Month: June 2023

The American justice system was once a method to protect citizens and their property.  It has been transformed into a political tool to enforce progressive ideals, protect progressive politicians, and punish anyone who disagrees with them. 

In New York City, a courageous Marine veteran, Daniel Penny, protected subway riders from a rampaging criminal, Jordan Neely, with a long record including 42 prior crimes. Among his offenses was the unprovoked, vicious assault on an elderly female as she exited a subway station.  

In the course of the struggle, the violent frequent offender died. Rather than being praised for his selfless act, Penny was indicted. One local official described Penny’s indictment as “defying logic.”   Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, is a radical progressive who has done everything in his power to let violent criminals escape significant punishment.  Bragg’s absurd action is backed by the state’s governor, Kathy Hochul.

In California, San Francisco being the prime example, whole communities are becoming retail deserts because of a refusal to enforce laws against shoplifting.

In Oregon, noted the Wall Street Journal,  “Almost Half of Federal Cases Against Portland Rioters Have Been Dismissed. Many charged in connection with violence surrounding last year’s racial-justice protests have completed community service and won’t be tried.”

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has complained to Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding answers on the Department of Justice’s decision to pursue a lenient sentence for a BLM rioter because of what he was protesting. Last year, Montez Terriel Lee, Jr. broke into the Max It Pawn Shop in Minneapolis, Minn., and poured fire accelerant throughout the store. The body of 30-year-old Oscar Lee Stewart was found in the rubble of the pawnshop, and medical examiners attributed his death to “probable inhalation of products of combustion and thermal injury (building fire).” Lee’s casual violence, in short, killed Mr. Stewart. During Lee’s sentencing process, the Department of Justice contended that “the analysis of the [Sentencing] Guidelines does not appear appropriate” because Lee “appears to have believed that he was, in Dr. King’s eloquent words, engaging in ‘the language of the unheard.’”

Hillary Clinton clearly violated the law when she willfully destroyed federal evidence to coverup her prior crime.  The Justice Department refused to prosecute.

Similarly, investigations into Hunter Biden’s manifest crimes are being “slow walked” by the FBI and DOJ, in a move to delay action until after the election when he can be pardoned by President Biden without worrying about the effect on voter opinion.

And then, of course, there is the case of Joe Biden, “The Big Guy” who abused his office for cash. No action appears to be coming from DOJ in response.

Biden and Trump appear to have both taken classified documents with them after leaving office. Trump is being prosecuted, Biden is not. A clear argument can be made that Biden’s offense was worse. He stored some of his files at a site where they were open fo inspection by China.

IRS official Lois Lerner illegally used her position to inhibit Tea Party organizers. Again, no punishment.

There has been no move to prosecute Adam Schiff or Hillary Clinton for their utterly false accusations of “Russian Collusion” that tore the nation apart for years.

The only crimes that appear to capture the attention of DOJ are those that are artificial constructs used to assault political opponents.  California Governor Gavin Newsom is ludicrously threatening possible criminal prosecution of Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis for sending illegal immigrants to California—despite that state’s claim to be a sanctuary state.

The evidence is abundant and clear: Democrat Party Progressives have captured key portions of the justice system and are using their power to protect the lawbreakers that further their agenda and punish political opponents.

Photo: Attorney General Merrick Garland

                                              Judge John H. Wilson (ret.)

In June of 2022, the US Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, held that New York State’s  requirement for a gun license applicant to show “proper cause” for their request to own a gun was a violation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Of particular note, Thomas stated that  “(n)othing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms…’the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ – ‘guarantee(s) the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'”  Therefore, there is no distinction made by the Second Amendment between maintaining a firearm in your home/place of business, or carrying that same firearm on your person. 

As described by Justice Thomas, “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees’ (Citation omitted)” Thomas wrote. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self defense.”   

As we noted in our discussion of the case in July of 2022, rather than accept the unconstitutional nature of New York’s restrictions on the right to bear arms in public, instead, New York issued yet more restrictions on a citizen’s ability to carry a firearm in self defense, “including designating many public places as gun-free zones and adding more permits requirements.”  

We also described the barriers placed in the way of citizens who would secure a firearms license in New York City in particular by the licensing authorities. 

But, we also noted that New York’s criminal statutes, which outlaw the possession of a firearm in public, were unconstitutionally overbroad, and have been for many years.  For instance, under New York Penal Law Section 265.01(1), a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if “(h)e or she possesses any firearm,” which is defined at 265.00(3)(a) as “any pistol or revolver.”     Then there is the more onerous PL Section 265.01-b, enacted under former Governor Andrew Cuomo, which makes it a Class E felony to possess “any firearm.”  There is no qualitative difference between the language used in the felony charge or the misdemeanor quoted above – and both obviously conflict with Justice Thomas’ ruling in Bruen.  

Further, how is one to know whether one will be charged with the felony, or the misdemeanor, if one is found in possession of a pistol in a public place in New York City? Your guess is as good as mine – and I was a Criminal Lawyer for 20 years, and a Criminal Court Judge for 10 more.

These unconstitutional gun laws have always been a problem for law-abiding citizens who need to protect themselves while going about their business, especially now that violent crime has increased exponentially in the past few years.  As of March of 2023, there have been 31 murders, 1,253 robberies, 2,102 felony assaults, and 4,129 grand larcenies.  While these numbers are a small reduction from last year (for instance, by March of 2022 there were 35 murders, 1,271 robberies and 2,063 felony assaults), there is no denying that these numbers remain high.  

Charles Foehner, a 65 year old resident of Queens, has watched his neighborhood deteriorate.  In August of 2020, he was interviewed by the New York Post regarding a local hotel that had become a dangerous “flophouse.”   “This isn’t our nice little neighborhood anymore,” Foehner said. “People come down the block and key a car as they pass it. Drug deals are going on in the lobby…Six weeks ago two people got shot and not even a week ago they came by — and I don’t know if it’s auto- or semi-auto or full-auto fire, I don’t know — but someone shot at the hotel…This is not how I want my neighborhood.”  

But Charles stayed in his neighborhood, watching the criminal element get stronger and stronger – until the night a criminal came for him.

According to the New York Post, on May 31st, Charles “was walking home around 2 a.m. when (a) 32-year-old alleged robber came up to him at a driveway leading to a parking garage on 82nd Avenue near Queens Boulevard in Kew Gardens…(t)he erratic mugger demanded cash and cigarettes while flashing an unknown sharp object,,,(t)hat’s when…Charles Foehner…pulled out a silver revolver and shot him multiple times in the chest…”

32 year old Cody Gonzalez tried to run from the scene after being shot, but collapsed and died from his injuries.  “Surveillance video of the deadly encounter appears to show Foehner pointing a handgun at Gonzalez while taking steps backward while Gonzalez continues to act erratically and suddenly lunges at Foehner.  Foehner fired the gun and struck Gonzalez… Foehner called 911 saying he was involved in a shooting and that his firearm was in his jacket pocket.”

Predictably enough, “Gonzalez…had at least 15 arrests dating back to 2004 and a record of mental illness” at the time of his death.  By all accounts, Charles Foehner was and is a law abiding citizen with no prior arrests or convictions.

Yet, the New York City Police Department found a reason to arrest the victim – for possession of the pistol he used to defend himself.

The case against Charles then got worst when he forgot to exercise his rights under the Fifth Amendment, and gave a statement to the police.  Based on his statements, the Police got a search warrant, and recovered the rest of Charles’ firearms – “roughly 30 handguns, revolvers and rifles, plus ammunition” from Charles’ apartment.  According to the NYPD, “(a)mong the firearms were 17 handguns, including the one used in the (Gonzalez) shooting…Fourteen other guns in the house were long guns. Six of them were legally possessed.”

As also noted by the New York Post, “(d)uring police questioning, Foehner…cited the city’s crime as the reason why he was armed when confronted by Gonzalez…’Last night I was carrying a firearm because of the way that the city has been in the last three years. I read the crime stats and I see so much crime,’ Foehner reportedly told investigators.”

For his efforts at self-defense, and in consequence of the statement he gave the police, Charles Foehner faces a series of felony and misdemeanor gun charges.  He is currently at liberty after posting  a $100,000 bond, and is awaiting Grand Jury action. 

As noted by Seth Barron, Managing Editor of The American Mind, “Queens DA Melinda Katz contemplated homicide charges, but after reviewing video footage showing assailant Cody Gonzalez menacing Foehner, she realized that no sober-minded Queens jury would ever convict a neighbor in such an obvious case of self-defense.”  

However, Barron also states that  “Charles Foehner should not have been carrying an unlicensed handgun, and he ought to be prosecuted for this crime. He should go to jail.”

Really?  Why should a man go to jail for defending himself with a weapon that he has the right to possess under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, merely because the laws of New York conflict with the Second Amendment?  Especially when the laws of that State make it nearly impossible to get a legal firearm?

What else was Charles supposed to do?  If he did not carry that pistol, he may have been the one lying dead on that sidewalk in Queens, instead of his violent assailant.

Perhaps instead of victimizing Charles Foehner twice, the District Attorney of Queens County should treat this case as leniently as every other case in New York City is currently treated.

And perhaps New York should reconsider enforcing laws that keep the guns out of the hands of peaceful people engaged in necessary self defense. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis brought two nuclear-armed nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, to the brink of catastrophic warfare. Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev had assumed incorrectly that President John F. Kennedy would not attempt to counter the installation of Soviet medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Cuba that were capable of reaching and destroying many eastern US cities. Kennedy forced the issue, the Soviet Union backed down, and then removed the missiles. Just over 50 years later, on June 8, 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that China has a new secret base in Cuba, after paying Havana a large sum of money for the site. The Biden White House and Pentagon immediately denied the Wall Street Journal story, calling it “inaccurate,” although days later it was forced to relent and admit the only inaccuracy in the article was that the Chinese base was “not new” and has been operational for some time.

Senators Warner and Rubio, leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a written statement last week saying “the United States must respond to China’s ongoing and brazen attacks on our nation’s security. We must be clear that it would be unacceptable for China to establish an intelligence facility within a hundred miles of Florida and the United States in an area also populated with key military installations and extensive maritime traffic.” The Chinese eavesdropping facility in Cuba, it has been learned, is 22 years old. Since then, China has added Chinese government-sponsored radio broadcasting from Cuba and other undisclosed capabilities. It is only part of the new Cold War story.

America’s critical infrastructure is at high risk, according to Miles Yu, a senior fellow and program manager of the China Center at the Hudson Institute. There are two high-profile countries that China pays close attention to, he says. Xi Jinping views both as the top enemies of the United States. One is North Korea; the other is Cuba. Both have been “first stops” for Chinese leaders when sending a message to the United States. In April 2001, after the EP-3 plane crash incident in which a Chinese fighter jet damaged a US reconnaissance place in international airspace, and forced it down on China’s Hainan, then-President Jiang Zemin refused to take phone calls from President Bush and then flew to Cuba. While there he composed anti-American poems.  

A few years earlier, Che Guevara, sponsored by Fidel Castro, flew to Beijing where he was greeted warmly and given money and political coverage. China awarded Fidel Castro the 2^nd “Confucius Prize.” The first was awarded to Vladimir Putin. Over the last two decades China has improved Cuba’s telecommunications infrastructure and signed several large arms deals. Miles Yu notes that “hanky panky” between Cuba and China is ongoing and serious. “…in March 2015, a Chinese government-owned container Costco container ship was caught by the Colombian port authority for secretly shipping large amount of banned arms to Cuba. That would include 99 rockets, 3000 cannon shells, 100 tons of military grade dynamite, 2.6 million detonators. And they’re all made by the Chinese defense giant, Norinco, and they’re all hidden at the bottom of the cargo ship.” 

The Russian threat is in the open. The Chinese threat is subterranean, systematic, and more worrisome as Xi and the CCP plan for the future long in advance of open events. China is not only a threat 90 miles off the Florida coastline. The American public recently learned that Chinese high altitude surveillance balloons have been flying over the US for many years. In NY, so-called Chinese overseas police stations, have been active on American soil for a long time. Confucius Institutes flourished for many years on US college campuses. When shut down by some schools, they  simply changed their name and continued their spy and  influence operations. This week US Secretary of State Tony Blinken is in Beijing hoping to meet with leaders there to discuss Taiwan and other issues. Some analysts suggest not much will come of the meetings as the US continues to be played by the CCP leadership. 

The reality is China’s economy is faltering. It needs the United States. World trust in the CCP is at a very low level and Beijing must save its financial institutions, including many banks that are deeply in debt. The country is in worse shape than its propaganda would suggest. That does not mean China will back down. Instead, the West can expect China to cater to Western banks by opening up its financial markets in hopes of a huge infusion of capital. If we do so, Miles Yu says “we’d become suckers again… we have to be very clear on what kind of game China is playing and should be realistic.” Along with Covid, China’s own statements of strategic intent, and its actions, have begun waking up the American public in recent years. Xi’s spy base in Cuba is only the latest in a long series of incidents that threaten US national security.  

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

At a speech in Helsinki last week, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken said that “When you look at President Putin’s long-term strategic aims and objectives, there is no question: Russia is significantly worse off today than it was before its full-scale invasion of Ukraine – militarily, economically, geopolitically.” While that may be true from one perspective, another looms on the horizon that needs to be addressed by Western leaders.

In the next year Russia is likely to have a greater impact on the West and global trade than in recent decades, while also emerging as more dangerous threat to the democratic West, than acknowledged by the Biden Administration. A cornered and weak Putin, according to intelligence analysts in Washington, is capable of striking out with great force against those who oppose his goal of reconstituting the Russian Empire. He’s getting encouragement from Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who benefits from Russia’s keeping the West engaged outside of Asia. Unlike the earlier Soviet era, China is the more dominant partner coaxing Russia into geopolitical challenges that benefit Beijing’s global ambitions. One region of interest to both Russia and China is the Arctic and the potential year-round opening of the Northern Sea Route (NSR).

In a recent video conference, the Russian president called the NSR “extremely important” to Russia as its potential year round opening fulfills a dream first envisioned three centuries ago by Tsar Peter the Great… an all-water route from the Barents Sea to the Pacific through his empire’s coastal Arctic waters. Mike Shuler, writing in the maritime publication GCaptain, says that Russia’s Minister for the Development of the Russian Far East and Arctic, Alexei Chekunkov, reported that freight traffic along the NSR already has increased from 4 million tons in 2014 to 34 million tons last year, making it a major transport corridor for the export of oil, LNG, minerals, fertilizers, metals, and other products. 

It will require an upgrade of the region’s infrastructure, from cargo hubs and ports to additional Russian icebreakers and ice-class ships, according to Chekunkov. Technological advances in navigation and steel-hulled icebreakers, along with today’s powerful maritime engines and global trade environment, make the Arctic a highly prized transport highway. Ninety years after Otto Shmidt’s expedition sailed the first Soviet icebreaker, Aleksandr Sibiriakov, through the Arctic from Arkhangel’sk to the Bering Strait without wintering, it appears Putin will be fulfilling the earlier dream of Peter the Great, only now Russia will not be the only nation to benefit from the NSR. China stands to gain in many ways since Putin has placed the NSR under Rosatomflot’s control 13 months ago. The West will be increasingly occupied with Russia’s Arctic plans and China will acquire a new shorter passageway to the Atlantic Ocean, European markets, and the American East coast.  

Sanctions stimulated Russia to seek new avenues for its exports and elevated development of the NSR to a high priority, with China’s backing. Rosatom CEO Alexei Likhachev met with Putin recently to discuss the region. He confirmed that “Together with Novatek, we are planning to launch year-round navigation in the eastern part of the NRS next year.” Despite sanctions on Russia, the NSR will play an important global trade role for energy importing nations, such as China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia. John Daly, of the Jamestown Foundation says that “Since 2013, COSCO Shipping, China’s largest shipping company, has made more than 20 transit voyages along the route, escorted by Russian Rosatomflot nuclear icebreakers.” While many economic constraints exists for the route’s development, China has shown an interest in asserting itself in the region. 

“Impelled by 11 rounds of unwanted Western sanctions, Chekunkov said that his department’s goal is to ensure that the NSR can transit up to 100 million tons by 2026 and 200 million tons by 2030,” according to Daly. Putin needs Beijing’s interest in the NSR for financial reasons. For Beijing, the NSR is the single guaranteed secure maritime transport corridor if the United States and its allies try to block China’s Pacific trade routes. Russia and China want a trade route. One question is what else is China after by pushing for the NSR? The world may know as soon as next year.

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

Concern over America’s vulnerability to nuclear attack strikes some as a legacy issue from the days of the Soviet Union. The reality, however, is that the U.S. is more at risk now than ever before.

According to the commander of U.S. Strategic Forces, Admiral Charles A. Richard,  “For the first time in our history, the nation is facing two nuclear-capable strategic peer adversaries at the same time…Chinese and Russian advances are eroding our conventional deterrence.”

Russia has modernized and diversified its atomic threat.   Overall, notes Russia Beyond Russia has made a number of breakthroughs in the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles, significantly outstripping Washington in several areas.

Russia has engaged in conventional and nuclear capability modernization, which is around 80% complete. The U.S. nuclear modernization effort has not yet started.

Moscow’s determination to expand its nuclear weapons geographical basing is becoming more significant.  The Daily Mail discovered that Russia is set to deploy more nuclear weapons in the Arctic. In addition to highly worrisome weaponry, the proliferation of atomic weaponry is a concern.  Recently, Moscow has provided nuclear strike capability to its puppet state Belarus. RT reports that during a meeting with Russian key officials, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu reported that “Part of the Belarusian attack air fleet have received the ability to conduct strikes on enemy targets with nuclear means of destruction.”   

In the past, Moscow was the sole major concern.  That has changed dramatically.

Beijing now has more nuclear launchers than Washington.  A Heritage study  found that “The China has surpassed the U.S. in the number of intercontinental ballistic missile launchers it has. The former commander of U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard, stated, ‘As I assess our level of deterrence against China, the ship is slowly sinking.’ As China continues its nuclear expansion, the U.S. needs a nuclear force able to convince China that the costs of using nuclear weapons overwhelmingly outweigh any benefits. Right now, it’s unlikely the U.S. can do that with a nuclear force not big enough to take on Russian and Chinese nuclear forces at the same time. It is well past time the U.S. make plans to strengthen its nuclear forces to bolster deterrence of the growing Chinese threat. These efforts should include increasing the overall size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and fielding additional capabilities like the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile. The U.S. will also need to improve its ability to make changes to its nuclear forces as the threat continues to quickly evolve.’”

North Korea has the ability to launch nuclear weapons to the American mainland. Biden’s hasty and amateurish withdrawal from Afghanistan will strength the hands of terrorists, including those in nearby Pakistan, a nuclear stated heavily infiltrated by groups that wish intense harm on America.

A Rand analysis reports that “North Korea’s nuclear weapons might soon pose a serious threat to the United States; even a few of them could cause millions of fatalities and serious casualties if detonated on … U.S. cities…The authors of this Perspective argue that there is a growing gap etween North Korea’s nuclear weapon threat and ROK and U.S. capabilities to defeat it.”

As we have reported previously, even a single nuclear detonation over the center of the U.S. could unleash an EMP wave that could devastate all mainland electrical power, causing massive deaths.

Iran is on the verge of a nuclear breakout. Biden’s hasty and amateurish withdrawal from Afghanistan will strengthen the hands of terrorists, including those in nearby Pakistan, a nuclear stated heavily infiltrated by terrorist groups that wish intense harm on America.

Ignoring or downplaying all of these realities is exceptionally, even existentially, dangerous.

Illustration: Pixabay

Remember a quaint concept called “democracy?”

Apparently, progressive elected officials and partisans have forgotten that idea.  Time and again, they have rammed unwanted policies down the throat of communities suffering from their radical and foolish ideas, protecting wrongdoers whose actions assault the very practice of free speech and participatory government by all.

New York’s senior U.S. senator introduced, several years ago, a measure which would have limited the application of the First Amendment.  Fortunately, it was defeated.  The attacks on free speech, a central tenet of democracy, remains under bitter attack. Under the dishonest guise of addressing “disinformation,” progressive-dominated federal agencies do all that they can to oppress, suppress and prosecute journalists who don’t kneel to progressive ideas. Consider reporter Mike Taibbi. Although generally siding with Democrat policies in the past, he broke rank with them when, in good conscience, he couldn’t abide by assaults on journalist integrity by the Federal Trade Commission when he exposed federal officials who strong-armed social media to help elect Biden in the 2020 elections. He has since been harassed for this noble deed.

A Federalist investigation reports that “…the ‘Twitter Files’ and the Washington Examiner’s coverage of the Global Disinformation Index have revealed an expansive Censorship Complex that seeks to silence Americans for money, politics, ideology, and power… A search of government contracts and grants for the eight fiscal years from 2016 through today for the keywords “misinformation” or “disinformation” reveals 538 federal government grants and 36 contracts were awarded to a wide range of academic institutions and non-governmental organizations… an initial investigation into the nonprofits and academic institutions mentioned in the “Twitter Files” reveals government grants, donations from other liberal nonprofits, and money from leftist billionaires funded the expansion of the Censorship Complex. Research also shows the non-governmental organizations pushing the disinformation narrative are uniformly directed and run by former government employees, left-wing media types, and left-leaning or anti-Trump individuals.”

 Poll after poll demonstrates that Americans are deeply concerned about Chinese espionage, but some Justice Department officials ignore that and instead concentrate on nonsensical investigations of Roman Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass, and harassment of parents who object to sexual indoctrination of youngsters, both direct assaults on the First Amendment.

Our youngest students are subjected to “drag queen” exhibits and those who object are labelled homophobic. When NYC City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino objected to this offense, she was kicked out of the Council’s mental health committee.  Parents who have objected to this and similar practices are labelled as “domestic terrorists” by the federal government’s rogue Justice Department.

The anti-free speech movement is an outgrowth of what has occurred on college campuses. Speakers, professors, and students who dare to differ with left wing thought are ostracized, harassed, and subjected to threats of violence.  The lates example occurred at Stanford Law School. Federal Appeals Court Judge Kyle Duncan’s remarks were drowned out by Progressive students. Afterwards, Tirien Steinbach, the associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, instead of rebuking the disturbing actions of these future attorneys, criticized Judge Duncan.

In truly Orwellian fashion, we have been asked to accept that, over months and months, violent, murderous mobs that invade police stations, attack federal courthouses, assault passersby, loot stores, burn buildings and declare portions of a city to be independent of state, local and national laws are “peaceful protesters.” These criminals are given this falsely benign title because they largely adhere to Progressive ideas. Indeed, they have been assisted at the highest levels of government. Then-candidate’s Kamala Harris’s campaign assisted in raising bail money for some participants

Ignoring the needs and wishes of local residents, City and State officials across the nation have instituted truly insane no bail policies and other so-called criminal justice “reforms” which have wreaked havoc on public safety, despite the frightened cries of the citizenry.

The assault on democracy is real, substantial, and ongoing.

Illustration: Pixabay

The most startling aspect of the recent Trump indictment has nothing to do with the indictment itself. Rather, it is the fact that Joe Biden has committed exactly the same offense and has not received a similar treatment. Indeed, Biden’s offense is far worse.  He was not president when he removed the documents, and had no ability to declassify them. Further, unlike the relatively secure confines of Mar-a-Lago, he stored sensitive materials in a location open to China, further adding to the growing body of evidence that Biden received payment from Beijing to influence policy.

The evidence is now undeniable and clear.  The machinery of the federal government has been hijacked for partisan political purposes by Democrats. The leaders of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI are not elected officials. They are answerable to them. They have done everything possible to stonewall investigations embarrassing to Democrats.

The DOJ as well as its subdivision the Federal Bureau of Investigation, now operates in part as a wing of the Democratic Party. The refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her wanton destruction of federal evidence, the lack of interest in Biden influence peddling, ignoring Senator Schumer’s threats against justices of the United States Supreme Court (as well as the reluctance to provide adequate protection to physically threatened conservative justices), the bizarre tarmac meeting between then-attorney general Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton regarding the Hillary misdeeds,  the extreme measures taken against Trump campaign officials, and more are all overt hits against the concept of an impartial DOJ.

That is just one part of the federal government. While in her position, the Internal Revenue Service’s former Lois Lerner used her office to discriminate and discourage conservatives.  Because of DOJ’s lack of interest, the matter was eventually settled in a civil law suit by discouraged victims.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all has been the disclosures from the Durham investigation. The FBI, along with other intelligence agencies, conspired to establish a false charge of “Russian Collusion” against the Trump campaign, virtually tearing the nation apart. Further, government officials pressured legacy and social medial sources to censor news that would be embarrassing to the Democratic presidential candidate and to plant false stories about the Republican incumbent.

Whenever these issues are brought up by those outraged by this unlawful behavior, the matter is deflected by criticism of Trump.  Depending on your taste, the prior chief executive might be an outstanding former president or the worse person to ever hold the office.  Neither choice is relevant. The insertion of federal agencies in a partisan election to favor one side and produce false narratives and pressure independent media sources to go along with the conspiracy against the other is the most heinous political crime ever committed by appointed officials.

Further, it may well be the most dangerous.  Ignoring Biden’s dirty deals with China is a national security risk of the highest magnitude. The only comparable act is the attempted sellout of West Point to the British by Benedict Arnold.

Trump is not the only target. The highly partisan Department of Homeland Security has targeted lesser political opponents as well. The Obama Administration called American military veterans returning from deployment in the Middle East one of the most domestic terrorist threats.  The Biden Administration considers parents who disagree with explicit sexual indoctrination of very young children to be domestic terrorists.

Official misconduct at the highest levels is matched by the growing use of violence by the Democrat-sympathizing left against those they disagree with. The recent physical attacks by Antifa against protesting parents is a salient example.

Appointed elected officials and the agencies they administer must return to a tradition of relative nonpartisanship and equal treatment of all under the law.  Elected leaders who influence them to be partisan should be punished.