Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Military experts are watching Russia closely after Putin’s nuclear threat toward the West. Political analysts are looking eastward toward China after Xi Jinping’s unprecedented consolidation of power during last week’s National Party Congress. Few, however, are paying attention to the supercharged environment in Pakistan since April when then-Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

He blames the United States, claiming Washington colluded with Pakistan’s Army to remove him from office. When he demanded the new government step down, it responded by cracking down on Khan and those attending his expansive rallies. A week ago, the Pakistan Election Commission found Khan guilty of corrupt practices and barred him from politics. The charge was that he allegedly failed to disclose money he received from gifts sold that were given to him by foreign dignitaries. 

“Two days later, Arshad Sharif, one of Pakistan’s most prominent journalists, was killed” by police in a case of mistaken identity in Nairobi, according to Reuters. “These developments not only threaten to intensify Pakistan’s political polarization, but they also increase the uncertainty swirling around its immediate political future,” according to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Affairs. Although Khan acknowledges his opponents had a political motivation, there is less certainty about the length of time he is disqualified from the political arena. 

One High Court judge in Islamabad stated the punishment only extends over the present parliamentary term ending in fall 2023. If this is determined to be accurate, Khan would be free to run in  Pakistan’s next national elections. Sharif’s death hit the nation hard. He was known to be close to Khan. Kugelman points out that he also supported the military until he lost his position at ARY News this summer after allegedly criticizing the military on social media. There is widespread speculation the current Pakistan government was involved in the killing with Kenyan authorities. 

Pakistan has a history of assassinating Pakistani trust in the security institutions in the country has dramatically decreased recently while support for Khan is growing among his popular base. Despite the government offering to investigate the killing, few are satisfied that Islamabad will find the answer. This week Khan announced a modern “long march” of over 235 miles from Lahore to Islamabad, with supporters scheduled to arrive in the capital next Friday, November 4. They are demanding early elections. The government, fearing a loss, has rejected new elections.  The big question remaining is how the government will react to the protesters once they reach the capital. In the past, Khan backed down when the government threatened a crack down. There are concerns he may not back down next week.

Kugelman says that in an extraordinary press conference on Thursday, “Pakistan’s army spokesperson and spy chief both denied many of Khan’s allegations about the military and the US government colluding in his ouster.” Analysts see this as an indication that the government will take a hard line when Khan and supporters arrive. Further confusing politics is Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s decision not to seek another term next month in what is essentially the government’s most powerful position. The current government has yet to announce who will replace him, although it is unlikely to be a Khan supporter. Kugelman says the political atmosphere lately has the nation on edge. 

The country already is suffering from high inflation with millions still in need of help from catastrophic flooding earlier this year. Pakistan is reeling from one problem to another, making it a hotbed for instability in the region. According to the Economic Times, on October 21, Khan announced he will remain “silent” as he does not want to “damage” the country and its institutions. 

The question remaining is whether his statement is enough to keep a lid on potentially explosive violence in the capital once he and his supporters arrive. Khan says that although the government failed to protect protesters on May 25, his march will be peaceful and not enter the high security “red zone” in the capital. The government has yet to confirm its position on the march although Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah did tell reporters in Islamabad this week that if anyone is out of order the government plans to respond with an “iron hand.”

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

Since the start of the war in Ukraine the world media has openly discussed Russia’s use of soldiers for hire. Few publications, however, have written about the extensive role China’s “security for hire” have played overseas during the last dozen years. Beijing augments its geopolitical ambitions with paid security, paramilitary, and non-state actors in support of its Belt and Road Initiative.  They protect Chinese citizens, assets, and resources that are located overseas. They are supposed to go where the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can’t go. In some cases, this raises the risk when they are not considered private security but legally forbidden mercenaries as many of these forces are composed of PLA soldiers. They are becoming so powerful that some within the Chinese leadership view these paramilitary groups as a potential threat to China due to the power they wield. 

China appears to be adopting a hybrid model for the security industry that is neither Western nor does it follow the tainted Russian system of private military/security companies (PM/SCs). Western security groups protecting private interests are relatively open, under great public scrutiny, and often possess superior capabilities among team members. Beijing is relying on private security companies (PSCs) in areas as diverse as cybersecurity and humanitarian missions to achieve specific geopolitical and economic goals. Beijing’s agenda is tightly linked between the economic and military sectors. PSCs are in use where the country has significant interests and often are PLA soldiers working out of uniform. 

Known as the “Guardians of the Belt and Road,” these groups fill a gap with sophisticated security services, according to the Jamestown Foundation. A number of issues are emerging as China expands the use of these groups overseas. First, they lack true paramilitary experience and China has shown no indication that it intends to qualitatively train future groups to create a modern and private PM/SC system. As a result, China relies heavily on the PLA to fill a central role, which provides the government with multiple benefits. 

As these security providers in the short-to medium run can’t achieve the same level of proficiency as American or Western security providers in securing nationals overseas, China will likely continue to rely on its military to supplement them. Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation points out that  “…a combination of “soft power” and the economic side of “hard power” will remain key tools in China’s arsenal.” He adds that concerns have cropped up over the boundaries of influence that PM/SCs could enjoy in the future.

One key obstacle in the development of an effective Chinese “security for hire” industry is that the current Beijing political leadership is unlikely to favor the existence of private militarized structures in China that are not fully under its control. President Xi Jinping has unprecedented power in influencing the PLA and related military organizations. Any forces not directly controlled by the state, even if working overseas in China’s national interests, represent a potential threat to the Chinese central government. The result it that it is unlikely China’s political-economic model will permit the existence of truly “private” elements in its “security for hire” industry. It appears that the function will increasingly be controlled by the Chinese state and form an expanded arm of Chinese intelligence and security system although Asian-Pacific allies and partners already are criticizing the practice, according to Sukhankin. For now, the BRI transverses mostly non-democratic and non-Western states that tend to avoid criticizing Beijing’s militarization of the region.

One area of concern to the West is that China is increasingly using these so-called “private forces” in the cyber domain and developing capabilities in both offensive and defensive warfare. Sukhankin says that “given the talk of the emergence of the so-called “Cyber BRI,” as well as the fact that China has de facto become a key provider of cameras and means of intelligence collection in Central Asia, development of capabilities in new domains of war and security—in which information and cyber spaces have already emerged as crucial pillars [and] is a prospect that must not be ruled out.” He also points out that these entities could be used to gain a strategic foothold through UN-mandates humanitarian missions in Africa and Latin America. Increased employment of these teams could serve to enhance China’s reputation in strategic locations.

China is known for playing the “long game.” It uses a multipronged approach to extend its sphere of influence. Its “private” security forces are growing in sophistication and spreading out across the globe, yet virtually unnoticed by most governments. With Xi Jinping doubling down on his efforts to dominate the global world order, these security companies are filling a gap that sits below the threshold of a required Western response… for now. 

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

Is Russian president Vladimir Putin becoming more desperate? Four weeks ago, he signed a “partial mobilization” decree that called for Russian citizens across the country “who are currently in the reserve and primarily those who served in the army and have particular military specialties [to] be called up for military service.” The Russian president needed to replace troops killed in the war in Ukraine. Soon after the announcement tens of thousands of young Russian men fled the country to avoid going to war. Putin still needed more troops and recently decided to call on Abkhazians to help. It has not gone as planned.  

“Circassian activists have called on the leaders of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic to come out against Putin’s war in Ukraine and reject the partial mobilization,” according to Giorgi Manabde of the Jamestown Foundation. The publication Zapravakbr.ru reports that the Circassians are following the lead of Abkhazia, a small break away region of Georgia on the eastern side of the Black Sea, in rejecting Putin. Abkhazia was taken over by Russia after the 2008 war and has been formally blockaded by Georgia since that time. In 2014 Abkhazia signed a partnership with Russia. 

Some authorities in Abkhazia today, however, reject Putin’s plea, although a large percentage of the area’s 250,000 residents are of Russian heritage. Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Nikolai Pankov simultaneously announced that the 90% of Abkhazians with Russian citizenship would now be subject to a forced mobilization. Pankov fell back on the false claim that Russia “saved” the population economically and they owed Russia. It was time to pay their debt.  Beslan Tarba, the pro-Russian military commissar of Abkhazia, responded  saying “Of course, we will do this. There are no debts to anyone, but we are always there, we are in favor.” 

Barba’s comment was not well-received by the local population. Dissenters from inside the Ministry of Defense in Abkhazia labeled it “Tarba’s private views” and pointed out that they do not reflect the position of the Abkhaz  government. The Foreign Ministry accused Pankov of attempting to “…sow panic in Abkhaz society.” To date, Abkhazia has not sent any military units to Ukraine to fight alongside regular Russian troops. In contrast, as of October, several thousand volunteers from Georgia have fought with Ukrainian forces. 

Abkhaz society so strongly rejected Putin’s call up that Moscow quickly relented, abandoned its recruitment plans, and backed away saying it was meant only for those Russian citizens who are registered in the officially recognized territory of the Russian Federation. Manabde says that almost all Abkhazians have a Russian passport but only a small part of them are registered in Russia and live in Moscow or other Russian cities. Most of the young men have returned to Abkhazia, he points out, where Russian military commissars would not be able to mobilize them. In South Ossetia, another Georgian province also seized by Russia in 2008,  dual Russian – Abkhazia citizens were barred from returning to South Ossetia. 

On October 13 Abkhaz President Aslan Bzhania announced a mobilization but stressed that its purpose is not a war against Ukraine but rather “protection against Georgian aggression.” What is perhaps most revealing in the war of words is that it appears Georgia may actually open a ‘second front’ against Russia in Georgia. Throughout history Russian leaders have feared two-front wars, even those they knew they could win. Georgia is now considering holding a referendum on the issue asking its citizens if they want war with Russia. If Georgia opens a second front, it will symbolically change the nature of Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine.  As such, Manabde says, “opposition to Moscow’s mobilization will only serve to further exacerbate tensions between the center and periphery.” The war in Ukraine may not stay contained for much longer. Harvard University News last month suggested that if Putin’s “losing streak” continues, Western Europe may see conflict. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

The new school year is well underway, but students, teachers, and parents are being subjected to an educational and union bureaucracy that prioritizes the spreading of radical ideology over actual instruction, and the demands of union leaders over the needs of students.

The problem is widespread, and extends from kindergarten straight through graduate school. The vested interests, including the militantly aggressive left-wing union, the American Federation of Teachers, (AFT) have engaged in harsh tactics when their agenda is questioned or exposed.

An AMAC analysis found that in “the span of less than a week [in 2021] two California teachers were removed from their posts for openly attempting to indoctrinate their students in radical liberal ideology. Gabriel Gipe, an AP government teacher at a California high school, was caught on camera explicitly stating that his goal was to turn his students into ‘revolutionaries.’ Meanwhile, Kristin Pitzen recorded herself gleefully declaring that she removed the American flag from her sixth-grade classroom and made her students say the Pledge of Allegiance to a Gay Pride Flag. Both of these incidents come on the heels of another case where a teacher was removed for calling her students’ parents ‘dumb’ for being Trump supporters, going on to say that Trump ‘sucks’ and is ‘a literal moron.’”

Many of the issues were brought to a head during the pandemic, when the AFT, over the objections of many parents, sought to keep schools closed.

An example was recently provided in a Daily Mail examination. Reporter Harriet Alexander found that “A research assistant at the California Teachers Association dug for ‘dirt’ on parents who were calling for the reopening of schools during the pandemic – suspicious that they were being ‘used toward a larger goal to disrupt, destabilize and ‘burn down’ public schools’.”

What is being advocated?  Just one example::  The New York Post reports that “New York is showering taxpayer funds on a group that sends drag queens into city schools — often without parental knowledge or consent — even as parents in other states protest increasingly aggressive efforts to expose kids to gender-bending performers. Last month alone, Drag Story Hour NYC — a nonprofit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as 3 — earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries, city records show.”

The diversion from appropriate curricula to ideological-driven instruction extends beyond grammar school up into higher education. Mansur Shaheen quotes  Dr Stanley Goldfarb, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania: “Leading United States medical schools are beginning to value ‘wokeism’ instead of teaching and preparing the next generation of doctors, experts warn.” Goldfarb highlighted programs at major medical teaching institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Duke and Pittsburgh.  ‘Across these medical schools, there is now a default assumption that applicants understand and accept the tenets of woke ideology,’”

Why has this occurred? Much has to do with the way teachers themselves are being trained. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis believes that students seeking teaching degrees have been deeply inculcated in radical ideology at teachers’ colleges.

The Pacific Institute found that “It is important to understand the influence of schools of education, which train prospective teachers, on the political and ideological leanings of teachers. Dr. Greg Forster, Friedman Fellow at the school-choice organization EdChoice and a top education researcher, last year wrote that university education schools indoctrinate future teachers in left-wing ideology. ‘Peruse the course catalog of any major education school, or read the Twitter feeds of the professors,’ observes Forster, and you will ‘find yourself swimming in an ocean of hard-left ideology: ‘critical theory’ that says there is no truth, only power; ‘intersectionality’ that says you’re not allowed to be right about anything unless you’re right (that is, left) about everything; cheerleading for every fashionable left-leaning cause.’”

Illustration: Pixabay

Pope Francis and the ruling Chinese Communist Party have renewed a controversial agreement on the appointment of bishops for an additional two years. The deal was originally set in 2018. The Catholic News Agency (CAN) has reported that two bishops had already been appointed under the “regulatory framework established by the agreement”: Bishop Antonio Yao Shun, of Jining Autonomous Region of Inner Mongolia, and Bishop Stefano Xu Hongwei, of Hanzhong in Shaanxi Province.

As part of the original agreement, reports CAN, “state officials in different regions of China removed crosses and demolished church buildings, and underground Catholics and clergy have reported harassment and detention. A 2020 report of the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China found that Chinese Catholics suffered ‘increasing persecution’ after the deal.”

In an article for the religious publication Aleteia, Zelda Caldwell quotes human rights lawyer Nina Shea’s warning that The Catholic Church in China is seeing “its Christian teachings quietly swapped out for communist ones…the arrest of Cardinal Joseph Zen, the 90-year-old emeritus Bishop of Hong Kong, has put the spotlight on religious persecution by the Beijing regime.

Despite that, the current Pontiff is not only comfortable with and apparently sympathetic to Marxist philosophy.  

Pope Francis, is the most political pope in modern history, and his deal with the ruling Chinese Communist Party has upended over two thousand years of Catholic tradition. Many Catholics believe he has betrayed the steadfast loyalty of his faith’s 10 million adherents in that nation. In marked contrast to his predecessors, he has stated that “I can only say that the communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the center of the Gospel.”

The government wants Roman Catholics in China to attend only state-sanctioned churches, ruled over by bishops agreed to by the Communist dictatorship. Underground churches in that country, who brave oppression, continue the religion’s ancient practice of allegiance to the Pontiff, seen as the heir, in an unbroken line stretching back to Peter the Apostle, who was, according to the New Testament, appointed head of the church by Christ himself.

Many of Pope Francis’ statements have raised serious questions about whether his worldview is sufficiently informed. A U.S. News analysis noted that the Pontiff has not watched television since 1990.

Commentator Wayne Allyn Root  has written that “This pope neither seems to understand, nor care that his views on issues…often put him in bed with atheists and socialists, who don’t believe in God, mock religion and think the Bible is a work of fiction. He crusades for social justice, yet chose to embrace the Castro brothers – evil murderers who have imprisoned, tortured and murdered generations of Cubans for expressing their opinions and questioning the authority of a tyrant…He chose not to visit or even be seen with Cubans imprisoned because of their political views.”

Pope Francis’ lack of a more thorough and well-rounded understanding of the world is leading to exactly the opposite of the goals he, with all good intentions, advocates.

When the Pope ventures into areas beyond his theological expertise, that can cause problems.  Damien Thompson, writing in Spectator writes: “What should worry Francis is that moderate conservative Catholics are losing confidence in him. The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who is no one’s idea of an extremist, believes that ‘this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him’. Cristina Odone, former editor of the Catholic Herald, says that ‘Francis achieved miracles with his compassionate, off-the-cuff comments that detoxified the Catholic brand. He personifies optimism — but when he tries to turn this into policy he isn’t in command of the procedures or the details. The result is confusion.’”

The Biden Administration has released a 48 page National Security Strategy document. What makes it unique from similar papers presented by prior presidents is that it broadens the definition of national security from defense issues to a broad range of topics.

The document stresses that “We are now in the early years of a decisive decade for America and the world. The terms of geopolitical competition between the major powers will be set. The window of opportunity to deal with shared threats, like climate change, will narrow drastically. We face two strategic challenges. The first is that the post-Cold War era is definitively over and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next. No nation is better positioned to succeed in this competition than the United States, as long as we work in common cause with those who share our vision …The second is that while this competition is underway, people all over the world are struggling to cope with the effects of shared challenges that cross borders—whether it is climate change, food insecurity, communicable diseases, terrorism, energy shortages, or inflation. These shared challenges are not marginal issues that are secondary to geopolitics. They are at the very core of national and international security and must be treated as such. By their very nature, these challenges require governments to cooperate if they are to solve them. But we must be clear-eyed that we will have to tackle these challenges within a competitive international environment where heightening geopolitical competition, nationalism and populism render this cooperation even more difficult and will require us to think and act in new ways… We do not seek conflict or a new Cold War. Rather, we are trying to support every country, regardless of size or strength, in exercising the freedom to make choices that serve their interests. This is a critical difference between our vision, which aims to preserve the autonomy and rights of less powerful states, and that of our rivals, which does not.”

The unusual emphasis on non-defense matters has provoked criticism from key U.S. officials. The strategy is based, as U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), lead Republican of the House Armed Services Committee, states,  “…on a fantasy world where all nations, even adversaries, work together to advance the common good. The President should be reminded that Russia, China and Iran, don’t care about the common good, and they don’t want to work with us to achieve common goals. they want to destroy us, and they have taken every step necessary to achieve that end. Russia hasn’t developed the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal just for show. China has not engaged in the most prolonged period of dramatically increased military spending to promote peace and harmony. “
 
At the end of the first cold war, America slashed its defense spending.  The response by Beijing was to conduct one of the largest military buildups in history. The response by Moscow was to annex Crimea, and eventually invade the rest of Ukraine. Iran’s leadership  continues to chant “Death to America” as it develops its nuclear arsenal.  North Korea is on the verge of having an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that could destroy the U.S. 

During his tenure in offense, Mr. Biden has proposed defense appropriations that, after accounting for inflation, actually reduces Pentagon spending.  It opens his administration to criticisms that he is following the Progressive playbook that downplays foreign military threats, because in the eyes of the hard left, every penny spent on defense is a penny not spent on the type of giveaway domestic programs they employ to buy votes.

Photo: A fighter jet attached to an aviation brigade of air force under the PLA Western Theater Command takes off for a flight training exercise on September 18, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Yu Zeqi)

The disruptions occurring in Ukraine, Taiwan and the Middle East may seem far away, but the Russian, Chinese and Iranian forces that are responsible are on America’s doorstep.

Little noted in the media, an exercise hosted by Venezuela entitled “Sniper Frontier” has brought the military forces of Moscow, Beijing and Tehran to the western hemisphere, as close to the U.S. as the Caribbean.

These hostile forces have been establishing a regular presence on America’s southern doorstep.

Russian troops are now in Nicaragua.

Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Army Gen. Laura J. Richardson, commander, U.S. Southern Command, testified earlier this year before a Senate Armed Services Committee. They revealed that Russian and Chinese forces in the New World are designed to hold critical American infrastructure “at risk.”

Some of the threat has come under the radar as financial moves.

The Gatestone Institute’s Gordon Chang has reported that “About 55 miles east of Palm Beach, Florida on Grand Bahama Island, a Hong Kong-based business is spending about $3 billion on a deep-water container facility, the Freeport Container Port.” Chang notes the facility may eventually become a Chinese naval base. He noted that the Chinese military is already in the Caribbean, in Cuba, apparently to collect signals intelligence from the U.S.

As we reported in March, In testimony to Congress, Admiral Craig S. Faller, the Commander of the United States Southern Command stated that “Russia doubled its naval deployments in this region, going from five (2008-2014), to 11 (2015-2020). Russia is trying to make inroads in the hemisphere by providing security training and has conducted $2.3 billion in weapons and military equipment sales in the last 10 years. At the same time, Moscow is working to discredit the U.S. by flooding the region’s information space with disinformation, to include hundreds of articles distorting U.S. security actions. In 2020, Russian Spanish-language media outlets more than doubled their social media followers from 7 million to over 18 million.” Admiral Faller noted that in the past 15 years, Russia has demonstrated its intent and capability, however limited, to conduct military and other strategic activities oriented against the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere. Its key vehicle for doing so has been collusion with anti-U.S. authoritarian regimes in the region, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.

Recent demonstrations of Russia’s hostile intent toward the U.S. and our partners in the Western Hemisphere include Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s January 2022 suggestion that Russia might deploy military forces to Venezuela or Cuba, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov’s February 2022 signing of a pact to increase military cooperation with Venezuela, and Nicaragua’s June 2022 re-authorization for limited numbers of Russian troops and equipment to enter the country for training missions and other forms of support.

In 2019, there were reports that the Russian military had returned to significant levels of activity within Cuba, and that its nuclear bombers were flying around the Caribbean. That’s only the tip of a growing iceberg.

The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission reports that Venezuela maintains strong ties to the Chinese military “through a high number of official visits, military officer exchanges, port calls, and limited arms sales.”  Venezuela has purchased Chinese arms and military equipment, including radar and aircraft.

A Council of the America’s study  found that “Running a cash-strapped country didn’t stop Maduro from announcing his plans to “modernize” the Venezuelan Armed Forces with new military equipment, marking another aspect of Venezuela’s relationship with China and Russia.

According to the RT news service, Moscow seeks to create a semi-permanent base for the Russian long-range aviation on one of Venezuela’s islands in the Caribbean Sea as it prepares for long-time military presence in the US ‘backyard’.

Bekzat Maxutkanuly, a Chinese-born, ethnic Kazakh activist from the Xinjiang region of northwest China is designing and officiating a new political party in Kazakhstan to counter Chinese President Xi’s increasing impact on the Xinjiang region. 

The Chinese government has formed detention camps in an effort to suppress the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang. Over 1 million Uyghur Muslims have been detained in the 85 identified camps since 2017. Along with the Uyghurs, thousands of Kazakh, Krgyz, Uzbek and other Central Asian nationals have also been detained by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang. 

President Xi is visiting Kazakhstan. Maxutkanuly is appalled by the welcome President Xi has received, given the horrendous treatment of Kazakh people in China under his rule. 

This is important for US foreign policy.  Central Asia is ranked as the least democratic region on Earth. Maxutkanuly’s new political party raises awareness of the issue of Chinese detention centers and the effects that they are having on a global scale. Of course, China is a communist dictatorship so the likelihood of this new Kazakh political party amounting to anything that invokes change inside of China is negligible at best. This does not mean that nothing can be done to speak out against President Xi’s actions in the Xinjiang region.

Maxutkanuly is encouraging Kazakhstan to become more democratic, in an attempt to get the government to care about the Central Asian people that are currently being detained in China. He is already leading an activism campaign against the treatment of the Uygurs, the Kazakhs, and other Central Asians in the Xinjiang region. He believes that activism is not enough when competing against such a global power like China. By creating a political party that focuses on the interest of Kazakhs being detained in China, the Kazakh government will become involved and the issue becomes a dispute between the states. A dispute between the governments of Kazakhstan and China holds more leverage than activist groups in Kazakhstan simply being angry at China.

China is a major investor in the Kazakh oil and gas industry, which complicates the matter. There are reports that privately, the Kazakh government has pleaded for the safe release of its citizens, but there have been no public statements that show any displeasure between the Kazakh government and President Xi. Kazakhstan abstained from voting on the UN resolution on whether to condemn or support China’s policies in Xinjiang. 

President Xi visited Kazakhstan on September 14th, and was met with nothing but support from the Kazakh people. Maxutkanuly feels that this display of support is not only embarrassing, but also damaging to the ethnic Kazakhs being held illegally in detention centers in the Xinjiang region of China.

In Maxutkanuly’s words “To achieve our goals, we need to change the political situation in Kazakhstan first.” He hopes by democratizing Kazakhstan, improvements can be made in the government that will lead to the release of all prisoners being held in the Xinjiang region.  

For over three decades, Maxutkanuly has been organizing petitions, and peaceful protests, and hosting news conferences, and trying to shed light on the mistreatment of ethnic Kazakhs in the Xinjiang Region on a global scale.

 He began his activism by joining an unregistered organization called Atajurt that was run by Serikzhan Bilash, another Chinese-born Kazakh. Bilash was arrested for his involvement in Atajurt, and Maxutkanuly stepped up to lead the organization. Now, Maxutkanuly feels that it is time 

A functioning democracy in Central Asia should be a point of excitement for the United States. The region is heavily influenced by both China and Russia, and is geographically situated in a democratic dead zone. Between the terrorist organizations running much of the Middle East, the dictatorship-adjacent monarchies in the area, and two massive communist powers in the region, there is little room for democracy. 

The Central Asian countries that were only granted independence after the fall of the Soviet Union have gone through a variety of short-lived governmental systems. These countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan. Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) have not had the opportunities to find a fitting and successful regime type. They were under Russian control for hundreds of years, and under the control of Mongol Empire before that. This goes to show that the Central Asian region is still in a young, malleable phase where regime type can be changed successfully with influence from a strong democracy. 

The US should encourage Maxutkanuly’s plans to democratize Kazakhstan as it would put a democracy in one of the last regions on the planet without strong democracies. One way that the West could encourage democratization of Kazakhstan would be to invest in Kazakh oil. This would relieve pressure off of Kazakhstan to please China, as China’s investment in Kazakh oil would not be the only investment.

Kaitlyn Williams interns at the American Analysis of News and Media.

Illustration: Pixabay

It’s time to put aside the politically-correct propaganda and have an honest discussion about what is happening to single and two family-home communities across the United States.  Examine why elected officials have taken such a keen interest in all this.

The problem is fairly equally divided between greedy politicians and progressive ideology. Owners of one and two-family homes and small community-based businesses are not likely to be big contributors to campaigns. Nor are they likely to provide jobs to the relatives and supporters of elected officials, or even to the mayors, senators, congressmen, and state legislators themselves when they retire or get booted out of office.  If a developer decides he can make a profit by ruining a community, the greedy elected officials will back them up. So, too, the appointed hacks in organizations such as city zoning or similar boards.

But those folks need cover for their inappropriate support.  Hence, the development of phrases such as “affordable housing programs,” “scatter site housing,” and similar excuses.  Oppose these phony dodges, and you are branded a racist, or at the very least a heartless cad. Sneering, elitist pseudo-journalists join in this crusade to brand people simply protecting their neighborhoods as a collection of Archie Bunkers.

It’s long been considered part of the American dream—a home and backyard of one’s own, away from the noise and congestion of the inner city. However, some consider it an anti-environmental form of housing that also happens to be politically troublesome as it fosters an anti-high tax, independent way of life that progressives deem repulsive.

The second part involves raw power politics.

Joel Klotin, writing in a Real Clear Politics  article, believes that “The next culture war will not be about issues like gay marriage or abortion, but about something more fundamental: how Americans choose to live. In the crosshairs now will not be just recalcitrant Christians or crazed billionaire racists, but the vast majority of Americans who either live in suburban-style housing or aspire to do so in the future. Roughly four in five home buyers prefer a single-family home, but much of the political class increasingly wants them to live differently…You are a political party, and you want to secure the electoral majority. But what happens, as is occurring to the Democrats, when the damned electorate that just won’t live the way—in dense cities and apartments—that you have deemed is best for them?… University of Washington demographer Richard Morrill notes that the vast majority of the 153 million Americans who live in metropolitan areas with populations of more than 500,000  live in the lower-density suburban places Democrats think they should not. Only 60 million live in core cities. Despite these realities, the Democratic Party, [starting with] Barack Obama…increasingly allied itself with its relatively small core urban base.”

Obama’s goals are being carried out by Biden, and progressive mayors and governors. Former New York State Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey Ross, writing in the New York Post, warns that the anti-private home initiative “would change towns everywhere and, for many families, torpedo the American Dream of a house with a patch of lawn. Advocates for abolishing zoning mock suburbanites for worrying about home values. But for most people, their home is their biggest investment, and they waited years to afford it.”

If politicians were truly concerned about affordable housing, they could easily reduce property taxes, which would make rental housing easier to build and maintain in appropriate venues, and would allow the elderly to stay in the private homes they have occupied for so long and raised families in.  They could also allow modern and less expensive forms of construction to be utilized.

It’s not just an East Coast phenomenon. Progressives in California and elsewhere have been attacking single family homeowners for years.

Illustration: Pixabay

“Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.”

–Captain Ahab, Moby Dick by Herman Melville

It came as no surprise to anyone that Liz Cheney (R-WY) lost her primary to retain her seat as Wyoming’s only Congressperson.  “With 80% of the vote counted before midnight, (Harriet) Hageman was leading Cheney by more than 32 points.”  The daughter of the former Vice President was doomed to lose her seat months ago, when “(t)he Wyoming Republican Party voted…to censure Rep. Liz Cheney and also asked her to resign for her vote last month to impeach then-President Donald Trump after the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6.” 

But Liz Cheney won’t give up her own hunt for the white whale.  “Cheney told CBS News‘ Robert Costa that Tuesday’s primary is “certainly the beginning of a battle that is going to continue to go on”…(i)n her closing message, Liz Cheney made it clear that her focus remains squarely on Trump: ‘The lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is insidious. It preys on those who love their country. It is a door Donald Trump opened to manipulate Americans to abandon their principles, to sacrifice their freedom, to justify violence, to ignore the rulings of our courts and the rule of law.'” 

Liz Cheney is only one example of our national leaders who have decided to spit their last political breaths at Donald Trump.  The most obvious, and glaring example of this unreasonable hatred of the 45th President is the search warrant recently executed at Mar A Lago by 30 Agents from the Washington DC office of the FBI.

The Florida Federal Magistrate who signed the warrant, Bruce Reinhart,  “attacked President Trump for his comments about former congressman and woke hero John Lewis…(i)n a Facebook post dated 14 January 2017 (before he was appointed a Magistrate), Reinhart (said) “Thank you, (former Labor Secretary) Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel…John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.”

 Perhaps after his appointment, Magistrate Reinhart had repudiated these feelings about President Trump?  Not according to Reinhart himself; “U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce W. Reinhart in West Palm Beach, Fla…recused himself from the former president’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and other Democrats in the Russia collusion scandal, citing concerns he couldn’t be impartial…'(t)he undersigned Magistrate Judge, to whom the above-styled cause has been assigned, hereby recuses himself and refers the case to the Clerk of Court for reassignment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455,” Reinhart wrote in his order of recusal in the Trump v. Clinton case. You can read the document here: Trump v. Clinton 

“The statute that the magistrate cited for his recusal states in part that a judge ‘shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ and then describes the various circumstances that could trigger such concerns. They include ‘a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts’ or prior work as a lawyer for a party involved in the case. Reinhart’s order did not specify the conflict or source of his concern for recusal.” 

The Recusal Order is dated June 22, 2022.  Six weeks later, on August 5, 2022, Magistrate Reinhart signed the search warrant for Mar A Lago.  Did his concern that his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” evaporate in that time?

A reading of the search warrant indicates otherwise.

Magistrate Reinhart’s warrant authorizes a search of “1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480…described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Blvd. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the ’45 Office,’ all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.e., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites.”

Note the very broad area to be searched – “all storage rooms…all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by (former President Trump)…all structures or buildings on the estate.”  Pretty much covers the whole place, doesn’t it?

Equally broad is the description of the items to be searched for: “All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , or 1519, including the following: a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes; b. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material; c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021; or d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings.”

A list of what items weren’t covered by this warrant would have been shorter.

Blinded by his hatred of Donald Trump, perhaps Judge Reinhart forgot that a search warrant must identify a specific place to be searched, and particular items to be seized. “The Fourth Amendment (to the United States Constitution) itself identifies the criteria for obtaining a lawful search warrant. A police officer, or other official seeking a warrant…must ‘particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’ A search warrant is invalid if it covers too broad an area or does not identify specific items or persons.”  (Emphasis added).

 As noted in the case of United States v. Galpin, 720 F3d 436 (2nd Circuit, 2013), The chief evil that prompted the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment was the ‘indiscriminate searches and seizures’ conducted by the British ‘under the authority of ‘general warrants’…(t)o prevent such ‘general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings’ and the attendant privacy violations…the Fourth Amendment provides that ‘a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity’…the Supreme Court has held that the particularity requirement ‘makes general searches … impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant’…we have emphasized that ‘a failure to describe the items to be seized with as much particularity as the circumstances reasonably allow offends the Fourth Amendment because there is no assurance that the permitted invasion of a suspect’s privacy and property are no more than absolutely necessary.’” (Citations omitted).

Following these general principles, and reviewing the extremely broad language of the search warrant quoted above, it is obvious that Magistrate Reinhart authorized a “fishing expedition” at Mar A Lago, when he should have (a) recused himself from hearing the warrant application, as he did six weeks earlier, (b) limited the search location and items to be searched for, or (c ) reject the search warrant all together as overbroad. 

Only someone who bears unreasoning hatred for the 45th President can justify a search so repugnant to the standards established by the Fourth Amendment.  Someone like Liz Cheney.  Or Magistrate Bruce Reinhart. 

Much blame for this violation of the former President’s rights can be assigned to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  However, the court which issues the search warrant is the gatekeeper, sworn to uphold the Constitution and insure that the rights of the accused are protected and respected.

In this respect, Magistrate Reinhart has utterly failed at his job.  Instead of maintaining impartiality and respect for the requirements of the law, Bruce Reinhart joined the hunt.

“Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up.”

Captain Ahab, Moby Dick by Herman Melville

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC