Author: Judge John Wilson (ret.)

Before we recommend that Catholic institutions refuse all federal funding in an effort to avoid federal rules that conflict with their religious belief, a recent decision from the Eight Circuit provides a different perspective, albeit from a different angle.

In  Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra,   “a  coalition  of  entities  affiliated  with  the Catholic Church . . . challeng[ed] the implementation of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (‘ACA’)…(a)ccording to  the  plaintiffs,  “the  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  (‘HHS’)…interpret Section  1557  and  related  antidiscrimination  laws  in  a  way  that  compels  them  to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions.”

Unlike the District Court in Hammons, the Eigth Circuit took pains to discuss the dilemma presented by HHC’s interpretation of Section 1557, and its effect on religious institutions; “Title IX exempts from its restrictions ‘an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.’ 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3)…(i)n 2016, HHS promulgated a ‘final rule implement[ing] Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Section 1557)’…(t)he 2016 Rule defined ‘[c]overed entity’ as ‘[a]n entity that operates a health program or activity, any part of which receives Federal financial assistance’…(i)n the 2016 Rule, HHS “concluded that almost all practicing physicians in the United States are reached by  Section  1557  because  they  accept  some  form  of  Federal  remuneration  or reimbursement…”

Significantly, the Eighth Circuit noted that “(w)hile the 2016 Rule provided that the statutory exceptions  applicable for discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, and disability applied…it  omitted  Title  IX’s  religious  exemption.” 

This 2016 interpretation of Section 1557 was continued by HHC in the final rule adopted in 2021.

A group of Catholic organizations realized that under the government’s interpretation of Section 1557, a religious hospital could be forced to participate in sexual reassignment surgery. These organizations then sued to prevent Religious health institutions to be required to  “provide, perform, pay for, cover, or facilitate access to health services for gender transition.”

In granting the Sisters of Mercy a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Section 1557 against religious health institutions, the Eighth Circuit held that “the plaintiffs have suffered an injury-in-fact from the government’s interpretation of Section 1557… [p]laintiffs’ refusal to cover gender-transition procedures in their health plans stems from a First Amendment exercise of their religious beliefs… intrusion  upon  the  Catholic  Plaintiffs’  exercise  of  religion  is sufficient to show irreparable harm.”

It is important to note that there are several significant differences between the District Court decision in Hammons and the Eighth Circuit decision in Sisters of Mercy – differences which make the Hammons decision dangerous to religious liberty.  

Hammons was brought by a private individual against a private institution, while Sisters of Mercy was brought by a group of Catholic health care providers against the government.  Government interference in religious freedom is directly proscribed by the US Constitution, which is why the Eighth Circuit prohibited the government from bringing enforcement actions against these Catholic institutions.  The back door opened by Hammons, however, would allow a private individual to assert the superiority of their right to non-discrimination over the right of a Catholic hospital to act in accordance with its faith-based guidelines. 

In other words, the government cannot force a Catholic hospital to perform sex reassignment surgery – but an individual who wants that surgery can.  As noted in Hammons, “(Plaintiff) was not a party to the (Sisters of Mercy) lawsuit…and is not enjoined by the terms of the injunction—only HHS and its agents are…Hammons private right of action is different from a potential enforcement action against St. Joseph by HHS…an injunction against government enforcement is not the same as an injunction against private lawsuits.”

Further, Sisters of Mercy is not based on whether or not a religious health care facility receives federal funding, leaving open the possibility the government could make that argument in a future effort to force Catholic hospitals to participate in gender reassignment surgery.  If Hammons is followed by higher courts, then the Sisters of Mercy injunction could be reversed – a decision which would force religious health providers to choose between violating their consciences – or closing their doors.

For the time being, then, the phrase continues in effect; federal funding equals federal rules.

Illustration: Pixabay

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

There is a saying that I believe I may have coined – “federal funding equals federal rules.”  This means that under the Spending Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), “the federal government (has) the legal authority to offer federal grant funds to states and localities that are contingent on the recipients engaging in, or refraining from, certain activities.” 

The Spending Clause applies to federal funds provided to States.  Regarding non-state entities, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. As President John F. Kennedy said in 1963: ‘Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination.’ If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action.” 

In 1972, the Civil Rights Act was expanded to include Title IX, which “prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance…types of discrimination that are covered under Title IX include sexual harassment…and discrimination based on pregnancy.”    

These prohibitions against racial and sexual discrimination sound reasonable on their face.  After all, why should the federal government provide taxpayer funds to States or entities (such as private colleges or hospitals) that discriminate against either pregnant women or Asian students?  Sounds reasonable, right?

But there is another saying that I did not coin – “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

What began as the good intentions of discouraging racial and sexual discrimination in 1963 and 1972, has led to the Hell of government coercion in the 21st Century.  

In June of 2021, the US Department of Education issued a “Notice of Interpretation” that declared “the Department interprets Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”  Thus, the Department “will fully enforce Title IX to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department.” 

Then, in March of 2022, the Biden Administration issued a statement recognizing a “Transgender Day of Visibility,” in which the Administration described “new actions to support the mental health of transgender children, remove barriers that transgender people face accessing critical government services, and improve the visibility of transgender people in our nation’s data.”  These efforts include reminding “all state attorneys general…of federal constitutional and statutory provisions that protect transgender youth against discrimination, including when those youth seek gender-affirming care,” and “(r)eaffirming that transgender children have the right to access gender-affirming health care” by “expanding non-discrimination protections for transgender people in health care, housing, education, credit and lending services, and community safety programs.” 

Recently, “(t)he U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a…final rule implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 makes it unlawful for any health care provider who receives funding from the federal government to refuse to treat an individual—or to otherwise discriminate against the individual—based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability.” 

Again, this sounds reasonable on its face – until this further statement is added; “beginning May 10, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will interpret and enforce Section 1557’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex to include: (1) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and (2) discrimination on the basis of gender identity.”

Thus, the slippery slope is made obvious, when we are on the bottom looking up.  We began with the noble intention of prohibiting the federal funding of entities that discriminate against people based on their race, sex or place of origin.  We now are at the point where a health care provider who accepts federal funding must provide treatment to an individual whatever their sexual orientation or stated gender identity.

Many Americans are in agreement with these rules.  But where does this federal mandate leave religious health care providers?  What if your faith leads you to conclude that “(c)reated in God’s image and likeness, male and female, our sexuality is a gift from God that we offer back, in love, to Him. Transgenderism violates God’s design.”

Apparently, the answer depends upon which Court you ask.

According to US District Judge Deborah Chasanow of Maryland,  “a Catholic hospital,” which was operating “in a manner consistent with Catholic values and principles,” cannot refuse to perform a hysterectomy on a women who identified as a man because the surgery “was meant to treat (the patient’s) gender dysphoria,” 

in Hammons v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., a woman who identified as a male had scheduled a hysterectomy with Defendant St Joseph’s Medical Center, a subsidiary of the University.  The Court found that “St. Joseph’s board implemented the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services…as promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in St. Joseph’s provision of health care,” and that those rules stated that the “[d]irect sterilization of either men or women . . . is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution.”  As a result, the hospital cancelled the surgery for Plaintiff Hammons.

Despite this clear objection based upon religious grounds, why did the Court rule against St Joseph’s?  “Title IX, Section 1557 prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’…the undisputed facts establish that the (refusal to perform the hysterectomy) was discrimination on the basis of sex because it was pursuant to a policy against providing genderaffirming care.”

In her decision, Judge Chasanow ignored the Catholic principles under which St Joseph’s hospital operates.  It did not matter that “The National Catholic Bioethics Center…has issued a guidance document that states: Gender transitioning of any kind is intrinsically disordered[] because it cannot conform to the true good of the human person, who is a body-soul union unalterably created male or female. Gender transitioning should never be performed, encouraged, or positively affirmed as a good in Catholic health care. This includes surgeries, the administration of cross-sex hormones or pubertal blockers, and social or behavioral modifications.”

Instead, the Court noted that while the Ethical and Religious Directives used by the hospital state that “[d]irect sterilization of either men or women . . . is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution,” those rules also state that  “[p]rocedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.” 

The Court drove its opinion through this exception.  “(Plaintiff) is a transgender man who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” the Court wrote. “Gender dysphoria is a medical condition recognized by the International Classification of Diseases-10 and International Classification of Diseases-11, published by the World Health Organization, and by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association…the undisputed facts establish that the (refusal to perform the surgery) was discrimination on the basis of sex because it was pursuant to a policy against providing genderaffirming care—a policy that in practice permits all patients to obtain doctor-recommended, medically necessary hysterectomies, except transgender patients seeking treatment for gender dysphoria.” 

Most important, on what basis did the Court assert its jurisdiction over St Joseph’s, a private institution? “Defendants have…admitted that they have received federal funds.” Therefore, St Joseph’s “can be held directly liable under Section 1557 for owning and operating a hospital that adheres to discriminatory policies,” regardless of whether or not that hospital maintains a Catholic identity, and adheres to Catholic ethical and religious directives.

Thus, it bears repeating again – it did not matter to Judge Chasanow that St Joseph’s asserted reasons based in religious practice and beliefs for refusing to participate in sexual reassignment surgery.  The hospital accepted federal funding, and under the law, their religion based objections were deemed irrelevant.

The Report concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

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

Kinetic warfare ends lives and destroys infrastructure. There is another type of war, state-sponsored cyberattacks, that costs millions of dollars every year and is one of the most dangerous types of security threats faced by the US today.

Last year the United States experienced a 57% increase in overall cyberattacks. World-wide attacks on corporate networks rose by 38%.  These attacks are responsible for communications interruptions and electrical blackouts, the failure of military equipment, and breaches in America’s national security secrets. In the private sector cyber-attacks on the US have caused financial and intellectual property losses that have paralyzed business and healthcare systems and destroyed whole companies. In 2022 the US healthcare sector suffered an average of 1,410 weekly cyberattacks per organization, which is an 86% increase over 2021. When sophisticated cyber actors steal valuable data, especially when the attack is committed by states with an adversarial relationship with the US, the damage can be extensive. A recent Heritage Foundation report says “…no threat facing America has grown as fast, a manner as difficult to understand, as the danger from cyberattacks.” 

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and other unfriendly states and hacker groups pose a severe challenge to America’s open society. Currently, Russia presents the most sophisticated cyber threat, according to the report, with China as a close second. Hacking enabled Beijing to skip generations of technological stages helped by its rampant theft of commercial intellectual property. The threat is not new. It is ongoing but occurring on a larger scale with increasing frequency over the last decade. In one single 2015 cybersecurity breach in the US Office of Personnel Management, in a campaign believed to be undertaken by the Chinese government, 22.1 million federal employees had their personnel records with personally identifiable information obtained and exfiltrated using a backdoor tool previously employed by China to target Tibetan and Hong Kong political activists. 

In that same year Ukraine experienced the first ever successful cyber attack on a power grid; another also believed to be of Russian origin followed in 2016. A year ago, immediately following Putin’s invasion in Ukraine, Russia took down several major Ukrainian government and banking websites. Last June Microsoft shared a report that detailed Russian hacking activities and said the country has engaged in “strategic espionage” in 42 countries, including the United States. Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and last year is believed to have been behind multiple cyberattacks that took down portions of Ukraine’s electric grid. 

Iran and North Korea are much less sophisticated than the two giants, but what they lack in expertise they make up for in malice, according to the Heritage Report. It reports that the 2012 “Shamoon” virus unleashed on the Saudi ARAMCO oil production company was a brute-force attack that destroyed 30,000 computers. Iran also committed cyberattacks against banks, government networks, and public agencies in the United Kingdom.

The US intelligence community in its 2021 Annual Threat Assessment notes that “Iran’s expertise and willingness to conduct aggressive cyber operations make it a significant threat to the security of the US and allied networks and data… Iran has the ability to conduct attacks on critical infrastructure as well as to conduct influence and espionage activities.” North Korea has also conducted high-profile cyberattacks against the US. One of the most notable was launched against Sony Entertainment, in response to a movie negatively depicting the North Korea state and its leader. According to the US report, the hackers took terabytes of private data and released confidential information, including five undistributed Sony movies.  The FBI reports that in 2021 alone, ransomware attacks hit 649 US critical infrastructure entities. Virtually every organization in the United States is at risk from cyber threats. One of the problems in defending against such attacks is that they are hard to identify and defend against in an open society. The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency only recently issued its first comprehensive strategic plan since CISA was established in 2018. It will focus and guide the agency through 2025.

The US cannot forget, though, that although kinetic warfare is visceral and talked about more often in news stories, a more encompassing cyber threat looms beneath the surface.

NATO Member states have enhanced their militaries’ interoperability over the years to improve the effectiveness of their joint forces on future battlefields.

It appears China and Russia are taking a page from the West’s playbook and ramping up their ability to act together coherently, effectively, and efficiently to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic objectives. China is well aware that possessing  materiel and manpower is not enough to ensure victory against an adversary with advanced weapons and a sophisticated level of combat experience and training. Beijing’s lack of experience in combat may be one of the final factors holding Beijing back from taking Taiwan by force. Chinese forces have not seen extensive combat since its early 1979 border war with Vietnam. It did not do well in that conflict, often making rudimentary mistakes. Chinese troops would carry cement high up into the North Vietnamese border mountains to fortify their positions. The Chinese troops would then go out on patrol, get lost, and when they did relocate their fortification, often discover that Vietnamese troops had captured their position. China suffered heavy losses due, in large part, to a lack of training and combat experience.

China today is assuming a more globally-oriented leadership position in the world. Its military forces are operating farther from its shores. This week the navies of China, Russia, and South Africa are conducting joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean off the coast of South Africa. It is the second time since 2019 that that governments have practiced a joint operation. “Although those exercises were noteworthy at the time, little came of them. However, under the vastly changed geopolitical circumstances coming as a result of Russia’s all-out aggression against Ukraine, the potential ramifications of these upcoming exercises might be more far-reaching,” says Stephen Blank of the Jamestown Foundation. 

The United States conducts similar training with South African forces. Pretoria sees it as maintaining a neutral position between the great powers. What is of particular interest in this type of ten-day training event is that recently China and Russia are planning many of them with third party nation-states. In January 2022 and again last fall China and Russia joined forces with the Iranian Navy for exercises, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. TASS suggests this reflects a strengthening of the relationship with Iran and increased cooperation between China and Russia. In the waters of northeast Asia Russia and China have conducted a number of joint naval, air and land exercises targeting South Korea and Japan. Analysts in Washington indicate that there is growing concern about security in the Indian Ocean as both China and Russia become more active in the region. Blank says it marks a “major transformation for security in Asia” and alarms even New Delhi.

China’s aggressive foreign policy moves in Africa, and early signs of increased Russo-Chinese bilateral cooperation, suggest that Moscow’s moves complement Beijing’s objectives across the continent. Although the war in Ukraine may hamper Russian efforts at the moment, when working in concert with China, it presents a serious challenge in West in Africa and the Indian Ocean.  Blank points out that Russia’s campaign for permanent naval bases in the Horn of Africa, Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea dates back to the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev. “They resumed in the late 2000’s and have been continuing ever since,” he says. The Indian Ocean has been a Russian priority for more than a decade. IT is fast becoming one for China. Russo-Chinese joint exercises will increase the interoperability of both navies and the security risk in the region, despite the war in Ukraine. Blank points out that China is also pursuing a global policy in more than one theater of operation, with many more resources than Russia. Thus, he notes, “the possibility for cooperation is much greater, with highly consequential benefits coming from any bilateral coordination. Whether Moscow’s unrelenting pursuit for global influence and military presence will bear fruit in terms of cooperation remains to be seen, but regardless, its efforts will present serious challenges for Western, Asian, and African policymakers.” 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

The United States faces the largest contiguous alliance of states opposed to Western ideals in the history of our country. While most news reports cover the war in Ukraine, Russia is busy shoring up its ability to cause trouble in the Middle East and the Caucasus. Russia, together with China, North Korea, and Iran, are working together to oppose American values, the dignity of individual lives, and the capitalist system that has raised so many societies out of poverty. The alliance is not only opposing the West on political and economic grounds, but these states today are also cooperating in the upgrade of their offensive military capabilities. A year ago this week, the world witnessed Russia attack its neighbor, Ukraine. This February the world is quietly witnessing the deepening of Russo-Iranian relations with news that Tehran is purchasing Russian-built Sukhoi Su-35 advanced fighter jets and not the less advanced Su-30’s. 

Washington was able to stop past attempts by Algeria, Egypt, and Indonesia to purchase the Russian jets. To date, only China has succeeded in buying the Su-35 jets and India has made little progress in closing a similar deal, according to Vali Kaleji, of the Jamestown Foundation. “…in the new geopolitical environment brought on by Russia’s war against Ukraine, Iran may indeed become the new destination of the Russian fighter, which underlines a burgeoning military relationship between Moscow and Tehran,” says Kaleji.

Last September the world learned from the commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF), Brigadier General Hamid Vahedi, that “the purchase of Sukhoi Su-35’s is currently being discussed, rather than Sukhoi Su-30’s,” according to the Tehran Times.  The Russian jets are expected to arrive in Iran in less than four weeks. Russia also sold air defense systems, missile systems and helicopters; all of which are due in Iran soon. Euromaiden Press reported in mid-December that the fighter jet deal may have been part of an exchange for Iranian drones sent to Russia for use in its war in Ukraine. 

So far, it appears the US intelligence community is finding it difficult to establish a clear and irrefutable link or contract between Moscow and Tehran, although Russia has not denied one exists. Kaleji suggests that deepening ties may be the reason for the secrecy as Russia and Iran are developing new defense and security programs. One analyst suggests that sanctions on Russia means they can’t deliver the 24 Su-35’s Iran ordered last year, however, most other analysts studying Russia argue that Moscow may have found a way around sanctions to obtain the special technology required from abroad to build the planes. 

“Tehran’s purchase of Su-35 fighter jets would facilitate the renewal of some of the IRIAF’s capacities and possibly lay the foundation for further cooperation in defense production between Russia and Iran,” says Kaleji. According to the Russian-outlet Sputnik in late January, “Even though the cost of maintaining and operating this jet appears to be high for Iran, these costs could be reduced if there are agreements on the joint production of the Su-35 engine in the Islamic Republic.” The Russian jet is versatile and Iran may be capable of installing its original weapons on it. Should that occur, Putin will have in effect provided Iran a means of creating a combat-ready mini-AWACS [airborne warning and control system]. Kaleji argues that if the Russian jet is then connected to Iran’s radar network, it will acquire unique point defense capabilities. Along with other military purchases from Russia, Iran could gain a significant advantage over neighboring states and impact the balance of power in the Persian Gulf region, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

The Russian deal may also push other nearby states to try to secure a deal with the United States to obtain F-35 fighter jets. Although some Iranian experts suggest Iran’s power is based on deterrence backed by missiles and drone power and not a turning point, the Russian deal when finalized will be one of the most consequential arms purchases for the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It will also represent a new era in Moscow’s relationship with Tehran and alter the balance of power throughout the South Caucasus and Middle East. Should the war in Ukraine expand into NATO Member states the US, under its obligations in the NATO Charter, would be required to support the states under attack.

At its present level, the United States cannot effectively handle military action simultaneously in two separate theaters of operation. The Su-35 advanced fighter jet deal may be the spark that ignites the Middle East.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

It is becoming more obvious that the priorities of many key elected officials, on the federal, state and local levels, bear little resemblance to those of the American people. If one excludes left-wing politicians, journalists and academics, it is clear that eliminating gas stoves and fossil fuels, defunding the police, building bridges to nowhere, providing benefits to illegal aliens and forcing drivers into electric cars is of much concern.

In a 2022 Pew Research survey, climate change came in at a weak number 14 in a list of concerns. Yet that appears to be a central motivating factor of the Biden White House. Racial equity appeared nowhere in a list of the top 18 issues—possibly because there is not a single law, regulation, or rule that in any way shape or form that in any way permits racism, nor is there any practice in corporations throughout the nation that is racist, except in the fevered imagination of candidates seeking to gain radicalized votes.

On the state and local level, a similar divorce from the concerns of the citizenry exists. Crime, excess taxation and regulation, and failing schools are key problems, but elected officials, particularly in “blue” states, haven’t gotten the message.

New York is a deep blue state beset by all those issues. As the legislature convened in 2023, among the first measures it concentrated on were “human composting” ( a process in which a human’s corpse is combined with items such as woodchips, heated, and then used to grow plants.) and giving themselves a 29% raise over their salary of $110,000.

The state’s citizenry has voted with their feet, leaving in record numbers.

In California, where the threats of electric brownouts are a constant presence and where homeless individuals and crime make its once proud cities resemble Dante’s inner circle of hell, Governor Newsome concentrates on driving gas cars out of existence and a host of woke issues. Like New York, his population also is leaving in massive numbers.

A 2022 PBS report notes that “Concerns about inflation and personal finances have surged…Forty percent of U.S. adults specifically name inflation in an open-ended question as one of up to five priorities for the government to work on in the next year, according to a June poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That’s a sharp rise from 14 percent in December and less than 1 percent the year prior. In all, 77 percent mention the economy in any way, up from 68 percent in December. But just 10 percent specifically mention jobs or unemployment, as U.S. employers continue to hire despite high inflation and weak economic growth. Now, too, Americans increasingly call their personal finances a major issue: 44 percent mention it, up from 24 percent in December and 12 percent the year before. That includes more mentioning gas or energy prices (33 percent now vs. 10 percent in December) and food costs (9 percent vs. less than 1 percent).”

Throughout the nation, no priority popular with elites but despised by the population is more evident than the politicization and radicalization of education. While spending taxpayer funds that produce more financial support than almost all industrialized nations, the results in basic competence in key subjects has declined precipitously. Reading, writing, sciences, and history are shortchanged as left-wing indoctrination, woke ideas, and attempts to gain the votes of union pofficials gain time and resources. COVID funds meant to address students needs were waylaid.

Centersquare  reports that  “Chicago Public Schools spent 77% of the $1.49 billion in federal COVID-19 relief money on employees’ salaries and benefits and the district has seen ’extra pay’ skyrocket during the pandemic, according to a 2023 report from the district’s Office of Inspector General.”

Politicians gained union help for their campaigns, at the expense of students.  Another in a long litany of putting their priorities ahead of their constituents.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Progressive mismanagement of American cities has reached epidemic proportions.

Unlike the drastic fiscal errors Washington has committed since the current Administration took office, or the dangerous foreign and defense polices it has adopted, it doesn’t take research to see the results of the absurd errors, based on bankrupt ideological extremes, committed by the current leadership in major urban centers across the nation. They are as commonplace as your uncomfortable daily commute, and as obvious as the unaddressed crime you walk around and the excess taxes you pay.

Writing in The Week, Joel Kotkin states that “Crime rates are spiking and homelessness, once an exception, is increasingly widespread. Those very streets once said to be ‘paved with gold’ are now are filled with discarded needles, excrement and graffiti.

NYC crime statistics released by the NYPD indicate that murder, rape and robbery have skyrocketed 40% over a year ago.  

The New York Times recently noted: “California’s cities have become unlivable. The basic problem is the steady collapse of livability… traffic and transportation is a developing-world nightmare. Child care and education seem impossible for all but the wealthiest. The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all superlatives — what was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a dystopian showcase of American inequality…Just look at San Francisco… the streets there are a plague of garbage and needles and feces, and every morning brings fresh horror stories from a “Black Mirror” hellscape… At every level of government…representatives, nearly all of them Democrats, prove inadequate and unresponsive to the challenges at hand.”

Once a great city, Chicago is collapsing.  An analysis in The Week notes: The nation’s third-largest city is riddled with dysfunction. Chicago is “a fiscal basket case,” says urban analyst Aaron Renn, with a lower credit rating than any major metropolis except Detroit…Its strapped school system seems perpetually on the verge of collapse…Chicago routinely ranks among the nation’s most politically corrupt cities, with a Democratic machine controlling City Hall for 90 years. That machine has incurred $20 billion in unfunded pension debt by giving generous public pensions to unions. But above all, what’s tearing at the city’s heart [is] crime…”

Philadelphia is, plainly speaking, a mess. Detroit, the very symbol of urban decay, continues its tragic decline. The list could go on, but the point is already clear.

The problems aren’t the result of an unexpected, unforeseen, or unstoppable challenge.  They are the direct and specific result of very poor ideological policies enacted by hyper-politicized left-wing government officials who have demonstrated neither remorse nor concern over the serious harm caused to their constituents. Rather than tackle crime and other essential problems, absurd urban governments spend most of their time on ideological battles attacking the very principles that made American metropolises great.  They consistently find new ways to spend taxpayer dollars on issues that have little to do with the needs of its citizenry.

New York is a prime example. Its government is considering asking taxpayers to foot the bill to provide legal services to illegal aliens. It has carved up its already too-narrow streets to provide barely used bike lanes. It seeks to charge motorists tolls to go from one part of the city to another.  City Hall has declared a jihad against middle class neighborhoods, seeking to place oversized low-income buildings that bring numerous problems to even the safest communities.

Ryan Streeter, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, stresses that “Platitudes against inequality and injustice notwithstanding, today’s left-leaning urban overseers are responsible for the unaffordable housing, poor school outcomes, income segregation, and policing problems that characterize much of urban life today. These problems predate our current crisis, which has merely blown the top off for all to see.”

Photo: Pixabay

There is growing concern that Russia is violating a key arms control treaty.

U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, have written to Antony Blinken, Secretary of State, Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, and Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, to express their concerns that Russia has failed to uphold key tenets of New START.
 
The letter warns that “Russia’s unilateral cancellation of the New START Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) and refusal to restart New START inspections, another key tenet of the treaty, coupled with other statements by its government officials, at a minimum, raise serious compliance concerns regarding the Federation’s adherence to the New START Treaty. This would occur during a uniquely dangerous time when both Russia and China are expanding and modernizing their arsenals, Iran, a state sponsor of terror, continues to expand its nuclear program, and North Korea rattles its nuclear saber.”

 In May, according to RealClearDefense Russia engaged in the most serious violation of the New Start Treaty. Yuri Borisov, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister in charge of defense procurement inadvertently described two serious Russian violations of the New START Treaty. He mentioned that Kaliber cruise missiles were widely deployed on Russian naval vessels, and KH-101 missiles were on Russian military aircraft.

RealClearDefense explains that “With the revelation by Mr. Borisov that the Kh-101 long-range nuclear-capable cruise missiles are carried by Su-30 and Su-34 fighters, every element necessary to establish a serious violation of the New START Treaty is now documented by on the record statements made by the President of Russia and the Russian general who is the spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry in formal press briefings.”

In 2016, Russian violations of the treaty were discovered during an on-site inspection carried out in Russia .  American inspectors discovered critical components of SS-25 intercontinental ballistic missiles had not been properly disabled in compliance with treaty obligations. Further, U.S. personnel couldn’t verify whether missiles that were supposed to be destroyed had actually been eliminated

Inexplicably, despite that and other incidents, the Representatives note, President Biden gifted Vladimir Putin a clean, five-year extension to New START at the beginning of his administration despite concerns about the treaty, including the weakness of its verification regime and its failure to address Moscow’s history of violative behavior.

In 2022, to uphold a part of the treaty regarding mutual consultations, a U.S. delegation arrived in Cairo, Egypt, but the delegation from the Russian Federation canceled the meeting, stating it would no longer participate in the required meetings.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov said “There’s no reason now to talk about any new dates. I don’t think any proposals will be made over the next few weeks, in the short term…It’s just been canceled, and we won’t propose any new dates.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov directed blame at the U.S. and its support for Ukraine in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion as the reason for canceling the talks. 

The Kremlin’s violations shouldn’t be a surprise. The use of both strategic and “battlefield” nuclear weapons has become a major part of its military strategy.

Russia has an overwhelming advantage in nonstrategic nuclear weapons, of the sort that Putin has repeatedly threatened to employ in his Ukraine invasion. Part of Putin’s move to reassert his nation as an influential power is the use of nuclear armaments to replace conventional forces, including so-called “battlefield” nukes.

According to a U.S. government report issued several years ago,  the Russian Federation has adopted a policy to use nuclear weapons not just in in response to the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, but also in response to whatever it perceives to be a significant threat.

The report notes that Russian has developed “precision low-yield” nuclear weapons for strikes “anywhere in the world.”  By the cvlose of the 20^th Century, Moscow developed atomic weapons with  reported yields “from several tens of tons to 100 tons of TNT equivalent.” Russia is also developing “superlow-yield weapons” and “penetrators, ” along with “‘clean’ nuclear weapons.

Illustration: Pixabay

China’s aggressive leadership is creating security challenges on the Korean peninsula and for countries around the world. Two times this week President Biden had to order the US Air Force to shoot down high-altitude, Chinese surveillance balloons flying over the United States. The latest incident occurred over Alaska on Friday. In East Asia, Beijing has threatened Taiwan by repeatedly invading its legal airspace, surrounding the island with its navy, and blockading its territorial waters. In Central Asia, China is attempting expand its sphere of influence by sending military delegations and pushing its BRI agenda to open trade routes for Chinese products. 

In the Arctic, China maneuvered to obtain observer status on the Arctic Council, the governing body of the eight Arctic nations and unilaterally designated itself as a “near Arctic nation.” While in Latin America, Chinese companies manage the ports at each end of the Panama Canal. China has signed predatory loans and other one-side business deals with a number of African nations driving some to near bankruptcy. No matter where one turns China is conducting intelligence operations and attempting to undermine the West. Xi Jinping is working to push the United States out of the western Pacific, but like a thorn in its side, North Korea is slowing China’s effort to attain hegemon status.

“The existential North Korean nuclear and missile threats negatively impact the Asia-Pacific security environment for the United States, South Korea, Japan and Australia,” says Debolina Ghoshal of the Jamestown Foundation. These states have taken countermeasures to defend against Pyongyang. The result, she says, it that North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities indirectly worsen China’s “security dilemma” by spurring Washington and its allies to devote greater resources to maintaining a strong security presence in Northeast Asia. 

China protested when the US deployed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile defense system in South Korea in 2017, despite Seoul’s assurance it was a defensive move to stave off a North Korean offensive. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues to object and last summer pointed out that  it “clearly undermines China’s strategic security interests.” Washington counters that China fails to assert it influence over North Korea to achieve a successful denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Beijing further objected when Washington lifted the restrictions it had imposed on South Korea to limit the range and payload of its ballistic missiles. 

South Korea’s current President, Yoon Suk Yeol, wants to take the THAAD operations to the next level by “normalizing” its operations in the country. The new approach in Seoul is in concert with efforts by Tokyo last November to acquire counter-strike capabilities. Kyodo News in December reported the move was intended to counter the deteriorating regional security situation brought on by China’s military modernization program and North Korean nuclear developments.

Recent developments concerning North Korea, says Ghoshal, “pose both traditional and non-traditional security challenges to China. While North Korea’s recalcitrance leaves China with neighbors strengthening their militaries, the continuing North Korean nuclear crisis presents other challenges as well.” The North’s economy in 2023 is struggling. It faces international sanctions imposed on it for its nuclear and ballistic missile development activities. North Koreans are fleeing across the border into China and joining the ranks of the country’s unemployed, already high due to the impact of Covid. Beijing also is concerned as the behavior of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, is erratic and causing nearby nations to increase the defensive posture and creating a nuclear conundrum. “Some observers believe that North Korea will conduct a seventh nuclear weapons test this year,” say Ghoshal.  If this happens, the Chinese publication Huaqiu suggests that Xi Jinping is concerned that the United States will strengthen its extended nuclear deterrence strategy to protect its allies, Japan and South Korea. These developments add to the pressure the CCP leadership in Beijing is facing on both the military and diplomatic fronts. 

This year China faces some hard decisions concerning its security position. If it intends to secure a nuclear-free Korean peninsula so that it can concentrate its efforts elsewhere, it needs to persuade Kim Yong-un that a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and missile testing is in its best interest. Ghoshal argues that “The intersection of strategic competition between China and the US and its allies and North Korea’s growing nuclear capabilities underscores that Pyongyang’s pursuit of its nuclear ambitions has security implications that reverberate not just on the Korean peninsula, but globally as well.”

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

Illustration: Pixabay