Month: March 2023

The United States is on a descent to becoming only a third-rate nuclear power.  Russia has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, a result of an agreement reached during the Obama Administration. Now, it has been revealed that China has more land-based ICBM launchers than the United States. Equally troubling, in just the last two years, Beijing has doubled the number of warheads in its possession.

U.S. Representatives Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and U.S. Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Deb Fischer (R-NE), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, noted that the latest information indicates that China has surpassed the United States in the number of land-based fixed and mobile ICBM launchers. The National defense Authorization Act requires the U.S. Strategic Command to notify Congress when the number of ICBMs, nuclear warheads, or ICBM launchers in China surpasses the United States.
 
The Representatives note that “The head of U.S. Strategic Command has informed us that China has surpassed the U.S. in the number of ICBM launchers – this should serve as a wake-up call for the United States. It is not an understatement to say that the Chinese nuclear modernization program is advancing faster than most believed possible.  We have no time to waste in adjusting our nuclear force posture to deter both Russia and China. This will have to mean higher numbers and new capabilities.”

Under President Xi’s rule, China has nearly tripled its defense spending.  His nation now has the largest army and navy on the planet, and is urgently preparing them for combat against advanced adversaries, particularly the United States. Most experts believe that 2027 is the target date for having them ready for  a major conflict.

Rogers has opened hearings on China’s quickly growing threat. He notes that “China is the most challenging national security threat America has faced in 30 years.  If we fail to acknowledge that, and take immediate action to deter it, the next 30 years could be devastating for our nation. “

China’s  conventional (non-nuclear) advances are deeply troubling as well.

America’s technological edge, once considered Washington’s strongest asset, has eroded. China has leaped ahead of the U.S. in crucial areas such as hypersonic technology, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence. It’s space program is on a par with America’s in most areas.

It is clear that these developments are not made with self-defense in mind.  According to Rogers, “The CCP is not building these new and advanced military capabilities for self-defense. 
In recent years, the CCP has used its military to push out its borders, threaten our allies in the region, and gain footholds on new continents. In violation of international law, the CCP has built new, and commandeered existing, islands in the South China Sea, where it has deployed stealth fighters, bombers, and missiles. It continues to intimidate and coerce Taiwan, most recently by surrounding the island with naval forces and launching endless fighter sorties across the centerline. In recent years, the CCP also established a space tracking facility in South America to monitor U.S. satellites, as well as an overseas naval base just miles from our own on the strategically vital Horn of Africa.”

Concern is being expressed not just by Congress, but by international observers as well.  The BBC recently warned that “Many Western observers now believe a profound shift in the global balance of military power is under way.”

The Biden Administration continues to lag behind in responding to the growing crisis. Indeed, its latest budget ignored the consensus that the U.S. Navy needs to expand to respond to the threat.

Photo: Soldiers assigned to a brigade under the PLA Rocket Force erect a ballistic missile launcher into position on the launching truck at night during a recent realistic training exercise. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Zhang Feng)

While the 14th Amendment obligates the States to provide equal protection, “the Supreme Court has held that [e]qual protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment…(t)hus, in Bolling v. Sharpe,  a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education… (t)he Court wrote, ‘The Fifth Amendment…does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive.'”

Thus, the Federal government has the same obligation to provide “equal” – not “equitable” – protection to all as do the States.

In prior articles, we have discussed the lawless actions of the Biden Administration.  From the illegal financial giveaways of the American Rescue Plan, to the illegal Student Loan Forgiveness program and the equally illegal vaccine mandate for private employers,   one theme in particular has been consistent for the two full years of this Administration – their defiance of the Constitutional limits of their authority.

Nowhere is this lack of respect for the law more apparent than in the area of Equity Policy.  Despite centuries of American jurisprudence “prohibiting governmental denial of equal protection,” and insuring equality before the law for all persons, regardless of race, gender or religion, Joe Biden and his minions continue to ignore the US Constitution, and deny equal protection to many people on the very basis of race, gender and religion.

On January 20, 2021, the date of his Inauguration, Biden issued an Executive Order on “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,”   

which declared that “the policy of my Administration (is to) pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all…(a)ffirmatively advancing equity…is the responsibility of the whole of our Government.”  

To that end, Biden ordered the “Domestic Policy Council” to “coordinate efforts to embed equity principles, policies, and approaches across the Federal Government.”  He also established an “Equitable Data Working Group,” since “(m)any Federal datasets are not disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability, income, veteran status, or other key demographic variables…(a) first step to promoting equity in Government action is to gather the data necessary to inform that effort.”

In other words, a governmental agency was tasked with forcing federal agencies to adopt equity principles.  Further, a federal database was established to enumerate our divisions along racial, gender and “other key demographic variables” to determine who will receive the advantages of Equity – and who will not.

Not satisfied with this effort, on June 25, 2021, Biden issued a further Executive Order, this time on “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce.” Under this order, “the Federal Government must be a model for diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility…Accordingly, the Federal Government must…provide resources and opportunities to strengthen and advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility across the Federal Government.”  This order requires “a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce, expand its scope to specifically include equity and accessibility, and…develop and issue a Government-wide Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan.”  

In essence, this means it is no longer the federal government’s policy to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their race, gender or other “key demographic variable.”  Instead, the very basis for hiring federal workers is their race, gender or ethnicity.

Still not satisfied with these wholesale assaults on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, on February 16, 2023, Biden added yet another Executive Order – this time, on “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government.”    According to this order, “(a)chieving racial equity…is not a one-time project.  It must be a multi-generational commitment, and it must remain the responsibility of agencies across the Federal Government.  It therefore continues to be the policy of my Administration to advance an ambitious, whole-of-government approach to racial equity…and to continuously embed equity into all aspects of Federal decision-making.”

This latest order goes on to establish “Agency Equity Teams” across a number of federal agencies, including State, Treasury, Defense, and Justice, “to coordinate the implementation of equity initiatives and ensure that their respective agencies are delivering equitable outcomes for the American people.”

 “Each Agency Equity Team shall be led by a designated senior official…charged with implementing my Administration’s equity initiatives…(t)he senior designee at each agency shall be responsible for delivering equitable outcomes…(e)ach Agency Equity Team shall support continued equity training and equity leadership development for staff across all levels of the agency’s workforce.”

It is also important to note that this latest Executive Order creates a “White House Steering Committee on Equity…which shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy…(t)he Steering Committee shall…coordinate Government-wide efforts to advance equity (and) coordinate an annual process to consult with agency heads on their respective agencies’ Equity Action Plans.”  

“Each agency head shall support ongoing implementation of a comprehensive equity strategy that uses the agency’s policy, budgetary, programmatic, service-delivery, procurement, data-collection processes, grantmaking, public engagement, research and evaluation, and regulatory functions to enable the agency’s mission and service delivery to yield equitable outcomes for all Americans.”

Think about the meaning of the directives embedded in this latest Executive Order.  A new level of bureaucracy has been created to insure that the Federal Government violates the Equal Protection of the law guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.  Every major federal department must use all of their power and authority to insure that services are provided on the basis of “equity,” not “equality.”  

That means if you are a poor farmer in need of a government grant to save your crops, unless you are a member of a group considered “underserved,” the government will make sure that money goes to some other “underserved community” somewhere else.  Instead of hiring the most qualified candidate for a federal job, the Justice Department, or the State Department, or the Treasury Department will hire on the basis of “diversion and inclusion” principles to “deliver equitable outcomes.”  The best and the brightest need no longer apply –  the qualification that gets the job is being “diverse.”

How can this be legal?  the short answer is; It’s not.  These Executive Orders are utterly and completely unconstitutional, and a blatant violation of the principle upon which this nation was built and stands – equal protection for all.

Much like the prior actions of the Biden Administration which have been overturned by the US Supreme Court, these Equity initiatives will also be found to be unconstitutional overreaches in excess of the President’s authority.  But the cases have yet to be brought challenging the hiring of federal workers on “diversity and inclusion” principles, and for the denial of grants because the applicant was not the preferred race or gender.  

Until they are, and the Courts have had a chance to issue the necessary injunctions, expect the Biden Administration to continue its lawless pattern of unconstitutional behavior. 

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”  Inigo Montoya

During the 1987 movie, The Princess Bride, Sicilian boss Vizzini “repeatedly describes the unfolding events as ‘inconceivable.’ After Vizzini attempts to cut a rope the Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up, he yells out that it was inconceivable that the pirate did not fall.”  It is at this point that the swordsman Montoya utters the now-famous line quoted above.

The use of the word “Equity” has become the new “inconceivable” – that is, most people who use the term do not really know what it means.  Worst – many do not understand that the use of “Equity” principles is un-American, and patently unconstitutional.

According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, “(t)he term ‘equity’ refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures.”   

Then there is the definition provided by George Washington University; “Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome…Equity is a solution for addressing imbalanced social systems. Justice can take equity one step further by fixing the systems in a way that leads to long-term, sustainable, equitable access for generations to come.”

When described in this fashion, Equity sounds like a wonderful idea – after all, who wouldn’t want to “overcome barriers” and “address imbalance!”   

But then, we encounter this definition from Charles Lipson of the University of Chicago; “Equality means equal treatment, unbiased competition and impartially judged outcomes. Equity means equal outcomes, achieved if necessary by unequal treatment, biased competition and preferential judging. Those who push for equity…challenge America’s bedrock principle that people should be treated equally and judged as individuals, not as members of groups… (o)nly a powerful central government could impose the intensive—and expensive—programs of social intervention, ideological re-education and economic redistribution (necessary to achieve Equity). Only an intrusive bureaucracy could specify the rules for every business, public institution and civic organization (and) (i)f the results fall short, as they inevitably would, the remedy is obvious: more money, more rules and more indoctrination.”

In fact, according to leftist commentator Robert Kuttner,  “change will come only with massive restructuring of the power relations across labor, capital, and government, as well as class-based coalitions against racism.” 

Does this “massive restructuring,” “ideological re-education” and “economic redistribution”  sound compatible with what has generally come to be known as “the American way?”  According to Harvard University Professor Martha Minow, “(t)he terms ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ have become weapons in polarized political arguments…(t)he political volley over words neglects and obscures decades of litigation, policy, and academic work in both American law and comparative law. The U.S. Constitution prohibits government denial of ‘equal protection’ of the laws; state and federal statutes guard against discrimination on the basis of individual characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation or identity). The relevant state or federal authority does not use the term ‘equity’…courts have ruled that “classification” of individuals on the basis of certain personal characteristics (including race, gender, and religion) requires the most skeptical scrutiny.”

It is instructive at this point to read the actual words of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”    Notice this Amendment reads “equal protection” – not “equitable.”

The analysis concludes tomorrow

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

After the 9-11 attacks the United States hardened primary targets inside the country, followed by increasing protection for secondary ones. In the global environment today governments and private risk analysts spend a lot of time discussing relations and threats among the great powers, but there are secondary areas that are also critical and in need of attention. These are the relationships among the peripheral states that strategically sit at the edge of trade routes and are almost as important as the major powers themselves. They tend to possess a disproportionately small share of the wealth of core states such as China, Russia, the US and West Europe, and have weaker political institutions that can subject them to undue foreign influences. 

Kyrgyzstan is such a peripheral state located on the shortest route connecting China to Central Asia, and beyond that, to the Middle East and Europe. The name of its president, Sadyr Japarov, like the country is not familiar to most westerners. He wants to change that now. Akipress Press reports that Japarov traveled to Beijing for meetings from February 3-6 with leaders from several other Central Asian peripheral states. They negotiated an agreement with China to improve cooperation on infrastructure and transit development. Japarov expects it to result in the start of construction of its part of the strategic China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway line by the end of this year. The agreement follows the September 14 signing of an earlier document in which China agreed to fund and conduct a railway feasibility study. 

During his election campaign in January 2022, Japarov called for nationalizing the Kumtor mine, one of the largest gold mines in the world; settling border disputes with neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan; and completing the China–Kyrgyzstan–Uzbekistan railway as his top foreign policy priorities, according to Fozil Mashrad of the Jamestown Foundation. To date, he has made progress on all his objectives. Early last year, the “Kyrgyzstani government reached a formal settlement with Canadian mining company Centerra over the nationalization of Kumtor, which had been bogged down in corruption and environmental disputes for more than two decades. Full control of the mine and its gold export revenues will significantly increase the country’s economic and financial independence,” notes Mashrad. Earlier this year, during Uzbekistani President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s state visit to Bishkek, both leaders made progress toward the ratification of a historic border demarcation agreement between the two neighbors. The relationship, now considered a comprehensive strategic partnership, was once feared as potentially conflict-prone territory by the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. 

That leaves Japarov free to pursue Chinese help in building the railway network. Eurasianet reports it is believed that China, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have settled all technical issues related to the construction of the railway line, including considerations on the railway’s route inside Kyrgyzstani territory and the size of the railway track gauge. These represent major wins for China in this peripheral region. It leaves only the funding mechanism in question. It’s an area in which China is eager to “help.”  Mashrad says that Chinese engineers have already set up offices in Bishkek and are active on the ground.  Railway construction can begin after the feasibility study is completed in June. He adds that “Once the railway line is completed, it will not only bring hundreds of millions in transit revenue to Kyrgyzstan but will also turn the country from landlocked to land-linked, connecting the East with the West.” 

Strategically this secures Kyrgyzstan as a critical link in China’s transportation supply line to the Middle East and Europe, and redefines and expands Bishkek’s geopolitical power not only in Central Asia but also throughout wider Eurasia. Japarov is not stopping with the railway. He is scheduled to travel to Iran and Pakistan later this year to discuss potential regional transit corridors links connecting Kyrgyzstan to seaports for global maritime trade. 

As an offer of goodwill Iranian authorities have allocated a plot of land at the Port of Bandar Abbas for Kyrgyzstan and pledged to share its scientific and technological achievements and expertise. While at first trade may sound positive, Tehran includes in this “sharing” knowledge of advanced military technologies that could upset the fragile balance among the Central Asian states. One online newspaper, 24.kg, reported in February that both Tehran and Islamabad are “supplying various military equipment and arms, including drones, to Tajikistan, currently Kyrgyzstan’s regional rival.” 

The peripheral states of Central Asia have long desired to connect the Iran’s and Pakistan’s seaports. The new northern railway networks linking the region are of increasing significance to Russia as they pass through Russian territory. The situation in the Central Asian states is stable at the moment and marks progress toward the goals of Kyrgyzstan’s president. The area, however, remains a potential flashpoint as trade and potentially military equipment will be able to move quickly from East to West. Japarov is in position to achieve his foreign policy goals and for Kyrgyzstan to grab the attention of the major powers. Hopefully, that occurs before something goes astray.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

China’s Communist Party ended its annual meeting of the National People’s Congress (NPC) on Monday. The rubber stamp event might not make exciting front-page news, but there are a number of China-related events this week that are disconcerting given that they expose Beijing’s reach directly in the corridors of power in Washington, DC. 

The goal of the NPC is to set policy direction and lay out the economic agenda for the coming year. This session is the first after last autumn’s week-long, 20th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, which is held every five years. At the October meeting President Xi Jinping secured his third five-year term as party general secretary. This week’s meeting is significant in that, with Xi in total control, there were a number of leadership statements indicating the direction in which he intends to take the country, the restructuring of state institutions, who is part of the new leadership, and the general tone of policy for the coming 12 months. Xi is not backing down from the CCP’s aggressive policies. It also appears willing to use any means necessary to achieve them, including influence operations extending into the highest levels of power in the American government.

Xi Jinping has consolidated power at a level unprecedented since Chairman Mao held office and is now the country’s longest serving president since its founding in 1949. He exudes confidence, acts boldly, and plans for long-term victories. Mao Ning, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, says that the country “will continue to view and develop China-US relations in accordance with the principles of peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation.” The reality is quite different. China’s foreign  influence operations are aggressive and have tenacles that appear to extend into the White House. 

This week the investigative arm of an American news organization, the Daily Caller, reported that “The Hong Kong company which wired over $3 million bound for Biden family associates in 2017, appears to have been run by a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at the time of the transfer.” A US House Oversight Committee memorandum revealed on Thursday that one month after then Vice President Biden left office, China’s State Energy HK Limited wired the $3 million to Robinson Walker, LLC. That company is run by “Biden family associate” John Robinson Walker, according to US government memorandum. An official Chinee government website named Lei Donghui, chairman and executive director of State Energy HK Limited, as a long-standing member of the Chinese Communist Party. As recently as this month Lei was pictured on Twitter at a company meeting. 

“From State Energy HK Limited’s $3 million transfer, Robinson Walker, LLC subsequently distributed $1,065,692 in ‘incremental payments over a period of approximately three months’ to as many as four Biden family members, according to the memorandum,” says investigative reporter Philip Lenczycki. He adds that the funds were transferred to “Hallie Biden, James Brian Biden Sr. (James Biden), Robert Hunter Biden (Hunter Biden) and an ‘unknown bank account identified as ‘Biden,’” according to the committee’s memorandum. IT also says additional payments went to Biden family companies, including Owasco PC, JBBSR Inc and RSTP II, LLC. Lenczycki adds that “On March 2, 2017, Robinson Walker, LLC sent another $1,065,000 from State Energy HK Limited’s $3 million transfer to the European Energy and Infrastructure Group in Abu Dhabi, a   self-styled “advisory organization,” according to the memorandum. He noted that James Gilliar, a “business partner of Hunter Biden,” is allegedly “associated” with EEIG, according to the committee.

At this week’s NPC meeting, Xi cast blame on the United States for trying to “contain and suppress” China, although the Biden Administration has not taken very effective or strong steps to stop Chinese aggressive moves overseas. At a news conference following the NPC, Qin Gang, China’s Foreign Minister warned of “confrontation and conflict.” This appears to be the first time China directly named the United States. It may be time to find those in Washington willing to create a Great Wall of Capitalism to preserve our way of life.

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

We live in a world that neorealists would argue requires hegemony as a necessary and sufficient condition for a stable world order and a peaceful international system. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended those conditions present during the Cold War era. It also ended 45 years of bipolar stability. With the onset of the Russian war in Ukraine the world is quietly edging back from tripolarity towards a bipolar international system. Colin Clarke and Mollie Saltskog, writing in Defense One, say that the Russian war has “accelerated” the process. Prior to February 2022, Russia, China, and the United States composed the three centers of military, political, and economic power in the world.

Over the last 12 months Russia has devolved into a far less powerful state. The realm of strategic competition for hegemonic status resides today only in the struggle between Washington and Beijing. A new bipolar balance is rapidly evolving between the two capitals over the last year. 

Russian war casualties last year topped an estimated 200,000 troops killed and are mounting daily. The Wagner Group, Putin’s mercenary force, has resorted to recruiting soldiers in prisons, jails, and mental hospitals. Russia’s precision strike munitions and artillery shells are approaching depletion levels not seen in decades. Thousands of pieces of the country’s armored equipment, fighter jets, and helicopters have been destroyed by Ukrainian forces. A war Putin once proclaimed as a short, special military operation is moving into its second year without any indication of slowing, or ending, in 2023. 

Despite international condemnation from the West and major economic sanctions, Moscow continues to commit crimes against humanity. It is making Chinese leader Xi Jinping nervous. As Moscow grows weaker and more isolated from the world community, and Putin becomes more desperate in his threats and actions, China is left as one of Russia’s few remaining partners. The war is forging a closer Sino-Russian relationship built on convenience. Xi recognizes it could spill over into economic sanctions against China. Beijing already has supplied crucial dual-use technology to Russia, shipping navigation equipment, jamming technology, and jet-fighter parts, according to Clarke and Saltskog. 

Despite US warnings, China is supplying computer chips, smart phones, and satellite imagery to Russia’s Wagner Group. US intelligence officials report that China is now considering sending Moscow ammunition and artillery. Secretary of State Antony Blinken calls it a “serious problem” as Xi Jinping publicly promised the Russian president that the partnership comes with “no limits.”

As Putin passes the one-year mark he is anxious to show he remains a major player with a seat at the table and that he has made significant progress in Ukraine. He can’t easily do so without China’s military aid. Senator Lindsey Graham recently classified Putin’s attempt to jump on the China gravy train as “dumber than dirt.” Although China may pull back and not openly supply Putin with the arms he needs, it still is strong indicator of Russia’s position as the weaker, junior state. Historically, conflict between China and the Soviet Union centered on the disagreement over which country was leader of the communist world. 

It is evident today that Moscow is no longer the frontrunner state. With Putin relegated to a deferential role, Xi Jinping is using his elevated status to dictate terms for oil and gas deals that strategically diversify China’s critical energy supply chain. Russian energy from its Far Eastern region runs through two main pipelines directly into China. Beijing’s help in building and maintaining the Power of Siberia pipeline requires large numbers of Chinese citizens to live and work inside the sparsely populated Far Eastern Russian territory, once owned by China. Putin appears unnerved about sinicization of the area but there is little he can do as the junior partner. Clarke and Saltzkog point out that that the “Kremlin has instituted several policies in order to encourage Russians to move to the Russian Far East, primarily out of fear of Chinese nationals and companies populating the mineral-rich region.” It is a complicated relationship and one in which Putin is no longer able to dictate terms to China. 

In a recent position paper, officials in Beijing attempted to walk a middle path in its relations with Russia. Xi Jinping intends to remake the world order to favor Beijing’s concept of how the international system should run. He will likely decide crossing the “red line” to supply Russia overtly with lethal aid, is too high a price to pay. Xi recognizes that potential economic sanctions and diplomatic measures instituted by the West could curtail China’s rise to full hegemon status.

As the dominant partner in the relationship Beijing can and does dictate terms to Moscow. In the coming year as the world continues to enter into a new bipolar era, it hopefully will see a return to some semblance of order without major conflict. What political scientists have not considered in great depth is that, for the first time in modern history, one of the two hegemonic states will not be in located in the West or practice Western values. It may require new theory to explain ongoing instability in a bipolar world if China decides to create a new rulebook.   

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

Across the nation, a significant number of horrifying crimes, including multiple homicides, attacks on police officers, and random assaults have occurred using knives, boxcutters, hammers and other blunt instruments. According to FBI Statistics, the number of murders increased from 22,000 in 2020 to 22,900 in 2021. This constitutes an increase of 4.3% on top of the 29.4% increase in 2020.

That fact should deeply concern everyone who believes that our streets, public transportation facilities, and homes should not resemble a Mad Max movie.

The growth in crime parallels the implementation of lax policies in terms of punishment. Jim Quinn, writing in the New York Post,   reports: “It should be a simple thing to understand: If you have more criminals on the street, you have more crime. But Gov. Kathy Hochul and our political leaders keep saying there is not enough data to show that bail reform has been a failure. Really? In 2019, under the “old” bail laws, New York City’s crime rate fell for the 27th year in a row. Under the new bail laws, by Jan. 1, 2020, more than 2,000 career criminal repeat offenders were released from city jails. They had an average of 12 prior arrests and seven prior convictions. Just 2½ months later, before COVID, city crime rose 34% over the same period in 2019. What a surprise! The city released almost every single defendant charged with drug dealing, car theft, burglary, street theft, and shoplifting from jail, and within weeks crime went up by double digits for the first time in almost three decades.”

Ignoring the devastating impact of progressive policies on crime is only part of the faulty response. The other portion is to downplay the crimes, and the criminals themselves, and blame the drastic statistics on the weapons, not the perpetrators.  Following every report of a dramatic crime is an almost ritualistic demand for further curbs on the Second Amendment.

That reveals a key reason why Progressive district attorneys and politicians fail to respond appropriately to the upswing in crime.  To them, crime isn’t the important issue.  Reducing or eliminating the right to bear arms is.

Placing fighting crime behind the ideological goal of eliminating Second Amendment Rights is both counterproductive and irrational. Gun laws.com notes: “There is evidence indicating that increased prevalence of guns leads to decreased crime rates, just as there are many who claim that greater restrictive measures on the sale of guns lead to decreased crime rates. 

Lawrence Reed, in a FEE article asks “How many lives are actually saved by gun ownership? This is a supremely important question that the grandstanders and ideologues usually—and conveniently—ignore… Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

• Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
• 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 
• Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
• Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.”

The progressive motivation to enact stricter gun control laws ignores the most salient question: Would those measures be effective in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals?  Will perpetrators intent on robbing, raping or murdering suddenly turn law abiding and refrain from obtaining weapons? The answer is a resounding no.  The counter argument, that those laws would limit the manufacture and transportation of weapons, is equally foolish.  Take a look at laws prohibiting similar treatment of drugs, measures that have failed miserably for decades.

Illustration: Pixabay