Month: July 2023

he kidnapping and imprisonment of children for sexual exploitation is an extremely unpleasant topic.  It is easy to look away from something so heinous and to pretend that it’s not happening.  But reality has a way of intruding on our self-imposed refusal to see the truth.

“(T)he sex trafficking of minors is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or solicitation of a person under the age of 18 for the purposes of a commercial sex act, defined as any sex act for which anything of value is given to or received by any person. In simple terms, it is the exchanging of something of value for sex with a child/minor,” according to The National Child Traumatic Stress Network.  “Sex trafficking occurs among all socioeconomic classes, races, ethnicities, and gender identities in urban, suburban, rural communities, and on land-based nations and other tribal communities across the U.S.”

In 2021, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) states that they “received more than 17,200 reports of child sex trafficking from all 50 US States, Washington, DC and Puerto Rico which included every type of community: cities, small towns and tribal land.” Further, according to Save the Children, “(c)hild trafficking affects every country in the world…(c)hildren make up 27% of all human trafficking victims worldwide, and two out of every three identified child victims are girls.” 

In fact, according to The Refuge, ” Child sex trafficking is the fastest-growing crime in the world,” and that”(i)It was estimated in 2014 that sex traffickers raked in about $99 billion a year in profits…4.5 million are trapped in the commercial sex trade. An estimated 900,000 to 1.2 million of those victims of commercial sexual exploitation are children.” 

You would think that such a huge problem would command the attention of the Biden Administration.  However, according to the Washington Examiner, “(t)he Department of Justice quietly removed significant portions of its page on child sex trafficking, including information on ‘International Sex Trafficking of Minors,’ ‘Domestic Sex Trafficking of Minors,’ and ‘Child Victims of Prostitution’… Another section scrubbed by the department after May 12 is one on domestic trafficking, which said, ‘Pimps and traffickers sexually exploit children through street prostitution, and in adult night clubs, illegal brothels, sex parties, motel rooms, hotel rooms, and other locations throughout the United States.'” 

As described by Senator Marco Rubio, “(t)he Biden Administration first created, and then consistently failed to address the unprecedented migratory crisis occurring at the U.S. southern border. As a result, hundreds of thousands of migrant children have been trafficked across the border and are being exploited, both before and after arrival… millions of migrants have entered the country illegally. Worse, hundreds of thousands of migrant children have come to the United States alone, often smuggled by coyotes and within reach of danger.” 

On January 25, 2022, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, made this statement on the issue; “Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime that impacts an estimated 25 million people, here in the United States and abroad… National Human Trafficking Prevention Month is a time to reaffirm the Department’s commitment to seeing those victims, hearing their stories, and preventing the horrific acts of human trafficking before they occur. We will bring the full weight of the Department of Homeland Security – our resources and our dedicated personnel – to identify and protect victims and to investigate and arrest perpetrators…(t)he scourge of human trafficking must be met with concerted action. This month and every month, our Department will strive to shine a light on these heinous acts, protect the dignity of survivors, and bring perpetrators of human trafficking to justice.” 

Strong words.  Yet, in March of this year, “Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and…Mayorkas exchanged heated barbs during (a) Senate Judiciary hearing over border issues…(a)t the hearing, Mayorkas was grilled by Republicans…over border issues including the increasing number of migrants crossing, fentanyl deaths and sex trafficking. Cruz…was particularly fiery in his line of questioning – blaming the secretary directly for crimes against children. ‘The children raped, they are at your feet,’ Cruz told Mayorkas. ‘And if you had integrity, you would resign…(y)ou’re willing to let children be raped to follow political orders.” 

With this background in mind, the recent release of the movie Sound of Freedom can be viewed in context.  “Sound of Freedom is a new thriller movie telling the true story of Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel), a federal agent who launched Operation Underground Railroad (OUR), a nonprofit organization focused on rescuing children from sex trafficking rings…(e)ven though the film only just hit cinemas last week, development on the script started all the way back in 2015. It was shot three years later, during which time a distribution deal was made with the 20th Century Fox movie studio. But when the Disney-Fox merger went ahead and the House of Mouse took over the rights, the media giant shelved the project.”

The movie’s producer, Eduardo Verastegui, told the Washington Examiner that “despite the film being finished in 2018, no one wanted to distribute it for years. The outlet stated that Netflix and Amazon passed…this all changed in fall 2022, when Verastegui met with the CEO of Angel Studios…when the company showed Sound of Freedom to its investors, they were excited about the project – in March this year, Angel Studios agreed to distribute the film.” 

The result was unpredictable – at least, to Disney, Netflix and Amazon. “Sound of Freedom took home the No. 2 spot at the box office this weekend (July 14-16), earning $27 million from Friday to Sunday and over $85 million overall since it opened in theaters on July 4…(l)ast weekend, Sound of Freedom grossed $19.7 million in U.S. theaters and came in third place behind horror film Insidious: The Red Door and Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny—but Sound of Freedom outpaced both movies this weekend while boosting its Friday-to-Sunday earnings by some $7.3 million week-to-week.” 

Wouldn’t this seem to be a great success story?  A serious movie, about a serious issue, finding an unexpected audience?  Not to several critics.

“At Slate, writer Sam Adams said that ‘the movie darkly hints that there are more well-connected and outwardly respectable variants [of pedophiles and sex traffickers] out there, willing to pay six figures and up for what Caviezel’s character, who poses as a businessman trying to set up a high-end members-only club for child rapists, calls ‘a little pedi action.’”

Meanwhile,  on RogerEbert.com,  Nick Allen wrote, “Sound of Freedom takes place in, and posits to be, a tough conversation piece about the world of child sex trafficking, but it’s hardly any more informational than a horror movie about bogeymen.” 

“The misconceptions about child trafficking promoted by Sound of Freedom are in many ways compounded by the fact that the film has received widespread acclaim from the far right,” worries Rolling Stone,  “particularly proponents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which posits that a shadowy ring of elites is sexually abusing young children.”  While Rolling Stone admits that “Sound of Freedom does not refer to the conspiracy theory, nor is it overtly political,” the magazine feels it necessary to add that “Ballard has legitimized a QAnon-adjacent conspiracy theory centering around the furniture company Wayfair, and star Caviezel has espoused some of QAnon’s more extreme aspects, such as the belief that elites are harvesting adrenochrome from the blood of children.”  More worrisome yet, the movie “has been embraced in conspiracy theorist circles and promoted on Q boards, and it is a concern among some anti-trafficking experts that the movie will add oxygen to a discourse that detracts from a real, and very serious, problem, even if those moved by the film have the noblest of intentions.” 

Wayfair?  Adrenochrome?  QAnon?  None of these concepts appear in any form in the movie.  Yet the fact that people who believe in these theories like this movie, should not have any impact on whether the movie has artistic merit, or whether it has a right to be popular with audiences.

In fact, there are several movies that either depict unpopular causes in a popular light, or make heroes out of villains.  Yet, these movies are considered classics by most critics, and viewers are encouraged to view these films despite the despicable causes the movie and its makers support.  “Birth of a Nation – D. W. Griffith’s…1915 feature…set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites…(is) a decisively original work of art – in effect, the founding work of cinematic realism…(T)he movie’s fabricated events shouldn’t lead any viewer to deny the historical facts of slavery and Reconstruction. But they also shouldn’t lead to a denial of the peculiar, disturbingly exalted beauty of Birth of a Nation, even in its depiction of immoral actions and its realization of blatant propaganda. The worst thing about Birth of a Nation is how good it is. The merits of its grand and enduring aesthetic make it impossible to ignore and, despite its disgusting content, also make it hard not to love.” 

Then there is the famous Nazi propaganda film, Triumph of the Will.

“Leni Riefenstahl was the golden girl of the German film industry… her cinematic style was, in the term film theorists of the day like Rudolph Arnheim used, ‘plastic’: she saw the medium as a unique form of expression, not merely a manner for transferring ideas and plots from the theatre or literature. Her camera moved, and she understood, at a deep level, the mysterious power of the cinematic spectacle of movement, sound, and mise-en-scene to captivate audiences…when the German film industry emptied itself of its great talents in the wake of the advent of Adolph Hitler in 1933, Riefenstahl refused to join the river of cinematic refugees to France, England, and the U.S…Riefenstahl took over the planning of a film about (a) 1934 rally originally begun by documentarian Walter Ruttmann. What Ruttmann had planned as an explicitly rhetorical film, Riefenstahl saw as a cinematic paean to the race mythologies of Nazism, expressed through the geometry of its mass rituals and the solitary figure of its strange, strutting god, Adolph Hitler…Riefenstahl’s film privileges the film viewer with an impossible, perfect view of the proceedings; in a weird, disconcerting way, we ordinary film viewers become, for the running time of the film, the protagonist of Nazism, in the same way that Hitler skillfully gave ordinary Germans a feeling of command over history and politics… In part to Triumph of the Will, we owe terrifying confirmation of our now axiomatic belief in the dangerous power of the media. It is a spectacle from which we seek to turn away, but from which we cannot – and should not.”  

Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will both show an evil ideology in a positive light, yet both are hailed as cinematic classics that should be viewed by any serious student of film.  Sound of Freedom portrays evil AS evil, something to be fought against and halted with all possible strength of arms and speed. Why then would certain critics want to discourage viewers from learning about such an important issue?

Perhaps the lack of will to fight trafficking shown by the Biden Administration and Homeland Security points us in the direction of one answer.  Another possibility is that the film hits a nerve among the “well-connected,” who are “willing to pay six figures and up” for sex with a child, and that some critics have an interest in protecting the concerns of those individuals. 

It is also possible that some of the companies that sought to “shelve” the distribution of Sound of Freedom are also involved in protecting the interests of the “well-connected” – some of whom could be employed by their companies, or investors in their stocks.

Whatever the reasons, Sound of Freedom has come through the efforts at suppression, and has reached a large audience.  And once more, the public has voted overwhelming to ignore the critics and naysayers, and judge for themselves whether this movie has merit.

You owe it to yourself to do the same.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

China increased its defense spending for a record 28^th consecutive year, according to the newly released  2022 report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It is the longest, uninterrupted increase in military spending of any country in history. China’s public record military expenditure of $292 billion places it second in absolute terms, behind only that of the United States. There are differences in what that means. The US has extensive international responsibilities. Threats to the national security of the nation-state, in addition, validate its expenditures. China, in comparison, has spent its defense budget on building a military to act as an offensive force capable of threatening others. At the same time, Beijing refuses to take on the cost of  global responsibilities and boldly defies the norms that stabilize the international world order. Beijing has never publicly declared the size of its nuclear arsenal. DOD says that China accounts for 13 percent of world military expenditure, followed by Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. Collectively those nations only account for an additional 3 percent of global spending. 

China maintains a large nuclear force, according to the SPRI report, with over 410 missiles in its stockpile. This is an increase of 60 warheads over totals in the 2021 report. Only Russia and the US own more missiles. China’s inventory is  expected to grow dramatically in the next few years. Beijing’s ICBMs are likely to surpass the numbers held individually by the US and Russia, according to Hans Kristensen and Matt Korda of SIPRI. DOD, in its report to the US Congress estimated that by 2035 China is expected to field approximately 1,500 warheads given an adequate availability of processed plutonium and a similar force posture. The numbers are derived from the Chinese State Council’s publication, “China’s National Defense in the New Era” that explains China’s military doctrine.

While the baseline numbers are significant, it is also important to recognize the degree of change in China’s military posture. The country is building a number of new fields containing hundreds of silos, adding submarines that are a qualitative improvement over earlier series, and constructing new nuclear bombers. In January 2023, Kristensen and Corda reported that the northern silo fields were largely completed, with perimeter fencing, electrical and radio towers, and air defense systems in place. They are located deeper inside the communist state than any other known ICBM site, making them less vulnerable to long-range conventional strikes from abroad. 

Although both China and India both maintain a no first use nuclear policy, the report points to DOD’s assessment that “China is implementing an ‘early warning counterstrike’ strategy—akin to a ‘launch-on-warning’ (LOW) posture—using ground- and space-based sensors to enable rapid launch of missiles before an adversary can destroy them.” The SIPRI report also suggests that the PLAAF’s operational airborne nuclear capability was still “developing tactics and procedures to conduct the nuclear mission and noted that this capability gave China a ‘nascent nuclear triad.” China is still building new launchers, training crews, and improving the accuracy of its ICBMs. That does not mean China is unable or unwilling to use them in a conflict in the near future.

Despite strong evidence of China’s nuclear buildup, the result of a nuclear event is so horrific that some analysts in Washington say it will never occur. Others point to the high cost of developing and maintaining a strong nuclear posture and say that this suggests a nuclear conflagration is a realistic scenario within the next decade. Given that China already has more ICBM launchers than the US and President Xi Jinping publicly vowed to build a massive nuclear arsenal, provided assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear program, and engaged in cooperation with Iran, it is critical that the West pay attention to both the buildup and the political willpower in Beijing to use such weapons. The ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) asserts that the state and Party must survive above all concerns for individual lives. The CCP leadership also adheres to the belief that it is acceptable to lie to non-communists in defense of the Party. Hopefully, politicians in Washington are watching for signals and are not blinded by CCP promises that do not align with the ground truth. China is a dangerous state.

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

Photo: Amphibious armored vehicles attached to an amphibious armored element of a brigade under the PLA 73rd Group Army conduct waterborne operations during a recent real-combat training exercise. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Lai Kun)

On a daily basis, the news is truly distressing. A vicious Russian invasion in Ukraine, China’s growing military threat, and rampant inflation all add to doom and gloom.  But looking  beyond the crises of the day can reveal a near-future where rapid advances in space exploitation will provide unprecedented opportunities, a reduction in pollution, and a revolutionary advance for humanity.

NASA Official Brian Dunbar has stated that “We are at an exciting moment. What we see are several converging trends that will change how we approach space technologies, at a rate of innovation that we haven’t seen in a long time. The power of miniaturization, for example, is having a huge impact on satellites. It’s becoming easier to put more capabilities into smaller packages. Constellations of small satellites are allowing for both new capabilities as well as existing capabilities at much lower costs. The exploration of space is also becoming global. More nations are now within reach of space than ever before, while the influx of entrepreneurial capital is driving innovation and new technologies in the private sector. What excites me most about space technologies is that it’s an opportunity for us to put the best of humanity forward into the future. It enables international cooperation, courage, boldness and entrepreneurship. We are doing things for the benefit for the planet.”

The U.S. space agency foresees returning to the Moon to learn more about what it will take to support human exploration to Mars and beyond,  the development of a vibrant low-Earth orbit economy that builds on the work done to date by the International Space Station. NASA engineers will develop new technologies to improve air transport at home and meet the challenges of advanced space exploration.

Writing in the Washington Post, Tom Vice, the CEO of the Sierra Space company   states that “…there is a palpable sense that we have already entered the next and most profound period of innovation in human history… eusable rockets and innovative fuels are lowering launch costs, making trips to low Earth orbit (LEO) more affordable and rapidly more frequent. Space technology companies are racing to build the first commercial, on-orbit destinations to make space manufacturing a reality. Indeed, a group of companies, led by Sierra Space, is building an end-to-end business platform in LEO to accelerate the new space economy and produce breakthrough products that benefit life on Earth.”

Major think tanks are outlining what the next decades hold.

Doug Irving, writing for the Rand Corporation, “There are mining colonies on the moon and tourist resorts floating in Earth’s orbit. People play sports in space, generate power in space, even grow expensive, trendy coffee beans in space…it would not take huge technological breakthroughs to make space and space travel a much bigger part of everyday life. The cost to launch people and payloads into space…could fall to tens of dollars by 2040. [there will be a] Gold Rush of the 21st century’…development of factories in outer space—where air pollution wouldn’t be a concern.”

Part of the optimism comes from growing international cooperation. In June,  officials from the United States and the European Union met to discuss cooperation on Earth observation and disaster response, global navigation satellite systems, spaceflight safety and space situational awareness, and opportunities for trans-Atlantic cooperation to ensure the security and long-term sustainability of outer space activities. 

On January 13, representatives from Japan and the United States formalized an agreement for joint space ventures.  leaders from the two nations signed a framework agreement that recognizes their mutual interest in peaceful exploration.  The Framework Agreement between the America and Japan called for cooperation in space exploration and use of outer space, Including the moon and other celestial bodies, for peaceful purposes.

Illustration: Artist’s concept, NASA’s gateway in lunar orbit. It will consist of at least a power and propulsion element as well as habitation, logistics, and airlock capabilities. The power and propulsion element will be the first component to launch for placement near the Moon in 2022, with additional elements launching in subsequent years.

In early 2022, the Supreme Court called a halt to the Biden Administration plan to have OSHA enforce a mandate that all private employers with more than 100 workers on their payroll have their employees vaccinated against Covid-19.  In  National Federal of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration., the Court stated that  “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power’…It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. ‘We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance’ (citation omitted)…”

Now, at least one Justice of the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, has found it necessary to remind us of the dangers of the government using their emergency powers to override our civil liberties. Ironically, many Republicans have fought hard to maintain the abuse addressed by Justice Gorsuch in Arizona v. Mayorkis. 

Under 42 USC Sec. 265 (“Title 42”), the Surgeon General is “empowered by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country (where) there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.”  In October of 2020, the Director of the Center for Disease Control used this statute to prevent persons “traveling from Canada or Mexico (regardless of their country of origin) who would otherwise be introduced into…the United States” from entering our country “to continue to protect the public health from an increase in the serious danger of the introduction of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) into” the United States.

Though the Title 42 restrictions began under President Trump, “President Joe Biden initially kept Title 42 in place after he took office, then tried to end its use in 2022. Republicans sued, arguing the restrictions were necessary for border security. Courts had kept the rules in place. But the Biden administration announced in January (2023) that it was ending national COVID-19 emergencies.” 

Arizona v. Mayorkis is one of several lawsuits brought in an effort to maintain in place Title 42’s prohibition of the entry of persons with Covid-19 into the United States, even after the pandemic was declared over. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered the dismissal of the case as moot, that is, there was no longer an issue that needed to be addressed by the courts.  The Supreme Court agreed in a one sentence order.  

Justice Gorsuch did not disagree with the decision of the lower court, nor did he disagree with the reasoning of those who sought to keep Title 42’s restrictions in place; “’Title 42 orders’…severely restricted immigration to this country for the ostensible purpose of preventing the spread of COVID–19…The States did not seriously dispute that the public-health justification for the orders had lapsed…But the States apparently calculated that even a short, court-ordered extension of those decrees was worth the fight. Worth it because, in their judgment, a new and different crisis had emerged at the border and the federal government had done too little to address it.  Keeping the Title 42 orders in place even temporarily was better than the alternative.”

However, Justice Gorsuch took this opportunity to remind us of all we had lost since 2020 while living under one “emergency order” after another.

“Since March 2020,” Justice Gorsuch writes, “we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct.”

Justice Gorsuch continued; “Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.”

Justice Gorsuch then looked deep into the soul of the nation. ” Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat…We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms…the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.”

Justice Gorsuch then addressed the heart of the problem – the overuse of emergency decrees.  “(E)mergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them,” he wrote. “(S)ome federal emergency proclamations…remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed…

“Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

Benjamin Franklin once famously said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Let us remember these words as we contemplate our nation’s reaction to the pandemic of the early 2020s. 

 And as we contemplate this shameful episode, let us also remember the words of George Santayana; “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Since the pandemic was declared in early 2020, those living in the United States have been endangered, threatened, and terrorized.  But don’t misunderstand – I’m not talking about Covid-19 itself.  I’m talking about the overreaction of our local, state and federal governments to the introduction of the Wuhan Virus to our shores.

As early as March of 2020, we noted the over-the-top response of several jurisdictions to the coronavirus, including Champaign, Illinois, where the Mayor “signed a declaration of a state of emergency…among the powers…gained after signing the executive order was the power to ban the sale of guns, ammunition, alcohol, and gasoline.”  Under this order, the Mayor of Champaign “could also cut off access to individuals’ gas, water, or electricity. The city also has the ability to ‘take possession of private property’ or order the temporary closing of all bars or liquor stores.’    

“The Mayor granted herself these powers, even though (at the time) there was not a single case of Covid-19 in her town, and 32 cases in all of Illinois.”

Extreme government overreach became the norm in the years that followed. By April of 2020, “(t)he Mayor of Washington, DC…threatened criminal penalties for not obeying her ‘stay at home’ orders, including imprisonment up to 90 days, a $5,000 fine, or both…(t)he Governor of Hawaii and the Governor of Virginia…made similar threats…. Several states, including Maine, New Jersey and California, all attempted to close gun stores, claiming they were not ‘essential services.’… in Kentucky, the governor issued an order stopping all in-person gatherings, including festivals, government meetings and church services.  California also ordered the closure of their churches, deeming them to be an ‘unessential service.’  The Mayor of New York threatened to permanently close churches and synagogues that did not comply with his orders.”  

By July of 2020, “approximately 18 states...mandated wearing facial coverings in public spaces, including California, New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Many local governments…mandated masks regardless of whatever rules their state government has promulgated.  The Mayor of Boise, Idaho…ordered the use of face masks in public, as did the Mayor of Minneapolis…”

Once “vaccines” against Covid-19 were made widely available, vaccine mandates became the order of the day throughout 2021 and 2022.  “’President Joe Biden…announced (on July 29, 2021)  sweeping new pandemic requirements…Federal workers will be required to sign forms attesting they’ve been vaccinated against the coronavirus or else comply with new rules on mandatory masking, weekly testing, distancing and more.’  This follows shortly after  ‘California Governor Gavin Newsom announced (on July 26, 2021) that his state will require all state employees and healthcare workers to provide proof of vaccination or be subject to regular COVID-19 testing…Then, on August 18, 2021, ‘Washington Governor Jay Inslee expanded his state’s vaccine mandate to include all education staff, faculty, and on-site contractors.  The mandate extends to employees working in K–12 settings, most childcare and early learning, and higher education.’”  

In particular, religious objections to the “vaccine” were roundly ignored.  “As of November, 2021, ‘The Navy has not yet approved any religious exemptions for the COVID-19 (vaccine)…There were 2,531 requests for religious exemptions, according to the Navy. However, the Navy has not adjudicated all of the request(s)…Exemptions are being handled on a case by case basis…Some sailors have already found out if their request has been denied, while others are still waiting. Those who were denied a religious exemption now have five days, from when they were notified, to start the vaccination process or they face separation.” 

But as their legislatures, mayors and President violated civil liberties wholesale, one branch of government made every effort to protect the rights of all – the Courts.

When the Navy rejected all applications for religious exemptions from the “vaccine,”  “Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas…granted an injunction against the Biden administration and the Department of Defense, preventing them from enforcing the vaccine mandate against…service members who had applied for a religious exemption. O’Connor ruled that the blanket denial of their religious waiver requests amounted to a violation of the service members’ rights under the First Amendment…” 

When the Biden Administration extended the face mask requirement on commercial airliners, even after most airlines called for the removal of the requirement, “at the beginning of May (2022), federal District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of Tampa, Florida struck down the mandate.  Her reason?  ‘The Court concludes that the Mask Mandate exceeds the (Center for Disease Controls) statutory authority and violates the procedures required for agency rulemaking.'”

“Exceeding statutory authority” has been the basis of almost every court decision striking down government-imposed coronavirus mandates.  After the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the Biden Administration’s Student Loan Forgiveness Program, in a lower court case in another jurisdiction, Brown v. US Department of Education, Judge Mark Pittman of Texas ruled that “the executive branch unconstitutionally exercises ‘legislative powers’ vested in Congress” when it used the HEROES Act as the basis for its Student Loan Forgiveness Program.  As the Court stated, “the HEROES Act— a law to provide loan assistance to military personnel defending our nation—does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program. The Program is thus an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power and must be vacated.”

Judge John Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Daria Novak

China operates more than 7,000 private security companies (PSCs) domestically. Recent estimates indicate its overseas PSC firms have expanded and are now operational in over 40 countries. One of those nations is the United States; another is Pakistan. The PSCs provide a way for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to project power overseas and, in some cases, protect its nationals. South Asia, including Pakistan, is not well-integrated into the global economy but economic and investment activities in Pakistan are of growing importance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). That means more Chinese on Pakistani spoil. Early on in its economic expansion China depended on local Pakistani physical security forces to protect its assets and nationals working in country. With Islamabad unable to guarantee the safety of Chinese citizens, Beijing has, according to the Jamestown Foundation’s Sergey Sukhankin, “intensified its requests concerning the option of using its own security providers on Pakistani soil” this summer. 

China is facing increasing scrutiny from Pakistani authorities who view its de-facto semi-independent agents in a negative light. “In addition to growing anti-Chinese sentiments (in certain parts of the country that are particularly dependent on the BRI), the deployment of Chinese PSCs in Pakistan might lead toward a surge of Sinophobia in the country, which most likely will be used by Islamic radicals and underground militants for their own purposes,” says Sukhankin. Although most security experts do not believe the PSCs will be permanently deployed there, they still will be a significant tool for China resulting in increased aggravation of the security milieu, he adds, and leading toward a weakening of ties between Islamabad and its other strategic partner, the United States.

Last year there was a 5.2% year-on-year increase in China’s outbound direct investments, a large part of which is directed to Asia and BRI-related countries in Southeast Asia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the United Arab Emirates.  For China, South Asia serves as geopolitical curb on Indian influence in the region. The key state is Pakistan although it is not the wealthiest or most politically stable, according to the Jamestown Foundation. The country is located in a strategically important transportation and logistical artery, notes Sukhankin, but also one facing increased violence and political instability that may be constraining China’s ambitious BRI plans for the region.

Pakistan plays an outsized role due to its strategic importance since it occupies a key geopolitical position linking the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. It has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia and maintains strategic ties with both the United States and China. Pakistan in recent years has emerged as more important to China due to the improvement in US-Indian relations. After Xi Jinping assumed the presidency, he visited Pakistan to upgrade the bilateral relationship to one he labeled an “all-weather friendship” (全天候友谊). 

Earlier this year, Chinese Premier Li Qiang reinforced it calling China and Pakistan “good neighbors, friends and brothers” and an investment priority. While Pakistan benefits from some of the BRI projects, officials in Islamabad are growing increasingly concerned that the influx of Chinese could threaten Pakistan’s cultural identity. An additional concern is the external financial indebtedness its assuming that, as of 2021, topped $27.4 billion. Pakistan does not want to become too dependent on China.  

China faces two interconnected concerns. First, several radical Islamist groups are targeting Chinese nationals in Pakistan, and second, increased Sinophobia in key economic areas of the country such as Balochistan. There are a number of Muslim militants there who see China as exploiting the local populations and effectively “colonizing” the province. Recently, some Pakistani leaders in the area have called for ousting the Chinese for their failure to recognize the sovereignty of the local residents. This particular region is growing in importance, too, due to the copper and gold deposits China needs for modernizing its economy.   

A July Jamestown Foundation report says that “well-informed Pakistan experts and security analysists believe that discontent within the Chinese military-political elite over the growing number of security incidents and attacks against Chinese nationals in Pakistan is increasing.” It quotes Ejaz Haider, a  security analyst, as saying that it is “deeply disconcerting that, despite being engaged with and against Afghanistan and in Balochistan, our [Pakistani] intel capabilities are less than satisfactory.”  If security can’t be improved there are concerns in Islamabad that China will send in paramilitary to protect its nationals and resources in country. It is unlikely that Pakistan will give China permission this summer to allow the permanent deployment of PSCs. China is also concerned about its image if these paramilitary troops were left there unsupervised. Even with additional Chinese security forces in country it may not be enough to make a difference in guaranteeing Chinese nationals security while working in Pakistan. The China-Pakistan bilateral relationship is undergoing increased strains at a time when China needs the relationship to offset issues with India. It could become yet another flashpoint over the coming year.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Last week at the NATO Summit in Lithuania, Georgia once again was not offered a formal Membership Application Plan (MAP). Tbilisi first indicated in 2002 it was willing to join NATO and then in 2008, with Ukraine, received a promise of future membership, according to Beka Chedia of the Jamestown Foundation. In subsequent years Georgia was told that the government had not yet met the reform requirements required for membership and, therefore, would not be offered a Plan which is mandatory to achieve full Membership. Last week, Ukraine which had been in the same status, was granted permission to skip this step, according to a July 11 report from NATO.

The Georgian case is complicated as several NATO Member states are concerned that should Georgia be admitted into NATO, the alliance could be drawn into a conflict if Russia attacked the country or became too intertwined in it. In late May, NATO’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Javier Colomina visited Georgia and according to Amerikiskhma.com told authorities there that the alliance expects Georgia to strongly support Ukraine as well as extensive democratic reforms. Chedia adds that “NATO officials have also expressed outrage at the resumption of air traffic between Georgia and Russia.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg added: “We also expect non-NATO Allies to adhere to the sanctions and to not make it easier for Russia to finance and to organize the war of aggression against Ukraine.”

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili at the Global Security Forum in Bratislava this spring pointed out that NATO expansion and Ukraine’s intent to join helped spark the Russian invasion. Frankfurter Allgemeine, a German newspaper says it was this scandalous statement that became the reason why Garibashvili was not invited to the NATO summit, as the alliance itself explained that he was “an undesirable,” according to the Jamestown Foundation.

Last week, US ambassador to Georgia, Ian Kelly suggested that Georgia does not appear interested in joining NATO. “The Georgian government should explain why it is not at this critical summit. Reasonable people will conclude that Georgia is no longer interested in seriously promoting its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” Georgia’s only representative at the Vilnius summit was Foreign Minister Ilia Darchiashvili.  Earlier this month, Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, said in an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, that “The leadership of Georgia right now does not really believe in [NATO membership], so they do not really push that agenda. What does the change in attitude mean? Chedia suggests that until a decade ago, Georgia was trying hard to work with NATO. At the time there was no eastward expansion of the alliance. Last year, after Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO states moved to strongly support an eastward expansion. At the time NATO also designated the Black Sea as a vital region for the alliance organization.

The current pro-Russian ruling elite of Georgia, according to Chedia has suddenly taken an indistinct position. At the same time as the Vilnius Summit, Moscow announced that it was expanding its flights into Georgia to 284 a week. Last year Garibashvili published a first-of-its-kind Facebook post covering his speech at an economic forum in Qatar, saying: “Georgia has territorial problems. We must first resolve this issue and then become a member of NATO.” Two weeks ago, the Georgian publication Netgazeti commented that it appeared to be a sign of capitulation to Moscow. Russia, says Chedia, “has been skillfully using Georgia’s occupied territories for years to prevent the country’s integration into transatlantic structures.” Given Russia’s occupation of two regions in northern Georgia, it would be ineligible for full Membership. However, some Georgian officials are trying to sidestep the issue by urging NATO partners not to follow Russia’s agenda and not to link the membership with Georgia’s territorial challenges.

It may mean that if Georgia backs away from joining NATO this year, Moscow will cut a deal to return the Georgian occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Four years ago, when the Georgian president offered this deal, Moscow turned him down. Chedia says Georgia has broken away from being associated with the classic trio of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia in the case of European Union membership. In the case of NATO, Georgia is left alone with only a vague perspective. Chedia suggests that while some see it as an unfulfilled NATO commitment, others say the pro-Russian authorities in Georgia are skillfully using NATO’s indecision to offer Georgian society its alternative geopolitical project for neutrality. This may be the best outcome from Moscow’s perspective.

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

Photo: Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg concludes the recent summit (NATO Photo)