Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

The reason for both the suppression of the Hunter Biden Laptop story, as well as the reluctance of the media to criticize the massive failures and missteps of the Biden Administration are intimately related. 

Recently, Elon Musk revealed that Twitter intentionally censored the laptop revelation, a news item which would have altered the outcome of the last presidential election. In a similar vein, other social media outlets have noted that federal officials pressured them into actions specifically intended to influence the results of that ballot.

The reasons are both foreign and domestic.

Donald Trump was the most vocal critic of China in U.S. history. His comments threatened the growing influence Beijing has over political leaders, particularly within the California Democratic Party, as well as some politicians in both political camps, although predominately Democrats. That influence didn’t have to be direct.  Major donors to the California Democrat Party seek to expand their China market, and would be generous to those who would fight Trump’s expose of China’s growing influence. It is not a coincidence, then, that California Democrats, especially Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, were at the forefront of the attacks on him, as well as on anyone or any group that exposed the corruption.

Exposing the reality that Beijing financially influenced then-vice president Biden would start an expose of its relationship with other politicians and corporations as well.  The most recent example was recently described by National Review.  According to its report, a staffer for Rep, Don Beyer (D-Va) openly lobbied other Congressional staffers on Beijing’s behalf.

But why did major corporate leaders go along with it?  Why did a leading pharmaceutical company withhold the announcement of the news that a COVID vaccine, the result of Trump’s “Operation warp speed,” until after the election?  Why did social media barons go along with pressure from the FBI to censor the Biden laptop story, and suppress pro-Trump supporters in general? 

There is no mystery there.  American companies have long succumbed to the dream that a fortune was to be made in the Chinese marketplace.  To do that in that totalitarian regime, you have to kowtow to the Beijing dictatorship. Recently, Apple was deeply embarrassed by its cooperation with Beijing in that government’s suppression of demonstrators. Similar acts of cowardice have occurred elsewhere, notably in the NBA. Trump’s actions threatened that potential corporate gravy train.

But why did the federal bureaucracy lead the Jihad? Trump was also the most vocal critic of the inordinate power unelected bureaucrats have attained. Their attitude was made clear in the testimony some gave at the impeachment hearings, when a common theme was that the 45^th president was “rogue,” “unstable,” and “out of control,” because he wouldn’t listen to advice given by those administrators.

Biden, by contrast, has essentially given free rein to the federal bureaucracy, indeed, even leading to questions about who is actually running his Administration.

Trump is not particularly eloquent nor personable, and has been an easy target for his critics. His policies, however, were largely successful. Energy independence, a blessed four years of no new wars, a healthy economy, and significant increases in the financial well-being of minorities were exceptional. Nevertheless, he was ruthlessly attacked.  Even after the various charges, such as Russian Collusion were exposed as being totally false, there was barely any retraction by the media or the California Democrats such as Pelosi and Schiff.

Contrast that with the coverage of the disastrous Biden Administration. He eliminated U.S. energy independence and used the U.S. treasury as a personal piggybank to influence voters.  He openly lied to the American people about the border. His withdrawal from Afghanistan was a national embarrassment. His inflationary policies have harmed the population deeply. He virtually invited the Russian invasion of Ukraine when he said he might not object to a “Little invasion.” Despite all that, social media barons and legacy media outlets have been largely silent. Rabid self-interest over the good of the nation is nothing new.  Never before, however, has there been such a powerful array of corrupt politicians, power-hungry federal bureaucrats, and greedy corporate leaders.

Illustration: Pixabay

In 2019, the FBI, as well as a group of other federal agencies, identified “Fostering a Diverse, Highly-Skilled Workforce” as one of their top priorities. 

Being such an overriding concern, what content is provided at “diversity training events” and “workplace discussion groups” to insure a “diverse, high-skilled workforce?”

According to Christopher Rufo, who has made an extensive study of this topic, “the training begins with the premise that ‘virtually all white people contribute to racism’ and hold narratives that ‘don’t support the dismantling of racist institutions.’ Therefore, the trainers argue, white federal employees must ‘struggle to own their racism’ and ‘invest in race-based growth.’ The trainers then ask ‘white managers’ to create ‘safe spaces,’ where black employees can explain ‘what it means to be black’ and to be ‘seen in their pain.’ White staffers are instructed to keep silent and to ‘sit in the discomfort’ of their racism. If any conflicts arise, the trainers insist that whites ‘don’t get to decide when someone is being too emotional, too rash [or] too mean.’ Whites are told they can’t protest if a person of color ‘responds to their oppression in a way [they] don’t like.’” 

To the outside observer, it is unclear how making federal employees “struggle to own their racism” will create a “diverse, high-skilled workforce.”  But there is a more important question – have these extraordinary efforts at “diversity and inclusion” worked?  

Not according to a report from Courtney Buble of the Government Executive; “Although diversity has been a priority at the FBI over the past decade, the make-up of the bureau’s workforce has barely changed over that time, and employees’ viewsof the agency’s support for diversity have not grown more positive…as of March 2019 the FBI’s overall workforce was 55.6% male and 44.4% female. This is compared to 56.1% male and 43.9% female in December 2009…(a)s for racial demographics, the FBI’s workforce was 75% white in 2009 and 74.4% white in 2019. Additionally, whites held 79.5% of the top GS grade positions in 2009 and 77.6% in 2019…(i)n February 2020 special agents were 79.1% male and 20.9% female. This was a slight improvement from 79.6% male and 18.8% female in 2010. For ethnic minorities, there were 17% in 2010 and 18.4% in 2020, according to FBI statistics.” 

Further, a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and published in 2019 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that “diversity training does not generally result in much change in work environments…(t)he researchers found little evidence of behavior change in any of the organizations where employees had taken the diversity training program. In the program geared toward reducing biases against women, the researchers found that employees were willing to admit such biases, they just were not willing to do anything about them…(i)n the part of the study focusing on racial bias, the researchers found that employees were willing to admit having racial biases, but no measurable changes in behavior were seen during follow-up.”   

This lack of success has not stopped the FBI, and other federal agencies, from forcing their employees to continue to attend “diversity and/or inclusion training events” and “participating in workplace discussion groups focusing on diversity.”  If ten years of failure has not persuaded the FBI to try another tact, could there be some other reason for these endless workshops and trainings?

Christopher Rufo provides one explanation; “The larger goal is explicit: The diversity apparatchiks want to convert ‘everyone in the federal government’ to the work of ‘anti-racism.’ While that sounds innocuous, it emphatically is not what most Americans understand by the term. ‘Anti-racism,’ as the diversity hustlers define it, doesn’t teach Americans to judge each other according to the contents of their character. Rather, the ideology stands for precisely the opposite: a rigid and simplistic account of race, in which minorities are permanent victims and whites are forever tainted by racism. By promoting this toxic nonsense, activist bureaucrats seek to transform the federal government into power centers for this new racial orthodoxy.” 

Given the lack of success of diversity and inclusion training, and based upon the nature of its underlying assumptions and goals, it was no surprise that in September of 2020, President Donald Trump “issued an executive order prohibiting federal agencies and contractors from using workplace training materials that include ‘divisive concepts’ such as the U.S. being ‘fundamentally racist or sexist,’ or that ‘an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. ‘The order cited several examples from (Christopher). Rufo’s work, such as a seminar at the Treasury Department that, according to the executive order, ‘promoted arguments that ‘virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism.’’  

However, given the priorities of the Biden Administration, which is dedicated to continuing the work of the Obama Administration, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on his first day in office reinstating the Diversity and Inclusion Training for all federal employees – including members of the FBI.  

Apparently, 10 years of a failed policy is irrelevant to Joe Biden – the work of “anti-racism” must go on, no matter who objects, and no matter how little actual diversity is created.  

As for the FBI, according to The Guardian, there has been a “sharp decline in the number of applicants for special agent positions, long considered among the most prestigious in American law enforcement…from a peak of 68,500 in 2009 to a mere 11,500 in 2018.”  However, “(t)he FBI is not alone in this…(t)he army, navy and other military branches have seen recruitment shortages.”  In fact, “Police forces around the country have also had trouble recruiting of late. The total number of full-time sworn officers has dropped 23,000 since 2013 to about 700,000 according to NPR, who called the officer shortage ‘a quiet crisis in American policing.'” 

Perhaps potential Special Agents are just not interested in sitting through “diversity and/or inclusion training events” and “participating in workplace discussion groups focusing on diversity.”  Maybe there are other factors in play here as well – but in any event, the question remains – how do you create a “diverse, high-skilled workforce” when you can’t even get most  people to accept the job and sit through your indoctrination classes? 

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City

Photo: Pixabay

If you are at least as old as I am, you will remember the TV show, “The FBI.”  From 1965 to 1974, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. portrayed Inspector Lewis Erskine, who “personified the calm, business-suited government agent who always tracked his criminals down, scientifically and methodically and with virtually no emotion at all… Neither he nor his partners allowed themselves to become emotionally involved in their work which focused on a range of crimes, from bank robbery to kidnapping to the occasional Communist threat to overthrow the government. The cases were based on real FBI files and ranged across the United States and involved counterfeiters, extortionists, organised crime, Communist spies, and radical bombings.” 

For many years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation cultivated a positive image through shows like “The FBI,” and other media outreach.  Described by its most famous director, J. Edgar Hoover in 1961, the FBI was “(e)stablished in 1908 as the investigative arm of the U.S. department of justice, (and) is a fact-finding agency which does not evaluate the results of its investigations or recommend prosecutive action…(t)he two primary areas of FBI activity are general investigations and security operations. Within the latter field, it has jurisdiction over espionage, sabotage and subversive activities on a nation-wide scale… the FBI…reports the results of its investigation(s) to the attorney general, chief legal officer of the United States, his assistants and the various U.S. attorneys in federal districts throughout the United States for decisions as to prosecutive action.” 

Would J. Edgar recognize the organization he led from 1924 to 1972 in the 21st century?  What effort does the FBI make to cultivate a “positive image” in today’s world?

Rather than focus on professional, dispassionate “fact-finding,” the Bureau has found itself involved in other avenues of image-making.  For instance, in remarks given by the current FBI Director Christopher Wray to the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives in April of this year, the director noted that the Bureau was “working hard to remove barriers and create a reflective workforce—not just in terms of gender, but across a full spectrum of diversity…(t)he FBI is focused on recruiting and building a diverse workforce…(w)omen now make up 45% of our workforce overall and nearly a quarter of our senior executive positions…(w)e’ve also increased our recruiting initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and are expanding our recruiting focus to other minority-serving institutions…I’m proud that the FBI is addressing this important issue, but I know that we can do even better, and we will.” 

These remarks underscore an emphasis on diversity and inclusion policies that have been in place at the Bureau since 2015, when “the FBI added diversity as one of the organization’s core values…(w)e stand committed, as today’s FBI, to fostering a culture of inclusivity and diversity.”  In fact, “The FBI’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion was created in 2012 to provide guidance and implement programs that promote a diverse and inclusive workplace that allows all employees to succeed and advance.”  

This office was created in response to Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13583, dated August 18, 2011, which “establish(ed) a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce” by “highlight(ing) comprehensive strategies for agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in the Federal Government’s recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices,” and to “identify appropriate practices to improve the effectiveness of each agency’s efforts to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

While no one seriously disagrees that a modern workforce is not restricted to one race or sex alone, the FBI (as well as other federal agencies) exhibits a particular preoccupation with this issue.  The 2015 Policy Directive that established the Diversity and Inclusion guidelines for the FBI created a “Diversity and Executive Council,” as well as “Diversity Advisory Committees,” a “Diversity Advisory Council,” and a “Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator.”  These various levels of bureaucracy are tasked with ‘provid(ing) support to underrepresented groups within the FBI,”  and “encourage employee and management participation in diversity events…and cultural awareness activities.”  “Diversity training for supervisors and managers…includes a discussion of diversity and inclusion, as well as the use of work assignments as a professional development tool,” while “Diversity training for all other employees” includes “attendance at…diversity training event(s) or activit(ies)…completing an online course on a diversity and/or inclusion-related topic…participating in a workplace discussion group focusing on a diversity and/or inclusion topic (eg, a book, an article or an event)…” 

The Report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City

South America is not immune to the influences of the PRC despite the great distance dividing Asia from the West. Over 20 countries in South America and the Caribbean have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Although Colombia has not yet signed on, its deepening relationship with China under the new government of Gustavo Petro is causing concern inside the American intelligence community. For many years Bogota feared that expanded political, economic, and security ties with Beijing would hurt its strong relationship with the United States. Under the Petro regime, that appears to be changing.

The Colombian President recently appointed Sergio Cabrera as the country’s ambassador to China. Cabrera “grew up in China with Communist parents during the revolutionary era of Mao Zedong and attended Beijing University, the most respected institution for higher education in the PRC. Cabrera returned to Colombia to participate in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) guerilla movement before returning to the PRC and starting his film career. His access to many parts of China while filming suggests the high level of trust the Chinese have in him,” according to a White Paper by Evan Ellis, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). 

The country’s foreign minister, Álvaro Leyva, has focused more on peace negotiations with leftist terrorist groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) than on China. Ellis, however, notes that Leyva has strong left-oriented ideological commitments that may dispose him to deepening the Colombia-PRC relationship for the Petro regime. China’s Ambassador to Colombia, Lan Hu, is a senior, Spanish-speaking diplomat who is very active in the country’s Chinese community. There also are rumblings in Bogota that presidential-level discussions are quietly pushing the country toward joining the BRI.

Commercial relations with China, since it was granted permanent Most-Favored-Nation status, have expanded 35-fold, although Colombia imports about four times its exports to the PRC. China’s physical footprint in the country also has expanded over the last ten years. As of this year there are at least 38 active Chinese investment projects totaling $2.04 billion. The 100 plus Chinese-based companies operating there span a broad range of sectors, from long-term involvement in petroleum and mining to infrastructure, telecommunications, and digital industries. The China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) began operations in July 2012 with a $15.1 billion acquisition of the Canadian petroleum firm Nexxen. Ecopetrol, a Colombian crude exporting firm, has established relationships with refineries in China. The country also sells China coal and nickel and operates gold mines in Colombia. Starbucks’ and other companies act as third-party sellers of Colombian coffee to China.

“Infrastructure projects have arguably been the most significant and highest-visibility area of the PRC’s expanding presence in Colombia,” says Ellis. Eight years ago, the PRC-based China Harbour Engineering Company won a $652 million contract, to build and improve a 155-mile road from Medellín to the coastal city of Necoclí near the Panamanian border. After China brought in massive numbers of Chinese workers, Colombia reportedly forced China to subcontract out some of the work to Colombian nationals. Typical of many Chinese engineering projects, the tunnels and bridges often were of poor quality with delays in delivery. China is buying its way into Colombia, too. It financed 30% of the construction cost for a subway system for Bogota. With only one bid submitted, China also won a contract to build a 17-station train line that will connect Bogotá with surrounding cities. As recently as October 2022 China

Communications Construction Corporation received a $3.5 billion public-private contract to build a metro across the eastern side of Medellín in Antioquia when all other bidders dropped out. Similar scenarios played out in the port sector where the PRC-based firm Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company Limited has supplied cranes for port operations in Cartagena and Santa Marta. China currently is attempting to construct a liquid natural gas regasification facility and expand port facilities on the country’s west coast near the frontier with Ecuador. China also holds a controlling share of the AirPlan consortium to manage and modernize Medellín’s principal airport, in Rionegro, and five surrounding airports in Antioquia and is making similar inroads in the electricity sector, automotive,  and heavy equipment industries. The list is long and growing.

“In digital and other technology sectors, PRC-based firms have made significant advances in Colombia in recent years. In telecommunications, the Chinese firm Huawei has operated in the Colombian market for at least 15 years and currently has a dominant position in the sale of telephones and other telecommunications devices to Colombian retailers,” says Ellis. Huawei plans to build a data center in Colombia while China’s ZTE is focusing on infrastructure and devices such as routers and modems. 

The 2012 Colombian Chinese Chamber of Investment and Commerce that had approximately 30 members, has over 140 participants as of 2022, including many Chinese-owned companies. Everywhere one turns in Colombia today there is a burgeoning sense of expanding Chinese soft power, from think tanks and education to military training and gifts of military transport aircraft. China has patiently spent time laying the groundwork in Colombia, Uruguay, and others South American countries. Beijing’s adventures in the Western hemisphere are beginning to pay off.

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

They move from the war zone in Ukraine, back to Russia, and into the hands of armed criminals. That is the journey many Russian guns used in the war in Ukraine are making this year. They recross the Russian border and are used in armed crimes across the country. This year there is an almost 30% average increase in armed crime in Russia over last year. The Interior Ministry reports this week that increases in crime in border areas, such as the Kurk Oblast, have skyrocketed, with a 675% increase recorded over the same period in 2021. Spikes in armed crime in other border areas are also up by triple-digit percentages.   

“This rise in violence is affecting not only businesses but also schoolchildren, with the term ‘Columbine’ having entered the Russian vernacular and raising questions about whether guns could be used more frequently by opposition groups,” says Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Although the “bleeding back” of weapons of war is not a new phenomenon, it represents a more virulent threat to the country than when it occurred after WWI, the Stalinist era, or after the “Afghantsy” criminals of the 1990’s returned from Afghanistan. There are a number of factors that make the environment in Russia going into this winter different than in earlier events. 

Moscow is drafting more soldiers for the war in Ukraine; often men with violent criminal backgrounds. They possess limited combat experience, have less military training, and often lack the discipline of a professional soldier. Their weapons, and those found abandoned in the field, serve as booty to be brought back home. Goble says that the Russian “officers often fail to control these units in the field, and that lack of control directly affects what soldiers may carry away as well.”

Moscow has annexed portions of Ukraine, with much of the war playing out on territories that Putin’s government officially claims as Russia. Goble says that it is clearly intended to make the Russian forces fight harder. Without border checkpoints there are few constraints preventing soldiers from taking their weapons back to Russia. Once home the country’s judicial system is unwilling to prosecute war veterans to the full extent of the law. Few soldiers that are caught using military weapons in criminal acts end up in work camps or prison.  Without disincentives, gun ownership has risen to an estimated 25  million firearms in private hands. Along with an increase in gun possession comes an increased propensity to use them to commit crimes.

The profit motive is another contributing factor. Western sanctions are making it harder for Russians to acquire foreign-manufactured guns while simultaneously raising gun prices domestically. This fall, Russians have been caught firing guns at draft centers in an attempt to stop the recruitment process. Goble suggests that Putin’s “partial mobilization” also raises the specter that these illegal guns will be used more frequently by radicals against the regime. Authoritarian leaders fear the decay of public order as it impacts their ability to rule with an iron-clad fist. Putin if left with a difficult challenge: how to return criminals-turned-soldier back into civilians that will lead a normal devoid of armed criminal activity. 

The large number of weapons is an enormous challenge to Moscow as it attempts to reintegrate men returning from Ukraine back into civilian life. Goble suggests that some are “questioning whether the campaign in Ukraine is worth further destabilizing Russia’s domestic situation.” Putin soon will be forced to make a choice about how to handle the increased domestic unrest.

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

The U.S. Department of Defense has released a sobering report on China’s “Military and Security Developments.”

As this column has noted in the past, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) now has the world’s largest navy. Additionally, it may have missile technology more advanced than Americas’. Aware of these advantages, Beijing is increasingly reliant and confident in wielding its military power to progress towards its goals.

The Pentagon notes that China is strengthening its strategic deterrence capabilities. “Beijing defines this element broadly to include nuclear, space, cyber, electronic warfare, counterspace capabilities and more.”

The Department of Defense states that China has more than 400 operational nuclear warheads in its stockpile. If this modernization effort continues, the Chinese could field about 1,500 warheads by 2035.  

According to a Defense Dept. official, “…an important element of China’s strategy is a determined pursuit to amass and expand its national power to transform — at least — aspects of the international system to make it more favorable to the PRC’s political system and its national interests. This is a prime aspect of both domestic and foreign policy initiatives.”  

The official noted that as part of this, there is a trend of more coercive military endeavors by China. “We’ve seen more coercive and aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific region, including some of which we would highlight as being dangerous,” he said. This includes PLA ships and aircraft demonstrating unsafe and unprofessional behavior…”

According to the Report, the PRC has increasingly turned to its advanced military power as an instrument of “statecraft” as it adopted more coercive and aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific region. Having purportedly achieved its 2020 modernization goal, the PLA now sets its sights to 2027 with a goal to accelerate the integrated development of mechanization, informatization, and “intelligentization” of its armed forces. If realized, this 2027 objective could give its military capabilities to be a more credible armed tool for the Chinese Communist Party to wield as it contemplates an invasion of Taiwan.   

In addition to the development of the military’s conventional capabilities, China has continued to accelerate the modernization, diversification, and expansion of its nuclear forces. The PRC has stated its ambition to strengthen its “strategic deterrent,” while being reluctant to its developing nuclear, space, and cyberspace capabilities, negatively impacting global strategic stability—an area of increasing global concern. 

The Report stresses that China “wants its economic and political and social and military and security developments to be coordinated and mutually reinforcing, and to support the ambitious objectives that Xi Jinping has laid out for national rejuvenation by 2049.”  In plain language, this clearly means that Beijing has placed its nation on a war footing.

The PRC continues to develop and acquire advanced dual-use technology for its military.  

Military power is more than just weapons.  It also includes the industrial and technological capabilities necessary to provide a powerful military. “…in terms of kind of broader defense ambitions, the PRC has a strategy that entails strengthening and adapting its armed forces to what it views as kind of long-term trends and global military affairs,” the DoD official said. “As an outcome of the 20th Party Congress, Beijing is focusing on intensifying and accelerating [it’s military] modernization goals over the next five years, including strengthening what they refer to as its system of strategic deterrence.” 

The report details China’s regional and global ambitions. “As we noted in last year’s report, Xi Jinping and the PRC leadership are determined that the armed forces should take a more active role in advancing the PRC’s foreign policy goals globally.” 

The Chinese military is pursuing overseas bases and logistics facilities. This would allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at much greater distances from its borders.  

Picture: Amphibious armored vehicles attached to a brigade of the PLA Navy’s Marine Corps make their way to the beach-head in assault wave formation during a maritime offense and defense training exercise recently. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Tang Ruijie)

Here at usagovpolicy.com, we have periodically discussed the crisis at the Southern Border of the United States.  In August, we noted that “for the first 6 months of this year, there have been 1,227,171 border crossers encountered by the Border Patrol.”  Since then, according to the US Customs and Border Protection Agency, there have been 200,162 “Southwest Land Border Encounters” in July;  204,087 in August; 227,547 in September; 164,837 in October; and as of this writing, prior to Thanksgiving, 2022, there have been 174,845 illegal aliens encountered at the Southern Border in November.  This is 971,478 people who have entered our country in the last 5 months.  If we add these to the 1,227,171 who crossed our border illegally in the first 6 months of the year, 2,198,649 illegal aliens have been encountered at the US Southern Border in 2022 alone.

Then there are the numbers for 2021.  According to US Customs and Border Protection, last year a total of 1,734,686 illegal border crossers were encountered.  If we add those to the number who have crossed in 2022 to date, we have had a total of 3,933,335 illegal aliens enter our country in the first two years of the Biden Administration.

This represents one of the largest invasions in recent history.  The Allied invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944 numbered approximately 160,000 troops, less than the total number of border crossers this past October,    however within a month, 1,100,000 troops were landed – which is still less than the total number of illegal immigrants who have crossed our Southern Border in 2022.

When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, he used approximately 650,000 troops, which represents less than any average 3 months of border crossers in 2022.

In fact, the invasion of our Southern Border in the past two years is larger than Operation Barbarossa in 1941, when Hitler used 3 million troops for his invasion of Russia.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, as of 2019 there were approximately 11 million illegal aliens present in the United States.    If we accept that number as arguably accurate, this means that as of the end of 2022, there are now approximately 15 million illegals within our borders.  More than the populations of New York City (8,622,357) and Los Angeles (4,085,014) COMBINED.

Stunning, isn’t it?  Isn’t there some one in charge of some agency of the federal government who is responsible for securing our Southern Border?

There is.  His name is Alejandro Mayorkas – and he believes he is doing a fantastic job.

In November of this year, “(w)hen asked point blank by Republican Rep. Dan Bishop if he thinks the border is secure, Mayorkas said he thinks it is. ‘Yes, and we are working day in and day out to enhance its security, congressman,’ Mayorkas responded.”  /  This has been the position of the Secretary for Homeland Security all along.  In a statement in March of 2021, Mayorkas said “(t)he situation at the southwest border is difficult.  We are working around the clock to manage it and we will continue to do so.  That is our job.  We are making progress and we are executing on our plan.  It will take time and we will not waver in our commitment to succeed.”

“Making progress?”  “Executing our plan?”  “Commitment to succeed?”  It is baffling to understand how almost 4 million border crashers in two years is “managing” a situation that is “difficult” – unless, of course, the plan all along has been to allow as many illegal aliens through our Southern Border as possible.  If that is the plan, then Mayorkas is clearly making progress, and succeeding wildly.

Support for this view can be found in the actions of the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress.  In February of 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order “on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,” in which he established the following policy: “Consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome, it is essential to ensure that our laws and policies encourage full participation by immigrants, including refugees, in our civic life…that the Federal Government eliminates sources of fear and other barriers that prevent immigrants from accessing government services available to them..(t)he Federal Government should develop welcoming strategies that promote integration, inclusion, and citizenship, and it should embrace the full participation of the newest Americans in our democracy.”

Secretary Mayorkas is therefore following the policy established by his boss, President Biden.  He is actually doing the job that is expected of him.

In his March 2021 statement, Secretary Mayorkas did not talk about efforts at interdiction at the Southern Border.  Instead, he addressed the extensive efforts his staff has made in establishing an “additional facility in Donna, Texas to process unaccompanied children and families.  We deployed additional personnel to provide oversight, care, and transportation assistance for unaccompanied minors pending transfer to HHS custody… We are (establishing) additional facilities in Texas and Arizona to shelter unaccompanied children and families…We are restarting and expanding the Central American Minors program.  It creates a lawful pathway for children to come to the United States without having to take the dangerous journey. Under this expansion, children will be processed in their home countries and brought to the United States in a safe and orderly way…We are creating joint processing centers so that children can be placed in HHS care immediately after Border Patrol encounters them.  We are also identifying and equipping additional facilities for HHS to shelter unaccompanied children until they are placed with family or sponsors.”

Mayorkas adds that “President Biden laid out a vision of a ‘multi-pronged approach toward managing migration throughout North and Central America that reflects the Nation’s highest values.’”  To that end, he believes that he is “keeping our borders secure, enforcing our laws, and staying true to our values and principles.”

In other words, Secretary Mayorkas’ job is not to keep illegal aliens from entering our country.  His job is to accept and process “unaccompanied children,” “families” and “refugees” as fast as possible.

Republicans in Congress have made some effort to stop this invasion.  House Resolution 582, filed in August of 2021, calls for the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas for “fail(ing) to faithfully uphold his oath and…instead presid(ing) over a reckless abandonment of border security and immigration enforcement, at the expense of the Constitution and the security of the United States. Secretary Mayorkas has violated, and continues to violate, this requirement by failing to maintain operational control of the border and releasing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens into the interior of the United States.” Further, “Secretary Mayorkas’s actions have made the border less secure and encouraged aliens to enter the United States illegally, instead of taking actions to maintain operational control of the border. His actions have subverted the will of Congress and the core tenants of the Constitution.”

Obviously, this impeachment didn’t gain much traction while Congress was in Democrat hands.  In fact, the “will of Congress” was more divided, with Democrats attempting to grant amnesty to illegal aliens throughout 2021.  As described by Fox News; “When campaigning in 2020, then-candidate Joe Biden promised…a massive immigration reform bill…(a)lmost immediately on entering office, the Biden administration released a sweeping immigration proposal – which would eventually become the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021…(t)he bill…quickly died as it became clear the measure, which included minimal border security provisions, did not have any Republican support…Democrats looked to include various amnesty provisions in the Build Back Better Act that they were seeking to pass via the budget reconciliation process – and would therefore only need 50 votes. Democrats put forward a variety of proposals, from a pathway to citizenship for ‘essential workers’ to updating a decades-old registry. All plans were rejected by the Senate parliamentarian for being inappropriate for a budget bill.”

The dream of amnesty for illegal aliens seemed to have slumbered for most of 2022.  However, now that the midterm elections have been concluded, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has recently resurrected the concept; “The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants, the Dreamers and all of them, because our ultimate goal is to help the Dreamers but to get a path to citizenship for all 11 million or however many undocumented there are here.”

Thankfully, don’t expect an Amnesty Bill anytime soon out of the new Republican-controlled House.  In a tweet last October, the New Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said “Amnesty is a nonstarter. It won’t be taken up by a House Republican majority. Our border crisis is the worst in history and the only immigration plan should be to secure the border and stop illegal immigration.”

Instead, what we can expect are more serious efforts to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.  According to CNN, “’Mayorkas deserves (impeachment) for sure, because we no longer have a border,’ said Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a McCarthy ally who is in line to chair the powerful House Judiciary Committee, which oversees impeachment proceedings…(a)dded Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a freshman GOP firebrand who has already endorsed impeachment articles for both Biden and Mayorkas: ‘Secretary Mayorkas should be a priority.'”

Will the Republican-majority House move forward with an impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas?  That all depends on whether a majority of Republican legislators think the Secretary should be allowed to continue “making progress” on President Biden’s plan.

For the sake of our nation, the answer to this question needs to be yes.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) authored two books on illegal immigrati

If neither taxpayers nor the states themselves have Standing to challenge the Biden Administration, it seems unclear as to who exactly would have the ability to bring suit.  But a recent decision from a Texas federal judge may have provided the answer.

In Brown v. US Department of Education, Judge Mark Pittman answered the threshold question of Standing.   “Plaintiffs Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor both have student loans” the Court stated.  “Brown is ineligible for any debt forgiveness under the Program because her loans are commercially held…(a)nd Taylor is ineligible for the full $20,000 in debt forgiveness under the Program because he did not receive a Pell Grant…(b)ecause Brown loses out on $20,000 in debt forgiveness and Taylor loses out on $10,000, they disagree with the lines drawn for the Program’s eligibility criteria.”

Judge Pittman discussed the Biden Administration’s core position – nobody has Standing to challenge the Program “because where the government is providing a benefit, nobody is harmed by the existence of that benefit.”  However, the Court noted that “(t)he Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff has standing to challenge a government benefit in many cases. See, e.g., Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville…(holding that plaintiffs who did not qualify for government benefits had standing).” (Citation omitted.)

The government argued that “Plaintiffs’ ‘unhappiness that some other borrowers are receiving a greater benefit than they are’ is not a concrete interest.”  “But,” Judge Pittman wrote, “this is untrue. Plaintiffs do not argue that they are injured because other people are receiving loan forgiveness. Their injury—no matter how many people are receiving loan forgiveness—is that they personally did not receive forgiveness…Plaintiffs have a concrete interest in having their debts forgiven.”  Thus, these Plaintiffs “inability to obtain the full benefit of debt forgiveness under the Program flows directly from the Program’s eligibility requirements,” giving them Standing to maintain a lawsuit against the Department of Education.

On the merits, Judge Pittman found, as have so many other Courts during the almost two years that the Biden Administration has been in office, 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.”

“(T)he HEROES Act does not mention loan forgiveness,” the Court states. “If Congress provided clear congressional authorization for $400 billion in student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act, it would have mentioned loan forgiveness…’enabling legislation’ like the HEROES Act is not an ‘open book to which the agency may add pages and change the plot line.’” (Citations omitted.)

No doubt, Judge Pittman’s decision will be appealed.  In the meantime, according to Fox Business, “(a)fter the (8th Circuit decision) temporarily halted the debt forgiveness plan, the Biden administration released a statement via the Education Department that encouraged borrowers to continue to apply for forgiveness. Although the administration can’t officially cancel student loans during the halt, it said it is moving ahead with preparing for forgiveness and collecting applications. ” 

In other words, the Biden Administration is dead-set on the implementation of this program – despite its lack of legal authority to do so.  

It bears noting that the costs of this Program are objectively horrendous.  “Joe Biden’s plan to cancel…student loan debt for federal aid borrowers is expected to cost about $400 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The estimate is for a period of the next 30 years and will add to the country’s deficit, it said… (a)s of June 30, the CBO estimates federal student loan debt to be at $1.6 trillion among 43 million borrowers…(a)bout 95% of borrowers meet the criteria for forgiveness and about 45% of borrowers will have their balances completely wiped out, the CBO said.”

These financial facts underline the importance of the 8th Circuit’s stay, and the decision from the Texas federal court to stop the Biden Administration from redistributing individual student debt to those of us who did not incur that debt.

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

Illustration: Pixabay