Month: August 2022

The white water lily is Kazakhstan’s fragrant state flower. In another era President Vladimir Putin might appreciate its lemony aquatic scent, but this summer he is livid at Kazakhstan’s nationalists. They are refusing to support Russia’s war in Ukraine. In the Kazakh language nationalism can be translated in two ways. The first, ultshyldyq, is ambiguous in meaning. Ultzhandylyq, however, is positive and suggests a sense of indigenous nationalism that is growing rapidly in Kazakhstan over the last year. Today the country’s national-patriots, or ult-patriottary, are infuriating Moscow with their ultshyldyq.

The Russian government expected Kazakhstan to express gratitude for the assistance Putin provided in quelling the January popular uprising there. Instead, what the Kremlin is encountering is an increasing number of ethnic Russians who are abandoning the Russian Federation to live in Kazakhstan. Amid charges by Moscow that the government in Nur-Sultan is encouraging the exodus by offering foreign firms incentives to relocate, the Kremlin also is upset by its plans to “bypass Russia in exporting oil and gas,” according to a report from the Jamestown Foundation. Earlier this week, Tsargrad TV reported that a hacked document identified Kazakhstani firms as a source of weapons shipments to Ukraine via third-party countries, including the UK, added to the devolving relationship.

In a report from a Ukrainian hacker, Tsargrad TV said: “The document specifies 122 mm shells for D-20 howitzers; 152 mm shells for D-30 howitzers; missiles for BM-21 "Grad". The total number of shells is 20 thousand, missiles 33 thousand. The deal is concluded in the amount of $ 69 520 000. At the same time, the deal itself is supervised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan in cooperation with the British military attaché in Kazakhstan. Also at the moment, negotiations are underway on the supply of 200 units of BTR-4 and ammunition for mortars.”

Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation notes that: “Relations between the two countries indeed appeared to have reached a new low on August 2, when a post attributed to Dmitry Medvedev, former president and current deputy head of the Russian Security Council, declared that “historically” what is today northern Kazakhstan was part of Russia—suggesting to some that Moscow would soon launch an invasion into its southern neighbor.” Although the post was only up for 10 minutes on the VKontakte page of the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and ex-President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, commentators in Russia acknowledge that the sentiment is widespread in Moscow. To date, Medvedev has not disavowed the comments. Goble reports that some military analysts inside the Kremlin are suggesting that it is likely Kazakhstan may be Putin’s next target after Kyiev. Writers in Moscow already are referring to the country as a “second Ukraine” and suggest that Russia is going through a “bad divorce” with Kazakhstan, despite its previously solid partnership.

The two countries share a lengthy border and there is a large ethnic Russian community in Kazakhstan. Goble points out that this summer, Moscow has “shown its displeasure by stopping the flow of oil westward from Kazakhstan through its territory, and Nur-Sultan has countered by upgrading its military.” He suggests that there are three aspects of this situation that suggest the Kremlin may decide to move against Kazakhstan while three others point to Moscow’s not moving against the Central Asian state.

“Regardless of the tensions that currently exist between the two enormous Eurasia countries,” he says, “the possibility of a major military clash between them is quite low.” However, that could change if Kazakhstan continues to move toward Ukraine, away from Russia’s sphere of influence, and becomes a bulwark for Islamist expansion northward into Russia itself.

Given that Russia is tied down in Ukraine, Goble thinks it unlikely that Putin will use his limited military resources against Kazakhstan right now. The second factor he points to is the decreasing percentage of ethnic Russians in the country over the last three decades, despite the recent surge in Russian immigration. In 1989, 38 percent of Kazakhstan’s residents were ethnic Russians; now it stands at 18 percent, and the total is projected to fall to 10 percent or less by mid-century. Absorbing Kazakhstan would make Russia less Russian and defeat one of Putin’s major goals. Third, Putin is known historically for making rash threats and even taking actions, such as stopping the flow of oil, only to have Kazakhstan’s leaders call, reassure Putin of their unquestioned support and then have the Kremlin pull back on its rhetoric and actions, according to Goble. The unknown factor this August is how long each country can sidestep the spark that could ignite an unintended war.

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

To have a child or not, that is the question plaguing China this year. On Tuesday the Chinese government announced new “fertility friendly” guidelines with the goal of increasing the population rate to sustainable levels. It is an impossible task, according to many demographers who study China. The communist state has long passed the demographic deadline that marks the last calendar date when there were enough females of child-bearing age to reproduce its current population. The dramatic decline in the Chinese birth rate from 1960’s through the early 2000’s serves as one the most significant events in global demographic history. 

For five decades a full 18% of the world’s population were limited to one child per family by the Chinese communist government. According to the United Nations Population Division, the country’s total fertility rate dropped from average of 5.94 in the 1965–1970 period to 1.77 children per family in the 2000–2005 period. It has continued to decline by over 2% per year  recently and today stands at a record low of just over 1 child per family (1.09 in 2022). 

The drop in the fertility rate can be attributed to several factors. Socio-cultural factors, including the  spread of education, reproductive ideologies, and gender relations impacted family size. The politico-economic conditions (e.g., economic development, birth planning campaigns, and collective systems of labor organization) in the early stages of China’s family planning program had an even greater impact. Many villages across China today have no women of child-bearing age. In urban centers, despite government incentives, women are not choosing to have more than one child, and in many cases no children at all due to the cost of child-rearing and impact on their cosmopolitan lifestyles. 

China is in trouble. Even if women had as many children as physical possible during their child-bearing years it is highly unlikely the country has any chance to make up the losses suffered during the five decades of the child planning program. Over the 36-year period alone, ending in 2016, over 400 million people were not born in China due to its family planning policy; a number that is much greater than the entire US population.

Tuesday’s joint announcement by 17 Chinese government departments included new policies supporting families in finance, tax, housing, employment, education, and other fields to promote a fertility-friendly society. It included promoting prenatal and postnatal care, developing better nursing systems, improving maternity leave and insurance, offering preferential house-purchase policies to families with more than one child, adding high-quality education resources, creating a fertility-friendly employment environment, and setting up a complete service system on population. 

Despite the government’s efforts, there is no evidence to indicate the new guidelines will be effective at changing the minds of females in China. The government is now publicly admitting there is a problem. Yang Wenzhuang, director of population and family affairs at China’s National Health Commission, announced on July 21 that China’s population curve has flattened and is expected to begin a steepening decline by 2025. The Global Times reports he announced the grim forecast during the 2022 Annual Conference of the China Population Association.

Although fines, forced sterilizations, abortions, and other punishments are gone, the legacy of their coercive effects will haunt the Chinese economy for the rest of the century. A report from one of Spain’s most prestigious schools, the University of Navarra, says that the “demographic shifts caused in part due to the one-child policy will have important social and economic repercussions, not only in China but also at a global level. Reduced fertility in combination with an increasingly aging population will lead to a rising dependency ratio between working people and retirees as well as a shrinking labor supply.” It points out that children born without permission during these decades don’t possess the correct registration papers to gain employment or other government services. This further increases the economic burden on the state as they age and there is a corresponding decrease in the labor supply. 

The report concludes that “to continue projecting itself as a major economic and political power, China may have to restructure its ongoing strategies… However, considering that having few children has become ingrained in Chinese society and that the fertility rate continues to decrease even after a transition to a two-child system, this seems highly unlikely to work.” Some political analysts in the West are quietly questioning whether this means China will need to go to war in the future to acquire the needed population to is rise as an economic powerhouse.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was once the pride of the country, its origins dating back to Catherine the Great. After nine days of explosions around naval bases on the Crimean Peninsula this month, and the likely sacking of Igor Osipov, the Russian commander of the Black Sea fleet, humiliations continue to plague Russian forces. Before Victor Sokolov was cited by Russia’s RIA News Service as the new chief, Ukraine already had struck the ship “Moskva” in April using Neptune cruise missiles. It caused the warship to catch fire and the lead vessel sunk. Satellite imagery from last week indicates that eight Russian warplanes were destroyed by explosions. This week on Tuesday, Russian lost an ammunition depot in Crimea to explosions.  Putin is faced with a number of challenges. One, in particular, is important and becoming more urgent this summer. Russia must find a way to build new, blue water–capable ships.

Since Putin’s “Special Military Operation” started in February, the Russian fleet has blockaded Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, denying passage to Kyiv’s grain carry ships. Ukraine’s fleet in comparison, however, is small and considered less capable of challenging Moscow’s ships. Commander Sokolov, who is 60 years old, is a seasoned officer having commanded minesweepers in the 1980’s- 1990’s and served as deputy commander of the Northern Fleets. Two years ago, he took over a head of an important military commander. Questions remain whether he can salvage the damage to the Russian position.

“When President Vladimir Putin signed Russia’s new naval doctrine on July 31, most commentators, both in Moscow and abroad, focused on his ambitious plans for Russia’s blue water navy and especially its expansion into the Arctic. One aspect of the new doctrine, however—its elevation of the Russian naval presence in the Caspian—has received far less attention; but it may ultimately be more important,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He argues that this conclusion reflects the difficulties Moscow faces in building the ships it needs for an expanded ocean-going presence. Those difficulties may make it hard for Russia to meet its naval ship-building plans. 

Add to this challenge one issue that few media have covered. Putin’s perspective is that Russia is facing serious challenges in its littoral states. The Russian leader considers the environment so serious that he authorized the Caspian Flotilla  to take over a central role in responding to them. According to a July 31, 3,000-word statement from Kremlin.ru that updates naval doctrine, the Kremlin document serves more as an aspirational document than a military plan of action. If Russia can upgrade its navy, it is most likely to be transformed with the Caspian Flotilla. This is a change in policy direction from three earlier versions of the doctrine put out by Putin. “This represents a significant upgrade of its status from Soviet times when the Caspian was effectively a Russian lake as Moscow controlled almost all the territory around it, and Iran, the only other littoral country, did not have a significant naval presence,” notes Goble.

Unlike earlier documents the new version makes no delineation between the level of quality of the Caspian units and others in the Russian fleet. It comes at a time all five littoral states, including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran have expanded their Caspian naval presence. Russia is determined to retain its sphere of influence in the region, despite advances by the other navies. Iran and Azerbaijan are of particular concern to Putin due to their rapid development.

The new doctrine specifies that this force is responsible for one of “the vitally important regions (zones)” of the world’s water surface as far as Russian national interests are concerned. To that end, Goble says, the doctrine calls for the expansion of cooperation with other littoral states on a wide variety of issues, including the protection of the environment, as well as the modernization and development of the Caspian Flotilla and its basing. 

The doctrine points out that Moscow can lead “the development of international military cooperation with the naval forces of the states of the Caspian region.” By including this line, the Kremlin is effectively committing itself to an expansion of the Caspian Flotilla relative to the other naval forces there.  Analysts suggest that Moscow is seriously alarmed by developments in the Caspian due to an increasingly hostile Kazakhstan and progressively independent-minded governments in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. 

Control of the region also is important because of it contains key oil-rich portions of the seabed. Iran had not agreed to the delimitation of the seabed, where the oil and gas fields are located and its increased naval presence on the sea gives Moscow a certain amount of  leverage over the other regional states.   Moscow’s worries about instability in the contested territory have increased in recent months as Russia’s “peacekeeping” presence in Nagorno-Karabakh is being challenged by Baku, Yerevan and even the Armenians of Karabakh itself, according to Goble. Some Russian military analysts have suggested that Moscow should use the Caspian Flotilla to defend its forces in the disputed region to retain their dominant position. Goble concludes that “Any one of these factors could explain why Moscow has assigned a larger role to the Caspian Flotilla in its new naval doctrine. Taken together, they mean that this oft-neglected force now deserves to be tracked much more closely.” Add to this scenario, increasing Chinese involvement in the Central Asian states and the world could end up seeing another kinetic conflict in the coming years.

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

Examined individually, the positions advocated by progressives, now empowered through the Biden Administration and big city government, appear to be isolated acts of irrationality.

What is the end goal of their ideas such as allowing violent criminals to walk the streets? Reducing defense preparedness even as authoritarian enemies grow stronger and more threatening? Spending far more than the national income, leading eventually to confiscatory taxes? Encouraging racial division? Claiming that parents should have no say in the education of their children? Opening the southern border to massive illegal immigration?

Clearly, those favoring these concepts are aware of how they do not stand up to scrutiny. That is why there has been a concerted effort to throttle the First Amendment. From college campuses that intimidate non-leftist professors and students, to politicians that use the power of government to intimidate their opposition, the level of degradation of what was once seen as sacred American rights is truly shocking.

Those ideas, taken singularly, appear illogical, but they are advocated in the pursuit of ending the American experiment in individual rights. 

Throughout most of human history, the concept of personal freedom, of rights granted by God or nature and not government, barely existed. Whether ruled by emperors, kings, chieftains, or strong men, the idea that an individual could assert their rights was essentially a nonstarter.

Piece by piece, Western Civilization, as we now know it, began to evolve. First came great religious figures that introduced the concept that each human was precious to the heart of God. Centuries later came the idea that inhabitants of an area were not “subjects” of monarchs, but citizens of a nation.

It’s no wonder, then, that many progressives disdain the concept of nation states, advocating the concept instead of “open borders,” that the Biden Administration now pursues despite numerous denials of reality.  Similarly, the idea of religion, an entity independent of government, is frequently targeted, because the Judeo-Christian ethic cherishes the soul of each man and woman.

The American concept of individual rights, expressed in and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, was a truly revolutionary concept, refuting the normal mode of rule that had prevailed throughout history.  Through the genius of the Constitution, flaws in the execution of that concept were eventually eliminated, so that in the 21^st Century, the concept of personal freedom has reached its highest expression.  And that has powerfully upset those that prefer authoritarianism.

The counter-revolution against the concept of inherent rights and individual freedom reaches the highest levels. During the 2010 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, she evaded answering a question about whether she even believed in the concept of inherent rights.

Senator Schumer (D-NY) actually introduced legislation to limit the First Amendment’s application to some political speech. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) boldly announced that he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech.” During the Obama Administration, those disagreeing with the President were harassed by the IRS and the Department of Justice.

The progressive strategy is dangerously real and coherent. Create disorder through crime that will eventually makes authoritarian government attractive. Transfer funding from defense to welfare-style programs that make much of the population financially dependent on Washington. Reduce the ability of citizens to meet their own needs through hiked taxes and inflation. Distract voters from the growing power of government by turning races and ethnic groups against each other. Dilute the concept of participatory democracy by opening up the border, then allowing, as has already been done in New York City, aliens to vote. Remove the influence of parents, as progressives have attempted so vigorously through our education system, so that an entire generation is overwhelmingly influenced by big government.

It’s a roadmap to the end of freedom. 

The national discussion within the media and academia is being intentionally altered in a manner that redefines the normal exercise of human concern and basic American rights as acts of criminality, domestic terrorism, and racism.

Protecting one’s home, privacy, business and accounts from unlawful intrusion, children from inappropriate influence, and the nation from massive numbers of illegal entrants, including those infected with disease or affiliated with criminals are all correct actions. However, in the views of a politicized Justice Department, radical-left district attorneys and many progressive government bureaucrats, they are roadblocks to the “fundamental transformation” they so desperately desire.

To achieve the goal of profoundly changing the culture and laws of the nation requires the silencing of those who reject the traditional character of the country. An examination of seemingly unrelated incidents and federal actions reveals a pattern of rejection of both normal behavior and the Bill of Rights.

During the summer of 2020, riots involving arson, assault, looting, attacks on federal court houses and police stations, along with the establishment of so-called “autonomous zones” that ignored legitimate authority were deliberately mislabeled as “peaceful protests.” Similarly, a wholescale rejection of necessary and appropriate safeguards designed to ensure the integrity of balloting was instituted in numerous jurisdictions. Those who responded rationally to those actions, by protecting their residences and shops, or advocating for a stronger law enforcement response were harshly and falsely criticized, called racists, and accused of voter suppression. Some, like a couple from St. Louis, were subjected to criminal prosecution for shielding their home from a threatening mob.

Mere words are being turned into policy, due to the election of district attorney candidates lavishly funded by left-wing donors, and the Progressive-dominated Democratic Party’s capture of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.

Parents who reject the utilization of public schools for propaganda risk being labelled as “domestic terrorists,” with all the legal consequences that entails. The Justice Department, just as it did the last time a leftist president occupied the White House, is being used as a partisan bludgeon against those not of the same political persuasion. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in response to a memo from a progressive academic group, has instructed the FBI to review the words of mothers and fathers who, during the COVID lockdown, became infuriated upon learning about the radicalized public school curriculum their children were being subjected to.  

 College students who dare to question the prevailing leftist orthodoxy on university campuses face recriminations from academic authorities.

Desperately concerned local officials who react with horror at Biden’s open borders and his practice of quietly spreading illegal aliens, many infected with COVID or under the sway of Mexican drug cartels, are threatened with federal recrimination. Many migrant families illegally entering the nation are COVID-positive. Criminal cartels have crossed the southern border and fired upon U.S. citizens

The basic concept of government protecting the innocent from the guilty has been rejected. Chesa Boudin, elected in 2019 as San Francisco’s district attorney, doesn’t believe in locking offenders up for numerous types of crimes. In cities like New York, bail reform, which has allowed repeat offenders to walk the streets soon after they are apprehended, is responsible for massive spikes in crime. 

These issues and incidents may appear as random events and problems.  They are not. There is an intentional drive to change the character of the American people. It was always the intent of the founders that the citizenry, not the government, was sovereign. This was indisputably expressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state that any powers not specifically given to the government belong to the people. That concept is abhorrent to the Progressive left, which requires that Washington must be able to do whatever they want it to do in order to implement their authoritarian agenda.

Photo: Pixabay

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution 

Having served as a Criminal Court Judge in Brooklyn, New York, I had many occasions to hear evidence from witnesses, police officers and confidential informants, and to issue search warrants.  In most cases, the police and an Assistant District Attorney would present me with a proposed search warrant and a supporting affidavit.  A confidential informant (CI) would usually appear in person, and would testify under oath as to the allegations contained in the supporting affidavit.  The warrant would detail the place to be searched, and what items were expected to be found.

As is stated in the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant could not be issued until probable cause was established; that is, proof that a crime had occurred, and that specific evidence of that crime could be found at the location to be searched.  For example, the CI would testify that he purchased drugs at a specific apartment on one or more occasions; and that the CI had observed that a drug “stash” was located in a cardboard shoe box in the living room of that apartment.

It was my job to ensure that such a warrant did not become a “fishing expedition,” that is, just an open ended search through a person’s home for unspecified contraband.  I had an obligation to establish parameters, such as a time period during which the warrant could be executed; whether or not the police had an obligation to knock first; and a requirement that the searching authorities return to the courthouse after the search with a list of the items seized.  

For instance, in the example used above, the police could search the living room of the apartment, but not every bedroom at the location.

If the police found a safe, or other closed container in the course of their search, unless the warrant specified otherwise, the searching authorities could not enter that safe or closed container without seeking another warrant.  Again, in the example given above, the search warrant would authorize the police to search any cardboard shoe box found in the living room of the apartment.

Recently, a search warrant was executed by approximately 30 Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington DC bureau office at former President Donald Trump’s residence in Florida, Mar-A-Lago.   According to The Guardian, “(t)he search warrant appeared to be approved by Florida federal magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart. The attachment to the warrant, describing the ‘property to be seized’, broadly referred to classified documents and materials responsive to the Presidential Records Act.”  

Apparently, the search grew out of a long-standing dispute between Trump and the National Archives. “In late January (2022), after protracted negotiations with Trump lawyers, the Archives secured the return of 15 boxes of documents Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his post-presidency home in Florida. The boxes included White House documents considered presidential records, as well as items including “love letters” from Kim Jong-un of North Korea, a letter left for Trump by his predecessor as president, Barack Obama, and a model of Air Force One with red-white-and-blue livery Trump chose.”

Yet, the recovery of these materials weren’t enough for the National Archives, the Department of Justice, or the FBI.  Further, rather than subpoena these documents, or seek a Court order for their return, federal authorities sought and obtained a search warrant. 

“In executing the search warrant…teams of FBI agents wearing nondescript clothes fanned out across the entirety of the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, the sources said. Trump was not there at the time of the raid and learned about it while he was in New York. The agents searched through storage areas in the basement of the property, the sources said, before moving to Trump’s office on the second floor of the main house, where a safecracking team opened a hotel-style safe, though that contained no records responsive to the warrant. Later, the FBI agents searched the residence of Trump and his wife, Melania, and navigated through the pocket-door that separates their separate rooms, one of the sources said.” 

In fact, as a result of the search, “sources said (approximately) 10 boxes’ worth of documents (were recovered) in addition to 15 boxes recovered from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year.”

Given my background, and the rules for the issuance of search warrants I outlined above, several issues immediately jump out at me.  It is also important to note that the actual search warrant and supporting affidavit have not been released to the public as of this writing, and a review of these documents may clarify some of the concerns I express here.

First, the warrant would seem to be extraordinarily broad.  “Classified documents and materials responsive to the Presidential Records Act,” could mean any one of a thousand or more categories of material.  Further, such a wide description gives FBI Agents no particular and specific description of the materials subject to the search.

Next, the area to be searched appears not to have been specified.  Agents searched all of Mar-A Lago, including the private residence of the former President and his wife; the former President’s office; and even a closed and locked safe.  It is entirely possible that the warrant allowed for a such a broad and far-ranging search, but such an unspecific and wide mandate is highly unusual.

Third, as we have discussed, a court must find probable cause for a crime to have occurred to issue a search warrant.  What is the crime here?  Under 18 USC 2071(a), “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record…document, or other thing, filed or deposited…in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”  Subdivision (b) goes on to state that “(w)hoever, having the custody of any such record…document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes…or destroys the same…shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing in the New York Post, “If Trump had not declassified these materials while he was president, then his continuing possession of them in a non-secure location was probably illegal. While presidents have unilateral authority to declassify intelligence, they only maintain that authority while in office – it may not be exercised in the post-presidency. The returned documents were thus potentially evidence of crimes. In addition, since it is believed Trump did not return everything that was shipped out of the White House in those hectic days of January 2021, there was significant reason to suspect he continued to retain classified information at Mar-a-Lago.”

But as noted, the penalties for a violation of 18 USC 2071 are fairly minimal.  Was it really necessary  to send 30 FBI Agents from Washington DC to South Florida to search for 10 boxes of documents?  Is there some other motivation for the government to have acted so ham-handedly here?

As Andrew McCarthy writes,  “there is speculation that DOJ may be mobilizing now in order to trigger the Section 2071 disqualification. I doubt that. The Justice Department well knows that the qualifications for a presidential candidate are set out in the Constitution. They may not be altered by statute, precisely because the Framers did not want the executive branch to be dominated by the legislature, as would happen if Congress could disqualify incumbent or potential presidents simply by passing a law. The Constitution’s qualifications for the presidency are minimal – one must be over 35 and a natural-born citizen. Being a felon is not a disqualification, so even crimes potentially far more serious than mishandling classified information are not a bar to seeking the presidency.”

As a result, McCarthy “believe it would foolhardy for the Biden Justice Department to indict a former president on such debatable non-violent crime charges. That is especially so when it comes to a former president who could be the 2024 Republican nominee, since such charges would fuel the perception that Democrats are using the Justice Department as a political weapon.” 

In fact, McCarthy believes the Raid on Mar A Lago had another motive; “The Justice Department obviously used the potential classified information as a pretext to obtain a warrant so it could search for what it is really looking for: evidence that would tie Trump to a Capitol riot offense – either a violent crime, such as seditious conspiracy to forcibly attack a government installation (which is highly unlikely), or a non-violent crime, such as conspiracy to obstruct the January 6 joint session of Congress to count electoral votes, or conspiracy to defraud the government.”

This would explain the open-ended nature of the warrant, and the wide-ranging search throughout the former President’s residence – a classic “fishing expedition.”  Exactly what an objective issuing magistrate is duty-bond to prevent.

In another unusual move, as of this writing, the FBI, Justice Department, or White House have yet to make any public statement regarding the invasion of the Trump Florida residence.  Perhaps those entities realize they have overplayed their hand, and left themselves open to charges of overreach and politicization of the justice process?

Whatever the fall out, one thing is certain.  No matter how you may view former President Trump, if the government can use a pretext like the retention of some documents as a predicate for a full blown search of his property, what reliance can the rest of us have on the fairness and impartiality of our judges and magistrates?

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Imagine a frozen territory once thought to be a worthless, icy wasteland at the center of global competition among the world’s major military powers. That describes the vast expanses of the Arctic today. States in the region, plus China, are vying for influence and control of the area’s natural resources that include significant deposits of oil, gas, and strategic minerals. Rising temperatures and melting ice in recent years also have raised the possibility of a new, year-round, open Arctic passage that could cut weeks off commercial shipping times from Asia to Mediterranean and Atlantic ports. Perhaps more important are the military implications from rising competition among the most powerful states. The defense of North America is an area of increasing concern for the US.

“It is becoming increasingly apparent that competitors, such as Russia and the People’s Republic of China, desire to influence international norms and alter the behaviors of allies, partners and Arctic-focused countries for the benefit of these competitor nations. Russia and the PRC have made their intentions for the region clear through the promulgation of strategic documents that underline their commitment to the Arctic,” according to US Air Force General Glen D. Van Herck, writing in Defense News. Russia is militarizing the area and acting overtly to capitalize on the region’s infrastructure and resources. Enhancing its air and coastal defense capabilities and improving its nuclear deterrent credibility puts North America in a position of greater risk. Russia’s behavior toward Ukraine this year adds to the Pentagon concerns about the potential of an attack on North America through the Arctic region.

Russia’s geographic proximity to North America makes it the most acute security concern to US interests in the Arctic, according to Defense News. Add to this threat China’s self-proclaimed status as a “near Arctic nation,” although it is located over 900 miles from the region. China has improved its blue water naval capabilities, expanded its operational zones globally, and it now holds observer status on the Arctic Council with the Russian Federation chairing the Council until 2023. China’s enhanced threat capabilities coupled with its recent belligerent behavior in Asia raise the level of concern in Washington that its navy could become more involved in Arctic operations.

US national defense strategy calls for strengthening US deterrent capabilities and attaining military advantages through the expansion of joint force capabilities to deter the join Russian-Chinese threat. Washington’s goal is two-fold: maintain a stable Arctic region and an ability to deter any threat from competitor states to the US homeland.

“Executing large-scale joint and multinational force exercises under Arctic conditions exhibits credible deterrence while broadcasting robust US defense capabilities. These demonstrations, when messaged appropriately, have a profound deterrent effect on competitors, molding perceptions and shaping their actions,” according to Van Herck. This month the United States is opening the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies. It will be DOD’s newest regional center with a goal of focusing on building strong networks with domestic and international Arctic-minded security leaders. The Center will conduct focused analytical research aimed toward advancing the Defense Department’s priorities in the Arctic. Given the constraints on DOD’s budget, the opening of the Center highlights the importance Washington places on the region.

Van Herck argues that “Ceding the Arctic to competitors will result in accepting unnecessary risk to North America. The changing Arctic environment and increasing competitor activities in the region should invoke a sense of urgency in all of us. Efforts to develop and demonstrate Arctic capabilities, as well as establishing or strengthening multilateral organizations to address Arctic concerns, are clear indicators of progress.” Russia and China’s behavior in the Arctic also is of grave concern to Canada. In late June Ottawa  pledged to spend over $30 billion over the next two decades to help detect and track military threats from Russia and China in the Arctic. It also pledged to modernize it capabilities to defend North America in alignment with NORAD. In March the combined US-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command held a yearly exercise in the Canadian Arctic, with the stated intention of testing their ability to “respond to both aircraft and cruise missiles threatening North America.”

If Russia decides to attack the US using nuclear missiles, they will fly over the Arctic region. The threat to Canada and the US, according to Canadian officials, could come in several forms, ranging from small-scale, and logistically extremely difficult, commando raids on Canadian facilities on its northernmost Ellesmere Island to nuclear-armed submarines prowling undetected under the Arctic ice. Given that Canada’s “domain awareness” capabilities are not able to defend against hypersonic missiles incoming over the Arctic, it will be up to the United States to protect North America. Russia and China’s devolving behavior raises the importance of watching the Arctic region for the Biden Administration and being prepared to take action, if necessary.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Imagine the militaries of China and Russia uniting their armed forces to oppose the United States… two giant nuclear-armed communist states facing off against one western democratic nation. 

Cold War era nuclear deterrence theory no longer applies to the geopolitical dynamics at work today. America needs to prepare to respond to the simultaneous threat of two united communist giants, according to the chief of the US Strategic Command, Admiral Chas Richards. He is warning publicly that China has changed the nature of the national security threat to the US this year. The publication Defense One reports that on Thursday, before a group of experts at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, Richards said that “We have to account for three-party [threats]” and “That is unprecedented in this nation’s history. We have never faced two peer nuclear-capable opponents at the same time, who have to be deterred differently.” 

In recent years China has dramatically increased its defense budget, the lethality of the PLA, and prepared for war in space. Beijing has bought, built, and stolen advanced military technologies and weapons systems from the West. The distance its blue water navy can travel now threatens not only its Asian neighboring states but most of the world, including all of the United States. The Pentagon in late July warned that China’s belligerent behavior increases the chances for an accidental encounter that could spiral out of control. 

During the same period US institutional knowledge about avoiding nuclear war has atrophied, according to Richards. The Chinese threat is pushing the US Strategic Command to quickly shift how it will react to the evolving threat from Beijing, according to Tara Copp of Defense One. A significant outstanding issue for US military planners is that Washington has not yet fully taken into account China’s new hypersonic weapons program. The new system appears capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads. China tested it last October by launching hypersonic test missiles that flew around the world and landed within an acceptable target range back in China. 

What is perhaps most alarming is that for the first time China flew a missile over the south pole in a simulation of an attack on the United States across the southern border. Most of America’s missile defense system is directed at deterring a hostile Cold War threat crossing our northern border from Russia. Should China decide to employ nuclear-armed hypersonic missiles following a southern approach, it would be difficult for the US military to defend the country. An attack coordinated with Russian missiles from the north would be devastating to the United States. 

President Xi Jinping has grown increasingly aggressive in recent weeks. During the early August visit of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, he ordered PLAN ships and PLAAF fighter planes to conduct military exercises around the island. Beijing simultaneously warned the US Navy and commercial airliner and ships to stay clear of the region. Then last Friday Beijing imposed sanctions on Pelosi and her immediate family in response to what the Chinese government described as an “egregious provocation” due to her visit to Taiwan and meeting with officials there. 

Some analysts in Washington are pointing to lessons learned from Russia’s war in Ukraine, saying it is teaching China how to conduct warfare with the West, while noting that as early as 2030 China expects to have a fully modernized military. Earlier this year the PLAN conducted coordinated navy exercises for the first time with the Russian navy in the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. As tensions in US-China relations increase and Beijing continues to modernize its military, the United States must prepare to confront a capable and belligerent China that could align with Russia to strike the United States. Before WWII few believed Hawaii would be attacked. Given the destructive capabilities of weapons today the United States cannot afford to ignore the reality of a nuclear-armed China with malevolent intentions toward the US and other democratic states. Washington needs to heed Admiral Richards warning while there is time to address the threat.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

A Russian protectorate may be emerging in the border area between Armenia and Azerbaijan known as Karabakh. Both Yerevan and Baku recently made public statements for the first time severely criticizing Russia’s peacekeeping forces in the area amid rising tensions that could destabilize the plateau that effectively separates the two countries. Putin’s troops were inserted into Karabakh on the basis of a trilateral declaration at the end of the 44-day war in 2020. Despite their peacekeeper label, they are failing to meet international standards established by the United Nations for such a mission. The Russian troops are acting in a one-sided manner and failing to keep the peace, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He reports they do little more than “report violations of the ceasefire.” 

The strained environment could spark renewed conflict between the two South Caucasus countries, despite both sides having joined in chastising Moscow. The geopolitical boundaries that once outlined the Soviet Union’s former republics are losing their clarity. The current status represents a major change in the position of the two clashing countries. Baku never wanted Russian forces on Azerbaijani territory but was unable to secure an agreement for a Turkish peacekeeping contingent. It views remnants of the Armenian-backed Artsakh government as too close to Moscow. That faction, says Goble, has failed to insist either on the withdrawal of Armenian army units from Karabakh or the Armenian construction of an alternative road into the region, so the Lachin Corridor will be under complete Azerbaijani control. “That stands in sharp contrast to Armenia’s public position,” he notes. 

Senior politicians in the Armenian capital of Yerevan have been supportive of the Russian presence as government officials view the peacekeeping force as the only real protection for ethnic Armenians in Karabakh. Earlier in August some “openly expressed outrage that Russian forces in Karabakh have not responded vigorously to what Yerevan sees as Azerbaijani aggression against Armenians,” according to a Jamestown Foundation report. The South Caucasus states, which are strengthening ties to Middle Eastern countries, could soon emerge as a powder keg if the August protests continue and Russia reacts strongly to the criticism of its troops. The Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently added to the argument demanding that Moscow’s role be “clarified lest more problems arise,” notes Goble. An increase in tensions threatens to spread to Iran and Turkey, two neighboring states at a time when Western countries are hoping to increase gas flows from Ajerbaijan to Europe to counter Russian reductions to those states.

What began as a limited, local disagreement over the effectiveness of Russian peacekeepers appears to be taking on the stature of an international issue involving the United States, the European Union, Turkey, and Iran. This week, as the West increased diplomatic efforts to quell the unrest, Iran began moving its troops to the Azerbaijani border, according to a report in the Nezavisimaya Gazette. Goble suggests it could go one of two ways. “Such outside involvement could lead to an easing of tensions that escalated over the past week, or it could have the exact opposite effect…The violence in Karabakh in early August 2022 was triggered by Baku’s demand in July that Yerevan immediately pull the last remaining Armenian troops out of the disputed territory.” 

While Armenia claims to be withdrawing its three group of forces in Karabakh, the ground truth is more complicated. US military analysts say that military units containing Armenians from Armenia are remain stationed in the region. A second group of military units including Armenians from Karabakh itself, will soon not have any Armenians from Armenia as members of its forces. Goble points out that “Yerevan does not believe these units fall under the November 2020 declaration” as “these regiments were partially mobilized last week. The third faction is composed of irregular forces of heavily armed Armenian civilians in Karabakh and units that Yerevan refuses to manage. The Russian peacekeepers are scattered among the three groups, resulting in charges and countercharges of military action by the various sides that could lead to a broader conflict. 

Russia’s pull, if anything, is weakening, according to Paul Stronski of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Labeling the South Caucasus states as Russia’s periphery fails to recognize the evolving nature of the region. As the region leans more heavily toward the eastern Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern states fill the void left by the Soviet Union 30 years ago, Russia’s role today is “no longer as unchallenged as it once was, especially if Moscow cannot beef up its presence in Karabakh given troop shortages because of the war in Ukraine,” says Goble. The expanding destabilization of the region is a serious possibility that military analysts are following more closely this summer.  

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

According to the Migration Policy Institute (MIP), “(t)he U.S. Census Bureau experienced significant challenges collecting data in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and released only a small number of data points from its 2020 American Community Survey, which it called ‘experimental.’ As a result, (the MIP) has to rely on 2019 data for a number of sociodemographic and economic characteristics of immigrants…with some of the trends it describes predating the pandemic.” 

Even given these limitations, however, the numbers from 2019 are startling.  ” MIP estimates there were about 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States in 2019. Almost half resided in three states: California (25 percent), Texas (16 percent), and New York (8 percent). The vast majority (81 percent) lived in 176 counties with 10,000 or more unauthorized immigrants each, of which the top five—Los Angeles County, California; Harris County, Texas; Dallas County, Texas; Cook County, Illinois; and Orange County, California—accounted for 20 percent of all unauthorized immigrants.”

And just who are these “unauthorized immigrants?” “Mexicans and Central Americans accounted for roughly two-thirds (67 percent, or 7.4 million) of U.S. unauthorized immigrants in 2019, according to MPI estimates. About 1.7 million (15 percent) were from Asia; 907,000 (8 percent) from South America; 440,000 (4 percent) from Europe, Canada, or Oceania; 327,000 (3 percent) from the Caribbean; and 295,000 (3 percent) from Africa. Unauthorized immigrants’ top countries of birth were Mexico (48 percent), El Salvador and Guatemala (7 percent each), India (5 percent), and Honduras (4 percent).” 

Add to these numbers the statistics for “Southwest Land Border Encounters” published online by US Customs and Border Protection.  Those “encountered” crossing the border between Mexico and the United States are defined as Accompanied Minors, Individuals in a Family Unit, Single Adults, and Unaccompanied Minors.  In total, in June 2022 alone, there were 207, 416 “Enforcement Encounters.”  In May, 240,991; April, 235, 706; March, 222,340; February, 165,905; and in January of 2022, 154, 813.  

Thus, for the first 6 months of this year, there have been 1,227,171 border crossers encountered by the Border Patrol.  If the estimate of 11 million “unauthorized immigrants” residing in the US in 2019 is accepted for the purpose of comparison, this means that roughly another 11% of the 2019 total estimated illegal immigrants  have surged across our Southern border in the first half of this year alone.

According to the Cambridge University Dictionary, besides the ordinary definition of an “invasion” as “an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country,” there are two other accepted definitions: “an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way” and “an action or process that affects someone’s life in an unpleasant and unwanted way.”   Under these definitions, Is there some reasonable view under which the influx of 1.2 million people into our country is not an invasion?

Of course, if you ask the person responsible for border security, there is no problem.  At the end of April, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas appeared before the House Judiciary Committee…for an oversight hearing…(i)n his opening remarks, Ranking Member Jim Jordan quoted Mayorkas from last year telling supporters that, ‘The border is secure and we’re executing our plan’… (w)hen asked by Rep. Michael Guest, ‘Are you testifying as you sit here today that the Southwest border is secure?’, Mayorkas replied, ‘Yes, I am.’ At another point in the hearing, Mayorkas went further, proclaiming that DHS has ‘operational control of the southern border.’ While the word ‘secure’ could be open to some interpretation, ‘operational control’ is a statutory term with an unambiguous definition. Under section 2(a) of the ‘Secure Fence Act of 2006,’ Congress defined ‘operational control’ as ‘the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.’ This definition was read out loud to Mayorkas before his response, making it all the more remarkable that he claims to have fulfilled that edict.” 

But his boss, Joe Biden, must think there might just be a problem of some sort.  In June, the President claimed that “we know that safe, orderly, and legal migration is good for all our economies.  But we need to halt the dangerous and unlawful ways people are migrating…(u)nlawful migration is not acceptable, and we’ll secure our borders.”  

Either President Biden is mistaken, or Secretary Mayorkas is lying, and based on the evidence, the later is more likely.  At the end of July, “(t)he Biden administration…authorized completion of the Trump-funded U.S.-Mexico border wall in an open area of southern Arizona near Yuma that has become one of the busiest corridors for illegal crossings…. Yuma sector has quickly emerged as the third busiest of nine sectors along the border… Agents stopped migrants more than 160,000 times from January through June in the Yuma sector, nearly quadruple from the same period last year. The only other sectors with more traffic were Del Rio and Rio Grande Valley in South Texas.”  

While completing the border wall is a step in the right direction, the Biden Administration’s response to the invasion of our Southern border is too little, too late.  In fact, an entire industry has grown up around moving illegal migrants from the border to the interior of the United States.

“In addition to providing essential services to immigrants and refugees to the U.S.,” Catholic Charities USA “also advocate(s) for policies that protect family unity and allow newcomers to contribute to and more fully participate in their new communities.”    “Migrants are an especially vulnerable population cared for by Catholic Charities staff and volunteers because they are on the move, far from home, and strangers in a strange land.  After being processed by federal authorities, they arrive at our sites weary from their travels…Catholic Charities serves migrants and refugees along the border and throughout the U.S. interior by providing for basic humanitarian needs such as food, shelter and clothing; assisting families with social work case management; providing asylum-seekers with immigration legal assistance; and resettling refugees from all corners of the world.”  

Where does the money come from for these efforts?  “(F)ederal and state governments often rely on local nonprofit entities to undertake tasks that would otherwise fall to the government, often because of acute and abrupt need, and also because of the nonprofits’ particular areas of expertise. Catholic Charities has a long history of assisting migrants and refugees,” according to Kevin Clarke.  “Like many not-for-profit social service entities in the United States, Catholic Charities USA receives significant funding from the federal government through contracts awarded for much-needed social services.”  

Indeed.  At the Website for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, there is a full page of federal grants available, including a “Reception And Placement Grant,” which “is funded on a per capita basis by the U.S. Department of State/Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (DOS/BPRM). The grant supports basic resettlement services to newly arriving refugees sponsored under USCCB/MRS auspices,” and a “Services To Newly Arrived Refugees” grant, which is “funded through DHHS/ORR, provides enhanced services to newly arrived refugees at sites selected for their proven success in resettlement, under the Preferred Communities program.”  

Clarke denies that Catholic Charities profits from these grants and federal contracts.  But, there is enough money available to provide for the needs of the hundreds of thousands of “undocumented migrants” crossing our Southern Border daily.  Recently, a family of migrants with Covid informed a local police officer in Texas “that Border Patrol had released them days prior due to their coronavirus status, (and that) a charity group had paid for their room at the nearby Texas Inn Hotel. The officer followed up on that information, finding out that Catholic Charities of The Rio Grande Valley had booked all the rooms in the hotel to house undocumented immigrants detained by Border Patrol.” 

In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop this distribution of federal funds to Catholic Charities.  “The ACLU sued U.S. Health and Human Services in June, claiming its allocation of millions in taxpayer dollars to faith-based groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops violates the separation of church and state by ‘subsidizing religious beliefs.'”  US government attorneys “described the distribution of $1.6 billion that Congress authorized for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to dole out through grants as an ‘executive action’ that cannot be challenged by taxpayers in federal court.” 

$1.6 billion dollars may not constitute a profit to Catholic Charities and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  But it certainly will keep a lot of aid workers employed for both groups.

Meanwhile, the local governments of “sanctuary cities” like New York, Washington DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles continue to make life easier for the undocumented.  Several years ago, New York City instituted an ID program “for all New Yorkers, from all backgrounds, and from all five boroughs. Your immigration status does not matter. The free, municipal identification card for New York City residents, ages 10 and up, provides access to a wide variety of services and programs offered by the City. IDNYC cardholders enjoy benefits and discounts offered by businesses and cultural institutions across the five boroughs.”   

Meanwhile, “(t)he city of San Francisco has started an advertising push with a specific target market: illegal immigrants….(i)n what may be the first such campaign of its kind, the city plans to publish multilanguage brochures and fill the airwaves with advertisements relaying assurance that San Francisco will not report them to federal immigration authorities…’I guess it”s what you expect from San Francisco,’ said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform in Washington, which lobbies for stronger immigration enforcement. ‘But now, not only are they helping people break the law of the federal government, they are advertising it. I don”t know of any other city actually looking for illegal immigrants.'”  

San Francisco began advertising its “Sanctuary City” status in 2008.  More recently, “(t)he Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously with no discussion to allow the county to no longer require U.S. citizenship for government jobs…(a)ccording to the adopted motion, the new policy ‘ensures that applicants for employment are fairly and equitably considered, without regard to national origin, citizenship or other non-merit factors that are not substantially related to successful performance of the duties of the position,’ the Los Angeles Daily News reported.”   

But sanctuary status has begun to backfire on Democratic-led cities.  “Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has been organizing buses to bring migrants to DC in an effort to highlight his criticism of (the) Biden administration’s immigration policies. According to Abbott’s office, more than 5,100 migrants have arrived in Washington from Texas on more than 135 buses.”  For her part, Washington DC mayor Muriel Bowser, is wondering what to do with all these extra mouths to feed.   “The mayor’s office is requesting to convert the DC Armory, Joint Base Bolling, Fort McNair or another ‘suitable federal location in the National Capital Region’ into a processing center for the migrants. The regional welcome center established to aid the migrants in Montgomery County, Maryland, is at capacity, according to the request…’I’ve asked for the deployment of the (National) Guard as long as we need…to deal with the crisis that we expect to escalate,’ Bowser said. ‘The number of people crossing the border seeking asylum we expect to only go up. And we need to make sure that there is a national response, not an ad hoc, city-by-city, state-by-state response.'”

Of course, what is really at the heart of Mayor Bowser’s request for more welcome centers and the National Guard? “DC has already facilitated the help of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with a $1 million grant, Bowser said.”   

Maybe Mayor Bowser should be asking Catholic Charities and the US Conference of American Bishops how to seek federal grants for the care and feeding of the exploding illegal immigrant population.

In any event, there is no denying that the illegal immigration issue has become unmanageable, even for aid workers grabbing federal funding hand over fist.  Unless, of course, you’re the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

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

Illustration: Pixabay