Month: May 2023

In February, we discussed a Federal District Court in Maryland which ordered a Catholic Hospital to perform a hysterectomy on a healthy woman for the purpose of gender reassignment.  Ignoring the Hospital’s Catholic identity, US District Judge Deborah Chasanow held that even though St Joseph’s operated “in a manner consistent with Catholic values and principles,” the Hospital could not refuse to perform a hysterectomy on a women who identified as a man because the surgery “was meant to treat (the patient’s) gender dysphoria.”   

Yet another District Court, this time in New York, has also refused to recognize traditional religious values and practice in order to provide superior rights to the transgendered.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s…religion…or…otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s…religion…” 

Seems simple enough.  You can’t discriminate against a person in the workplace based on their religious practices or beliefs.  

There is also this explanation provided by the US Department of Labor; “Title VII requires federal agencies, upon notice of a request, to reasonably accommodate employees whose sincerely held religious beliefs, practices or observances conflict with work requirements, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship…A religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow an employee or applicant to practice his or her religion. The need for religious accommodation may arise where an individual’s religious beliefs, observances or practices conflict with a specific task or requirement of the position… An agency may justify a refusal to accommodate an individual’s religious beliefs or practices if the agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would cause an undue hardship. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.” 

Again, simple enough.  Unless it’s an “undue hardship,” you must reasonably accommodate a religious employee. 

Unfortunately, someone needs to explain these simple rules to Federal District Judge Geoffrey Crawford of the Western District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  In a decision from last February, Judge Crawford stood these rules on their head to deny an accommodation to a religious school board employee.  In March of this year, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Crawford’s opinion.

Raymond Zdunski served as an Account Clerk for the Erie 2- Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services in upstate New York.  According to their website, The BOCES partners with local public school districts “to build and strengthen programs for students and maximize operational efficiencies through shared services.”  Under the heading of “Equity, Inclusivity and Diversity,” the BOCES states that it “also continually strives to ensure that all students and employees have access to equal opportunities within a safe, inclusive, welcoming, and accepting environment. In order to achieve this goal, we will strive to sustain a culture of learning about the experiences and perspectives of those who are different from ourselves.”  

To that end, the website for the BOCES provides a number of video tutorials, including “Are You Biased?  I Am,” “Unconscious Bias at Work,” and “Color Blind or Color Brave,” where Finance Executive Mellody Hobson “discusses the reality of racial inequities in our society.”  Then there is the always-popular “ABC’s of Creating the LGBTQ-Friendly Classroom,” in which “the National Association for Music Education provides simple strategies for creating affirming and welcoming environments for students who identify as a member of the LGBTQ community.”

The reader is encouraged to review these videos, and the website for the BOCES in general.  We will return to this subject below.

According to Judge Crawford’s opinion, “(a)fter becoming aware that a transgender BOCES employee had requested accommodations to facilitate a gender transition, BOCES leadership decided that, in addition to providing gender-neutral bathrooms, LGBTQ anti-discrimination training was necessary to ‘maintain an environment free of harassment and discrimination.'”  The BOCES mandated this training for all employees, and in 2018, Zdunski was “directed to attend a mandatory training facilitated by the local ‘Pride Center’ on ‘LGBTQ Cultural Competency.'”  Zdunski refused. 

The Court noted that Zdunski “declined to attend the training on the basis that ‘he is a devout Christian and, as such, his beliefs regarding homosexuality are dictated to him by holy scripture. Plaintiff did not want to be forced to listen to indoctrination that is in contradiction to the tenets of his faith.'”   

There is no indication in Judge Crawford’s opinion that Zdunski was insincere in his beliefs, or that his religious practices were contrary to his stated beliefs.  Nonetheless, the BOCES “terminated (Zdunski’s) employment for insubordination due to his failure to attend the LGBTQ anti- discrimination training.”

In his lawsuit, Zdunski argued that “the LGBTQ training was ‘aimed at changing his religious beliefs about gender and sexuality,’ and that attending the training ‘would have caused him to violate the religious teachings to which he adheres.”  Among his complaints, Zdunski asserted a “failure to accommodate under Title VII,” and “disparate treatment and disparate impact under Title VII.”  The BOCES sought a dismissal of Zdunski’s case.

“Mr. Zdunski seeks a religious exemption from a policy that concerns trainings on gender expression,” Judge Crawford wrote.  “Mr. Zdunski believes his compliance with the policy would render him complicit in conduct he considers contrary to his religious beliefs.”  In summary, “(a)ccording to Mr. Zdunski, (BOCES’) decision to terminate his employment for refusing to attend (the LGBTQ awareness) training ‘amounts to unlawful religious discrimination’…(BOCES) maintain(s) that Mr. Zdunski was not terminated because of his religion; ‘he was terminated because he did not attend a mandatory training session.'”

In other words, Zdunski was fired because he did not attend the training session, because it was mandatory, irregardless of what Mr. Zdunski’s faith-based sentiments were regarding the topic of the training.

At this stage, it is useful to remember the video tutorials presented on the website for the BOCES, addressed above;  the “ABC’s of Creating the LGBTQ-Friendly Classroom” for instance.  Is such a video “training,” or actually “indoctrination?”  What sort of program on “LGBTQ Cultural Competency” awaited Mr. Zdunski at the local “Pride Center?”  Would Mr. Zdunski have been presented with discussions, images and materials that he might have found offensive to his Christian faith?

Let us consider this issue from another angle for a moment.  Suppose Mr. Zdunski was a strictly observant Muslim.  In the Muslim faith, “Islamic scholars overwhelmingly teach that same-gender sex is a sin.” Now let us suppose an observant Muslim were required to attend a training session in “LGBTQ Cultural Competency” at the local “Pride Center.”  Would an observant Muslim also refuse to attend this “mandatory training,” on the basis that “compliance…would render him complicit in conduct he considers contrary to his religious beliefs.”

Unfortunately, for Zdunski, Judge Crawford did not consider any of these issues.  Instead, the Court agreed with the circular logic of the BOCES. “(N)one of the facts alleged support (Zdunski’s) claim that his termination was tainted by an inference of unlawful discrimination. Rather…BOCES terminated Mr. Zdunski in response to his failure to comply with his employer’s policy mandating anti-discrimination training…the training sought to avoid harassment and discrimination directed at transgender employees consistent with…Federal Title VII law…”

“The fact remains that Mr. Zdunski was employed by a State agency in a State…that recognizes gender expression and sexual orientation as protected classes on equal footing with religion for purposes of Title VII,” Judge Crawford wrote.  “Just as it would be ‘anomalous to conclude that by ‘reasonable accommodation’ Congress meant that an employer must deny the shift and job preference of some employees . . . in order to accommodate or prefer the religious needs of others,’ so too would it be anomalous to allow an employer to deny a transgender employee’s legal right to a workplace free of discrimination and harassment in order to accommodate the conflicting religious beliefs of other employees.”

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that, “gender expression and sexual orientation” are on “equal footing” with religion under Title VII.    Let us even assume that a “transgender employee” is entitled to a “workplace free of discrimination.”  Though called “equal footing,” in fact Judge Crawford is assuming that it is more important that all employees of BOCES attend training for the benefit of that one transgender employee than that one other employee be allowed to assert a religious objection to that “training.”

Aren’t there other ways to insure that the single transgender employee does not suffer from discrimination from the single religious objector?  The opinion does not note whether the transgender employee and Zdunski worked in the same area, or even in the same building.  Was it really likely that Zdunski would engage in “workplace discrimination” if he did not attend the training – or was it more important that Zdunski be subjected to the propaganda approved for dissemination to all employees by the BOCES?

The Court went on to deny that Zdunski was entitled to any religious accommodation.  “Mr. Zdunski’s proposed accommodation—that he be excused from the mandatory LGBTQ anti-discrimination training—amounts to more than a de minimis cost to his employer’s business operations. BOCES is bound by New York State law to provide annual anti-discrimination trainings for all employees and to maintain ‘an environment free of discrimination and harassment.’ (Citation omitted.) Allowing Mr. Zdunski’s requested accommodation…would have put his employer in the position of violating the training requirements set forth (by New York State). An accommodation that would require an employer to run afoul of state law constitutes a substantial hardship and would be more than a de minimis cost to the employer.”

In other words, it was more important that all employees submit to anti-discrimination “training” for the benefit of one employee, than allow one employee to act according to his religious scruples. 

A dangerous precedent is being set by the District Court in both New York and Maryland.  Rather than accommodate those with traditional religious values and practices, Federal Courts are forcing compliance with an agenda that is incompatible to those who wish to maintain time-honored principles.  Most disturbing, both the New York and Maryland decisions showed absolutely no respect for the beliefs and faith-based practices of either St Joseph’s Hospital or Raymond Zdunski.  

It was more important to each Court that the dictates of the government be obeyed.

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

llustration: Pixabay

American workers depending on their pensions and 401Ks to provide for their retirement needs face a massive threat from the latest progressive attempt to divert private assets to their political causes.

On December 1, 2022, a Biden promulgated executive order allowing retirement plan fiduciaries, such as 401(k) plan sponsors, to consider what are essentially leftist social agendas when they select investment options and exercise shareholder rights, such as proxy voting for plan-held securities. This rule removed protections for retirement savers established by the Trump administration, which ensured that retirement plan fiduciaries must evaluate investments and exercise shareholder rights based only on the financial benefits to the plan and participants. Biden’s ESG rule ignored current law and judicial precedent.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) sets minimum standards that govern the administration of private-sector, employer-sponsored retirement plans, such as 401(k)s and traditional pensions. Under ERISA, a retirement plan fiduciary must act “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries” for the “exclusive purpose” of “providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries” and “defraying reasonable expenses.” In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer that under ERISA, “benefits” must be “financial” and not a collateral benefit—such as advancing a political or ideological agenda.

Biden’s ESG rule removes protections for retirees and workers saving for retirement.

Americans for Prosperity’s Brent Gardner warns that “President Biden is trying to use Americans’ retirement savings to bankroll his extreme agenda. Many Americans have already delayed retirement because their 401ks have taken a hit under President Biden — the last thing they need is a government bureaucrat risking the rest of it on this Administration’s failed policies. Americans should tell Congress and President Biden to keep politics out of their retirement savings and protect their abilities to make the best investment decisions for their retirements.”

At its core, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing of your savings in a pension plan or 401K essentially forces you to allow the placing of the ideological demands of the Left above your own rights to your hard-earned funds.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) recently noted that “The tactic of (ESG) investing hurts shareholders, undermines workers…”

Members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce warn that The Biden administration is putting the retirement security of millions of Americans at risk. The administration’s new rule, enabling and encouraging retirement fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance factors, will allow activist investors to funnel retirees’ savings into progressive, left-wing causes. Moreover, ESG funds are notorious underperformers and relatively high-risk, leaving the futures of retirees less secure.

According to the House Committee, “Forcing Americans into ESG investment is not only politically inappropriate, it is also financially irresponsible. According to research from the University of Chicago, mutual funds scoring highly on ESG factors are constantly outperformed by funds rated lowest for ESG. …Under the Trump-Pence administration, the U.S. government protected retirees from this kind of abuse by issuing a rule clarifying that, under ERISA, the managers of retirement funds could not engage in ESG investment if it would have a negative impact on retiree’s savings or expose them to additional risks (‘Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments’). Tragically, on November 22, 2022, the Biden administration chose to undermine the Trump-Pence safeguards by issuing their own ERISA rule that would make it easier for retirement fund managers to imperil retirees’ savings. …Fortunately, Congress can overturn the Biden administration’s dangerous ESG rule through the Congressional Review Act (CRA).”

Attorneys General from 27 states warn that the concept threatens the financial stability and blatantly violates federal law. A bipartisan attempt to the executive order was squashed when Biden vetoed the measure.

Illustration: Pixabay

In April, we discussed the glaringly obvious facial insufficiency of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Indictment of former president Donald Trump.  At that time, we noted that Trump was charged with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a Class E felony under New York’s Penal Law Section 175.10. 

Each count of the indictment states that Trump, “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.”  We noted that the failure to specify the “other crime” at issue renders the indictment facially insufficient since it does not “provide an accused with adequately detailed factual allegations of an evidentiary nature sufficient for a defendant to prepare a defense, and prevent him from being tried twice for the same offense.”

In and of itself, the failure to present sufficient factual allegations should be enough to allow the Court to dismiss the indictment.  But there is another basis upon which the prosecution of Donald Trump could be rendered untenable.

A review of the indictment reveals that the criminal acts alleged occurred on a variety of dates between February 14, 2017 and December 5, 2017.  Yet, Donald Trump was not arraigned on these charges until April 4, 2023 – more than six years after the events happened.  Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Sec. 30.10(2)(b), “(a)  prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within five years after the commission thereof.”

Trump himself asserted that the Statute of Limitations had passed in a tweet from March.  Lawyer Tom Crist, writing for The Federalist agrees; “the D.A. had to bring…any felony charge in 2022 to survive a defense motion to dismiss. Bragg’s grand jury handed up charges in 2023 after the five-year limitations period expired…the time for Bragg to charge Trump for the crimes listed in the indictment expired months or years ago and can no longer be pursued.”   Of course, as with almost any law, there are exceptions and extensions available to Bragg’s office.  

One such argument for an extension of time can be made under CPL Sec. 30.10(4), which states that “in calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a  criminal action, the following periods shall not be included: (a) Any period following the commission of the offense during  which (i)  the  defendant  was  continuously  outside  this  state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and  continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

According to CNN, “(s)ince Trump was sworn into office in January 2017, he has spent few days in New York, which means prosecutors could effectively add that time to the clock and investigate earlier conduct.” The Daily Beast agrees; Trump’s time in the White House and his post-presidential political exile at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida may be gifting prosecutors much-needed extra time…Adam Kaufmann, an attorney who ran the Manhattan DA’s investigative unit for three years (said)  ‘it’s easy to prove he was not in the state of New York. There’s going to be records of where he was physically located every day for four years.’”

Attorney Crist does not think much of any effort to apply this exception to the former president: “CNN has been telling us since 2021, two years before Bragg’s indictment of the former president, that the time Trump spent in the White House would be tacked on to the New York statute of limitations to keep the prospect of criminal charges against Trump alive. Other networks have mimicked that conclusion. Each has focused on the contention that any period following the commission of the offense during which a defendant resided outside of New York will serve to extend the statutory time bar…Trump was front-page news for his entire presidency. He was not hiding from anyone. He did not evade Bragg. He loves and lives in the limelight…Trump routinely visited New York City over the last several years and maintains at least one home and business assets there. If Bragg could not figure out where Trump was from 2016 to 2022, he has bigger problems than this weak indictment.”   

Reasonable minds would tend to agree with Crist’s analysis here.  Trump was not making any effort to hide from the Manhattan DA’s office and its investigation from 2016 to 2023.  He maintained a residence in New York City during his presidency, and only recently established a Florida residency.  Even then, he was in and out of New York continuously during that time period.  

But the former president is not dealing with reasonable minds.  Further, as described by CNN, there is precedent for the use of the extension period of CPL Sec. 30.10(4);  “The (Manhattan) district attorney’s office invoked the out-of-state tolling extension in its criminal case against (Hollywood Producer Harvey) Weinstein. Prosecutors charged Weinstein with multiple crimes, including rape in the third degree for an alleged assault that occurred in March 2013. Weinstein was charged in May 2018, two months after the five-year statute of limitations on that offense would have expired. Weinstein challenged the charge, arguing it fell outside the statute of limitations and as a resident of New York state the extension wouldn’t apply to him. Prosecutors used records from “United States Customs and Border Control” to show that Weinstein had been out of New York for 193 days during that five-year period– more than the 68 days needed to capture the earlier conduct. The judge rejected Weinstein’s argument and allowed the charge to stand. Weinstein was convicted on charges of sexual assault and is serving a 23-year sentence.” 

Thus, it is entirely possible that the time Donald Trump spent in the White House, serving his country as the President of the United States, could be used against him in New York State Supreme Court.

There is also another issue that could allow for the extension of the time period for at least some of the charges brought against the former president.

On March 20, 2020, then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.8, which read in part, “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to the criminal procedure law, the family court act, the civil practice law and rules, the court of claims act, the surrogate’s court procedure act, and the uniform court acts, or by any other statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or part thereof, is hereby tolled from the date of this executive order until April 19, 2020…” This “toll” of the “time limit for the commencement…of any legal action” was continually extended until November 3, 2020, a total of approximately 8 months, or 228 days.

What does this mean?  In 2021, New York State’s Appellate Division, Second Department, in the case of Brash v. Richards, considered the question of “whether a series of executive orders issued by Governor Andrew Cuomo, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, constitute a toll…of filing deadlines applicable to litigation in the New York courts.”  The Court concluded  “that the subject executive orders constitute a toll of such filing deadlines.” 

The Court explained that  “(a) toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and ‘[t]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the [relevant time period].'”  (Citation omitted.)  As described by attorney Krystina Maola, “(s)hould the remaining appellate courts follow the holding in Brash and decide the Executive Orders were meant as a toll of filing deadlines, this would extend filing deadlines for a period of 228 days…Therefore, any statute of limitations that was set to expire on November 3, 2020 (the last day the Executive Orders provided for tolling) will now expire on June 19, 2021.” (Citation omitted.)

To understand the effect this tolling of the statute of limitations has on the Trump indictment will require a bit of math.  On average, the five years between 2017 and 2023 would add up to approximately 1,825 days.  Meanwhile, the time between December 5, 2017 (the last date of criminal conduct alleged against Trump) and the former president’s arraignment on April 4, 2023 is 1,946 days. This would mean that Trump’s arraignment occurred 121 days past the five year expiration of the stature of limitations .  

However, if we subtract the 228 days of the toll period (between March 20 and November 3, 2020) from those 1,946 days, we get 1,718 days.  That’s 108 days short of the five year expiration date.

These 108 days do not save all of the prosecutor’s charges.  The first 22 counts of the indictment, which allege acts which occurred between February 14, 2017 and August 1, 2017 are more than five years old, even given the Governor’s tolling order.  Only Counts 23 through 34, which allege illegal acts  which occurred between September 11, 2017 and December 5, 2017 would not be time barred under this analysis.

This means that some, but not all of the charges brought by the Manhattan DA’s Office could be dismissed under this theory.

In any event, as we discussed in April, the New York County Supreme Court justice hearing this matter is Juan Merchan, who has previously contributed to anti-Trump political organizations. The likelihood of a dismissal of any charges on any basis by Judge Merchan is low.  Instead, as stated by Vox, “we may need to wait a very long time before the courts determine once and for all whether Trump may be convicted under the felony statutes he is accused of violating — indeed, if the (United States) Supreme Court gets involved in this case, we may not get an answer until wellafter the 2024 election. And, of course, even if Bragg does convince the courts that Trump was properly charged with a felony, he will still need to prove that case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In other words – stay tuned.  This show is only just getting started.

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Juliet laments: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.”  William Shakespeare wrote that line long, long before the end of World War II, when Russia annexed a city situated between Lithuania and Poland and bordering on the Baltic Sea. Moscow renamed that enclave Kaliningrad. During Shakespeare’s time the Kingdom of Poland ruled the city, then named Krolewiec. This week Poland’s government decided the revert to the old name on all its official documents and in its communications. 

The reason Warsaw provided is that the Russian name honored a politician named Mikhail Kalinin, who is long associated with the 1940 execution of thousands of Polish officers by Soviet forces. The Kremlin declared the announcement a “hostile act.” According to Andrew Osborn of Reuters, Russian Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Poland’s decision “bordered on madness.” Osborn added that Peskov stated: “We know that throughout history Poland has slipped from time to time into this madness of hatred towards Russians.” In response, Poland’s committee on geographical standardization Tuesday clarified that “The current Russian name of this city is an artificial baptism unrelated to either the city or the region.” Little else is expected to change immediately outside of the city name used on government documents. The demolition of memorials in Poland honoring fallen Soviet troops will continue across the country. The war in Ukraine will go on, too. 

One transformation occurring in Europe over the last year, is that Western powers are setting aside differences, at least on the issue of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and presenting a united front. What was once believed in Moscow to be a “special military operation” of a few weeks’ duration, is now dragging on into its second year. Putin likes to talk about the war as contributing to fixing past wrongs against the Russian state and its people. Poland and the Western alliance disagree with the premise. Both Russia and Poland are both proud countries with long histories and significant roles in world affairs. While altering a name on a government document may not appear to be important to some people, Poland is firing a warning shot across the border aimed at the Kremlin leadership.

“The attack on Ukraine is not only a reflection of Putin’s pseudo-historical fantasies and delusions of grandeur but also the objective result of the entire development of the Russian power vertical over the past 20 years,” according to Boris Bondarev writing in Eurasia Daily. History is critically important in understanding how Putin perceives his position and threats to his regime. When policymakers are faced with an international crisis and unfamiliar predicaments, they tend to look to stories from the past to understand their present environment. This is, in part, why Poland’s announcement carries some weight. Professor Eric Mosinger, writing in Political Violence at a Glance, says that historical analogies help us to understand why “Western democracies suddenly ‘woke up’ after years of weak responses to Russian aggression against Ukraine. For many world leaders, parallels between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Nazi Germany’s 1939 invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland became impossible to ignore.” Recent research by Kai Thaler and Lisa Mueller, indicate that vivid historical parallels can transform people’s perception of the present and influence their subsequent behavior. Mosinger points out that from 2018-2020, “young Chileans and Nicaraguans facing police violence recalled the popular struggles their parents waged against brutal 1970s and 1980s dictatorships.” He says that much like Ukrainians, “Latin Americans mobilized en masse and adopted historic symbols, tactics, and paradigmatic roles in their efforts to challenge present-day repressive governments.” As the war in Ukraine drags on we may see further attempts by state leaders to use pieces of the past to influence future events. Poland’s message to Russia is that they have not forgotten the past. The Soviets may have renamed the city, but it is still Poland at heart. It may be time for Putin to wake up and smell the roses.

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

Photo: Pixabay

There is a pandemic of incompetent, corrupt, and bizarre politicians who are being elected to significant offices.

Rep. George Santos, a Republican from Long Island, has been shown to be a compulsive liar and all-around weirdo. Bill DeBlasio, former mayor of New York City, quickly proved himself to be corrupt and incompetent.  He was, however, re-elected. Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman, who has destructive views about releasing hardened criminals from jail, suffered a debilitating stroke but was elected to the U.S. Senate.  As of this writing, he is back in the hospital suffering from depression. California’s Adam Schiff who blatantly lied to the nation about alleged evidence of “Russian Collusion,” tearing the nation apart, now is seeking a Senate seat and stands a substantial chance of winning a Democrat primary for that position.  That same state’s Rep. Eric Swalwell had a relationship with a Chinese spy, but complained when he was removed from the House Intelligence Committee.

This list, comprising members of both parties, could go on and on.

Consider the case of the former Mayor of Washington, D.C., the late Marion Barry. He was videotaped during a sting operation smoking crack cocaine and was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on drug charges. He served six months in a federal prison. After his release, he was elected to the Council of the District of Columbia in 1992. He was elected again as mayor in 1994, serving from 1995 to 1999.

Perhaps the question is no longer Republican vs. Democrat or even conservative vs. leftist, but of honest, mentally sound individuals vs. irrational or dishonest beings.

Why does the public vote for oddballs, dishonest and logic-challenged individuals? There is at least one interesting theory.

 A 2020 study by Pew Research noted that a large share of voters planned to vote a straight party ticket for president, Senate and House. Just 4% of registered voters support Trump or Biden and a Senate candidate from the opposing party. “It found that ‘In an era of increasing partisanship, split-ticket voting continues to be rare in U.S. politics. With control of the Senate at stake on Nov. 3, just 4% of registered voters in states with a Senate contest say they will support Donald Trump or Joe Biden and a Senate candidate from the opposing party. In voting for both the House and Senate, partisanship prevails. About eight-in-ten of voters (78%) say they will vote (or already have voted) for either Biden and the Democratic House of Representatives candidate (43% of all voters) or Trump and the Republican candidate (35% of all voters) in their congressional district.’”

The message is clear. Too many voters don’t particularly research or care about the individual candidate, but vote for whomever happens to be on the party line that they identify with. That allows individuals with diminished capacity, strange views, even criminal records, to win office.

Some individuals mistakenly believe they are compelled to vote for the party they are enrolled in, a clearly erroneous concept.  Others may feel such deep distrust, even hatred, for the “other” party that they will vote for whomever runs against them. This may well have been the case in the 2020 presidential election. 

Former President Barack Obama famously stated that “elections have consequences.” Voting for a candidate based on party registration, regardless of their personal capabilities, can produce a government filled with individuals whose only “qualification” is membership in a political party.  It also leads to elected officials whose first loyalty is to their political party, not to their constituents.

President George Washington disdained the division of the nation into quarrelling political sides, and warned against their growing influence.  The discredited concept of voting for the party, not the candidate, is the fulfillment of his concern.

Illustration: Pixabay

The federal government has spent enormous sums of money, and will spend a great deal more in the coming year.  But what has it gained?

America’s national debt stands at $31.4 trillion, and the annual deficit as of November was $249 billion. That absurd deficit figure is a record-breaking jump over the prior year, $57 billion higher than November of 2021, with federal spending up $28 billion from last year to $501 billion in November 2022.

Unlike prior periods of extensive spending, there is little to show for the profligacy of federal, state and local government spending.  The much-touted Infrastructure bill will add about $400 billion to the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but confidence is low that it will actually assist infrastructure. While the public may believe its funds will be committed solely to roads, bridges, and similar programs, A KPRC study lists a number of projects where the cash will be diverted to.  These include:  $10 Billion to Create a ‘Civilian Climate Corp’; $20 Billion to ‘Advance Racial Equity and Environmental Justice’; $175 Billion in Subsidies for Electric Vehicles; $213 Billion to Build/Retrofit 2 Million Houses & Buildings; Billions to Eliminate ‘Racial and Gender Inequities’ in certain educational areas; and $25 Billion for Government Childcare Programs.

Occasionally, the government’s use of copious amounts of cash can be justified.  Over the past several years, Washington has indeed spent a great deal. Covid accounts for a portion of that, but far more has been designed for other causes that seem to have little benefit.

The southern border remains unsecured, with far too much spent on taking care of illegals who should not have been admitted in the first place.

Despite vast sums spent on defense, China has a larger navy and Russia a more powerful nuclear force. The Taliban now has a vast supply of our weaponry, thanks to Biden’s inept withdrawal. As the very real threat to American National Security grows, the Pentagon prioritizes “Woke” training over combat preparedness.

 Our students lag behind their foreign counterparts, despite the fact that the federal, state and local governments spend far more on education than other developed nations. Despite the worrisome shortfall in academic achievement, spending on non-academic issues increases. One example: Breitbart reports that “The Oregon Department of Education (DoE) is set to spend $2 million on a campaign to launch pro ‘LGBTQ2SIA+’ curriculum, teacher training, and ‘pride events.’”

Crime has reached and surpassed urgent crisis levels. Our power grid remains extremely vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters. These issues remain unresolved despite all those tax dollars being spent on other matters.

In a published report by the late George P. Schultz, (a former Treasury Secretary) along with John Cogan and John Taylor published in a Project Syndicate commentary, those three distinguished authors wrote that

“Many in Washington now seem to think that the US federal government can spend a limitless amount of money without any harmful economic consequences. They are wrong. Excessive federal spending is creating grave economic and national-security risks. America’s fiscal recklessness must stop. The COVID-19 crisis has provided the latest impetus for government spending, even to the point of steering the American mindset toward socialism – a doctrine that has always harmed people’s well-being.  High and rising US national debt will eventually crowd out private investment, thereby slowing economic growth and job creation. The Federal Reserve’s continued accommodation of deficit spending will inevitably lead to rising inflation. Financial markets will become more prone to turmoil, increasing the chance of another big economic downturn.”

Far too much continues to be spent on “earmarks,” spending programs that do more to help incumbents get re-elected that actually benefit the nation.  The 2022 “Pig Book,” published by the Citizens Against Government Waste, exposes 5,138 earmarks, an increase of 1,702.8 percent from the 285 in FY 2021, at a cost of $18.9 billion, an increase of 18.9 percent from the $15.9 billion in earmarks in FY 2021.  The cost of the FY 2022 earmarks is 14.5 percent higher than the $16.5 billion in FY 2010.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Biden Administration, which continuously underfunds the military, now wants to impose a demand to convert the military’s vehicles, tanks, trucks, and others, to electric and electric hybrid versions.

According to Military.com,

“Fleets of electric vehicles ready to …slash greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decade — that’s what the Pentagon is hoping it can pull off as part of President Joe Biden’s efforts to combat climate change, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said Monday. Tactical vehicles will first go hybrid, using a mix of fossil fuels and electricity, before making a full transition, while about 170,000 non-tactical cars and trucks used on military bases could go right to electric, Hicks said while touting the climate initiatives at Wayne State University in Michigan…The Army has more than 242,000 tactical wheeled vehicles such as the Humvee, according to the Government Accountability Office.”

Beyond the enormous cost this would result in, the practical considerations and tactical risks are overwhelming. Consider just a few problems this causes. Electric vehicles take long periods of time to recharge.  Will the enemy patiently wait while this occurs? Speaking of recharging, where will one find the electrical outlets to plug the tanks into? (Here’s an idea: gas-powered generators to provide electrical generating stations.  Then what’s the point of going electric in the first place?)

It has already been reported that electric vehicles are prone to devastating battery fires.  What will happen when you mix that problem with volatile ammunition?

The raw materials to build EVs come from America’s enemies.  In times of conflict, will the very nations we are fighting agree to sell America the materials that will be used to build the weapons that will be used against them?

In times of conflict, vehicles are used extensively, and they wear out quickly.  The logistical nightmare of replacing the batteries needed to keep EV’s operable would strain an already overstressed system.

The plan is being sold as good for the environment.  The mining of the necessary minerals, and the impossibility of recycling the batteries, would be an environmental disaster.

This absurd proposal dovetails with yet another move by the current White House, to impose “woke” values on the military, which has been widely credited with discouraging enlistments.

As China’s navy continues to grow, the U.S. Navy shrinks. China now has more nuclear launchers than the U.S.  Russia has modernized its nuclear arsenal, as America’s becomes increasingly obsolescent.

It has become undeniable that this White House is not serious about National Security.  As GOP Congressional officials point out,

“Joe Biden has failed to stand up to our adversaries in Beijing, Tehran, and Moscow.  The Biden Administration allowed a Chinese surveillance balloon to traverse the entire continental U.S. over the course of 7 days, gathering intelligence and flying over sensitive military sites, before taking action. 

“Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan resulted in: OVER 1,000 Americans abandoned behind enemy lines for months at the mercy of the Taliban and $7 billion in U.S. military equipment left behind. 

“Under Biden, the U.S Army fell 15,000 soldiers short of their recruitment goal for FY22, missing by 25%. According to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, who testified before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, ‘This constitutes an unprecedented mission gap. The Army projects the number of active duty soldiers could drop by as much as 6% in FY23, below the branch’s budgeted target request for the year. ‘“

Part of being prudent about defense is taking care of our veterans. After analyzing the Veterans Administration budget, the Veterans of Foreign Wars notes that $17.8 billion additional is needed to adequately care for those put their lives on the line for the nation, and incurred damages as a result.

Some of the numerous errors made by the current White House can be rectified, with some pain, in future, more rational administrations.  Not so when it comes to national security. 

Photo: An M1A1-SA Abrams tank belonging to D Troop, 6th Squadron, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, moves along the boundary road en route to its battle position during the gunnery qualification at Fort Stewart, Ga., March 29, 2018. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Nathan C. Berry

Japan many be among the most long-standing and consistent foreign partners Central Asian states have today, yet little is publicly mentioned about its role. In recent years great power competition in the region is headlined typically by the Russia-China competition. It was Tokyo, however, that was the first foreign partner to introduce a C5+1 style cooperation format. A Fact Sheet put out by the US Department of State earlier this year discusses the C5+1 but does not mention Japan’s effort. Instead it touts it as Washington’s dialogue format with the region. The United States’ C5+1 diplomatic platform jointly engages all five Central Asian governments (Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan). Today, the Japanese Foreign Ministry has its own Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue as a political initiative to promote inter-regional cooperation between the five Central Asian states and Japan, with the goal to create “a new framework for cooperation, thereby elevating relations between Japan and Central Asia to a new level.” There are advantages for cooperation with Tokyo in Central Asia.

Japan is viewed as “an Asian country and can present itself as one with the region; at the same time, it is an economic success story and embodies Western capitalistic and democratic values,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He says that Tokyo can be more effective in promoting Western values because the country is seen as “one of their own, rather than an outsider.” Japan also plays an important regional role in technology transfer and as an educational and labor migration destination for Central Asians, according to a Carnegie Endowment for Peace Report. What is Japan’s role in Central Asia’s multilateral foreign policy? Its presence provides an opportunity for the Central Asian states to diversify and decolonize their relationships with the world at large. Japan, notes Goble, works quietly on smaller soft power projects to avoid conflict with the great powers competing for regional influence while promoting moves toward more democratic political arrangements. Its economic size supports efforts to finance projects it supports in the five Central Asian states.

“Tokyo has also been successful because it has been conceptually flexible to a degree many have not fully appreciated,” says Goble. Few media outlets give Japan, not China, credit as the first to use the term “new silk road” to discuss east-west cooperation with Central Asian countries, according to a December 2008 article in Silk Road Studies. Japan takes a holistic approach to the region, holding more C5+1 format meetings than almost any other nation-state.  Nikolay Murashkin and Eriks Varpahovskis, writing in the Journal of Eurasian Studies last summer, argue that Japan’s emphasis is on its potential to serve as a development model for Central Asian state, “which embarked on post-socialist transition to the market economy and were contemplating various modernization scenarios following the collapse of the USSR.” They suggest that Japan represents a non-Western model of economic catch-up development, while also being a major provider of “development assistance with approaches distinct from Western donors.”

Unlike China’s heavy-handed, predatory approach the Japanese create programs that address immediate humanitarian and economic concerns, including schools and needed transportation infrastructure. More than 100 Central Asian scholars travel to Japan annually just to study its version of Western views on humanitarian assistance and development.Marina Dmitriyeva, a specialist on international relations at Russia’s Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok, writes in CyberLenika, that “Tokyo’s activity in the region is characterized not so much by bold initiatives as by the gradual development of practical projects, mostly focused on economic issues,” adding that “Japan presents itself as an alternative to China and Russia for the countries of Central Asia.” Tokyo’s soft power policies, she adds, promote “liberal values,” while recognizing “the special importance of Japan’s common Asian identity with the countries of the region.” Some officials in Beijing and Moscow are wary of Tokyo’s motives, as they view Japan as standing in for American power in the region. Goble argues this could lead to conflicts between Tokyo, Russia, and China in the future but, for now, Japan is quietly expanding its influence in Central Asia even if the West is not noticing.   

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