Month: July 2022

One of the most common complaints many on the right make about those on the left, is that no one on the left will ever admit they are wrong.  Caught in the process of either spreading misinformation, or simply incorrect about a belief or assumption, when does a progressive ever utter the words, I was wrong?

Those of us on the right are never afraid to admit a mistake.  In general, we believe we can learn from our errors.  But in order to find the path to truth, we must begin by acknowledging the wrong path.

Without an ounce of shame, I hereby admit to my own mistaken belief – I never thought the US Supreme Court would reverse Roe v. Wade in my lifetime, if at all.  I believed the Court would continue to limit Roe, or carve out yet another exception.

But, I was wrong.  In Dobbs v. Jackson,    the US Supreme Court reversed the 50 year old precedent of Roe, without hesitation or equivocation of any sort. 

The misconceptions, and outright lies about the Dobbs decision began almost immediately.  President Biden said “(n)ow with Roe gone, let’s be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk…the court has done what it’s never done before – expressly taking away a constitution right that is so fundamental to so many Americans.”     According to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, “Today’s decision is unconscionable. Abortion is a basic and essential part of health care – and patients must have the right to make decisions about their health care and autonomy over their own bodies.” 

Not to be outdone, Attorney General Merrick Garland made this statement; “Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade…and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution….(t)he Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society…(t)his decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.”  

Has the Supreme Court really eliminated a woman’s “right” to an abortion?  Has “reproductive freedom” been dealt a “devastating blow?”  Has the health and safety of women across the country been placed at risk?

Considering the source of these allegations, the answer should be obvious.

In his majority opinion, Justice Alito notes that “(f)or the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address (the issue of abortion) in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973… (e)ven though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one…(a)lthough the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting ‘potential life,’ it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-viability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning.”

Further,  “(a)t the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the ‘exercise of raw judicial power,’ (citation omitted), and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century.”

“Americans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion,” Justice Alito writes, “and state legislatures have acted accordingly. Some have recently enacted laws allowing abortion, with few restrictions, at all stages of pregnancy. Others have tightly restricted abortion beginning well before viability. And in this case, 26 States have expressly asked this Court to overrule Roe…and allow the States to regulate or prohibit pre-viability abortions.”

“We hold that Roe…must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe…now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’” (Citation omitted.)

“The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy…Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe…enflamed debate and deepened division.”

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. ‘The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.’ (Citation omitted.) That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

I encourage the reader to reread, and then read once more the above-stated quotes taken directly from Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs.  Does this language “eliminate” the “right” to an abortion?  Of course not.  Instead, the Court recognizes that there is not, and never has been, a Constitutional Right to abortion.  Instead, historically, before Roe, this issue was subject to State regulation, not federal.

In other words, States are once more recognized as being free to allow or prohibit abortion as their legislatures, elected by their citizens, see fit.   

Of course, this is the heart of the matter. For 50 years, abortion supporters have been satisfied with mandating and imposing their beliefs on the entire nation, without regard to the objections, sensibilities and opinions of their fellow citizens.  Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, abortion supporters must “try and persuade” their fellow citizens through the democratic process that abortion is necessary for “reproductive freedom,” and if necessary, what, if any, limitations should be placed on the procedure.

President Biden seemed to understand the nature of this change as he “implored voters to turn out in November to elect members of Congress willing to write abortion protections into law. Speaking from the White House, Biden said, ‘This is a sad day for the country in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over.’”

But then there are abortion supporters like Maxine Waters (D-CA), who don’t appear to have any faith in the democratic process.  “Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us,” Waters stated. “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them. Women will be in control of their bodies…(w)e are going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own bodies.” 

Waters is joined by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in supporting the effort to “persuade” voters to support abortion legislation through reasoned discussion; “Ocasio-Cortez has called the Supreme Court ruling…’illegitimate’ and called for supporters to take to ‘the streets’ to fight for abortion.”

Expect more temper tantrums from people like Waters and AOC as they bully and threaten their fellow citizens, rather than follow the clear path pointed out by the Supreme Court – that is, to argue with and persuade the citizens and legislatures of the various states where abortion is more heavily restricted.  But let’s face it, after 50 years of having their way, it’s hard for abortion supporters to suddenly realize there are other opinions on this issue that must be respected if a consensus is to be reached.  

Abortion proponents could start the discussion by admitting that Roe‘s interpretation of the Constitution was wrong.  I don’t see that happening, but if it does…well, I can admit when I’m wrong…

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

Photo: Pixabay

In January of this year, we discussed the Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor.  There, the Court found that the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) did not have the authority to mandate that private employers with more than 100 employees must require their employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine.  We noted at that time, “(u)nder Article 1 of the United States Constitution…it is basic to our structure of government that Congress makes the laws, and can delegate to ‘any department or officer’ whatever power is necessary to execute and enforce those laws.”  Further, under Article 2 of the Constitution, “'(t)he President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress.’  That is, the President does not make the laws.” 

Seems simple enough, doesn’t it? If Congress does not delegate a power to a department or officer, that department or officer of the government cannot act.  If Congress does not enact a law, the President cannot act.  Power resides with the Congress, who are the elected representatives of the People of the United States.  The President, and the various Departments (who are all under the authority of various Secretaries of the President’s Cabinet), can only “implement and enforce the laws written by Congress.”  

This is the structure, the framework, of our Republic.  Yet once more, the Supreme Court, which is tasked with interpreting those laws written by Congress, has been forced to explain to the Biden Administration why it cannot act without Congressional approval.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.  “The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plants by setting a ‘standard of performance’ for their emission of certain pollutants into the air,” the Court explained.  “Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the ‘best system of emission reduction’ for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.”

The EPA used Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which “directs EPA to (1) ‘determine[],’ taking into account various factors, the ‘best system of emission reduction which . . . has been adequately demonstrated,’ (2) ascertain the ‘degree of emission limitation achievable through the application’ of that system, and (3) impose an emissions limit on new stationary sources that ‘reflects’ that amount… Section 111…’operates as a gap-filler,’ empowering EPA to regulate harmful emissions not already controlled under the Agency’s other authorities.”

According to Justice Roberts, “EPA has used (Section 111) only a handful of times since the enactment of the statute in 1970…(i)t was…only a slight overstatement for one of the architects of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act to refer to Section 111…as an ‘obscure, never-used section of the law.’”

In 2015, under the Obama Administration, the EPA decided that “the ‘best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated’ was one that would reduce carbon pollution mostly by moving production to cleaner sources” such as wind, solar and natural gas.  To this end, “(t)he Agency settled on what it regarded as a “reasonable” amount of shift, which it based on modeling of how much more electricity both natural gas and renewable sources could supply without causing undue cost increases or reducing the overall power supply. (Citation omitted.) Based on these changes, EPA projected that by 2030, it would be feasible to have coal provide 27% of national electricity generation, down from 38% in 2014.”

The problem? “From these significant projected reductions in generation, EPA developed a series of complex equations to ‘determine the emission performance rates’ that States would be required to implement. (Citation omitted.) The calculations resulted in numerical emissions ceilings so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them…(t)he point, after all, was to compel the transfer of power generating capacity from existing sources to wind and solar. The White House stated that the Clean Power Plan would ‘drive a[n] . . . aggressive transformation in the domestic energy industry.'”

Roberts notes also that “EPA’s own modeling concluded that the rule would entail billions of dollars in compliance costs (to be paid in the form of higher energy prices), require the retirement of dozens of coal-fired plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs across various sectors…(t)he Energy Information Administration reached similar conclusions, projecting that the rule would cause retail electricity prices to remain persistently 10% higher in many States, and would reduce GDP by at least a trillion 2009 dollars by 2040.”

Lucky for the US economy, the 2015 EPA rules were halted by the Trump Administration, in 2019.  At that time, the EPA determined that the 2015 rule change ” fell under the ‘major question doctrine.’ (Citation omitted.) Under that doctrine, EPA explained, courts ‘expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance’…no section 111 rule of the scores issued ha[d] ever been based on…that novel reading of the statute (which) would empower EPA ‘to order the wholesale restructuring of any industrial sector’ based only on its discretionary assessment of ‘such factors as ‘cost’ and ‘feasibility.’”

In other words, the EPA of the Trump Administration had concluded that the EPA of the Obama Administration had overstepped their authority.

Enter yet another change of Administration.  Much like the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration wanted the 2015 interpretation of the Clean Air Act to stand, and in 2019, a lower Appellate Court agreed, concluding “that the major questions doctrine did not apply, and thus rejected the need for a clear statement of congressional intent to delegate such power to EPA.”

Before the Biden EPA could annihilate the coal industry, and impose regulations that would ruin the American economy even further, the Supreme Court stepped in.

“’Congress could not have intended to delegate’ such a sweeping and consequential authority ‘in so cryptic a fashion,'” Roberts writes.  “Extraordinary grants of regulatory authority are rarely accomplished through ‘modest words,’ ‘vague terms,’ or ‘subtle device[s]’… Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress, and ‘enabling legislation’ is generally not an ‘open book to which the agency [may] add pages and change the plot line…(w)e presume that ‘Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.’” (Citations omitted.)  

Finding that this was a “major questions” case, the Court held that the “EPA ‘claim[ed] to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power’ representing a ‘transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority’…(i)t located that newfound power in the vague language of an ‘ancillary provision[]’ of the Act…one that was designed to function as a gap filler and had rarely been used in the preceding decades. And the Agency’s discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to enact itself…(g)iven these circumstances, there is every reason to ‘hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111.” (Citations omitted.)

“(W)e cannot ignore,” Roberts continued, “that the regulatory writ EPA newly uncovered conveniently enabled it to enact a program that, long after the dangers posed by greenhouse gas emissions ‘had become well known, Congress considered and rejected’ multiple times…(a)t bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme…for carbon. (Citation omitted.) Congress, however, has consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program…(i)t has also declined to enact similar measures, such as a carbon tax…(g)iven these circumstances, our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim that Section 111 empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps.”

Thus, while the Court believes that “(c)apping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day’…it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111…(a) decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

Reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision was predictable.  According to California Governor Gavin Newsome, “SCOTUS sided with the fossil fuel industry, kneecapping EPA’s basic ability to tackle climate change. CA will lead this fight with our $53.9 BILLION climate commitment. We’ll reduce pollution, protect people from extreme weather & leave the world better off than we found it.”  White House Spokesperson Abdullah Hasan claimed that “This is another devastating decision from the Court that aims to take our country backwards. While the Court’s decision risks damaging our ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, President Biden will not relent in using the authorities that he has under law to protect public health and tackle the climate change crisis.”  

But the Attorney General for West Virginia, Patrick Morrisey, has a more realistic position, in keeping with the language used by Justice Roberts in his opinion; “Huge victory against federal overreach and the excesses of the administrative state. This is a HUGE win for…those who care about maintaining separation of powers in our nation.” 

In other words, to paraphrase Justice Roberts and AG Morrisey, the issue isn’t whether or not the nation needs to transition from fossil fuels to “greener” energy sources.  At heart, the EPA only has the powers granted to it by Congress, and if this issue has a solution, that solution must come from Congress, and not unelected bureaucrats.  

Now, if only the Biden Administration showed as much respect for the Constitution as the Supreme Court…

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

One of the jobs of American Presidents is to protect the citizens of this great nation from harm. The threat may come from the barrel of a gun or from an enemy’s economic policies. It should not come from inside the White House.

In June, President Biden ordered the sale of part of the US strategic petroleum reserve to communist China. Much of the five million barrels sold to foreign entities went to Sinopec, a company with which his son, Hunter Biden, may still have ties from his financial ventures. The President released the emergency reserves at a time when domestic oil prices are hitting the average American family hard amidst rising across-the-board inflation that this week reached a 41-year high.

Biden’s immediate response to the fallout from his decision was to blame American oil producers and call on US oil companies and gas stations to cut prices. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) through October is releasing a million barrels a day through at least this October. The flow is draining the SPR, which last month fell to the lowest since 1986.

This week, after the strategic petroleum sale, the president headed to Saudi Arabia with the announced goal of securing more oil for the United States. It appears he will return to Washington with a little short-term help from Saudi Arabia. The kingdom agreed to raise oil production 50% above planned levels for July and August. The White House has not commented on what happens in six weeks at the end of August when the warm summer heat dissipates and the demand for heating oil increases as temperatures drop. Energy analysts suggest that the temporary help from Saudi Arabia is not enough to forestall more price increases in the coming months.

The former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, on Friday called Biden a “much diminished president” since he assumed office in January 2021. In a television interview on Friday the Prince said: “As an example, on energy issues, he [Biden] came in with a policy to stop completely fossil fuel usage not only in the United States, but worldwide, and now he is finding himself having to rely on fossil fuels as a means of meeting the energy shortage that has come about, not only because of the Ukraine war, but also because of US policy itself that shut down pipelines and stopped issuing … discovery of oil on US soil.” If the Saudi prince can understand the energy situation, one must question what is going on in the halls of power in Washington, DC and who is sculpting our downward-spiraling energy policy.

Biden, a vocal critic of the kingdom, is expected to raise human rights in his meetings in Riyadh over the weekend. Although relations between the US and the kingdom remain tense, and the US needs Saudi Arabian oil this summer. Biden has vowed to raise the human rights issue in bilateral talks with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Prince Turki added: “So what I would say is, any visitor and not just the American president who has complaints about Saudi issues like human rights and so on, please get off your high horse.” Prince Turki added that it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to believe Biden on issues including peace, energy, terrorism, and Iran in the future. 

Saudi Arabia is helping the US and Europe to stabilize domestic oil prices in the short-term. The US still needs a coherent energy policy. “If the administration is serious about increasing supply, they should be meeting with producers here at home instead of looking to governments overseas,” added American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Christina Noel. The Biden Administration is attempting to stop oil production domestically while, at the same time, pay for increased Saudi production. On Tuesday nearly 70 House Republicans sent a letter to the president urging him to prioritize American energy sources, calling the trip to Saudi Arabia “a confusing display of weakness.” US foreign policy with Saudi Arabia under the Biden Administration remains inconsistent and hostile and oil prices remain high.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

China may possess advanced technology but without other countries continuously supplying it, the communist giant could not compete with the United States or other post-industrial nations for long. Min-hua Chiang, a research fellow and economist with Heritage Foundation, reports this week that China is far more dependent on the United States than most people think. Its critical supply chain requires vast numbers of imported chips and capital equipment. That, in part, is one reason China is seeking to become more self-reliant. There is a push in Beijing to increase domestically produced, advanced technologies in the event that other states impose economic sanctions on China in the future. Second, despite China’s effective overseas industrial espionage network supplying stolen technology, it pays a high price for legally obtained technology from other advanced countries.

President Xi Jinping’s long-term, geopolitical ambitions threaten to isolate China from the world’s advanced economies. Xi wants to ensure the Chinese economy can fulfill demand should Beijing seek to force reunification of Taiwan or initiate a conflict in the South China Sea. His policy of self-reliance preceded the lessons China is learning from Russia’s war in Ukraine, although the conflict is serving to reinforce Xi’s message. 

According to Chiang, China’s direct political confrontation with the United States has exposed its weakness in the solid technology hierarchy and its unbreakable dependence on the US. Its lack of technological superiority in key areas also serves as a constraint on Xi’s global plans. She notes that “China’s late start is the main reason for its inferior level of technology. The communist regime didn’t start actively promoting the industry’s development until the 1980s. Drawing lessons from the experiences of the East Asian Tigers—the four highly developed economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—China had stepped up its efforts by encouraging foreign direct investment in assembling products such as smartphones, laptops, computers, etc., in China.” 

Its export-oriented economic development, based on using and assembling foreign countries’ capital equipment and industrial components, has trapped the country into technology reliance on foreign countries. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit points out that advanced foreign industrial goods is evidenced by its growing trade deficit in electrical machinery (including semiconductor chips) from $15 billion in 2001 to $217 billion in 2021. Jenny Leonard, of Bloomberg, reports that “Chinese orders for chip-manufacturing equipment from overseas suppliers rose 58% in 2021, making it the biggest market for those products for a second year running, according to data provided by industry body Semi.” This is evidence of China’s rush to stockpile equipment from the United States before any new US export restrictions came into effect.

China’s Ministry of Commerce admits that the United States is its biggest source of intellectual property. Data from its Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that exports of US intellectual property tripled in the last decade. That is not accounting for any stolen or reverse-engineered technology it obtained. Chiang says that “ According to the US Bureau of Industry and Security, the number of license applications from China for purchasing ‘tangible items, software, and technology’ increased from 3,747 in 2020 to 5,923 in 2021. The total amounts paid for those applications increased from $106 billion to $545 billion. As a result, the licensing amounts per application went up from $28 million to $92 million. Although the cost of foreign technology has increased, and the length of time to obtain US licenses is longer, there are no major technological breakthroughs in China to counter its dependence on foreign technology. Slower technological advancement means slower economic growth, says Chiang. This is one area that threatens the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and its hold on power. Without a strong global supply chain network, China could be faced with a long-term dependence on more advanced overseas technologies. Maintaining that gap could provide protection for Taiwan, the South China Sea, and other states threatened by China’s rapid rise to power. However, the Biden Administration and the US Department of Commerce appear unwilling to crack down on China to ensure it abides by the rule of the international norms-based trading system. 

“If the Biden administration is serious about securing the semiconductor supply chain in the United States and allied and partner countries, it’s absurd to let the Chinese Communist Party buy up and stockpile the global supply of tools and equipment to make semiconductors,” says US House Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas. “At the center of the growing debate, the US Department of Commerce said it’s so far found nothing other than normal market forces at play,” according to Bloomberg News. Economists are watching closely this summer to see if China will increase orders during a period of global shortages. If the Biden Administration joins with Japan, the Netherlands, and some of its other allies, it could ward off China jumping to the front of line with offers of higher that market value on critical technology products. Such a policy also could forestall Chinese moves toward forced reunification with Taiwan.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Bund area of Shanghai (Pixabay)

Putin is separating Ukrainian children from their parents and coercing, or forcing, their parents to relocate inside Russia in a systematic “filtration” operation, according to US Secretary of State Tony Blinken. In a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians, Russia is unlawfully transferring and deporting protected persons. It is a “war crime.” On the day before the Ukraine Accountability Conference on July 14, Blinken announced the United States will hold President Putin and his government accountable for the unlawful transfer and forced deportations in Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine. “Russian authorities must release those detained and allow Ukrainian citizens forcibly removed or coerced into leaving their country the ability to promptly and safely return home,” says Blinken.  

The US Government is calling for Russia to provide outside independent observers access to the “filtration” facilities and to forced deportation relocation areas in Russia. The numbers involved are staggering. Sources estimate that they total between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens. Over 260,000 are young victims of Putin’s policy, that often sends them to isolated regions in the Far East. Families are not kept together, according to the policy. 

Military analysts familiar with the operation note that it is pre-meditated and resembles Russian actions during its war in Chechnya. The “filtration” operation is well-organized. Putin’s foot soldiers first separate families. They then confiscate the Ukrainian citizens’ passports and issue the victims Russian papers. One demographer suggested that this effort was in part due to Putin’s desire to change the demographic makeup of Ukraine. The “filtration” extends to abductions of children living in orphanages inside Ukraine, where there are seized and put up for adoption inside Russia. 

Eyewitnesses and survivors of “filtration” operations, detentions, and forced deportations report frequent threats, harassment, and incidents of torture by Russian security forces, according to Blinken.” During this process, Russian authorities also reportedly capture and store biometric and personal data, subject civilians to invasive searches and interrogations and coerce Ukrainian citizens into signing agreements to stay in Russia, hindering their ability to freely return home,” he adds.

Worse yet, according to the State Department, is mounting evidence that Russian authorities are detaining or disappearing thousands of Ukrainian civilians who do not pass “filtration” tests. Those detained or “filtered out” include Ukrainians deemed threatening because of their potential affiliation with the Ukrainian army, territorial defense forces, media, government, and civil society groups. 

Ukraine’s General Prosecutor, along with eyewitnesses and other survivors, have reported that Russian authorities recently transported tens of thousands of people to detention facilities inside Russian-controlled Donetsk, where many are reportedly tortured. Reports coming in from the region charge that many of the targeted individuals have been summarily executed. The evidence, notes a State Department official, is consistent with Russian atrocities committed in Bucha, Mariupol, and other locations inside Ukraine. Blinken said President Putin and his government will not be able to engage in these systematic abuses with impunity. “Accountability is imperative.  This is why we are supporting Ukrainian and international authorities’ efforts to collect, document, and preserve evidence of atrocities.  Together, we are dedicated to holding perpetrators of war crimes and other atrocities accountable.” The situation is complex and disorganized as the war moves into its sixth month. The United Nations reports that a full two-thirds of all Ukrainian children have been forced from their homes by the war. Tens of thousands of those children already were in Ukrainian institutions without a stable home life. Their fate is in more jeopardy now.

Speaking in June before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said her office has been looking into allegations of children forcibly deported from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. She told the Council: “we are concerned about the alleged plans of the Russian authorities to allow the movement of children from Ukraine to families in the Russian Federation… do not appear to include steps for family reunification or respect the best interest of the child.” It is proving a challenge to document the expansive number of cases and total abductions and executions of civilians. The full number may never be known, even if the West holds Putin accountable for the atrocities.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

It is not an overstatement to note that the recent NATO meeting held in Madrid, Spain was a watershed moment for the alliance.

The alliance noted the increased threat from Russia and the growth of a vast new one from China. The organization stated its determination to live up to its mission, and keep both its current and prospective members safe.

In a document issued following the gathering’s conclusion, it was stated that “NATO is determined to safeguard the freedom and security of Allies. Its key purpose and greatest responsibility is to ensure our collective defence, against all threats, from all directions. We are a defensive Alliance…NATO will continue to fulfil three core tasks: deterrence and defence; crisis prevention and management; and cooperative security. These are complementary to ensure the collective defence and security of all Allies. We will enhance our individual and collective resilience and technological edge. These efforts are critical to fulfil the Alliance’s core tasks.”

The challenges faced are clear, as noted during the meeting. “The Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace. The Russian Federation has violated the norms and principles that contributed to a stable and predictable European security order. We cannot discount the possibility of an attack against Allies’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Strategic competition, pervasive instability and recurrent shocks define our broader security environment. The threats we face are global and interconnected…Authoritarian actors challenge our interests, values and democratic way of life. They are investing in sophisticated conventional, nuclear and missile capabilities, with little transparency or regard for international norms and commitments. Strategic competitors test our resilience and seek to exploit the openness, interconnectedness and digitalisation of our nations.”

It was clearly stated that the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. It seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct control through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation.

 It was also directly noted that “China’s ambitions and coercive policies challenge NATO’s interests, security and values…The PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up. The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security. The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains. The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests. “

While pointing out the dangers from Moscow, Beijing, and terrorist groups, the meeting sought to reassure all that the Alliance is defensive, does not seek confrontation, and posed no threat to its adversaries unless attacked.

There has been harsh criticism from the Kremlin about NATO’s enlargement. But the Alliance noted that NATO’s admission of new members “has been a historic success,” which strengthened the Alliance, ensured the security of millions of European citizens and contributed to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. The organization promised it would continue to admit new members who meet the necessary qualifications. 

In a truly historic move, the path to admission for both Sweden and Finland was assured, a step that will significantly improve the strength of the group, and serve as a major rebuke to Putin’s expansionist threats. The Madrid gathering stated they will continue to develop partnerships with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine to advance a common interest in Euro-Atlantic peace, stability and security.

Illustration: NATO

Youtube has informed many of its uses that “Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube. “ 

Interesting.  YouTube continues to publishes the now totally disproven allegations of Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and others that the President Trump engaged in Russian collusion.

It’s not just YouTube. An impartial Gizmodo study found that “Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending news” section…workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users. Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially inject’ selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all.”

Increasing attention is being paid to the censorship of social media sites. Brad Pascale, writing for USATODAY found that “Americans must be wary of powerful institutions that seek to control what we see and hear.…Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google have increasingly sought to become the gatekeepers of the internet and political discourse. Without any sort of democratic mandate, these companies have appointed themselves the arbiters of acceptable thought, discussion and searches online. These companies’ pervasive command of the internet… is a direct threat to a free society. And arguably the worst offender is Google. Google & others are suppressing voices of conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. Google has directly targeted Republicans…research at Harvard University found that Google’s search rankings are not objective, and in 2017, the company was fined billions of dollars by the European Union for manipulating search results…When it’s not manipulating the internet to prevent users from viewing right-wing content, Google is directly attacking that content. A report by The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed that Google’s fact-checking service “fact-checked” only conservative news websites, and that in many cases, these fact-checks were outright wrong.”

It is tempting to believe that it is only biased social media sites, or the media in general, that attack those not conforming to leftist ideology. Far more insidious, however, is the reality that the machinery of government is wholly invested in suppressing moderates and conservatives.

The Internal Revenue Service has admitted that it blatantly assaulted conservatives during the Obama presidency, as did the Department of Justice during that era. The former head of the CIA and FBI agents essentially did the bidding of the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Despite the Left’s long history of engaging in outrageous, blatant violations of laws and ethics, their leaders remain unprosecuted by the courts. The orgy of violence, destruction, and rebellion that has dismayed America for years, the attempt to destroy a presidency based on sheer lies by Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff and others remains unpunished.

Radical district attorneys who intentionally avoid prosecuting criminals retain the support of progressives. The extreme leftist former New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio allowed $800 million to vanish during his administration.  There is not even a hint of an investigation upcoming. Meanwhile, while crime rages, the state Attorney General commits time and resources to what amounts to nuisance lawsuits against Donald Trump.

The recent Sussman trial made a mockery of the concept of equal justice. Partisan jurors were allowed to serve, and the judge had a clear proclivity to favor the defendant. If the roles had been reversed, there is little doubt the overt bias would have been non-stop headline news throughout print, internet, and electronic journalism.

In September of last year, we examined the concept of the Roman Catholic Church denying the sacrament of communion to politicians who professed to be members of the Church while supporting abortion, such as John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.    At that time, we noted that Salvatore J. Cordileone, the Archbishop of San Francisco, had issued a letter  “calling for Holy Communion to be withheld from public figures who support abortion rights.”  While Cordileone did not mention Pelosi by name at that time, he did state that if “an ‘erring Catholic’ continues supporting abortion rights, even after conversations with church officials, a pastor’s ‘only recourse’ is to temporarily exclude them from the sacrament.” 

Did Nancy Pelosi heed the Archbishop’s warning?  Certainly not!  Late last year, the “Democratic-controlled House voted 218-211 largely along party lines to pass…legislation called the Women’s Health Protection Act. Just one Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted against the proposal…(t)he legislation follows enactment of a Texas law that effectively bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.” 

In fact, in the wake of the leak of the proposed Supreme Court opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade (discussed in more detail here), the Speaker of the House doubled down on her support for abortion. “House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol facing the Supreme Court…calling on the justices to defend access to abortion on the eve of abortion rights protests in Washington and nationwide.”   

Speaker Pelosi also “applauded the ‘righteous anger’ of abortion rights activists in a letter…to fellow House Democrats to encourage them to carry on the fight against the pro-life movement…'(w)ith this draft ruling striking down the nearly fifty-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade and undermining the Constitutional right to privacy, Republicans would rip away women’s right to make the most intimate and personal decisions. If handed down, this decision by GOP-appointed Justices would mean that, for the first time in our history, America’s daughters will have less freedom than their mothers,’ Pelosi wrote.”

Given these actions by Speaker Pelosi, it should come as no surprise that Archbishop Cordileone took the next logical step.  “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (Code of Canon Law, can. 915)” the Archbishop wrote in a public notification addressed directly to Nancy Pelosi.  “I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publically repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

“As you have not publically repudiated your position on abortion, and continue to refer to your Catholic faith in justifying your position and to receive Holy Communion, that time has now come.  Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco…by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” (Emphasis in original.)

There were the usual and expected responses to the Archbishop’s letter. “Several trends regarding the announcement found their way onto Twitter, including ‘#TaxTheChurch.'” “Jamie L. Manson, the president of Catholics for Choice — a nonprofit organization that pushes for reproductive freedom — decried the move as one rooted against reproductive rights. ‘Speaker Pelosi is devoted to her Catholic faith, and it is not lost on me that, as a woman, she is being singled out in this continued battle,’ she said in a statement. ‘It is one more step in a long line of attacks that the Church hierarchy has waged on women and their reproductive rights.'” 

In understanding the actions of Archbishop Cortileone, it would be instructive to know just what is allowed by the Women’s Health Protection Act passed by the Pelosi-led House last fall.  

According to the WHPA, “(a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements…(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure…(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a health care provider’s degree of actual or constructive knowledge of such reason or reasons. ”  

This language would provide for an abortion on demand, without any prohibition, for any reason, before “fetal viability.”  How is “viability” defined? “The term ‘viability’ means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.”  In other words, “viability” is whenever a “health care provider” says so.  Note also the use of the  broad term “health care provider,” and not the word “doctor.”

Further,  “this Act supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government and each State government, and the implementation of such law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, and neither the Federal Government nor any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. ” 

Thus, it is not hyperbole in any way to describe this law, passed by the House of Representatives, as allowing for abortion up to a very flexible point during pregnancy, without any interference by any federal or state law to the contrary.

While acceptable to the Democratic majority in the House, this law was too extreme for the US Senate, which, “(i)n a 49-51 vote…rejected the Democratic legislation, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and all Republicans voting against the measure…(b)oth Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who support abortion rights, opposed the Democratic bill. They see that legislation as too expansive and are instead pushing a narrower alternative that would codify the Roe and Casey decisions the Supreme Court is expected to overturn…(According to Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia)) Democrats are ‘trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it’s not,’ he argued, referring to the bill’s ban on some state restrictions on the procedure currently allowed. ‘This is not the same. It expands abortion.’”

For a prominent Catholic politician to support a position in such direct opposition to the views of the church to which she professes to belong invites the actions of Archbishop Cordileone.  As Rebecca Downs writes in Townhall, “(t)hose who make…arguments condemning the archbishop’s actions surely did not read this point made by the archbishop: ‘Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here. Speaker Pelosi remains our sister in Christ. Her advocacy for the care of the poor and vulnerable elicits my admiration. I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political. I have been very clear in my words and actions about this.’ Archbishop Cordileone is not wading into political matters of the U.S. Congress. He is fulfilling his pastoral duty to lead a member of the Church back into the light. Speaker Pelosi remains the speaker.” 

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church remains disunited on this issue.   “Despite Cordileone’s clear declaration, Pelosi (recently) received Holy Communion at the 9 a.m. Mass at Holy Trinity in Georgetown.” Cardinal Wilton Gregory of the Archdiocese of Washington DC has “largely dodged the issue of whether to give pro-choice politicians Communion…(h)e said that the bishops are ‘not there as police, we’re there as pastors, and as pastors, we certainly have to teach the faith of the Church, we have to be true to the Church’s heritage of faith, but we also have to bring people along with us. It is not simply a matter of pointing out their errors.'”

Cardinal Gregory would do well to review his Catechism; “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life… cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.”  When a politician, engaged in a secular occupation, supports and advocates for abortion rights, that is a matter between that politician and their constituents. However, when that politician professes to be a member of a faith that absolutely and unequivocally renounces the practice of abortion, a representative of that faith has every right to take measures to correct that member.  Archbishop Cordileone is acting in accordance with the teachings of his Church.  It is a simple matter of fact that Nancy Pelosi is not.

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

Photo: Pixabay

As we move into July’s heavy heat in the northern hemisphere few are thinking much about how Europeans will heat their homes this winter. Northwest Europe is enduring an 80% cut in Russian energy exports. EU economic sanctions are hitting the region hard this summer as Europe is highly dependent on Russia energy supplies. Over 45% of EU gas, 40% of coal imports, and 27% of its petroleum imports derive from Russian sources. “Europe is facing a serious economic downturn, with industrial production and real wages both falling rapidly and factories in key industries such as chemicals, steel and machinery closing, according to Thomas Duesterberg and Angelique Tamor of the Hudson Institute. 

Europe is experiencing the impact of its dual-pronged, energy approach. A combination of the region moving quickly toward a carbon free economy at same time as the EU is imposing economic sanctions on Russian energy has produced “skyrocketing” prices, note Duesterberg and Tamor. For years American leaders have warned the EU about its dependence on foreign energy supplies from Russia. The EU still went ahead with its new “REPower EU” plan. Its ultimate goal is to achieve independence from Russian fossil fuels by 2030. However, if friendly markets are not able to supply energy to the EU countries due to the Russian war in Ukraine and competing energy demands from other economies sanctioning Russia, the result may be an inability to increase short-term production to meet increasing demand. Western Europe could be left in the cold this winter.

European leaders are beginning to recognize the extent of the risk. If the Russian government decides to completely shut down energy supplies, and Europe is not prepared, it could result in a serious recession. Consumers may be unable to heat their homes and prices will continue their meteoric rise. Duesterberg and Tamor say that Germany and other EU countries finally are beginning to implement crisis mitigation measures, including rationing gas supplies to manufacturers. Support for Ukraine may also suffer if leaders believe they are forced to choose between securing energy supplies for their economies and the war effort. 

The Biden Administration is ramping up American energy exports to Europe to stem the crisis, while ignoring high gasoline prices at home. The proportion of US LNG exports heading to Europe increased from 34% to 74% so far this year and monthly oil shipments to Europe jumped to their highest level in half a decade. Duesterberg and Tamor called the Administration’s policy “incoherent,” saying “…Biden’s current energy policy remains clearly opposed to increased fossil fuel production and processing and thus severely constrains capacity to help alleviate Europe’s mounting energy crisis.” In a June 15 June 15 interview US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm simultaneously demanded that oil companies invest massively to increase oil production. At the same time, she spoke about the Administration’s ambitions to shut them down within the decade. Duesterberg and Tamor report that “America’s international efforts to increase global energy supply may also be detrimental politically and environmentally in the long run, as they have focused on expanding oil exports from hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. They say the President is now “having to do an embarrassing geopolitical turnaround to request increased production from Saudi Arabia.” It also is likely that idled oil refineries inside China may begin delivering the excess capacity to Western nations and raising energy dependence on the communist giant. “Without increased US production and exports to Europe, it will continue having devastating supply sourcing issues and increasingly become reliant on China’s growing capacity to export refined petroleum products using discounted Russian oil for competitive advantage,” according to a Hudson Institute report.  The European and US energy crisis may soon fracture the strong unity over the response to the war in Ukraine and undermine US-European relations on global issues, while simultaneously enhancing China’s position among western democratic states. The Biden Administration and EU leaders have a lot of homework to do in the coming weeks.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

British MI-5 Director General McCallum announced this week his service has more than doubled the number of personnel working to constrain Chinese spying in his country. American FBI Director Christopher Wray, in a speech alongside McCallum in London, added that the US also considers the Chinese government the “biggest long-term threat” to the US economy and its national security. Other Western allies in Europe also identify China as an extremely dangerous regime to watch. Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine may have relegated headlines about the Chinese threat to the bottom of the news cycle, but the danger posed by  President Xi Jinping’s communist regime has not subsided to democratic states across the globe. 

In a Reuters interview this week Wray said that “The Chinese government is trying to shape the world by interfering in our politics…” and that there already was direct interference in New York in a 2022 US Congressional race. Beijing intended to covertly defeat a candidate it disliked. The unnamed candidate was seen by China as voicing criticism of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in which its troops descended on the Square and murdered over 1,000 young people. It occurred when unarmed students occupying Tiananmen Square in Beijing participated in protests for freedom and then refused to leave the area. The CCP has censored information on the events surrounding the massacre so effectively that many young Chinese inside the country have never heard of it, the names of student leaders involved, or seen photos of those killed by Chinese troops.

On the economic side, even sophisticated American businesses are unaware of the level of threat coming from Beijing and the CCP leadership, according to Wray. He says that China is “set on stealing your technology.” Its hacking programs, he adds, are more extensive than those of every major country in the world combined. Reuters reports that in May Director General McCallum noted that the UK shared intelligence with 37 countries to help them defend against cyber espionage from China and other unfriendly nations. McCallum noted that the UK has disrupted a sophisticated threat targeting critical aerospace companies. Wray, in recent statements on Taiwan, said he believes China may try to forcibly take over the island. He notes that if it occurs “it would represent one of the most horrific business disruptions the world has ever seen.”

China is not liberalizing its economy or expanding domestic political freedoms, unlike predictions made by the Clinton Administration. The President granted China permanent MFN trade status during the Christmas holiday in 2001. It effectively eliminated the requirement that China show progress toward improved its domestic economic and political freedom. McCallum says the West was pure wrong when it assumed increasing connectivity to the world would lead to expanded political freedom. In response, the Chinese government defends itself by claiming the West has a “Cold War mentality” that is out of date.

Over the last three years, the UK has tightened its procedures to prevent the theft of sensitive academic research. It resulted in the expulsion of 50 Chinese students with links to the Chinese military studying in the country. The Guardian reports, however, that there still are over 150,000 Chinese studying in the UK. They made up the largest cohort of foreign students at 32% of the total number in the UK. The largest foreign component of students at American universities also comes from China. They compose 35% of the foreign student body in the US with 317,299 studying here during the 2020/2021 academic year. Over the past seven years the FBI has been opening one case against China every 12 hours. It represents a 1,300% increase over earlier periods. There are about 13,778 special agents in the entire FBI organization. In February Wray said he was blown away by the sheer numbers he learned when he took over as director. There currently are over 2,000 cases involving China underway in the FBI. He called China “more brazen, more damaging than ever before” in a speech at the Reagan Library earlier this year. The Russian invasion of Ukraine may be the immediate threat to stability in the world, but China has no equal according to Wray.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay