Former Green Beret Jordon Goudreau discloses the threats that exist within America’s own hemisphere. Author Donald Wilkie discusses how America can remain free. If you missed the program on your local station, watch it at here.
Change is in the air and not only in Washington. A few decades ago, Russia was the dominant power in the communist world. Beijing relied on Moscow as a child depending on a parent for protection and nurturing. Those roles are reversed today. Western sanctions have limited Russia’s global engagements, especially its activities in the Arctic region. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China has expanded its involvement in the high north. In 2018 it proclaimed itself a “near Arctic state,” despite sitting 930 miles (1,500 km) from that region. Moscow’s unspoken concerns in 2025 are continuing to grow as developments between the two appear to indicate Beijing is expanding its behind-the-scenes activities in a likely attempt to emerge as the dominant Arctic power.
At first Putin welcomed China’s engagement given the restrictions that sanctions imposed on his country. As Beijing expanded its operations and redefined itself, Kremlin concerns increased and led it to oppose the near Arctic state characterization. “In 2020, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s special envoy in the Arctic Council at the time stated that Russia ‘disagree[d] with’ the characterization of the PRC as a near Arctic state, instead agreeing with then-U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo that ‘there are two groups of countries—Arctic and non-Arctic,’” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. While he says Kremlin concerns are not the same as an immediate breakdown in relations, it may be possible for the West to exploit these differences in the future.
With Russia’s resources increasingly consumed by its ongoing war in Ukraine, it is likely that an ambitious China will continue to use the opportunity to move forward in the Arctic. Beijing is constructing new ice breakers and developing infrastructure in and along the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and beyond. Although public statements by the two states continue to be positive, there are indications that their shared interests have limits. Last November, the first meeting of the “Sub-commission on Cooperation on the NSR of the Russian-Chinese Commission for the Preparation of Regular Meetings of Heads of Government” was held in St. Petersburg. Tensions emerged as differences in their perspectives saw Russia concentrating primarily on security issues as in the past while China spoke explicitly about its economic approach on the NSR. Beijing claims economics leads any security interest it has in the region.
If the West is to combat China’s rise in influence in the Arctic, it needs to understand that the containment of one power may lead to a significant rise in the other. China may have plans to push Russia out of its dominant position in the Arctic. Observers, such as Vasily Koltashov, an expert at the Plehkanov University of Economics in Moscow, is highly skeptical that China will remain an ally of Russia’s. He suggests that China is gaining strength at Russia’s expense, according to Goble. Koltashov says that Moscow will remain allied only if it can control Beijing’s regional involvement. That will mean that China’s investments cannot challenge Putin’s position or exploit its deteriorating circumstances. He points out that Putin may not be able to stop events, and that Russia could be “transformed into the periphery of China.”
Koltashov is not alone in his viewpoint. Goble points out that other Russian analysts, although quieter in their predictions, also see the China challenge as a real concern for the Kremlin. In recent months there are an increasing number of Russian language articles discussing the challenge China poses to Putin and Russia. Discrepancies become evident when examining the level of Russian cargo traffic over the last year on the NSR. Moscow’s planned goals for maritime tonnage do not meet the actual tonnage of reported cargo traffic. Russia also failed to meet its predicted schedule for icebreaker construction, leading some analysts in Washington to call the NSR a “black hole” for the 2025 Russian budget.
If Putin backs off further, it opens additional opportunities for China’s aggressive Xi Jinping to decide to fill the gap. The Kremlin is unlikely to simply cede control of the Arctic to China. If Beijing continues to quietly and slowly move into a more prominent position, however, it may be able to achieve its long-term strategic gains in the region. Russia, in the end, may not be able to stop the security challenge to its sovereignty over the high north. The Trump Administration and other Western leaders need to consider that China and Russia may publicly speak in friendly terms, they may not always coordinate as allies. It is time to design an approach to containment that works for the free world.
Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.
Illustration: Pixabay
After Trump’s conviction, there were many who called for the incarceration of the 45th and now 47th President. One typical sentiment was reported by Politico, “'[t]his is not a one-off, ‘Oops, I made a mistake on my business records,’ or even, a one-off scheme,’ said Diana Florence, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office who ran for the DA’s job in 2021 but lost to Alvin Bragg, the lead prosecutor in the Trump case…’Given the entirety of the facts and circumstances that came out during the trial, I believe if convicted, a sentence of incarceration is warranted and justified,’ Florence said. ‘If I were the prosecutor, I would absolutely be asking for state prison,’ she added.”
Indeed. Given the extremely serious nature of these offenses, in the interests of justice, what penalty did Donald Trump receive from Judge Merchan?
Say what now?
Yes, after hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in prosecuting this matter; after a jury trial that took weeks out of the lives of the court, its personnel and the jury; after all the statements made by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and every other Democrat who was asked, intoning their solemn belief that no one is above the law, and that a serious matter like this needs a severe punishment, Donald Trump received an Unconditional Discharge?
Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 65.05, “[t]he court may impose a sentence of unconditional discharge in any case where…it is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.”
This means that Donald Trump received no real penalty for a crime Bragg and his fellow Democrats told us, loudly and repeatedly, was serious enough to warrant a criminal prosecution with the possibility of jail time.
Why would Judge Merchan give now-President Trump nothing but a slap on the wrist after all that effort?
As Reuters reports, Merchan stated at sentencing that “he was imposing the sentence sparing Trump jail, a fine or probation because the U.S. Constitution shields presidents from criminal prosecution. But he said the protections afforded to the office ‘do not reduce the seriousness of a crime or justify its commission in any way…[t]he considerable, indeed extraordinary, legal protection afforded by the office of the chief executive is a factor that overrides all others,”‘ Merchan said. ‘Despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase jury verdicts.'”
In other words, I don’t care if you’re President and have the protection of that high office. You’re still a convicted felon. So there!
If you voted for Donald Trump, and based upon the results of the 2024 election, it is safe to assume that many people did, the fact that the 47th President is a convicted felon carried absolutely no weight with the majority of people.
While there was much navel gazing in the media regarding the effect such a conviction would have on the 2024 election, the actual feelings of the electorate at large was roundly ignored. In May of 2024, PBS Newshour held a poll in conjunction with NPR and Marist College. Hardly supporters of Donald Trump, the pollsters must have been dismayed and disheartened by the polls results:
“Overall, 67 percent of voters said a conviction would make no difference for them in November, including 74 percent of independents. That’s a significantly higher number than the percentage of either Republicans or Democrats who said it wouldn’t change their vote. In fact, 25 percent of Republicans said they would be even more likely to vote for Trump if he were found guilty by a jury, while 27 percent of Democrats said they would be less likely to vote for him.”
PBS chalked these results up to voter disinterest; “Because the Manhattan court proceedings are not televised, Trump’s trial has gone largely unnoticed by many Americans, said [Republican strategist Douglas] Heye, who noted he has traveled extensively around the country in recent weeks. ‘No one is talking about the trial except people in Washington, D.C. and New York City,’ he said.” But perhaps there is another, deeper reason.
As we discussed in our testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, it was obvious that Judge Merchan did not give Donald Trump a fair trial. The judge gave the jury instructions which gave them the choice to return a non-unanimous verdict regarding three underlying charges, something strictly prohibited by the law. Judge Merchan allowed the Manhattan DA to add those charges during the trial, even though those crimes were not part of the indictment – another illegal action. People who watched the trial also saw Judge Merchan be angry and condescending towards defense arguments and witnesses, while allowing the prosecutors of Alvin Bragg’s office extensive leeway and courtesy at every opportunity.
Many people also knew that Judge Merchan’s daughter was profiting from the trial of Donald Trump, and were shocked at this obvious conflict of interest.
More likely than voter disinterest in the Trump criminal trial was voter disgust at watching such a blatantly unfair trial, perpetrated in an effort to stop one man from running for President.
Now that this goal has failed, and the voters of America have resoundingly spoken, Judge Merchan decided to cut his own losses and give the 47th president a nothingburger of a sentence for a conviction that will no doubt be reversed on appeal.
One criminal case does remain on the docket against Donald Trump; the Georgia State indictment for racketeering brought by Fulton County Prosecutor Fani Willis.
As we discussed in December of 2023, Willis’ indictment is based on Georgia’s RICO statute, which gives a very broad definition for a criminal enterprise. In essence, Willis charged Trump and his 2020 re-election campaign organization with engaging in a pattern of racketeering, conducted in an effort to intimidate Georgia election officials and steal the 2020 election.
We also noted the similarities in the charges brought in Georgia with those brought by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith in his “Jan 6” indictment.
Unlike the clearly biased Judge Merchan, the Court in Georgia, Judge Scott McAfee, has been more balanced in his handling of this case. In March of last year, the Court dismissed several counts relating to the alleged efforts by Trump to convince Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to “find” additional votes. “‘As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited,’ McAfee wrote. ‘They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways.'”
Contrast this ruling, which was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals in January of 2025 with the rulings made by Judge Merchan, allowing prosecutors to add charges to their indictment after the case had gone to trial.
Besides understanding the legal necessity for giving a defendant fair notice of the charges he faces prior to trial, Judge McAfee also showed his understanding of the distinction between federal and state jurisdiction.
In her indictment of Donald Trump, Willis asserts that “Members of the enterprise…created false Electoral College documents [and] transmitted [these documents] to the President of the United States Senate [and] the Archivist of the United States…[t]he false documents were intended to disrupt and delay the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021 in order to unlawfully change the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.”
In September of 2024, Judge McAfee dismissed several charges predicated upon these allegations, ruling that “the southern state did not have the authority to bring the specific charges related to the alleged filing of false documents in federal court.” As NPR explained, Judge McAfee “dismissed the three counts based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says state law must yield to federal law when the two conflict.”
Compare this ruling again with the evidence Judge Merchan allowed to be used against Donald Trump in New York. Some of the underlying charges in that case related to the filing of allegedly false documents with the Federal Elections Commission. Judge McAfee understands that federal filings are subject to federal law, and federal law only. Judge Merchan clearly does not.
Despite these dismissals, charges do remain pending against Donald Trump in Georgia state court. However, the indictment continues to be stalled by the antics of Fulton County DA Fani Willis.
In March of last year, it was revealed that Willis had an ongoing romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, whom she hired as a Special Prosecutor in her case against Donald Trump. Questions arose, and a hearing was held regarding this obvious conflict of interest.
Trump’s attorneys argued that “Willis should be disqualified from the case, claiming that she financially benefited from hiring Wade because of their personal relationship.” Willis emphatically denied that her and Wade had a romantic relationship before he was hired to work on the Trump case. Witnesses testified that this was untrue, and that Willis and Wade’s relationship predated her hiring him. But even more damaging to Willis, it was revealed during the hearing that Willis and Wade took a series of vacations together, “including Caribbean cruises and visiting wine country California. Both testified that Wade routinely paid for the trips and Willis would reimburse him with cash. When repeatedly pressed about whether any records existed for her withdrawals of the funds, she said she was accustomed and taught by her father to keep 6 months of regular expenses on hand in cash.”
After the hearing, Judge McAfee ruled that “[t]he district attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment…Alternatively, [special assistant district attorney] Wade can withdraw, allowing the district attorney, the defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case.”
Wade then resigned, leaving Willis in charge of the case. Trump’s lawyers appealed.
In December of last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that Willis must also be removed. “Citing an ‘appearance of impropriety’ that might not typically warrant such a removal, [the court] said in a 2-1 ruling that ‘this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings’…The appeals court majority opinion, written by Judge Trenton Brown and joined by Judge Todd Markle, said ‘the remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.'”
Willis’ office has appealed her removal, further delaying the proceedings against Donald Trump in Georgia. But the case does remain alive, giving Democrats their one last hope of derailing the Trump Presidency.
The majority of the lawfare criminal charges brought against the President have failed to either prevent his election or cause his incarceration. Given the lack of progress in the one remaining, it seems highly unlikely that Donald Trump’s enemies will see their wishes granted in the near future.
But the road Donald Trump has travelled thus far still has a few more speed bumps to be navigated by our 47th President.
Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC
Illustration: Pixabay
It is now one for the history books; only the second President to serve non-consecutive terms, Donald J. Trump, our 45th President, was sworn in as our 47th President on Monday, January 20, 2025.
“[R]eturning to power with a promise to end America’s decline and to ‘completely and totally reverse’ the actions of the man who drove him from office four years ago,” the Associated Press states, “Trump overcame impeachments, criminal indictments and a pair of assassination attempts to win another term in the White House.”
This assessment is, of course, an understatement. As we have detailed here in usagovpolicy.com, as well as in our book, The Making of a Martyr: An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump, Donald Trump has overcome opposition to both his first term in office, and his reelection campaign that would have clearly broken a poorer, less determined man. Two impeachments, four criminal indictments, several civil matters, as well as two assassination attempts would probably have seriously impeded the progress of most of us.
For Donald Trump, however, these roadblocks have served as nothing but speed bumps, sometimes slowing, but never stopping his return trip to the White House.
Both indictments brought by Special Prosecutor Jack Smith are dead letters. In July of 2024, Federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Florida “classified documents” indictment, on the basis that Smith was never legally appointed to serve as a Special Prosecutor by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. Smith had appealed the dismissal; however, upon the election of Donald Trump, the ersatz Special –Counsel withdrew the appeal, “due to a long-standing Justice Department policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.”
After the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that Smith’s “January 6” indictment included a series of allegations that could not be legally maintained, Smith made an effort to supersede the indictment. But this effort met the same fate as the “classified documents” case – Smith withdrew the charges in November of 2024.
Jack Smith then resigned his post, after issuing a report that will likely remain unread by anyone but Trump Justice Department attorneys looking for a good laugh.
As the 47th President would say, “all this winning…”
But let’s not celebrate too quickly. While Donald Trump’s federal prosecutions have ended in a decidedly ignoble fashion, there are still two state court criminal matters to be considered.
In June of 2024, Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in New York County Supreme Court, Criminal Term. We have discussed extensively the blunders committed by Judge Juan Merchan during that trial, including the utterly illegal instructions he gave to the jury; we even testified before the House Judiciary Committee about these reversible errors in July of 2024.
More recently, we analyzed whether or not Judge Merchan would proceed to sentence the 47th President, or defer sentencing until the conclusion of his presidency. As we noted in December of last year, “[t]he advantages to his opponents of having a criminal conviction pending sentencing hanging over the head of the President of the United States are obvious. Just as obvious is the advantage to those same opponents of having Donald Trump unable to appeal his unjust and illegal conviction, since a defendant must be sentenced before he may proceed with an appeal.”
Rather than proceed with this option, Judge Merchan moved forward with imposing sentence on the 47th President on January 10 of this year.
Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow
Picture: Pixabay
Back in the 1990’s, I penned my first in a series of articles dealing with the subject matter of “Fires, Floods, and Fools”, a never-ending cycle in California. Having lived through the 1969 flood and countless fires, it was a painful but easy column to write. Now, after revisiting this subject again and again and again over the years, the pain of watching tens of thousands of people lose everything they own is too much to bear. Nonetheless, will our government recognize this never-ending cycle of fires and floods, including the horrific Montecito debris flow, and begin to address the real problem that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with managing natural resources in a prudent and competent manner?
I am going to digress here a little bit and demonstrate that the rhetoric of climate change is just that, rhetoric. The fact is the doomsayers themselves claim that climate change will result in greater catastrophes in the future meaning we will experience worse droughts, floods, and fires than ever before. Yet, what have they done to prepare for the same? Have they built more dams and reservoirs to alleviate floods and help us through droughts? No. Have they built fuel breaks throughout the “wildlands”? No. Have they conducted regularly scheduled controlled burns? No. Have they thinned the trees and brush and created a significantly wide buffer zone between the urban/rural interface? No. Have they deployed thousands of goats and cows into our foothills to help manage the fuels? No. Moreover, have they compared the ghg emissions from wildfires to that of the transportation sector to affirm they are focusing on the biggest emission source? No!
Meanwhile, what has our government done? Besides spending billions on high-speed rail, tens of billions on the homeless (ironically at least two homeless people in LA were detained by law enforcement as arson suspects!), and millions on charging stations and the like, they set up an impossible scenario for the public at large via what they have done to our utilities and insurance carriers.
They have prevented our utilities from clear cutting the areas through which our power lines run and then sued the bejesus out of them for the ensuing fire storms. This leaves the utilities with little choice but to turn off power in the middle of a windstorm or face the threat of bankruptcy from the ensuing lawsuits. And what good are charging stations that won’t work when people need them most, as when their power is cut off during an emergency?
Moreover, the state would not allow insurance companies to raise rates in a timely manner to cover the never-ending stream of claims from natural disasters, so they were forced to cancel coverage. So now, a significant number of the people who lost their homes have no insurance coverage to cover their losses or begin the rebuilding process as you normally can’t get loans to construct without fire insurance.
Of course, since the 1990’s when I first wrote on this subject matter, our government’s failure to adequately safeguard our communities from fires and floods has gotten progressively worse, pun intended. That is, progressives in city and county governments and our state government have placed undue emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion in their hiring and promotional practices as competence is lower on the list of priorities than ever before.
Specifically, as LA County spent more than a billion on the homeless, millions on electric vehicles, including an electric fire truck and EV charging stations, and hundreds of thousands on various DEI programs, they cut the fire department budget some $17 million this past year! One expenditure stands out to me. $14,010 to the “Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles- maybe Nero should have thought of hiring a choir while Rome burned! See here
Our government needs to come to grips with reality, but that won’t happen until we start electing people with real world experience that breeds competence in managing priorities versus the ability to virtue signal. There are a myriad of laws, local, state and federal, that prevent us from preventing out-of-control wildfires by reducing fuel loading. Nobody should have to get a permit to thin trees and brush on their property, or maximize flood control capacities in rivers, streams and ditches, and the government should be required to do the same on an ongoing basis on the property under their control. California also needs to quit wasting billions of gallons of water on fish and make it a priority that every community in this state has more water than they need including by constructing multiple desal plants throughout the coast, along with a significant number of new dams and reservoirs.
Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB Santa Barbara County
America is $36.5 trillion in debt, yet Democrats seek to block every effort to bring federal spending under control. Mandy Gunasekara, author of Y’all fired: A Southern Belle’s Guide to restoring Federalism and Draining the Swamp provides an analysis of the challenge. Fentanyl has caused more U.S. deaths than some of the wars the nation has fought. Dr. Robert Marbut, producer of the film Fentanyl Death Incorporation, provides chilling details. If you missed the program on your local network, watch it here.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced the launch of a new military activity by NATO to strengthen the protection of critical infrastructure. “Baltic Sentry” will enhance NATO’s military presence in the Baltic Sea and improve Allies’ ability to respond to destabilizing acts.
Leaders from across the region have addressed the growing threat to critical undersea infrastructure. The Secretary General said recent sabotage had damaged energy and communication cables.
“Baltic Sentry” will involve a range of assets, including frigates and maritime patrol aircraft. The Secretary General also announced the deployment of new technologies, including a small fleet of naval drones, and highlighted that NATO will work with Allies to integrate national surveillance assets – all to improve the ability to protect critical undersea infrastructure and respond if required. NATO will work within the Critical Undersea Infrastructure Network, which includes industry, to explore further ways to protect infrastructure and improve resilience of underwater assets.
“Baltic Sentry will deliver focused deterrence throughout the Baltic Sea and counter destabilizing acts like those observed last month,” said U.S. Army General Christopher G. Cavoli, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. “It is indicative of the Alliance’s ability to rapidly respond to such destabilization, and shows the strength of our unity in the face of any challenge.”
Rutte also stressed the importance of robust enforcement. He highlighted how Finland has demonstrated that firm action within the law is possible, “Ship captains must understand that potential threats to our infrastructure will have consequences, including possible boarding, impounding, and arrest.”
According to a Rand study, “The strategic environment in the Baltic Sea region has undergone two key changes since 2022: (1) intensified North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)–Russia tensions due to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and (2) Finland’s and Sweden’s accessions to NATO. The region represents one of the largest interfaces between NATO and Russia, and essential civilian commerce and undersea infrastructure in the area are vulnerable to attack by Russia.”
Defense specialists caution that, while NATO’s expanded concentration on the Baltic is encouraging, danger persists. Julian Pawlak writing in the authoritative War on the Rocks website, notes that “With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, there has been renewed focus on the strategic situation in the Baltic Sea. By joining the alliance, the two Scandinavian countries almost complete its encirclement of the Baltic and help consolidate allied defense efforts in the region. Yet the Russian Federation persists in the Baltic, and its influence remains threatening. Thus many of the optimistic assessments about NATO’s newfound dominance in the region do not reflect the reality, as the alliance has yet to figure out how best to defend against and deter Russia in this particular part of Europe.”
The threat comes from China, as well. Elisabeth Braw, in an Atlantic Council.org study, note that a Chinese vessel, the Yi Peng 3, leaving the Russian Baltic Port of Ust-Luga may have been responsible for intentionally cutting two undersea cables. She reports that “On November 17, an undersea cable connecting Sweden and Lithuania was cut, and less than twenty-four hours later, the only communications cable connecting Finland with Germany was also severed. As OSINT investigators quickly gathered, the Yi Peng 3 was at the scene both times.”
On January 14, the President of Finland Alexander Stubb, Prime Minister of Estonia Kristen Michal, Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen, Federal Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz, President of Latvia Edgars Rinkēvičs, President of Lithuania Gitanas Nausėda, Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk and Prime Minister of Sweden Ulf Kristersson issued a joint statement proclaiming that they are “…deeply concerned by actions, be they negligent or malicious, which cause damage to or threaten the functioning of critical undersea infrastructure. We strongly condemn acts of sabotage to critical undersea infrastructure. We are determined to deter, detect and counter any attempts at sabotage. Any attack against our infrastructure will be met with a robust and determined response. We stand ready to attribute hostile actions committed by malign actors, as appropriate.”
Photo: Swedish Naval vessel (NATO photo)
North Korea has tested a new hypersonic intermediate-range missile aimed which appears aimed at U.S. bases In the Indo-Pacific.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently noted that North Korea continues to advance its missile and nuclear weapons programs despite UN Security Council sanctions and high-level diplomatic efforts. According to the analysis, the country’s ballistic missile testing, military parades, and policy statements suggest that North Korea is continuing to build a nuclear warfighting capability designed to evade regional ballistic missile defenses. Such an approach likely reinforces a deterrence and coercive diplomacy strategy—lending more credibility as it demonstrates capability—but it also raises questions about crisis stability and escalation control.
The study suggests that Congress may wish to examine U.S. policy toward North Korea. This is particularly important, since The Pyongyang regime can now target the American mainland with ICBMs It demonstrated its ability initially in various tests in 2017, subsequently in 2022, four times in 2023, and again in 2024.
In a truly worrisome move, North Korea adopted, in 2022, adopted a policy expanding the conditions under which North Korea would use nuclear weapons to include possible first use in situations that threaten the regime’s survival. In September 2023, Kim promised to boost nuclear weapons production “exponentially” and diversify nuclear strike options.
CRS revealed that North Korean government statements show that the country is aiming to increase its stockpile of nuclear warheads and improve their design for a variety of delivery systems. Some nongovernmental experts estimate that North Korea has produced enough fissile material for between 20 to 60 warheads.
Another goal of its nuclear weapon program is to lower the size and weight of a nuclear warhead for deployment on missiles, called “miniaturization.” A July 2017 DIA assessment asserted North Korea had achieved the level of miniaturization required to fit a nuclear device on weapons ranging from short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) to intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). Kim Jong-un in January 2021 said that the country was able to “miniaturize, lighten and standardize nuclear weapons and to make them tactical ones.” In his January 1, 2023, speech, Kim said the country would expand its nuclear arsenal and “mass produce” tactical nuclear weapons. The 2024 ATA said that Kim ordered a “an increase in the nuclear weapons stockpile and the expansion of weapon-grade nuclear material production” in March 2023. The ATA said that “North Korea also unveiled a purported tactical nuclear warhead and claimed it could be mounted on at least eight delivery systems, including an unmanned underwater vehicle and cruise missiles.”
Recently, according to the Defense Department, The United States and South Korea (ROK) convened the fourth Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) in Washington, D.C. The meeting was co-chaired by Ms. Cara Abercrombie, who is performing the duties of U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Dr. Cho Chang Lae, ROK Deputy Minister for National Defense Policy.
The United States reaffirmed its commitment to South Korea. The American representatives stressed that any nuclear attack by North Korea would be met with a “swift, overwhelming, and decisive response.” They stressed that the United States reiterated that any nuclear attack by the DPRK against the United States or its allies would result in the end of the Pyongyang regime, And that commitment is backed by the “full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear.” The Americans also reaffirmed the commitment to enhance the regular visibility of U.S. strategic assets to the Korean Peninsula.
Prospects for the future appear increasingly worrisome, as it deepens its military relations with Russia. Moscow has apparently exchanged advanced weaponry, including aircraft, in return for armaments such as artillery and infantry troops.
Illustration: Pixabay
The devastating California wildfires have been made even worse due to the priorities of the near-total rule of Sacramento’s progressive politicians. The harm they have done to what was once called “The Golden State” is not unique. It is widespread throughout the cities, towns, and states of the nation, and indeed, to the federal government as well.
Progressives dangerously fail to address actual problems and needs. They ignore rational and worthy goals that should be pursued. Instead, they are devoted to virtue-signaling “green” policies that do little for the environment, but ravage the economy. They encourage racial and gender division, and bear responsibility for massive crime problems. Progressive ineptitude in foreign policy has led to a world in chaos.
The New York Post notes that “President-elect Trump, during his first administration, put Gov. Gavin Newsom on notice for his handling of repeated wildfires in the state, years ahead of the devastating Los Angeles wildfires currently raging…’The Governor of California… has done a terrible job of forest management. I told him from the first day we met that he must ‘clean’ his forest floors regardless of what his bosses, the environmentalists, DEMAND of him. Must also do burns and cut fire stoppers,” the former and upcoming president posted to X in 2019.’”
Californians pay some of the highest taxes in the nation, (yet face a $73 billion budget gap) yet Sacramentq fails to adequately fund needed infrastructure and public safety programs. One study reports that “The California State Water Resources Control Board recently released an assessment showing that nearly one million Golden State residents lack access to safe and reliable water. Further, the five-year price tag to address the state’s massive infrastructure needs could top $16 billion.”
So where does a big chunk of the money go? The House Budget Committee reports that “Benefits and services provided to illegal aliens in California in 2022 amounted to $22,821,903,942.”
Progressive environmentalists prioritize leftist goals over real needs and genuine environmental problems. The Manhattan Institute reports that, in fact, self-described environmentalists are less interested in climate goals than in replacing capitalism with socialism. The irony of that belief can be seen explicitly in comparing very similar areas, such as the old East Germany with West Germany. A 1984 Christian Science Monitor article reported that “A UN report …identified East Germany as the most polluted country in Europe. …the German Economic Institute in West Berlin calculates that East German sulfur dioxide emissions have reached at least 46 tons annually per square kilometer, or triple West German levels.” A similar comparison can be found between North and South Korea.
A similar result occurs in Progressive views on racism.
A Hoover Institution study notes that “…at least some of the politicians who are promising to address racism are the same ones who are responsible for the reasons so many Californians—particularly Blacks—struggle economically, decade after decade. These politicians must know by now that their policies, which reduce economic opportunities, increase living costs, and perpetuate a failed K–12 education system, have imposed substantial and disproportionate harm on Blacks, Hispanics, and women. But they continue doubling down on this failed agenda by passing new laws and imposing new regulations that make Black lives—and the lives of many more Californians—much worse off.”
The impact of progressive foreign policy has been a significant encouragement of war and threats by China, Russia and Iran. When Beijing assaulted the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, then-president Barack Obama failed to provide even a diplomatic protest, despite the eventual ruling in favor of Manila by the World Court. As Russia threatened to invade Ukraine, President Biden signaled weakness. Both Obama and Biden demonstrated weakness in the actions by both Iran and ISIS in the Middle East. Today, encouraged by that, China is ramping up its bullying in the Indo-Pacific region, Ukraine is devastated, ISIS is regaining power, and Iran is weeks or months away from becoming a nuclear power.
The impact of Progressive prosecutors on crime is another example of failure. As noted by the Heritage Institute “Their policies encourage lawlessness, harm law-abiding residents (especially minorities), drive businesses out of cities, and demoralize the police by treating them like criminals.”
Despite the absolute failure of Progressive policies at home and abroad, biased reporting by pro-leftist media outlets have worked to dampen criticism.
Illustration: Pixabay
The United States served as the “arsenal of Democracy” in World War II, providing arms and equipment to its allies in the fight against the Axis Powers. In 2025, it may not be able to even supply its own needs.
The vast defense industrial base that gave America that capability has been dramatically reduced. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently noted that “Some analysts and policymakers have argued that the current capacity of the industrial base is insufficient for the demands of great power competition. As Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) framed the issue in a 2023 study, ‘The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists. It is currently operating at a tempo better suited to a peacetime environment. In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait— the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense, leading to a problem of ‘empty bins.’”
CRS notes that “some analysts and policymakers…argue that certain market developments (e.g., the consolidation of prime defense contractors since the 1990s or the widespread adoption of “just-in-time” approaches to logistics) have reduced the capacity and resilience of U.S. defense suppliers.”
Consider just one key weapons system, tanks. There is only one operational plant that can build them, a facility in Lima, Ohio. During that Obama Administration, attempts were made to shut it down, a move that would have been disastrous.
William A. LaPlante, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, notes that a resilient defense industrial base is critical to the Defense Department’s ability to deter future conflict. The lessons learned from the Ukraine conflict have driven home the point.
“Very few people anticipated the prolonged, high-volume conflict we are seeing in Ukraine or that we might see again against a strategic competitor. We are relearning just how resource-intensive this type of warfare can be, and how dialing down our production numbers, and the just-in-time delivery model doesn’t work in this kind of conflict. We need a paradigm shift to meet the needs of today and the future fight.”
The inadequate level of production that is being completed contains too many foreign produced parts. Many years ago, in an off-the-record conversation, one of America’s top military leaders told me that foreign-sourced parts were a source of key concern.
George Whittier, writing for Industry Week, noted that “The military and its partners have become too dependent on foreign-made parts, materials, and minerals.”
An American Security Project analysis disclosed that “Chinese equipment has permeated military supply chains for over a decade. In 2012, the Senate Armed Forces Committee found that counterfeit parts from China were being integrated into several critical systems. These included artificial intelligence capacities in the Air Force’s Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft, the Navy’s Integrated Submarine Imaging System, and the Army’s Stryker Mobile Gun. With 1800 cases containing over one million counterfeit parts, the committee’s conclusion was that both national security and service members were being put at jeopardy. Despite these findings, China continues to supply goods and services used by the United States for dual-use and defense purposes. From 2018 to 2022, there were 471 tier 1 Chinese suppliers of semiconductors and related devices to the US defense industry, more than any other country other than the US itself, and 299 suppliers in tier 2. Data analytics company Govini has identified a surplus of Chinese vendors and suppliers in twelve critical technology areas, including biotechnology, nuclear modernization, hypersonic, and space technologies that are vital to U.S. national security.”