapid. A move was made to call concerned parents “domestic terrorists” and unleash the FBI on them.  The leftist strangle-hold on the educational establishment was not to be tolerated.

Megan McArdle, writing in the Atlantic, quotes Dr. Jonathon Haidt, an academic who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “…when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

Leftist Democrats utter disregard for the truth and their all-out warfare on any who dares to differ could be seen in the 2016 presidential election. As has now been irrefutably verified by the Durham investigation, a wholly false charge of Russian Collusion was invented against the GOP candidate.  Even after that lie had become evident beyond any shadow of a doubt, Pelosi’s House Intelligence Committee continued to push the story, aided by her media allies.

It was a tactic advocated and perfected by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, who famously said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Photo: Wikipedia