Month: September 2022

In the 1980’s, while reporting from the United Nations headquarters in New York, I had the opportunity to hear first-hand Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega’s comments. It was evident he was a dangerous man then. After an absence of many years, he is back in power, and more dangerous than ever.  

A Washington Examiner article quotes a warning from ,”Taiwanese Vice Foreign Minister Alexander Yui that China is seeking to establish a naval post in Nicaragua, easily within striking distance of Florida and America’s Gulf Coast. It is part of a growing presence of Russian and Chinese forces in the western hemisphere.

The Communist-friendly regime of Daniel Ortega replaced its relationship with Taiwan with the Beijing regime last December. It is part of growing trend, with Costa Rica, Panama,  the Dominican Republic and El Salvador also establishing relations with Beijing.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs notes that “ The strengthening of Chinese ties with Western Hemisphere partners in a forum without US presence comes as a red flag for US hegemony and control over its own “backyard,” which, since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, has been firmly fenced off from other “external” global actors seeking influence in the region.”

The Military Times has reported that “Within days of the conclusion of the Nov. 15 [2021] virtual summit between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, news broke that China had been secretly integrating military capability into a commercial terminal operated by Chinese shipping company COSCO at Khalifa port in the United Arab Emirates.”

This is similar to what will clearly occur in Latin America, and the problem is growing exponentially. In June, the Ortega regime invited Russian troops, planes and ships to Nicaragua.

Lorena Baires writes that “The region has reason to feel threatened. Nicaragua bought offensive as opposed to defensive armament from the Russians. The 80 tanks that it acquired are perfectly suited for armed entry into any of the capitals of Central America,” former opposition lawmaker, lawyer, and political analyst Eliseo Núñez told Diálogo. ‘The Russians in Nicaragua, with conventional and technological military capabilities, are a danger to the region. We already see what is happening in Costa Rica with hackers blocking the internet […], who coincidentally are from Russia.’ The decree includes the entry of …Russian military personnel, on a rotating basis, to participate in “experience exchanges and conduct training in humanitarian aid operations” with the Nicaraguan Army’s Special Operations Command.”

Little or no reaction is expected from the Biden Administration.  It’s a marked contrast to the last time Ortega sought to bring Russian forces into his nation, in part to bolster his authoritarian regime against internal freedom fighters. That occurred in 1986. Then-President Ronald Reagan warned that “Using Nicaragua as a base, the Soviets and Cubans can become the dominant power in the crucial corridor between North and South America. Established there, they will be in a position to threaten the Panama Canal, interdict our vital Caribbean sealanes, and, ultimately, move against Mexico. Should that happen, desperate Latin peoples by the millions would begin fleeing north into the cities of the southern United States or to wherever some hope of freedom remained… How can such a small country pose such a great threat? Well, it is not Nicaragua alone that threatens us, but those using Nicaragua as a privileged sanctuary for their struggle against the United States. Their first target is Nicaragua’s neighbors. With an army and militia of 120,000 men, backed by more than 3,000 Cuban military advisers, Nicaragua’s Armed Forces are the largest Central America has ever seen. The Nicaraguan military machine is more powerful than all its neighbors combined.”

Jean Manes, the civilian deputy commander of U.S. Southcom, recently warned that in addition to the military challenge, China’s presence also poses environmental and economic threats. China has overfished its own waters and is now destroying local fishing communities in the Western Hemisphere. 

Photo: The Chinese PLA Navy’s missile destroyer Nanchang, the missile frigate Yancheng and the supply ship Dongpinghu, which are participating in the Vostok-2022 strategic command post exercise in Russia’s Eastern Military District, conduct a ship-to-air live-fire training exercise at related waters in the Sea of Japan on the afternoon of September 2, local time. (photo by Wang Zezhou)

Mention Georgia and probably the first place that comes to mind is a US state. There is, however, a small but important country named Georgia located 6,322 miles to the east of the city of Atlanta. It sits on the northeastern shore of the Black Sea and shares a border with Russia to its north. Today it also is at the intersection of great power politics. 

Before Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine not many took notice of Georgia. One foreign capital that did, however, was Beijing. In 2017 China signed a Free Trade Agreement with the country as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to develop trade routes into the west. Over the last few years China has developed close trade contacts with Georgia and the South Caucasus countries and has invested extensively in the region. Cooperation between Georgia and China stands out due to the size of the BRI investments and growth in bilateral trade over the last five years. China is now Georgia’s largest trade partner surpassing Russia. In 2021 China bought US$598.6 million of Georgia’s products, which accounted for 18.2% of the country’s total exports.

Anti-transit sanctions hitting Russia this year are serving as a boom to Georgia’s economy. The ban on overland cargo transit through Russian territory means Georgia is one of the only land corridors the European Union (EU) can use to reach the Central Asian states and China. Georgia also provides Europe access to Azerbaijan’s natural resources which, without them, the EU would be severely constrained. This summer Baku and Brussels signed an agreement doubling gas supplies to the EU through the Trans-Anatolian Natural (TANAP) and Trans Adriatic (TAP) gas pipelines, according to a July Kommersant article. Even Ukraine this week found a way to increase pressure on Moscow, when it called for the return of parts of Georgia under occupation by Russian troops. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry decried Ukraine’s recent call to open a second front in Georgia to liberate Russian-held areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia saying it is an unwarranted provocation. “While Western sanctions have effectively fenced off Russia’s important international transit corridors, the authorities of Georgia’s breakaway region, Abkhazia, will most likely try to maximize the territory’s own transit potential as a key source of revenue,” according to a Jamestown Foundation article. It points out that the working group created by the “presidential” administration of Abkhazia proposed to “unilaterally remove all restrictions” on the passage and transit of goods across the administrative border with Georgia along the Inguri River. 

The ban was introduced in 2008 after the Russo-Georgian War, which led to the on-going Russian occupation of Abkhazia. Tbilisi officials are anxious to reactivate the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (or “Middle Corridor”). The Caucasus Watch reported this summer that Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili traveled to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan to raise the issue and sign an agreement to simplify customs transit procedures and jointly manage them. Zaal Anjaparidze, writing for Jamestown Foundation, points out that “Amid the changing realities in the region, cargo turnover in the Georgian corridor has increased by one million tons” this past year, including an increase in both land and sea freight, as well as container cargo turnover. 

Political squabbles have held up development of the Georgian port at Anaklia. Other parts of the country’s transport infrastructure also need significant improvements to be able to cope with increased cargo turnover. Some Georgian politicians claim that this initiative is part of the joint Russian-Abkhaz scheme aimed at oblique recognition of Abkhazia’s independence and the attempt to circumvent anti-Russian sanctions by the uncontrolled flow of goods, says Andjaparidze. In Beijing, the Chinese leadership is carefully watching developments in the region as the reorientation of transport and energy corridors from Russia to Georgian territory holds significant opportunities in geopolitical and economic terms although it also carries an elevated level of risk should China become too active in the country.

Russia currently occupies about 22 percent of Georgian territory, including more than a 656-yard section of the strategic Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. According to Andjaparidze, the danger is that a greater part of the pipeline will be in the occupation zone, should Russia continue to move the “border” with breakaway South Ossetia deeper into Georgian territory. Right now both Russia and China are in a watch-and-see mode concerning further economic involvement in Georgia. The Ukraine war’s outcome will no doubt have a major effect on the potential of Georgia’s new transit perspectives as it plays both sides against the Georgian middle.

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

The BBC reports China’s President Xi Jinping has “questions” and is growing more “concerned” over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Reports from the Xi-Putin meeting on Thursday say the Russian president acknowledged his counterpart’s position. The two “great power” leaders met in the central Asian country of Uzbekistan for talks over China’s willingness to support Russia in its war in Europe. Their discussion was a sideline chat that occurred during a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Samarkand. China has not officially endorsed Putin’s “special military operation,” and reportedly has concerns about the current status of the war. Since February China’s imports from Russia have increased, especially in the energy and agricultural sectors, delivering much needed funds to Moscow to enable Putin to continue his war. It leaves China in a precarious position with Western states that are imposing sanctions on countries trading with Russia. 

Xi is facing political and economic challenges from the West over the country’s human rights record and threatening behavior toward Taiwan. The intensifying China-Russia partnership also is raising questions among democratic leaders who view Putin as getting more out of the relationship, but Xi refusing to back away from his lǎo péngyǒu. The phrase lǎo péngyǒu  [老朋友] translates as “old friend” and carries with it connotations that indicate Xi was signaling to Putin and the world that their relationship is strong, or at least one of great convenience for now. The balance in the relationship has changed over the decades as China has grown stronger than Russia and has a more modernized economy and military. Beijing also is becoming more active in international organizations and exerting its influence far from its shores.

The optics at the SCO Summit are significant according to political analysts in Washington. China holds it Communist Party Congress next month in Beijing. Xi is seeking his third five-year term amid reports of renewed Covid lockdowns across entire cities and provinces each time there is an uptick in virus cases. This marks Xi’s first international trip since the start of the pandemic. Last winter Putin traveled to Beijing and met with Xi during the Winter Olympics where the two leaders publicly declared their friendship strong and “without limits.” Within days of the visit Putin invaded Ukraine. This week’s meeting ended in a carefully worded statement by Xi in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. China only urged ending hostilities but never condemned Russia’s actions. To date, the Chinese government will only refer to the war as a “special military operation,” despite global condemnation of Putin. It remains beneficial for China to maintain the balance and retain control of the bilateral relationship.

Xi has reinforced his support of Putin by sending troops to participate in joint military exercises with Russia, delivering economic aid, and sending senior officials from Beijing to meet their counterparts in Moscow. China’s expanding economy demands vast amounts of energy to support it. Discounted prices of oil and gas exported from Russia are beneficial to Xi. According to a BBS report by Tessa Wong and Simon Fraser this week, “Last month Beijing also agreed to pay for gas in Russian roubles and China yuan, giving Moscow a much-needed alternative to dollars as a foreign reserve, while furthering China’s interests in boosting the yuan as an international currency.” 

Each country has its own reasons for maintaining the relationship to date. US intelligence sources point out that Moscow is turning out of desperation to other states such as Iran and North Korea for weapons as Xi, so far, appears unwilling to provide Moscow with the advanced weapons it seeks. This may be due, in part, to China’s need for Western international markets and its political and economic aspirations in Central Asia. Xi understands that four of the SCO member states from Central Asia do not support the Russian invasion. They once suffered under Soviet domination and, while needing Russian economic support, do not desire a return to satellite state status. Xi understands this, the geopolitical implications of balancing the Russian relationship internationally, and its impact on domestic politics before the Chinese Party Congress. “China is willing to work with Russia to play a leading role in demonstrating the responsibility of major powers, and to instill stability and positive energy into a world in turmoil,” Xi told Putin. 

The Chinese president knows keeping the relationship stable secures the country’s border regions and delivers the critical energy supplies needed to grow the Chinese economy. Al Jazeera described the dynamics of the meeting this week as Putin coming “hat in hand” to meet with China. The two countries may be working together out of convenience, but it is no longer a pairing of equals. China is using Russia in the short-term while adeptly sidestepping a full alliance as it seeks its long-term goal of resetting the world order in Beijing’s favor.

The Manhattan Institute has debunked the Progressive push to sharply reduce  the prison population, a move highlighted by Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman.

Fetterman has recommended providing gubernatorial pardons for convicted murderers as part of an overall move to reduce the number of people in the prison population.

According to a Manhattan Institute study, “The size of America’s prison population is driven by the incarceration of violent felons. These felons are held mostly in state prisons, which account for nearly 90% of inmates nationwide. Most prisoners are serving time for violent or weapons offenses, and the vast majority of them—even those incarcerated for nonviolent drug and property offenses—will go on to re-offend, sometimes by committing serious or violent felonies. Slashing the prison population to match levels in the Western European democracies would require releasing significant numbers of violent and chronic offenders serving time for crimes that most Americans agree should lead to prison. Reducing or eliminating sentences would diminish the incapacitation benefits of incarceration and, given the extremely high rates of recidivism, would expose society to large numbers of people likely to commit more crimes.”

The report notes that 60% of state prisoners are serving time for murder, rape, assault, robbery, or burglary—four times the number convicted only of drug offenses. Despite the portion of prisoners in for serious and violent offenses, less than 15% of state felony convictions result in more than two years served in prison; even 20% of those imprisoned for murder, and nearly 60% of those imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, serve less than five years of their sentences. Most prisoners will re-offend post-release. 83% of released state prisoners are arrested for a new offense at least once after their initial release. More than one-third of those convicted of violent felonies in large urban counties had an active criminal-justice status—that is, either on probation, parole, or out pending the disposition of a prior case—when they committed their offense.

Other studies point to the accuracy of the Manhattan Institute’s research. A Politico report refutes the Progressive contention that drug crimes represent an excessive portion of the prison population.

“Drug crime is not what’s driving the high prison population in the United States. It’s crimes of violence. And this omission has consequences. It means that any “solution” is unlikely to achieve its intended goal and in the meantime society will continue to suffer long-term damage—physical, psychological and economic—from a persistent cycle of unaddressed violent crime. The numbers are unambiguous. For all the attention we pay to people convicted of drug crimes, they make up only 15 percent of our state prison populations. Over half the people serving time in state prisons have been convicted of a violent crime; half of those convicted of violence—or more than 25 percent of all prisoners—have been convicted of the most serious crimes: murder, manslaughter or sexual assault.”

The de-incarceration movement ignores history. A 2015 Pew analysis noted that “In the early 1990s, with violent crime at record levels and public alarm growing, federal and state lawmakers responded with new policies that sent more offenders to prison for longer periods. The federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, in particular, made sweeping changes to U.S. correctional policy by imposing longer prison sentences for federal crimes and encouraging states to implement similar penalties. Two decades later, the nation’s prison population has soared and crime has fallen to levels not seen since the 1960s.”

The lessons of that success story are being ignored by those who advocate reducing the prison population.

Photo: Pixabay

According to the Washington Post, “(t)he debate over what is to be done with Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents has landed in the zone where it was inevitably headed: whataboutism. Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution for using a private email server as secretary of state in 2016, the right argues, so why should Trump be indicted?” 

Indeed.  Many people may remember that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was investigated for the mishandling of government documents, and at the time, there were calls for her prosecution.  “Lock her up!”  was the chant heard during the 2016 Republican convention.

Yet, Clinton was not prosecuted, leading many to ask now what the difference is between the “crimes” each is alleged to have committed.

To answer, let us take a brief trip down the memory hole.

“Clinton’s email troubles started in 2014, when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked the State Department for all of her emails. The department didn’t have them all because, instead of only using the State Department email system…Clinton used a personal email address…housed on private servers located in her Chappaqua, New York, home. In 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said involved personal matters, such as her daughter’s wedding plans. Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server…”

On July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey held a press conference, and gave a detailed statement regarding a criminal investigation his department had conducted regarding Clinton’s “use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.”  In particular, the investigation “focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.”

“Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department,” then-Director Comey explained, “and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.”  Further, “FBI investigators…also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014… (f)rom (this) group of 30,000 e-mails…110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined…to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”

In other words, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private, unsecured internet server (not a secure government server) to read and transmit various levels of classified documents across the internet.  Further, Secretary Clinton decided which of her emails were relevant to the investigation, and which were not, deleting emails she claimed were not responsive to the request.  

According to Comey, “(a)lthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position…should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail…(n)one of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Was this a criminal act?  Under 18 USC 1924(a), “(w)hoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

 Nonetheless, Comey claimed his investigation showed that Clinton and her staff did not “intend” to violate the law, and the applicable statute does requires acting “knowingly” and “with intent.”  However, to be found guilty of a violation of this statute, you do not need to have intended to break the law – you need to have intended to retain the classified documents “at an unauthorized location.” As discussed by Anthony Christina in the Penn State Law Review,  “(t)o convict Clinton, it must be shown that she had knowledge that classified emails were contained on her private server. The most recent total by the State Department of their review of 30,000 Clinton emails indicates that at least 671 emails sent or received by Clinton contained classified information. This fact stands in stark contrast to the statement Clinton gave to reporters…when she said, ‘I am confident that I have never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.’”

The conclusion is inescapable – if a “reasonable person” would know that almost 700 emails were classified, and had no place on an unsecured server, it would not be hard to establish that then-Secretary Clinton intended  “to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

So, was Hillary Clinton arrested and prosecuted for this violation of the law?  In his July 5, 2016 statement, then-FBI Director Comey predicted the outcome; “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” 

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case….we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts…

I guess James Comey missed this one then; “On April 23,(2015, General David) Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924…(i)nstead of turning his journals — so-called ‘black books’ – over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home – an unsecure location – and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence.” (For more detail on the Petraeus case, read here) 

Did Gen. Petraeus “intend to break the law?”  No – but he did intend to retain classified documents at an unsecured location, and fail to keep them secure.

Maybe Comey never heard of the Petraeus case – or maybe he thought the prosecutor was unreasonable.

One fact cannot be disputed – in 2016, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate for President.  David Petreaus was a Republican, though he ‘stresses his independence and has not voted for years.” 

If you ask David Laufman, “who led the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section until 2018 and is now a partner at the firm Wiggin and Dana…'(p)eople sling these cases around to suit their political agenda but every case has to stand on its own circumstances.”’  While with the Justice Department, Laufman investigated the Clinton case, and managed the investigation of David Petraeus.  Regarding the Trump investigation, Laufman believes that “(f)or the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated.”   

Maybe there is sufficient evidence to charge former-President Trump with a crime.  Maybe the investigation of Trump is not politically motivated.  Maybe the cases of Petraeus, Clinton and Trump must each stand on their own merits.

But none of that explains why its reasonable and appropriate to pursue charges against Republicans Petraeus and Trump, but not reasonable to seek the same against the Democrat Clinton.

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

Both Biden and Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist have essentially declared half the nation’s voters as “fascists,” continuing on and expanding a strategy originated by Barack Obama, who described non-leftists as bitter people clinging to their bibles and guns, and Hillary Clinton, who openly called them deplorables, and, during a Democratic primary debate, called them “the enemy.” They are joined by a number of other political leaders and commentators.

To ensure that these oppressive definitions are not challenged, tactics such as censorship, absurd criminal charges, and abusive labelling are freely employed.

Americans, who have openly debated deposing a monarch, ending slavery and segregation, entering into and ending wars, are now informed that merely challenging the demonstratively failed policies of the Biden Administration renders them “fascists.”

This trend of labelling political opponents as “fascists,” “enemies” or other pejorative titles can no longer be downplayed, and certainly not ignored.  In an era when parents who merely seek to have a say in their children’s education are labelled as “Domestic Terrorists,” and when federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service have a history of attacking conservative groups, it is clear that this is no longer politics as usual.

The very institutions that exist to protect the rights of the citizenry, such as the Department of Justice, have not only remained silent, they have at times been a part of this assault on freedom.

The tactics have escalated and are relentless. It should never be forgotten that for over four years, California representative Adam Schiff, aided by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, openly proclaimed that he had clear and convincing evidence of Russian Collusion by Donald Trump.  His charges were so serious and so extreme that they nearly tore the nation apart, dividing supporters and opponents of the former President.  After years of investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted, it is manifestly clear that no evidence ever existed and the charge was false from the very beginning. Despite that reality, the perpetrators of the fraud have never apologized, or been widely criticized by their media allies who aided and abetted the deception.

The irony is extraordinary. The same politicians and media people who continually bring up the “Red Scare” charges by Senator McCarthy in the 1950’s now resort to precisely the same tactics.

Use of these types of language and tactics can only be described as totalitarian. Indeed, it almost is the textbook definition of that word. The  Encyclopedia Britannica notes that to those establishing totalitarian regimes, “Any dissent is branded evil.”

It’s a tactic with a long tradition. One source describes a relevant period in the establishment of the Soviet Union:

“That is why the first priority for all totalitarian regimes was to impose restrictions on freedom of speech. In 1917, the Russian Bolsheviks moved to limit freedom of speech the very day after the October coup-d’état. They adopted the “Decree on the Press,” which shut down any newspapers “sowing discord by libelous distortion of facts.” Lenin wrote that “to tolerate the existence of these newspapers means to cease to be a socialist.” Similarly, only a few months after coming to power in 1933, German National Socialists started to burn books, and the Ministry of Propaganda introduced strict censorship.”

It not a coincidence that under both Presidents Obama and Biden, attempts were made to silence critics. Obama considered withdrawing Fox News’ broadcast license, and sought to implement a scheme allowing the FCC to place “monitors” in newsrooms.

The Biden Administration has attempted to establish a “Disinformation Board” led by a left-wing partisan hack, to attack news the White House disagreed with.  The public rebelled against that dictatorial move. It has been replaced by the attempt to discredit all opposition as “fascist.”

It remains to be seen how the public reacts.

Illustration: Pixabay

Joe Biden has plagiarized speeches several times in the past, most memorably ruining a prior presidential run in 1988. But his September 1 address in Philadelphia will be remembered not for the precise words he stole, but for the harsh and threatening tone he “borrowed” from the Twentieth Century’s worst dictators. Substitute either “capitalist” or “Jew” for MAGA, and the speeches’ tenor is uncomfortably familiar.

While launching numerous pejoratives at his opposition, there was a startling lack of specificity. What policies Is he condemning? He didn’t just criticize Donald Trump. He included all those who identify with policies Biden disagrees with. Yes, January 6 was bad, but it was the work of a few and cannot be blamed on anyone other than the actual participants.  On this, Biden cannot take the high ground.  As groups such as Antifa and BLM burned cities, assaulted innocents, looted businesses, attacked police stations and federal court houses, his campaign not only remained largely silent, but in some cases supported the outrage. His Vice-Presidential candidate assisted in bailing out the perpetrators.

Why would Biden deliver such a divisive address?  You don’t have to be a political genius to figure that out. His policies have failed miserably, at home and abroad. He, and his party which controls the White House, Congress, the federal bureaucracy and, to a great extent, the media, have wreaked havoc on the nation.   He willfully destroyed American energy independence, destroying thousands of union jobs in the process. His actions have resulted in the worst inflation in decades. He has presented inadequate defense budgets at a time of clear national danger. He has inflamed, rather than cooled, internal tensions. He botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, abandoning Americans and Afghanistan individuals who assisted U.S. forces, and allowed billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment to fall into the hands of the enemy.  He stated that he wouldn’t be upset over a “minor” invasion of Ukraine. He has sided with vested interests over the good of the people.  His Department of Justice sought to label parents who merely seek a voice in their children’s education as “domestic terrorists.” He attempted to suppress free speech by establishing a “Disinformation” Board.

It’s more than just poor policy choices. The inappropriate financial relationship of the Biden family with China is a significant concern. The media has attempted to downplay the matter, but the American people have not. Bizarre policy choices Biden has made regarding America’s most serious adversary must be examined in light of that.  Why would the President abandon the existing Department of Justice policy countering the extensive espionage and intellectual theft operations China conducts in the United States?

Consider this warning from the Department of Justice:  “About 80 percent of all economic espionage prosecutions brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) allege conduct that would benefit the Chinese state, and there is at least some nexus to China in around 60 percent of all trade secret theft cases…The Department of Justice’s China Initiative [which Trump initiated] reflects the strategic priority of countering Chinese national security threats.”

Additionally, Biden has moved to undo some of his predecessors’ policies designed to counter Beijing’s unfair trade practices which harm America’s economy and steal jobs from U.S. workers.  

In another China-related issue, Fentanyl deaths increased significantly since Biden took office, a clear result of his refusal to get tough with Beijing on the matter and his “open border” policies.

There are two worrisome aspects of Biden’s de facto open border policy.  The first is his allowing literally millions of individuals to illegally enter the nation, abandoning existing policies that had previously stemmed the flow. This action has resulted not only in vast costs to U.S. taxpayers, but also empowering criminal cartels in their human trafficking and drug dealing activities. The second gets to the heart of the problem with the Biden Administration. Despite clear, convincing, abundant (even televised!) evidence to the contrary, he continuously lies to the American people about his open border policy.

It is an attempt to turn public attention away from all of these failures, self-made disasters, acts of corruption and policy mistakes that prompted Biden’s Philadelphia speech.

Photo: White House

The U.S. Department of Defense has issued a warning about Beijing’s military timetable. It does not, for obvious reasons, take into account, however, political considerations regarding the weakness of the Biden Administration.

According to the DoD, Chinese president Xi Jinping has set a timeline for his nation’s military to be capable of taking Taiwan by 2027 — just five years from now. Recent events in the Taiwan strait have some questioning the strategic situation and prospects of a near-term invasion.  

Colin H. Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said that while China is very interested in expanding its sphere of political and military influence in the Indo-Pacific region, it’s likely going to be more cautious when it comes to a move as aggressive as an invasion of Taiwan.

According to Kahl, “It’s no mystery that Xi Jinping has given his military until 2027 to develop the military capabilities to forcefully reunify with Taiwan — if he makes the decision to do that.”

His greatest concern is China’s increased aggression in the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, and other areas in the region, and how that increased aggressive action might lead to unintended consequences that could result from misunderstandings. 

“As China becomes increasingly assertive in kind of asserting its prerogatives around Taiwan, … do they take the next step of trying to enforce those changes in the status quo in a way that runs the risk of an incident — an incident with the United States, and incident with one of our allies and partners?” Kahl asked. “We have seen the engage in, over the last year or two, … a trendline of increasingly unsafe and unprofessional encounters — both in … the skies and at sea.”  

Now, Kahl said, the U.S. and its allies must watch out for aggressive actions by the navy and air force of the People’s Liberation Army that could run the risk of causing an international incident.

“We’re not going to change our operating procedures,” he said. “We’re not going to do things that ratchet up tensions. We’re going to do things that assert our continued support for the rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific and our support for our allies and partners, and not be backed away.”  

After Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the Defense Department identified that nation as an “acute threat,” which Kahl has further clarified as meaning “both immediate and sharp.” But he’s also now identified Russia as being “reckless” as well, considering the actions it’s taken after failing to achieve the goals it set for its invasion of Ukraine.  

“I think that Russia is … a capable military power — perhaps not as capable, frankly, and conventional as some of us may have assessed six or eight months ago …,” he said. “But they’ve also demonstrated that they’re an extraordinarily dangerous and reckless power. And there’s a way in which … a weakened Russia becomes more dangerous on the international stage.” 

In desperation, Kahl said, Russia has aligned itself more with and reached out to both North Korea and Iran for assistance. Moreso, he said, because Russia’s conventional forces are so heavily occupied in Ukraine, he suspects they will be forced to rely more now on unconventional capabilities such as nuclear, cyber and space, as well as misinformation and disinformation campaigns.  

“Russia does not pose the challenge to the United States and the rules-based international order over the long term that China does,” he said. “But in the immediate term, it’s a very dangerous actor.”

While the 2027 timeline seems logical, it does not take into account Beijing’s noticing that the Biden Administration is probably less prepared to respond as forcefully to foreign threats as a successor White House will probably be. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La)     notes that “President Biden’s … lack of foreign policy strategy have crippled the United States’ power and influence on the world stage. Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban, China has ramped up its aggression against Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Uyghurs, and now, Russia has invaded Ukraine. “

Picture: The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry passes through the Taiwan Strait during a routine transit

In the world of make-believe play, young children hide in plain sight pretending no one can see what they are doing. The communist regime in China acted in such a childish manner for years in an attempt to cover up its horrific human rights record by simply pretending that no one saw anything. It came to an end this week when the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) released a major 48-page report detailing abuses the Chinese government perpetuated on the Uyghur people in western China. 

Increasing allegations by civil society groups that members of the Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minority communities were missing or had disappeared in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China began arriving at the office of the UNHCR five years ago. Four years ago, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances reported a “dramatic” increase in cases from western China “with the introduction of ‘re-education’ camps in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region by the Government of China.” 

Claims of family separations and enforced disappearances were among the first indicators of concern about the situation, it notes, with large numbers of people alleged to be “forcibly disappeared” or “missing” The UNHCR says that approximately two-thirds of the 152 outstanding cases on China of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances pertain to the Uyghur people occurred over the period 2017-2022. It is an ongoing issue with China continuing to threaten and intimate former detainees and disappear those who fail to comply. Some western human rights groups consider China guilty of committing genocide. 

“Numerous research and investigative reports published since that time by a diverse range of non-governmental organizations, think-tanks and media outlets – as well as public accounts by victims – have alleged arbitrary detention on a broad scale in so-called “camps”, as well as claims of torture and other ill-treatment, including sexual violence, and forced labour, among others,” according to this week’s report. 

At first Beijing labeled the camps vocational training centers that existed for people who had committed minor offenses. In later policy papers, it presented the detention centers as part of its strategies to counter terrorism and to prevent or counter “extremism” in the region, while at the same time claiming they contributed to development, job creation and poverty alleviation. The UN requested and looked at official documents, interviewed individuals, and then shared the results with the Chinese government to allow it to respond. The report noted China defiantly responded saying Beijing “…asserted that China’s laws are ‘powerful legal instruments to contain and combat terrorism and extremism’ and that it is upholding ‘the principles of protecting lawful activities, curbing illegal actions, containing extremism, resisting infiltration, and preventing and punishing crimes.’”  

The UNHCR pointed out that China’s definitions of terrorists and terrorist activities is vague and that its claims of “social panic” and “serious social harm” caused by those living in western China are not clearly defined and might potentially encompass a wide range of acts that do not have a “sufficient threshold of seriousness and demonstrable intent to engage in terrorist conduct.” The reports concludes that Beijing committed serious human rights violations in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in Xinjiang, it says, have led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. “These patterns of restrictions are characterized by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities.” The UNHCR report makes 13 recommendations. Among them the report suggests China locate the people who have disappeared, release arbitrarily held prisoners, review the country’s legal framework surrounding its national security, investigate human rights abuses and allegations of torture in western China, and provide reparations to the victims. Xi Jinping, and the CCP leadership, have no intention of recognizing the legitimacy of the UNHCR findings or adhering to its recommendations. Perhaps, the Chinese are not the only ones playing a make-believe game?  

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