Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Partisan loyalty has dangerously eclipsed devotion to the higher calling of dedication to the good of the nation.

Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, have historically “played to their base.” But never before has one side, in this case, the progressive-led Democrat party, done so to a degree that so deeply and seriously damages the citizenry and jeopardizes America’s safety and economy.

The harm done to the nation over the past several years has been unprecedented. Truly irrational decisions have brought about significant and unnecessary harm to the entire body politic.  It’s not just a singular issue, or even a class of issues, where this is evident.

Biden’s open border has resulted in a massive influx of dangerous criminal activity, major expense to local governments, and the risk of spreading disease. In addition to the crisis itself, the stunning and abashed falsehoods emanating from the White House and the President’s appointees, who insist, despite massive evidence to the contrary, that “The border is closed” has slashed trust in government.

Upon taking office, Mr. Biden, acting in lockstep with the most extreme elements of the so-called “Green movement,” vigorously assaulted energy production, stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, and doing everything possible to limit U.S. fossil fuel production.  Unfortunately, there is, within the next few decades, nothing that can replace fossil fuel beyond a mere 20%.  His actions, along with unchecked spending, resulted in massive inflation in everything from gasoline to food.  The worst is yet to come.  As gimmicks such as emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve come to an end, prices will soar to unprecedented levels. Again, the Biden Administration has willfully lied to the American public, as it alleges that it has provided for an adequate number of drilling permits.  Nothing of the sort has occurred.

On the more local level, progressive Democrat District attorneys, mayors, and governors have unleashed absolute havoc on the streets. Following radical ideological theories of “social justice,” violent criminals and mentally disturbed perpetrators have been allowed to roam free.  There can be no dispute on the horrifying statistics. Despite that, elected officials in major cities and states refuse to return their jurisdictions to the level of safety that existed before their rash and misguided theories were enacted.

The aftermath of the 2016 election was unlike anything seen before.  Donald Trump unexpectedly defeated Hillary Clinton.  Rather than accept the result, or even just continuously complain about it as Mr. Trump has done since his loss in 2020, Democrats sought to destroy his presidency, and the harm this caused to America was vast.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) unabashedly and blatantly lied, claiming he had clear and indisputable evidence of “Russian collusion.” It is now clear, after years of investigation and tens of millions of dollars spent, that no such collusion ever existed, and the entire matter was fabricated by the Clinton campaign.

The list could go on, but it is important not to overlook a clear, present, and immediate threat to the American Republic and its Constitution.  There is no clear indication, as of this writing, who is actually in charge of the national government.  Pointing out the obvious incapacity of Joe Biden is tragically seen as a partisan move. But it is evident that the man has significant difficulties with even the most basic functions of his office.

Equally worrisome, the key question of whether he, even if not intellectually incapacitated, is compromised by what appears to be overt influence peddling payments from China, is viewed as yet another political assault. But the evidence is genuine and deep.

Partisanship at this level is a cancer. When it reaches this degree, it is incumbent on those, whatever their party or philosophy, to place the good of the nation above loyalty to party.

Today’s global leaders, unlike those of the Cold War era, have not lived through a major great power war. Putin’s war in Ukraine may be changing that dynamic. The risk of widespread European conflict is growing daily as the Russian leader continues to prepare for and threaten the use of his military’s nuclear weapons. Although unlikely the Russians would risk using even a small, battlefield nuclear weapon, the world cannot risk that Putin is bluffing. An error could mean thousands of civilian lives lost and territory rendered uninhabitable for years due to nuclear fallout. 

Earlier this week reports emerged that one of Putin’s nuclear submarines is no longer in its home port; its whereabouts are unknown. Although the Russian military has exercised for nuclear war for a long time, this year the Russian president personally oversaw military drills transitioning his armed forces from a conventional to a nuclear war stance when he supervised his “strategic forces” in a preparatory drill shortly after invading Ukraine. 

Unlike other weapons, the level of death and destruction from a nuclear device is almost beyond human conception. It is, in part, why nuclear deterrence has worked well in the post-WWII period. The question military analysts in the US are discussing now concerns whether the doctrine will continue to keep the Russia’s nuclear arsenal quiet in their silos. Putin is losing popularity at home, increasingly challenged by his own political elite, and acting in what appears to be a more desperate manner. Reports suggest he spends time in hiding in one of his secret palaces and is paranoid that one of his trusted cadre will murder him. 

It appears the Russian leader is losing political ground at home among the citizenry, territory in Ukraine, and support among formerly friendly nation-states in the international community. That makes Putin dangerous and unpredictable. Last week the two underwater Nordstream pipelines were bombed in four separate places. It appears to be a Russian attack. It serves as a warning from Putin to Western Europe that he still can control the supply of energy the continent needs for the upcoming winter season. Destroying natural gas lines does not equate to the level of a nuclear event. Would Putin dare to raise the bar and conduct a preventive nuclear strike? It is not out of the realm of possibility. Rebecca Koffler, a Russian specialist formerly with the US Government, says that Putin will fight to the death if cornered without regard to the impact of his decision on others.

Twelve years ago, the released Russian nuclear doctrine reflected a series of internal debates following the comments of Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Security Council, who reportedly explained that delays in completing the new military doctrine were due to discussions concerning the right of “preventive nuclear strikes.” A year earlier, in 2009, Russia conducted a simulated nuclear strike on Polish soil during the Zapad 2009 exercise. In 2010 Moscow rehearsed the use of nuclear weapons against separatist forces in the 2010 Vostok maneuvers. The potential use of nuclear weapons still appears to be included in the set of alternatives presented to Putin by his military chiefs. He may be considering moving from a conventional conflict to one of limited nuclear war. Or, he may be testing the limits of deterrence theory in a desperate attempt to change the course of the war in Ukraine.

What is certain is that simply retaining the option to go nuclear raises the risk of an accident widening the conflict in Ukraine into a large regional war overnight. Accidents do happen. On September 1, 1983,  a Korean Air Lines commercial airliner flight KAL 007, carrying US Congressman Larry McDonald on board, was shot down by the Eastern command of the Russian air force after it mistakenly entered closed Russian air space near the Sea of Japan. Two hundred sixty-nine lives were lost due to a miscommunication. Even if Vladimir Putin is bluffing and is not intending to use a nuclear weapon, there is an elevated risk that western nations should find unacceptable. The editor of War on the Rocks, wrote last month that “After the Russian military collapse in and around Kharkiv Oblast, there is now renewed concern that Russian leaders could behave unpredictably and use nuclear weapons to halt the Ukrainian offensive, or to intimidate the leadership in Kyiv to settle the conflict on terms favorable to Moscow.” It Putin does not heed the warning signs inside Russia and among the western states it could be a true nuclear winter.  

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

The same social media barons who had no reservations about publicizing organizations and individuals that condoned the assault on federal courthouses, innocent passersby, police stations and businesses large and small don’t like a small nonprofit named COPSHOT, that offers cash rewards to those who provide information leading to the arrest of criminals that attack cops.

On August 2, when an individual attempted to post a request to contribute to the group, the information was blocked and the following message was inserted:

You can’t Share this link Your content couldn’t be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards

The purpose of COPSHOT is to offer a standing reward of $10,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone shooting a New York City police officer, based on the information received.  In addition, COPSHOT may award grants to the officer’s widow or wife, as the case may be, and the dependent minor child or children of police officers shot or killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.

The National Fraternal Order of Police reports that (nationwide) as of 31 July, there have been 210 officers shot so far in 2022, 39 of whom were killed by gunfire. There have been 46 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers this year, which have resulted in 71 officers shot, 18 of whom were killed.

According to the FBI, 59 police officers were killed in the line of duty from January 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021. This marks a 51 percent increase in the number of police officers killed when compared to the same period last year. Nationally, 60,105 law enforcement officers were assaulted while performing their duties in 2020. These assaults were reported to the FBI by 9,895 law enforcement agencies. Based on these reports, there were 4,071 more officers assaulted in 2020 than the 56,034 assaults reported in 2019.

In an interview during Police Week events last October, FBI Director Christopher Wray noted that “We are looking at now 59 officers or agents murdered in the line of duty this year. That’s an over 50 percent increase from last year. That basically translates to every five days—more often than every five days in this country—an officer is murdered in the line of duty. And that’s totally unacceptable, and it’s a tragedy and it needs attention…”

In what amounts to a wide-scale assault on police and public safety, radical District attorneys funded by a progressive billionaire have endangered officers on a variety of levels.  Releasing those who assault cops is a deadly enough tactic, but many officers are mentally prepared to face physical danger.  But the possibility of losing their jobs, their pension, and their homes as a result of leftist policies that view the world through a bizarre lens in which those that protect society are “oppressors” and criminals are somehow “victims” is a whole other challenge.

The publication Force Science explains the absurd world-view of those leftist politicians and Progressive District Attorneys who favor criminals over cops: “To those who believe that the police are oppressors, and therefore illegitimate, any use-of-force may be characterized as ‘police brutality.’ Even lawful force might be condemned as a result of officers too eager to resort to force, unwilling to respect the dignity of the individual, and unwilling to value the sanctity of life…Recasting the police as oppressors transforms criminals into the ‘victims’ of this oppression. As ‘victims,’ criminals are more easily excused for their crimes.”

It’s a terrible belief system that is destroying American cities.

Illustration: Pixabay

In a sign of the growing closeness of Russia and China, Putin and Xi are communicating with each other more than ever.

While the Ukraine invasion and growing tensions over Taiwan have been factors moving the two closer together, the reality is that this is a trend that has been in the making for well over a decade. China’s ambition to dramatically reduce western influence, and Russia’s drive to re-establish the Soviet empire against the wishes of American and its allies have produced a commonality of interest that grows more intense each year.

Moscow’s and Beijing’s economies have become more intertwined since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. According to Russia’s semi-official RT news source, “Russia is now in the top three markets for yuan (Chinese currency) payments. The change has come rapidly…Last month, Russian businesses and financial institutions were reportedly involved in nearly 4% of international yuan payments by value, compared to only 1.42% recorded in June…Earlier this week, data tracked by the Moscow Exchange showed that yuan-ruble trading has outpaced the dollar-ruble pairing for the first time, while the yuan-ruble pair exceeded volumes in the euro-ruble pair in late July.”

Radio Free Europe  reports that “China’s growing appetite for discounted Russian oil has made it the leading financier of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine by giving Moscow a reliable revenue source that blunts the impact of tough Western sanctions against its economy…China has overtaken Germany as the biggest single buyer of Russian energy… helping to fill a gap left by Europe, Russia’s biggest export market…Despite being sold at a steep discount, the purchases — along with climbing oil prices — have allowed Russian revenues to grow in the face of Western pressure and given Moscow a crucial financial lifeline to keep funding its war effort.

Energy, of course, is the linchpin of Sino-Russian commerce. A Voice of America  analysis found that Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia to become China’s top oil provider as the West sanctions Moscow’s energy exports…Beijing has refused to publicly condemn Moscow’s war and has instead exacted economic gains from its isolated neighbor.”

Defying international sanctions, Beijing has adopted a policy of “no limits” on trade between the two giant nations. While the U.S. and Europe have crippled their economies with “green” restrictions, Russian sources boast that China purchased 7.42 million tons of Russian coal last month, noting that “China is Russia’s largest coal buyer, taking in more than 50 million tons of the commodity worth $7.4 billion last year via rail and sea, from Russia’s Far East. Russia accounted for roughly 15% of China’s total coal imports.”

The Congressional Research Service reports that Since 2014, China and Russia have reached agreements in trade, energy, finance, technology, and aerospace, while increasing diplomatic and defense cooperation. Bilateral trade has expanded since 2014, but flows are asymmetric. In 2021, China accounted for 18% of Russia’s trade while Russia represented a 2% share of China’s trade. China’s share of Russia’s trade has steadily grown from 11% in 2013, largely at the expense of the European Union.

Even greater growth can be expected. On August 6, Wang Wentao, Minister of Commerce, and Maksim Reshetnikov, Minister of Economic Development of Russia, co-chaired the 25th meeting of the Economic and Trade Cooperation Sub-committee of the China-Russia Prime Ministers’ Regular Meeting Committee. According to the Chinese trade ministry, “The two sides exchanged in-depth views on developing bilateral trade, strengthening cooperation on emerging and key areas, promoting trade and investment facilitation, and deepening cooperation in multilateral arena, and reached several consensuses.”

There has been substantial disappointment that the U.S. Navy has not been given the funds to keep pace with the dramatic increase in size and sophistication from China’s maritime force.

In a recent document released by the Pentagon, Admiral Gilday, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, outlined both the need for an adequate maritime force and the impact of American naval supremacy on the world economy. He stressed that “America has always been a maritime nation. The seas are the lifeblood of our economy, our  national security, and our way of life.  After World War II, America and its allies ushered in an era of great power peace and shared  prosperity around the globe, establishing an international rules-based order. As a result,  global trade fueled economic growth and raised standards of living across the nation. The  benefits of this prosperity spread around the world: child mortality declined, life expectancy  lengthened, poverty plummeted, and literacy skyrocketed. This progress and prosperity did not happen by accident. American sea power, combined  with the dedication of our allies and partners, guaranteed freedom of navigation, maintained  peace, and fostered a rules-based order grounded in fairness for all.”

The peace and prosperity Admiral Gilday described is beginning to unravel. He is concerned that for the first time in a generation, America faces strategic competitors who care little for the peace and prosperity that has benefited the globe thanks to America’s oversight of the oceans.

According to Gilday, “The People’s Republic of China is building all-domain military capabilities to challenge  the United States. Its aggressive behavior is threatening U.S. interests, undermining alliances  and partnerships, and undercutting the rules-based system. Russia invaded Ukraine,  shattering the post-Cold War peace in Europe and creating new security challenges on that  continent and beyond. Meanwhile, the world is entering a new age of warfare, one in which  the integration of technology, concepts,  partners, and systems—more than fleet size  alone—will determine victory in conflict.”

While there has been little enthusiasm from the current White House to do so, experts agree with the Admiral’s warning that maintaining the world’s best Navy is an  investment in the security and prosperity  of the United States, as well as the stability  of our world…This is a critical decade. As global challengers rise to threaten U.S. interests, America must  maintain maritime dominance.”

The nature of the growing challenge is clear, and outlined by Admiral Gilday:

Today, our Navy operates in a battlespace that is quickly growing in lethality and complexity.  We face many challenges across the globe, but they largely stem from three significant  trends. It includes the erosion of credible military deterrence, particularly due to China’s rapidly  increasing military capabilities, increasingly aggressive Chinese and Russian behavior that undermines the  international rules-based order, and the accelerating pace of technological change and the expanding impact of the  information environment. 

The growth of the threat at sea has been breathtaking. Gilday reports that over the past three decades, the PRC aggressively leveraged its economic power to grow and modernize its military. China tripled the size of its Navy, expanded its strategic  nuclear capacity and capability, advanced its cyber and space capabilities, and constructed  a system of sophisticated sensors and long-range precision weapons to intimidate  neighbors, challenge free and open access to the seas, and hold U.S. naval forces at risk.  These investments in offensive warfighting systems—across all domains—are aimed at the  heart of America’s maritime power. China designs its force for one purpose: to reshape the  security environment to its advantage by denying the United States military access to the  western Pacific and beyond. 

Under the cover of its growing military capabilities, China is conducting a variety of  incremental, malign activities, carefully calculated to take place in the gray zone—below the  threshold of triggering armed conflict. Using a multi-layered fleet of naval ships, maritime  militia and coast guard vessels, China is undermining international norms by staking  illegal maritime claims, militarizing geographic features in the South and East China Seas,  and attempting to intimidate its neighbors out of their offshore resources. This aggressive  behavior threatens U.S. interests and destabilizes the rules-based system. 

Photo: Naval special operations soldiers assigned to the 41st Chinese naval escort taskforce conduct live-firing training on the guided missile destroyer Suzhou (Hull No. 132) on July 15, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Xiang Liming)

What is so Far Right about Giorgia Meloni and the Brothers of Italy?

If you only glance at the news, you would believe that Italy has reinstated Fascism.  “Italians have elected their country’s most right-wing government since the end of World War II,” according to NPR.  Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d’Italia, the Brothers of Italy party…will become Italy’s first female prime minister…(h)er party has roots in the neo-fascist movement that emerged out of the ruins of World War II…(t)he party flag includes a tricolor flame that was a symbol of fascism in the early 20th century. Meloni has refused to remove the flame from the party’s logo.” 

Oh no!  The Brothers of Italy party has a flame in its logo!  But so does the New York State Conservative Party – who knew that having a flame in your logo was fascist?

Then there is this report from The Atlantic; Meloni…represent(s) continuity with Italy’s darkest episode: the interwar dictatorship of Benito Mussolini…Brothers of Italy, which Meloni has led since 2014, has an underlying and sinister familiarity. The party formed a decade ago to carry forth the spirit and legacy of the extreme right in Italy, which dates back to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), the party that formed in place of the National Fascist Party, which was banned after World War II. Now, just weeks before the 100th anniversary of the March on Rome—the October 1922 event that put Mussolini in power—Italy may have a former MSI activist for its prime minister and a government rooted in fascism.” 

Meloni…Mussolini…a 1922 march…well, they all begin with an M, so there must be a connection…

But leave it to Politico to wrap every Democrat’s fears together into one package with this report; “U.S. conservatives are rallying behind Italy’s newly elected far-right prime minister — praise that highlights the Trumpification of GOP foreign policy doctrines…(e)mbracing Meloni…could be a risky play for Republicans. Her party, Brothers of Italy, espouses staunchly anti-immigration policies with a rallying cry against ‘globalists’…Meloni’s government is shaping up as Italy’s most far-right in the history of the republic formed after the demise of Benito Mussolini…(a)s Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy opens rifts among U.S. conservatives over continued aid to Ukraine, with the former president signaling a desire to stop funding Kyiv, the GOP boost for Meloni runs the risk of emboldening the party’s MAGA wing against more establishment voices who want to continue aiding Ukraine. Some of Meloni’s coalition partners have allied with Vladimir Putin in the past and, more recently, refused to condemn his brutal invasion.”

Well, there you have it – Mussolini, to Trump, to Meloni – the pattern has been established for all to see.

Or has it?

A review of the website for the Brothers of Italy (FDI) tells a different story.  Several Party members are also members of the European Parliament.  For instance, Nicola Procaccini, “President of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with South Asian countries,” recently expressed his  “apprehension (over) the dramatic news that continues to arrive from Pakistan following the devastating effects of the monsoon rains on the country. The latest official bulletin from Islamabad speaks of over a thousand victims and incalculable damage to structures and land. I express, on behalf of the European Parliament and on behalf of the delegation of the European Parliament, our full solidarity with the Pakistani government and people, and welcome the EU’s allocation of EUR 1.8 million in humanitarian aid to families affected by the floods.” 

How very Far-Right of Procaccini – allocating funds to assist flood victims in Pakistan.

Well, what about this statement from FDI member Raffaele Stancanelli; “Today, as Vice-President, I represented the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament at the ceremony for the signing of the directive on the disclosure of information on income tax by certain companies and branches. I express my appreciation for the agreed text requiring multinational or autonomous companies, with a turnover of over 750 million euros, to disclose to the public information on income tax in each Member State, whether they are based in the EU or that they have it outside.” 

Hmm…since when is requiring the disclosure of income tax information by multinational corporations a particularly Far-Right (or even moderately Conservative) position?

Then there is this statement from Raffaele Fitto  the co-president of the FDI delegation to the European Parliament, “speaking during the Conference of Presidents in the exchange of views with the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltemberg (Fitto said) ‘Transatlantic relations and EU-NATO cooperation, in full compliance with the principles established in the treaties and those agreed by the European Council, are essential elements for successfully facing the geopolitical and common security challenges of the coming years… NATO represents the true guarantor of Euro-Atlantic security and in this perspective we must take all the necessary actions to strengthen our defense capabilities…I believe that it is essential to continue the support action in favor of Ukraine against the barbaric aggression of Moscow and to guarantee the free choice of other countries to join the Atlantic alliance, freeing them from Russian pressure and threats…'”

But wait – didn’t Politico claim that “some of Meloni’s coalition partners have allied with Vladimir Putin in the past and, more recently, refused to condemn his brutal invasion?”  Here is the Co-President of the delegation to the EU condemning the “barbaric aggression of Moscow!”  Could Politico be wrong? 

Perhaps Fitto is an outlier, speaking on his own, without support from Meloni and the Italian government.  Not according to this statement made by Fitto on May 3, 2022; “The sanctions adopted and the rediscovered cooperation with our traditional partners of the Atlantic Alliance represent a clear signal of European support for Ukraine and its people, but above all they testify to the commitment in defense of those values ​​of freedom, independence and democracy that they are the foundation of our societies. Actions and behaviors with respect to which we Conservatives here in Europe, but also in Italy through Brothers of Italy and its president, Giorgia Meloni, have never lacked our serious and responsible support.” 

Politico doesn’t identify “coalition partners” who are “aligned with Putin” and who “refuse to condemn” the invasion of Ukraine.  Perhaps they exist.  More likely, they are the outliers, extremists who exist on the edge of every party.

However, the American Press is not completely wrong – the Brothers of Italy are Conservatives.  In April,   “(t)he Brothers delegation of Italy…voted against the negotiating mandate at European Parliament on the issue of equal pay for men and women. We would have liked to amend a text that once again the left had full of references to gender ideology, with the risk of affecting the rights of women, reduced to mere screen of an ideology that is wreaking havoc in every sphere social, even in sports.”    Further, in June, Fitto issued this statement; “We express disappointment at the decision to provide funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) without applying any conditionality or responsibility for the PA’s problematic school curricula, which have consistently failed to meet Unesco’s standards of peace, tolerance, coexistence and non violence… the Commission’s strategy on combating anti-Semitism notes that EU external funds cannot be misallocated to activities that incite hatred and violence… and has strongly condemned hate speech, violence and anti-Semitism that continue to be present in school curricula of the (PA)… (t)he Commission can be assured of our continued support to try to reform and make Palestinian school curricula sound.” 

There is also the Brother of Italy’s unabashed position against illegal immigration.  At a Conference held in Rome in June, according to FDI member Alberto Balboni, “The Italian legislation is too permissive towards those who land illegally in Italy…people who are often not refugees or persecuted but arrive in Italy in search of fortune. The route of the illegal immigrants is also the one used by Islamic terrorists to strike Europe. The Italian government pretends not to see. The only solution remains the naval blockade to prevent departures and accommodate only those who really need it.” 

Opposition to illegal immigration, anti-Semitism and gender politics, but support for NATO, Ukraine and transparency in business affairs.  This is the true face of the Brothers of Italy – Center-Right, not Far Right.

And if Italy’s new Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni is the leader of the FDI, can her views be much dissimilar from those of the party she leads?

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

Photo: Vox España – CPAC 2022 con Hermann Tertsch y Victor Gonzalez., CC0,

China’s international charm offensive is facing challenges as reality hits policymakers and the public in anticipation of the upcoming meetings. Hardline policy is to remain intact after the upcoming 20^th Chinese Communist Party Congress in October, according to Chinese officials. Policy makers in Beijing are offering public statements emphatically ensuring the world that the country’s policies toward Taiwan and other issues will remain aggressive and that Beijing is not softening despite calls for reform. Ma Zhaoxu, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister, signaled that there will be “no change” in China’s “assertive diplomacy” after the meeting this month.

US Ambassador to China, Nick Burns, says that China’s position is endangering a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue and destabilizing the region. He called out Beijing, saying “If anyone here changed their policy, it really is the People’s Republic of China, with their overreaction…” to the visit of Rep Nancy Pelosi, according to Burns. Washington, he says, is not altering its one China policy and will continue to compete with China.

On Wednesday, in advance of the party meetings, Chinese state media reported that Chinese Premier Li Kejiang announced Beijing is set to move forward with its domestic economic policy program during the last quarter of the year claiming the country has recovered from Covid. He suggested the country’s economy now is stable. Since May Beijing has been cutting taxes and infrastructure spending in an attempt to revive the economy crippled by its zero-Covid policy and property crisis. 

A Caixin investigation, according to James Palmer writing in Foreign Policy, says that that local governments are filling the financing hole created by the collapse of the real estate market with a desperate measure. “Local government funding vehicles, which sell municipal bonds, are being pressured to get into business themselves and buy land from the government. Not counting taxes, land sales made up 42 percent of local government revenue in 2021—up from just 5.9 percent in 2000.” He points out that there no way local government funding vehicles can fill this gap as there is no demand from buyers, who are waiting for the state to allow prices to fall.

On Monday the yuan, despite efforts by the People’s Bank of China, hit a 28-month low against the dollar. The leadership in Beijing may find it embarrassing as it typically associates a strong yuan with a strong balance of economic power with the United States. The World Bank recently slashed its prediction for China’s GDP growth from 5 percent in the spring to 2.8 percent. The reaction among Chinese is that the country is a falling into a recessionary period when it fails to meet government growth targets. 

Corruption also continues to impact Xi’s ability to continue domestic reforms. Beijing announced Monday that the “godmother” of China’s shipping industry, Li Li, a former Communist Party chief and president of the Beijing branch of the Export-Import Bank of China was recently expelled from the CCP, removed from public positions, and turned over to prosecutors on corruption charges. Coupled with weak demand for shipping this year, Xi faces a number of challenges at the upcoming party meetings.China’s foreign policy also faces challenges. A senior official in Taiwan, Deputy Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council Chui-Cheng Chiu, warned on the Wednesday “ Chinese President Xi Jinping is embracing an extreme form of “closed door nationalism” and “totalitarianism” that threatens Taiwan’s future. Chiu’s statement comes amid increased cross-strait tension as officials in Taiwan anticipate that Xi will continue to consolidate power and threaten to reclaim control of Taiwan. All of this comes amid news that BA.2.75.2, the new Omicron strain found in China is showing a worrying ability to evade immunity. Xi intends his legacy to be the return of Taiwan. His path forward is becoming less clear as some analysts report China’s economy may never take over that of the United States. Neighboring states, once friendly to China, also are rejecting overtures from Beijing as Xi seeks to realign the world in favor of the communist giant’s view of the international order. The upcoming Chinese Communist Party Congress may not go as well as Xi Jinping hopes, although analysts suggest he will continue to consolidate his power.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Defense is normally considered what a nation does to prevent an attack from another nation. But as humanity gains a greater understanding of the universe, a new concept, planetary defense, has been coined. It concerns defending the human race from the type of disaster that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.

“The threat of asteroids is real,” NASA scientist Elena Adams said during a panel discussion on international cooperation for planetary defense. Adams is the systems engineer for the first planetary defense mission, known as the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART). The DART mission is a collaboration among NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Italian Space Agency.

According to the journal Interesting Engineering, “Some scientists claim we are overdue for an asteroid impact of the scale that took out the dinosaurs — as these happen approximately once every 50 to 60 million years…In fact, just last year a large asteroid, called ‘2019 OK’, was spotted just a day before flying between the Earth and the Moon. Even scarier than the size and proximity of the asteroid — it was the size of a football field and came within 65,000 km of Earth’s surface — is the fact that it caught researchers off guard…in 1992 a huge asteroid impact did occur and was observed on Jupiter. If the asteroid, called Shoemaker-Levy 9, had hit Earth, it would have created a global atmospheric disaster similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.”

One recent threat spotted by astronomers involved Bennu, an asteroid about a third of a mile wide. According to a National Geographic report “Nearly all of the riskiest encounters with Bennu will occur in the late 2100s and early 2200s, with the single likeliest impact coming on the afternoon of September 24, 2182.”

Fortunately, early trials of the means to prevent a similar catastrophe have proven successful. After 10 months flying in space, NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) – the world’s first planetary defense technology demonstration – successfully impacted its asteroid target on Monday, the agency’s first attempt to move an asteroid in space.

“At its core, DART represents an unprecedented success for planetary defense, but it is also a mission of unity with a real benefit for all humanity,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “As NASA studies the cosmos and our home planet, we’re also working to protect that home, and this international collaboration turned science fiction into science fact, demonstrating one way to protect Earth.”

DART targeted the asteroid moonlet Dimorphos, a small body just 530 feet (160 meters) in diameter. It orbits a larger, 2,560-foot (780-meter) asteroid called Didymos. Neither asteroid poses a threat to Earth.

The mission’s one-way trip confirmed NASA can successfully navigate a spacecraft to intentionally collide with an asteroid to deflect it, a technique known as kinetic impact.

The investigation team will now observe Dimorphos using ground-based telescopes to confirm that DART’s impact altered the asteroid’s orbit around Didymos. Researchers expect the impact to shorten Dimorphos’ orbit by about 1%, or roughly 10 minutes; precisely measuring how much the asteroid was deflected is one of the primary purposes of the full-scale test.

“DART’s success provides a significant addition to the essential toolbox we must have to protect Earth from a devastating impact by an asteroid,” said Lindley Johnson, NASA’s Planetary Defense Officer. “This demonstrates we are no longer powerless to prevent this type of natural disaster. Coupled with enhanced capabilities to accelerate finding the remaining hazardous asteroid population by our next Planetary Defense mission, the Near-Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor, a DART successor could provide what we need to save the day.”

Photo: Asteroid Dimorphos (NASA photo)

According to the NY State Attorney General James lawsuit, the Trump Organization “grossly inflated Mr. Trump’s personal net worth…by billions of dollars and conveyed false and misleading impressions to financial counterparties about how the Statements (of Financial Condition) were prepared. Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization used these false and misleading Statements repeatedly and persistently to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than would otherwise have been available to the company, to satisfy continuing loan covenants, and to induce insurers to provide insurance coverage for higher limits and at lower premiums”

In other words, Trump exaggerated his own wealth, and the wealth of his companies.  For instance, “(r)elying on objectively false numbers to calculate property values…Mr. Trump’s own triplex apartment in Trump Tower was valued as being 30,000 square feet when it was 10,996 square feet. As a result, in 2015 the apartment was valued at $327 million in total, or $29,738 per square foot. That price was absurd given the fact that at that point only one apartment in New York City had ever sold for even $100 million, at a price per square foot of less than $10,000. And that sale was in a newly built, ultra-tall tower. In 30 year-old Trump Tower, the record sale as of 2015 was a mere $16.5 million at a price of less than $4,500 per square foot.”

Following the logic of these arguments, it would seem that the banks that loaned Donald Trump money, or the insurance companies that insured Trump’s properties would have standing to sue, it they believed they had been defrauded.  But in a recent interview with Sean Hannity of Fox, the former President was asked “Do you put in a caveat that actually says these are our valuations? Because I don’t know a lending institution or bank or financial institution that would lend money to anybody and just go by the borrower’s estimation or evaluation of a particular property.”

According to Trump, “We have a disclaimer…(i)t basically says, you know, get your own people, you’re at your own risk, this was done by management, it wasn’t done by us…don’t rely on the statement that you’re getting…It’s a very powerful disclaimer. It basically says to an institution: ‘You are going to loan money. You have to go out and make sure that you get your own appraisers, your own lawyers, everything.’”

In other words, the banks which lent Donald Trump money, and the insurance companies that insured his properties, did not get their own, independent valuations.  They agreed to rely on the Financial Statements provided by Trump and his Organization before they lent him money, or insured him.

Is this fair or equitable?  Probably not – when you and I buy or sell a house, the bank performs its own assessment of the value of the property before that bank lends us a dollar.  But we are not engaged in the buying, selling and insuring of properties worth millions of dollars.  Is it a fraud?  If it is, it would be a fraud on these banks and insurance companies – not necessarily against the People of the State of New York.  

In her civil complaint, James alleges that Trump “repeatedly and persistently violated the following: New York Penal Law § 175.10 (Falsifying Business Records); Penal Law § 175.45 (Issuing a False Financial Statement); and Penal Law § 176.05 (Insurance Fraud).”  But if this were the case, why isn’t Trump being charged with these crimes?

Former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr. was engaged in an extensive investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization.  However, the current DA, Alvin Bragg, has not moved forward with any criminal charges.  As explained by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker, “(t)he case was always a high-wire act. Unlike the parallel civil case..by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, which only needs to reach a threshold of ‘preponderance of the evidence’ to find Trump liable for violating the law, the D.A.’s criminal case would have had to convince a jury ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Trump had criminal intent to defraud. Real-estate valuations of the kind that Trump was under investigation for manipulating are also often slippery, but Vance’s team had hoped to prove that Trump engaged in a decades-long pattern of criminal fraud.”     Apparently, Bragg and his team are not as confident of success.

In a criminal matter, the prosecutor acts as an agent of the People of the State of New York, and can call the bankers and insurance agents allegedly defrauded by Trump to testify as the victims of the fraud.  James can also subpoena those bankers and insurance agents to testify in civil court.  In a criminal case, the state always has an interest in preventing criminal activity, giving the prosecutor standing to bring the charge.  But by bringing a lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of New York, James is claiming that the People of New York State have been injured by Trump’s overstatements of his wealth.  This returns us to the same question – why aren’t the banks and insurance companies suing Trump?

It is also valuable to consider that many civil complaints include a section, usually no more than a  paragraph, which expresses the basis for the Plaintiff’s standing to bring a case.  There is no obvious Statement of Standing to be found in James complaint against Trump – in fact, standing is not one of the entitled sections described in the extensive Table of Contents included in the Attorney General’s complaint.  

The closest James comes to expressing standing is in the Section of the Complaint titled “Parties,” in which she asserts that “(t)he Attorney General is responsible for overseeing the activities of New York businesses and the conduct of their officers and directors, in accordance with the New York Executive Law and other applicable laws. She is expressly tasked by the Legislature with policing any persistent or repeated fraud and illegal conduct in business.”

A very broad statement indeed – and one that assumes facts yet to be established.

It may be years before this matter is resolved – civil litigation is notoriously ponderous and slow.  But Bill Barr’s initial impression appears to be supported by the facts.  The Manhattan DA refused to act on these allegations; the US Attorney is pursuing other avenues in an effort to satisfy Trump-haters worldwide.  James vowed to “shine a bring light” on Trump’s real-estate dealings – and through this lawsuit, she has done as she promised.  

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

Illustration: Pixabay

When Letitia “Tish” James ran for New York Attorney General in 2018, she vowed to “challenge this illegitimate president,” that being Donald Trump.  “I believe that this president is incompetent,” James said.  “I believe that this president is ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land. And I believe that he is an embarrassment to all that we stand for.” She also said that “Trump should be indicted on criminal charges and charged with obstruction of justice.”  During her victory speech after being elected Attorney General, James said “I will be shining a bright light into every dark corner of (Trump’s) real estate dealings, and every dealing, demanding truthfulness at every turn.” 

You cannot say that AG James is not true to her word. As reported by CNN in mid September,  “The New York state attorney general filed a sweeping lawsuit…against former President Donald Trump, three of his adult children and the Trump Organization, alleging they were involved in an expansive fraud lasting over a decade that the former President used to enrich himself. In the more than 200-page lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, alleges the fraud touched all aspects of the Trump business, including its properties and golf courses. According to the lawsuit, the Trump Organization deceived lenders, insurers and tax authorities by inflating the value of his properties using misleading appraisals.” 

The reactions from Trump-haters was immediate.  Actor Billy Baldwin (apparently a brother to Alec Baldwin) stated “Am I alone, or should Donald Trump be CRIMINALLY charged as well?”  Former Meathead Rob Reiner said “Letitia James lands the first big blow…Merrick Garland will deliver the knockout punch.  A great day for the Rule of Law.”  Then there is Mia Farrow, best known as Frank Sinatra and Woody Allen’s ex-wife, who said, “if any of us had committed ANY of these transgressions, we’d have been in prison long ago…they have been cheating the American people out of billions for decades…facts reveal crooks-scammers soaked in money they didn’t earn honestly.  They are a crime family…”

Meanwhile, according to former US Attorney General, Bill Barr, no friend to Donald Trump, “It’s hard for me not to conclude that this is a political hit job…I’m not even sure that (James) has a good case against Trump himself, but what ultimately persuades me that this is a political hit job is that she grossly overreaches when she tries to drag the children into this…this is (Trump’s) personal financial statement, prepared by the CFO, accounting firms were involved in it…the children aren’t going to know the details of that, nor are they expected in the real world to do their own due diligence and have it reviewed independently.”

Nonetheless, a civil lawsuit must come as a devastating disappointment to Hollywood elites like Baldwin and Reiner who long to see Donald Trump in handcuffs.  Incarceration, however, is a sentence which could be handed to the former President only after a criminal charge is filed by a Criminal Complaint or Grand Jury Indictment, and only after the defendant is found guilty of that charge.  

In New York State Supreme Court, Civil Division, where James has filed her lawsuit, the penalties are either injunctive (ordering the defendant to do, or stop doing something), or monetary (the payment of reimbursement or damages).  Thus, in People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.,  James seeks, among other penalties, “Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from entering into any New York State commercial real estate acquisitions for a period of five years…Barring Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization from applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York Department of Financial Services for a period of five years…Permanently barring Mr. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State…(and)…(a)warding disgorgement of all financial benefits obtained by each Defendant from the fraudulent scheme…of an amount to be determined at trial but estimated to be $250,000,000.” 

James’ complaint lists a series of financial transactions which she asserts are fraudulent involving properties owned by the Trump organization in New York, Florida, Washington DC, Philadelphia, and even Scotland, raising the immediate question of whether or not the New York State Supreme Court would even have jurisdiction over properties and transactions not located in New York State.  But the allegations brought by the New York State Attorney General raise an even more serious question – does she have the legal standing to bring this litigation?

 “’Standing‘ is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. In simple terms, courts use ‘standing’ to ask, ‘Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’…To have standing, a party must show an ‘injury in fact’ to their own legal interests. In other words, has the party itself ‘suffered’ some sort of actual harm?” 

Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow

Photo: NY AG L. James