Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Unlike the legitimate complaints about some European nations, notably Germany, not contributing a fair share to defending against mutual enemies, America’s Pacific partners Australia and Japan have been risen to the occasion.

Tokyo has announced that it will continue to increase its defense spending. It has what some consider the world’s fifth most powerful military.

Canberra’s 2020 Defense Strategic Update supports a robust U.S. presence in the Indo-Pacific, the provision of U.S. extended deterrence, as well as plans to make the Australian Defence Force more capable of independent operations.  Australia is on track to meet its commitment to growing its defense budget to two percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product in 2020-21, providing $42.2 billion of funding to defense in 2020-21.  This defense budget will grow over the next ten years to $73.7 billion in 2029-30 with total funding of $575 billion over the decade. This total includes around $270 billion in defense capability investment, compared to $195 billion for the decade 2016-2026 when the 2016 Defense White Paper was released.

Canberra’s defense partnership with Washington was emphasized in a recent meeting in the U.S. capital between Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who is also defense minister, and American counterparts Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. According to the Pentagon, participants came away from meetings “with a sense that the two countries shared a mission.”

“What has really struck me in the meetings that we’ve had over the course of the last few days … is a real sense of shared mission in this moment, between Australia and the United States,” Marles said. “There is a sense of the moment that the global rules-based order that has been built by the United States, by Australia, by many other countries is under pressure now in a significant way.” 

 Marles said that system is under the greatest pressure it has seen since the end of World War II. That order is the reason there has not been a great power war since 1945. “Obviously, what’s going on in Eastern Europe with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an example of that pressure,” he said. “And, in this moment, the need to have a sense of shared mission, to be projecting forward with a sense of team is really important.” 

The U.S. State Department notes that  Australia is one of America’s largest defense customers, supporting thousands of jobs in the United States. America is Australia’s defense goods and services partner of choice and with Australia’s 2020 Defence Strategic Update increasing its 10-year defense budget by 40% to $186 billion. The U.S. has over $27 billion in active government-to-government sales cases with it.

Canberra-U.S. cooperation became even stronger as a result of the recent nuclear-powered submarine pact.

A similar encouraging role is occurring with Japan.

The Council on Foreign Relations notes that the 21st century has been a period of increased defense cooperation between Tokyo and Washington. In November 2001, the government of Junichiro Koizumi dispatched the Maritime Self-Defense Force to the Indian Ocean to provide logistical support for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, marking Japan’s first overseas military action during a combat operation. In 2003, it sent forces to aid in Iraq’s postwar reconstruction efforts.

In 2015, under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan reinterpreted its constitution in a historic move that allowed its military to defend allies for the first time, under limited circumstances. The change helped pave the way for the United States and Japan to revise their defense guidelines once again, expanding the scope of their military cooperation and focusing the alliance on current threats—including from China and North Korea—and new technologies.

Since then, the countries have continued to deepen their defense cooperation.

Illustration: Pixabay

All Presidents fail in one area or another. The complexities of the challenges facing the nation render it almost inevitable that mistakes will be made. However, the total failure of the Biden Administration is unprecedented. It is an extraordinary reality the mainstream media, which was largely responsible for the President’s electoral victory in 2020, desperately seeks to downplay. 

An economy that dropped into recession last quarter, a loss of border control, the surrender of billions of dollars in military equipment to the world’s foremost terrorist organization, the loss of energy independence, rampant inflation, a failure to take steps to discourage and deter Moscow’s Ukrainian invasion, are all crises which an even moderately competent White House could have lessened or avoided altogether. Add to the list the unnecessary and inappropriate dilemma of parents seeking to cease the leftist indoctrination of their children in public schools being labelled as “domestic terrorists” and the growing attack on free speech, recently made worse by Biden’s appointment of a “Disinformation Governance Board” led by Nina Jankowicz, a figure who was part of the effort to coverup the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.  

These existential problems facing the nation are to a significant extent the direct creation of Joe Biden and the progressives who clearly dominate him. They could have been avoided had there been competent leadership not wedded to an extremist philosophy.

The Pew Center found that migrant apprehensions at U.S.-Mexico border fell sharply in fiscal 2020.  They have skyrocketed since Biden took office, and deportations are at a 20 year low. The extent of the danger is manifest.  In testimony before Congress, Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas couldn’t even provide information on key terrorists entering into the U.S. through the southern border.

 The open border policy has been a gift to Mexico’s infamous crime cartels, who have reaped record profits and have expanded their activities within the U.S., a significant aspect in soaring crime statistics throughout the nation.

Up until Biden’s inauguration, America was energy independent and inflation was under control.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that average price of gasoline was $2.17 a gallon.  Biden chose to close the Keystone Pipeline, end exploitation of the ANWAR, impede or stop drilling on federal lands, and more.  The result? As of this writing, the average price of gas is $4.15.  Despite all the ravings of environmental extremists, there is currently no alternative energy that can replace more than 20% of what fossil fuels provide. Once the cost of energy rises, it is inevitable that all other prices skyrocket, because everything requires energy to make or transport.

As the COVID pandemic reduced in severity, thanks in large part due to the vaccine successfully developed during the Trump Administration, it was to be expected that the economy would roar back uninterrupted for numerous fiscal quarters. It is shocking that Americas’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell at a 1.4% rate last quarter.  That stunning drop is a clear result of Biden’s reckless tax and spending actions and proposals, his mishandling of COVID’s remnants, and more.  

Vladimir Putin carefully observed Biden’s bungling of the Afghanistan withdrawal.  He noted that the American president submitted a defense budget that, accounting for inflation, actually cut the Pentagon’s spending power.  He observed Biden’s ignoring America’s deteriorating nuclear arsenal. And, as the Kremlin deployed its invasion forces near Ukraine, he was cognizant that Biden did nothing in response. Indeed, the befuddled President even mentioned that he wouldn’t respond to a “limited” invasion.  With all that, the attack was on.

The challenges facing Biden are of his own making, the result of his own policies. His errors are unprecedented in the harm they cause, and the ease with which they could have been avoided.

Illustration: Pixabay

It can no longer be denied that America’s educational system is largely dominated by those that do not have the interests of the nation’s children at heart. The evidence is abundant and clear: substantial portions of the vast dollars that have been committed to our schools have been, essentially, misappropriated by those who have replaced learning with propaganda.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, In 2018, the United States spent $14,400 per full-time student on elementary and secondary education, an astounding 34 percent higher than the average of similar nations countries at $10,800 (in constant 2020 U.S. dollars). At the postsecondary level, America spent $35,100 per full time student, double the average $17,600 of other nations.

What did all those dollars achieve?

According to a Scientific American study, “On vital measures that predict later success in school and life, small children in the U.S. do worse than kids in comparable countries.”

Older groups fared poorly, as well. An analysis in The Balance revealed that “The Program for International Student Assessment tests 15-year-old students around the world and is administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2018, when the test was last administered, the U.S. placed 11th out of 79 countries in science. It did much worse in math, ranking 30th.The U.S. scored 478 in math, below the OECD average of 489. That’s well below the scores of the top five, all of which were in Asia: Singapore at 569, Macao at 555, Hong Kong at 551, Taiwan at 531, and Japan at 527. “

Since academic achievement is lacking, what are those abundant funds being spent on?

Just a very few examples:

A Manhattan Institute  study reports that “Something peculiar is spreading throughout America’s schools. A public school system just outside the nation’s capital spent $20,000 to be lectured about making their schools less racist. At a tony New York City prep school, a teacher was publicly denounced by the administration for questioning the idea that students should identify themselves in terms of their racial identity. Educators in California are locked in pitched combat over a statewide model curriculum overflowing with terms like “hxrstories” and “cisheteropatriarchy.”

The Daily Mail found that a School board director in Washington state is planning to hold workshop to teach children as young as nine about “sexual anatomy for pleasure” The publication also noted that a Woke California school board member called for people to “boycott the Fourth of July because there is no reason to celebrate.”

The New York Post found that elite NYC private schools “are teaching kids that American society must be destroyed.”

A Heritage examination disclosed that “New Jersey’s Department of Education will be teaching young children in 2nd grade to ponder their ‘gender identity.’”

The Federalist notes that “public schools routinely use left-leaning or ‘woke’ materials while quietly doing away with older materials that encourage American patriotism, Western civilization, and Judeo-Christian values. In English class, this means replacing “Hamlet” and “The Scarlet Letter” with ‘The Hate U Give,’ a novel based on themes from the Black Lives Matter movement, and ‘Symptoms of Being Human,’ a novel about a gender-fluid punk rocker who blogs about his insecurities.”

The Hill reveals that “A radical progressive political agenda has replaced the pursuit of truth and objectivity in our nation’s classrooms…At New Trier High School, a public school in Winnetka, Illinois, students were subjected in 2017 to an ‘All-School Seminar Day’… chock-full of race-baiting discussion topics, left-wing speakers, and one-sided, indoctrinating ideologies.”

It would be an error to view this issue as political, the anger of moderates and conservatives at the extremist Progressive dogma being foisted on students, or as a reflection of parental anger at the usurpation of their rights to address highly personal issues such as sexuality to their children.

It is, in fact, something far simpler.  It is the outright theft of taxpayer and parental tuition funds for partisan purposes. Legally, it can be described as the embezzlement of education dollars to push partisan leftist ideas.

Illustration: Pixabay

Violence and censorship are two sides of the same coin, a political currency that has become all too common.  Both illicit approaches have become frequent tactics utilized mostly by the left, and their key leaders in the Democrat Party.

Throughout the summer of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, cities burned, stores were looted, federal court houses and police stations were attacked, people were assaulted. Democrat leaders were notoriously reluctant to criticize the perpetrators, and indeed some raised funds for them. That tactic is in danger of being repeated following the unethical release of a Supreme Court draft on an abortion related case. Demonstrators have inexcusably formed at the homes of Supreme Court justices.

It follows four years of verbal violence resulting from false charges levied against the Trump Administration, used as an excuse for individuals such as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Ca.) to openly and loudly urge attacks on Trump personnel.

The alteration in the national mood and the acceptance of inappropriate tactics may have its antecedents in a statement made by Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democrat primary.  In response to a softball question asking who the former Secretary of State considers “the enemy,” Clinton replied “Republicans.” Not Russia, not China, not disease, not poverty, but Republicans. Violence against “enemies,” as opposed to mere political rivals, became acceptable.

Contrast the lack of response to Democrat condoned violence with the massive condemnation and federal investigations into the January 6 riot at the Capitol.  The message is clear: political violence is only a problem when it comes from non-leftist portions of the spectrum.

While physical violence grabs headlines, verbal violence, and the threat of harassing action by government entities, can be equally harmful. This concept precedes Clinton’s enemy statement. While it has occurred in various forms over the years, the Obama Administration’s use of the IRS to harass the Tea Party, and the Department of Justice to attack conservative think tanks who merely disagreed with the White House’s views on climate change was far beyond any previous example.

The unwarranted investigatory and administrative violence launched against Donald Trump by federal agencies and Democrat members of Congress was without precedent. Now thoroughly disproven, knowingly false assertions by the Clinton campaign were used as a basis by partisan officials in the Department of Justice and Democratic Congressional leadership in an attempt to destroy Trump’s candidacy and his presidency.

Organizations closely allied with leftist politics have sought to suppress contrary views through threats of administrative violence.  The National School Board Association, closely allied with leftist politics sent a letter  to the White House, first reported by the New York Post, requesting “the Biden administration to deploy the Army National Guard and military police to school districts beset by parent protests over policies including mandatory masking and the teaching of critical race theory.”

These tactics of physical and verbal violence have largely failed, leading to a growing move by their progressive practitioners to rely on the related practice of censorship. Again, the most salient example arose during the Obama presidency. The former president attempted to install federal “monitors” in media newsrooms. Following in those footsteps, the Biden Administration sought to deploy censorship through its now-withdrawn establishment of a “Disinformation” agency, led by an extreme party partisan.

While Democrat attempts to use the power of the federal government to censor contrary views have largely failed, media attempts have proven more successful. Social media sites, network and cable television newsrooms have managed to keep major stories out of the public eye.

The most blatant example is the Hunter Biden laptop story.  The explosive scandal would clearly have had a major impact on the 2020 election, and the progressive media barons knew it. They didn’t merely fail to report the scandal in their own outlets; they moved heavily to eliminate any reference to it by their readers. Social media sites blocked users who merely mentioned the topic.

Violence and censorship have become standard  leftwing tactics, much to the detriment of our nation.

Illustration: Pixabay

The white water lily is Kazakhstan’s fragrant state flower. In another era President Vladimir Putin might appreciate its lemony aquatic scent, but this summer he is livid at Kazakhstan’s nationalists. They are refusing to support Russia’s war in Ukraine. In the Kazakh language nationalism can be translated in two ways. The first, ultshyldyq, is ambiguous in meaning. Ultzhandylyq, however, is positive and suggests a sense of indigenous nationalism that is growing rapidly in Kazakhstan over the last year. Today the country’s national-patriots, or ult-patriottary, are infuriating Moscow with their ultshyldyq.

The Russian government expected Kazakhstan to express gratitude for the assistance Putin provided in quelling the January popular uprising there. Instead, what the Kremlin is encountering is an increasing number of ethnic Russians who are abandoning the Russian Federation to live in Kazakhstan. Amid charges by Moscow that the government in Nur-Sultan is encouraging the exodus by offering foreign firms incentives to relocate, the Kremlin also is upset by its plans to “bypass Russia in exporting oil and gas,” according to a report from the Jamestown Foundation. Earlier this week, Tsargrad TV reported that a hacked document identified Kazakhstani firms as a source of weapons shipments to Ukraine via third-party countries, including the UK, added to the devolving relationship.

In a report from a Ukrainian hacker, Tsargrad TV said: “The document specifies 122 mm shells for D-20 howitzers; 152 mm shells for D-30 howitzers; missiles for BM-21 "Grad". The total number of shells is 20 thousand, missiles 33 thousand. The deal is concluded in the amount of $ 69 520 000. At the same time, the deal itself is supervised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan in cooperation with the British military attaché in Kazakhstan. Also at the moment, negotiations are underway on the supply of 200 units of BTR-4 and ammunition for mortars.”

Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation notes that: “Relations between the two countries indeed appeared to have reached a new low on August 2, when a post attributed to Dmitry Medvedev, former president and current deputy head of the Russian Security Council, declared that “historically” what is today northern Kazakhstan was part of Russia—suggesting to some that Moscow would soon launch an invasion into its southern neighbor.” Although the post was only up for 10 minutes on the VKontakte page of the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and ex-President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, commentators in Russia acknowledge that the sentiment is widespread in Moscow. To date, Medvedev has not disavowed the comments. Goble reports that some military analysts inside the Kremlin are suggesting that it is likely Kazakhstan may be Putin’s next target after Kyiev. Writers in Moscow already are referring to the country as a “second Ukraine” and suggest that Russia is going through a “bad divorce” with Kazakhstan, despite its previously solid partnership.

The two countries share a lengthy border and there is a large ethnic Russian community in Kazakhstan. Goble points out that this summer, Moscow has “shown its displeasure by stopping the flow of oil westward from Kazakhstan through its territory, and Nur-Sultan has countered by upgrading its military.” He suggests that there are three aspects of this situation that suggest the Kremlin may decide to move against Kazakhstan while three others point to Moscow’s not moving against the Central Asian state.

“Regardless of the tensions that currently exist between the two enormous Eurasia countries,” he says, “the possibility of a major military clash between them is quite low.” However, that could change if Kazakhstan continues to move toward Ukraine, away from Russia’s sphere of influence, and becomes a bulwark for Islamist expansion northward into Russia itself.

Given that Russia is tied down in Ukraine, Goble thinks it unlikely that Putin will use his limited military resources against Kazakhstan right now. The second factor he points to is the decreasing percentage of ethnic Russians in the country over the last three decades, despite the recent surge in Russian immigration. In 1989, 38 percent of Kazakhstan’s residents were ethnic Russians; now it stands at 18 percent, and the total is projected to fall to 10 percent or less by mid-century. Absorbing Kazakhstan would make Russia less Russian and defeat one of Putin’s major goals. Third, Putin is known historically for making rash threats and even taking actions, such as stopping the flow of oil, only to have Kazakhstan’s leaders call, reassure Putin of their unquestioned support and then have the Kremlin pull back on its rhetoric and actions, according to Goble. The unknown factor this August is how long each country can sidestep the spark that could ignite an unintended war.

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

To have a child or not, that is the question plaguing China this year. On Tuesday the Chinese government announced new “fertility friendly” guidelines with the goal of increasing the population rate to sustainable levels. It is an impossible task, according to many demographers who study China. The communist state has long passed the demographic deadline that marks the last calendar date when there were enough females of child-bearing age to reproduce its current population. The dramatic decline in the Chinese birth rate from 1960’s through the early 2000’s serves as one the most significant events in global demographic history. 

For five decades a full 18% of the world’s population were limited to one child per family by the Chinese communist government. According to the United Nations Population Division, the country’s total fertility rate dropped from average of 5.94 in the 1965–1970 period to 1.77 children per family in the 2000–2005 period. It has continued to decline by over 2% per year  recently and today stands at a record low of just over 1 child per family (1.09 in 2022). 

The drop in the fertility rate can be attributed to several factors. Socio-cultural factors, including the  spread of education, reproductive ideologies, and gender relations impacted family size. The politico-economic conditions (e.g., economic development, birth planning campaigns, and collective systems of labor organization) in the early stages of China’s family planning program had an even greater impact. Many villages across China today have no women of child-bearing age. In urban centers, despite government incentives, women are not choosing to have more than one child, and in many cases no children at all due to the cost of child-rearing and impact on their cosmopolitan lifestyles. 

China is in trouble. Even if women had as many children as physical possible during their child-bearing years it is highly unlikely the country has any chance to make up the losses suffered during the five decades of the child planning program. Over the 36-year period alone, ending in 2016, over 400 million people were not born in China due to its family planning policy; a number that is much greater than the entire US population.

Tuesday’s joint announcement by 17 Chinese government departments included new policies supporting families in finance, tax, housing, employment, education, and other fields to promote a fertility-friendly society. It included promoting prenatal and postnatal care, developing better nursing systems, improving maternity leave and insurance, offering preferential house-purchase policies to families with more than one child, adding high-quality education resources, creating a fertility-friendly employment environment, and setting up a complete service system on population. 

Despite the government’s efforts, there is no evidence to indicate the new guidelines will be effective at changing the minds of females in China. The government is now publicly admitting there is a problem. Yang Wenzhuang, director of population and family affairs at China’s National Health Commission, announced on July 21 that China’s population curve has flattened and is expected to begin a steepening decline by 2025. The Global Times reports he announced the grim forecast during the 2022 Annual Conference of the China Population Association.

Although fines, forced sterilizations, abortions, and other punishments are gone, the legacy of their coercive effects will haunt the Chinese economy for the rest of the century. A report from one of Spain’s most prestigious schools, the University of Navarra, says that the “demographic shifts caused in part due to the one-child policy will have important social and economic repercussions, not only in China but also at a global level. Reduced fertility in combination with an increasingly aging population will lead to a rising dependency ratio between working people and retirees as well as a shrinking labor supply.” It points out that children born without permission during these decades don’t possess the correct registration papers to gain employment or other government services. This further increases the economic burden on the state as they age and there is a corresponding decrease in the labor supply. 

The report concludes that “to continue projecting itself as a major economic and political power, China may have to restructure its ongoing strategies… However, considering that having few children has become ingrained in Chinese society and that the fertility rate continues to decrease even after a transition to a two-child system, this seems highly unlikely to work.” Some political analysts in the West are quietly questioning whether this means China will need to go to war in the future to acquire the needed population to is rise as an economic powerhouse.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was once the pride of the country, its origins dating back to Catherine the Great. After nine days of explosions around naval bases on the Crimean Peninsula this month, and the likely sacking of Igor Osipov, the Russian commander of the Black Sea fleet, humiliations continue to plague Russian forces. Before Victor Sokolov was cited by Russia’s RIA News Service as the new chief, Ukraine already had struck the ship “Moskva” in April using Neptune cruise missiles. It caused the warship to catch fire and the lead vessel sunk. Satellite imagery from last week indicates that eight Russian warplanes were destroyed by explosions. This week on Tuesday, Russian lost an ammunition depot in Crimea to explosions.  Putin is faced with a number of challenges. One, in particular, is important and becoming more urgent this summer. Russia must find a way to build new, blue water–capable ships.

Since Putin’s “Special Military Operation” started in February, the Russian fleet has blockaded Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, denying passage to Kyiv’s grain carry ships. Ukraine’s fleet in comparison, however, is small and considered less capable of challenging Moscow’s ships. Commander Sokolov, who is 60 years old, is a seasoned officer having commanded minesweepers in the 1980’s- 1990’s and served as deputy commander of the Northern Fleets. Two years ago, he took over a head of an important military commander. Questions remain whether he can salvage the damage to the Russian position.

“When President Vladimir Putin signed Russia’s new naval doctrine on July 31, most commentators, both in Moscow and abroad, focused on his ambitious plans for Russia’s blue water navy and especially its expansion into the Arctic. One aspect of the new doctrine, however—its elevation of the Russian naval presence in the Caspian—has received far less attention; but it may ultimately be more important,” according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He argues that this conclusion reflects the difficulties Moscow faces in building the ships it needs for an expanded ocean-going presence. Those difficulties may make it hard for Russia to meet its naval ship-building plans. 

Add to this challenge one issue that few media have covered. Putin’s perspective is that Russia is facing serious challenges in its littoral states. The Russian leader considers the environment so serious that he authorized the Caspian Flotilla  to take over a central role in responding to them. According to a July 31, 3,000-word statement from Kremlin.ru that updates naval doctrine, the Kremlin document serves more as an aspirational document than a military plan of action. If Russia can upgrade its navy, it is most likely to be transformed with the Caspian Flotilla. This is a change in policy direction from three earlier versions of the doctrine put out by Putin. “This represents a significant upgrade of its status from Soviet times when the Caspian was effectively a Russian lake as Moscow controlled almost all the territory around it, and Iran, the only other littoral country, did not have a significant naval presence,” notes Goble.

Unlike earlier documents the new version makes no delineation between the level of quality of the Caspian units and others in the Russian fleet. It comes at a time all five littoral states, including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran have expanded their Caspian naval presence. Russia is determined to retain its sphere of influence in the region, despite advances by the other navies. Iran and Azerbaijan are of particular concern to Putin due to their rapid development.

The new doctrine specifies that this force is responsible for one of “the vitally important regions (zones)” of the world’s water surface as far as Russian national interests are concerned. To that end, Goble says, the doctrine calls for the expansion of cooperation with other littoral states on a wide variety of issues, including the protection of the environment, as well as the modernization and development of the Caspian Flotilla and its basing. 

The doctrine points out that Moscow can lead “the development of international military cooperation with the naval forces of the states of the Caspian region.” By including this line, the Kremlin is effectively committing itself to an expansion of the Caspian Flotilla relative to the other naval forces there.  Analysts suggest that Moscow is seriously alarmed by developments in the Caspian due to an increasingly hostile Kazakhstan and progressively independent-minded governments in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. 

Control of the region also is important because of it contains key oil-rich portions of the seabed. Iran had not agreed to the delimitation of the seabed, where the oil and gas fields are located and its increased naval presence on the sea gives Moscow a certain amount of  leverage over the other regional states.   Moscow’s worries about instability in the contested territory have increased in recent months as Russia’s “peacekeeping” presence in Nagorno-Karabakh is being challenged by Baku, Yerevan and even the Armenians of Karabakh itself, according to Goble. Some Russian military analysts have suggested that Moscow should use the Caspian Flotilla to defend its forces in the disputed region to retain their dominant position. Goble concludes that “Any one of these factors could explain why Moscow has assigned a larger role to the Caspian Flotilla in its new naval doctrine. Taken together, they mean that this oft-neglected force now deserves to be tracked much more closely.” Add to this scenario, increasing Chinese involvement in the Central Asian states and the world could end up seeing another kinetic conflict in the coming years.

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

Examined individually, the positions advocated by progressives, now empowered through the Biden Administration and big city government, appear to be isolated acts of irrationality.

What is the end goal of their ideas such as allowing violent criminals to walk the streets? Reducing defense preparedness even as authoritarian enemies grow stronger and more threatening? Spending far more than the national income, leading eventually to confiscatory taxes? Encouraging racial division? Claiming that parents should have no say in the education of their children? Opening the southern border to massive illegal immigration?

Clearly, those favoring these concepts are aware of how they do not stand up to scrutiny. That is why there has been a concerted effort to throttle the First Amendment. From college campuses that intimidate non-leftist professors and students, to politicians that use the power of government to intimidate their opposition, the level of degradation of what was once seen as sacred American rights is truly shocking.

Those ideas, taken singularly, appear illogical, but they are advocated in the pursuit of ending the American experiment in individual rights. 

Throughout most of human history, the concept of personal freedom, of rights granted by God or nature and not government, barely existed. Whether ruled by emperors, kings, chieftains, or strong men, the idea that an individual could assert their rights was essentially a nonstarter.

Piece by piece, Western Civilization, as we now know it, began to evolve. First came great religious figures that introduced the concept that each human was precious to the heart of God. Centuries later came the idea that inhabitants of an area were not “subjects” of monarchs, but citizens of a nation.

It’s no wonder, then, that many progressives disdain the concept of nation states, advocating the concept instead of “open borders,” that the Biden Administration now pursues despite numerous denials of reality.  Similarly, the idea of religion, an entity independent of government, is frequently targeted, because the Judeo-Christian ethic cherishes the soul of each man and woman.

The American concept of individual rights, expressed in and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, was a truly revolutionary concept, refuting the normal mode of rule that had prevailed throughout history.  Through the genius of the Constitution, flaws in the execution of that concept were eventually eliminated, so that in the 21^st Century, the concept of personal freedom has reached its highest expression.  And that has powerfully upset those that prefer authoritarianism.

The counter-revolution against the concept of inherent rights and individual freedom reaches the highest levels. During the 2010 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, she evaded answering a question about whether she even believed in the concept of inherent rights.

Senator Schumer (D-NY) actually introduced legislation to limit the First Amendment’s application to some political speech. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) boldly announced that he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech.” During the Obama Administration, those disagreeing with the President were harassed by the IRS and the Department of Justice.

The progressive strategy is dangerously real and coherent. Create disorder through crime that will eventually makes authoritarian government attractive. Transfer funding from defense to welfare-style programs that make much of the population financially dependent on Washington. Reduce the ability of citizens to meet their own needs through hiked taxes and inflation. Distract voters from the growing power of government by turning races and ethnic groups against each other. Dilute the concept of participatory democracy by opening up the border, then allowing, as has already been done in New York City, aliens to vote. Remove the influence of parents, as progressives have attempted so vigorously through our education system, so that an entire generation is overwhelmingly influenced by big government.

It’s a roadmap to the end of freedom. 

The national discussion within the media and academia is being intentionally altered in a manner that redefines the normal exercise of human concern and basic American rights as acts of criminality, domestic terrorism, and racism.

Protecting one’s home, privacy, business and accounts from unlawful intrusion, children from inappropriate influence, and the nation from massive numbers of illegal entrants, including those infected with disease or affiliated with criminals are all correct actions. However, in the views of a politicized Justice Department, radical-left district attorneys and many progressive government bureaucrats, they are roadblocks to the “fundamental transformation” they so desperately desire.

To achieve the goal of profoundly changing the culture and laws of the nation requires the silencing of those who reject the traditional character of the country. An examination of seemingly unrelated incidents and federal actions reveals a pattern of rejection of both normal behavior and the Bill of Rights.

During the summer of 2020, riots involving arson, assault, looting, attacks on federal court houses and police stations, along with the establishment of so-called “autonomous zones” that ignored legitimate authority were deliberately mislabeled as “peaceful protests.” Similarly, a wholescale rejection of necessary and appropriate safeguards designed to ensure the integrity of balloting was instituted in numerous jurisdictions. Those who responded rationally to those actions, by protecting their residences and shops, or advocating for a stronger law enforcement response were harshly and falsely criticized, called racists, and accused of voter suppression. Some, like a couple from St. Louis, were subjected to criminal prosecution for shielding their home from a threatening mob.

Mere words are being turned into policy, due to the election of district attorney candidates lavishly funded by left-wing donors, and the Progressive-dominated Democratic Party’s capture of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.

Parents who reject the utilization of public schools for propaganda risk being labelled as “domestic terrorists,” with all the legal consequences that entails. The Justice Department, just as it did the last time a leftist president occupied the White House, is being used as a partisan bludgeon against those not of the same political persuasion. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in response to a memo from a progressive academic group, has instructed the FBI to review the words of mothers and fathers who, during the COVID lockdown, became infuriated upon learning about the radicalized public school curriculum their children were being subjected to.  

 College students who dare to question the prevailing leftist orthodoxy on university campuses face recriminations from academic authorities.

Desperately concerned local officials who react with horror at Biden’s open borders and his practice of quietly spreading illegal aliens, many infected with COVID or under the sway of Mexican drug cartels, are threatened with federal recrimination. Many migrant families illegally entering the nation are COVID-positive. Criminal cartels have crossed the southern border and fired upon U.S. citizens

The basic concept of government protecting the innocent from the guilty has been rejected. Chesa Boudin, elected in 2019 as San Francisco’s district attorney, doesn’t believe in locking offenders up for numerous types of crimes. In cities like New York, bail reform, which has allowed repeat offenders to walk the streets soon after they are apprehended, is responsible for massive spikes in crime. 

These issues and incidents may appear as random events and problems.  They are not. There is an intentional drive to change the character of the American people. It was always the intent of the founders that the citizenry, not the government, was sovereign. This was indisputably expressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state that any powers not specifically given to the government belong to the people. That concept is abhorrent to the Progressive left, which requires that Washington must be able to do whatever they want it to do in order to implement their authoritarian agenda.

Photo: Pixabay

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment, United States Constitution 

Having served as a Criminal Court Judge in Brooklyn, New York, I had many occasions to hear evidence from witnesses, police officers and confidential informants, and to issue search warrants.  In most cases, the police and an Assistant District Attorney would present me with a proposed search warrant and a supporting affidavit.  A confidential informant (CI) would usually appear in person, and would testify under oath as to the allegations contained in the supporting affidavit.  The warrant would detail the place to be searched, and what items were expected to be found.

As is stated in the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant could not be issued until probable cause was established; that is, proof that a crime had occurred, and that specific evidence of that crime could be found at the location to be searched.  For example, the CI would testify that he purchased drugs at a specific apartment on one or more occasions; and that the CI had observed that a drug “stash” was located in a cardboard shoe box in the living room of that apartment.

It was my job to ensure that such a warrant did not become a “fishing expedition,” that is, just an open ended search through a person’s home for unspecified contraband.  I had an obligation to establish parameters, such as a time period during which the warrant could be executed; whether or not the police had an obligation to knock first; and a requirement that the searching authorities return to the courthouse after the search with a list of the items seized.  

For instance, in the example used above, the police could search the living room of the apartment, but not every bedroom at the location.

If the police found a safe, or other closed container in the course of their search, unless the warrant specified otherwise, the searching authorities could not enter that safe or closed container without seeking another warrant.  Again, in the example given above, the search warrant would authorize the police to search any cardboard shoe box found in the living room of the apartment.

Recently, a search warrant was executed by approximately 30 Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington DC bureau office at former President Donald Trump’s residence in Florida, Mar-A-Lago.   According to The Guardian, “(t)he search warrant appeared to be approved by Florida federal magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart. The attachment to the warrant, describing the ‘property to be seized’, broadly referred to classified documents and materials responsive to the Presidential Records Act.”  

Apparently, the search grew out of a long-standing dispute between Trump and the National Archives. “In late January (2022), after protracted negotiations with Trump lawyers, the Archives secured the return of 15 boxes of documents Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, his post-presidency home in Florida. The boxes included White House documents considered presidential records, as well as items including “love letters” from Kim Jong-un of North Korea, a letter left for Trump by his predecessor as president, Barack Obama, and a model of Air Force One with red-white-and-blue livery Trump chose.”

Yet, the recovery of these materials weren’t enough for the National Archives, the Department of Justice, or the FBI.  Further, rather than subpoena these documents, or seek a Court order for their return, federal authorities sought and obtained a search warrant. 

“In executing the search warrant…teams of FBI agents wearing nondescript clothes fanned out across the entirety of the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, the sources said. Trump was not there at the time of the raid and learned about it while he was in New York. The agents searched through storage areas in the basement of the property, the sources said, before moving to Trump’s office on the second floor of the main house, where a safecracking team opened a hotel-style safe, though that contained no records responsive to the warrant. Later, the FBI agents searched the residence of Trump and his wife, Melania, and navigated through the pocket-door that separates their separate rooms, one of the sources said.” 

In fact, as a result of the search, “sources said (approximately) 10 boxes’ worth of documents (were recovered) in addition to 15 boxes recovered from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year.”

Given my background, and the rules for the issuance of search warrants I outlined above, several issues immediately jump out at me.  It is also important to note that the actual search warrant and supporting affidavit have not been released to the public as of this writing, and a review of these documents may clarify some of the concerns I express here.

First, the warrant would seem to be extraordinarily broad.  “Classified documents and materials responsive to the Presidential Records Act,” could mean any one of a thousand or more categories of material.  Further, such a wide description gives FBI Agents no particular and specific description of the materials subject to the search.

Next, the area to be searched appears not to have been specified.  Agents searched all of Mar-A Lago, including the private residence of the former President and his wife; the former President’s office; and even a closed and locked safe.  It is entirely possible that the warrant allowed for a such a broad and far-ranging search, but such an unspecific and wide mandate is highly unusual.

Third, as we have discussed, a court must find probable cause for a crime to have occurred to issue a search warrant.  What is the crime here?  Under 18 USC 2071(a), “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record…document, or other thing, filed or deposited…in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”  Subdivision (b) goes on to state that “(w)hoever, having the custody of any such record…document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes…or destroys the same…shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

According to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing in the New York Post, “If Trump had not declassified these materials while he was president, then his continuing possession of them in a non-secure location was probably illegal. While presidents have unilateral authority to declassify intelligence, they only maintain that authority while in office – it may not be exercised in the post-presidency. The returned documents were thus potentially evidence of crimes. In addition, since it is believed Trump did not return everything that was shipped out of the White House in those hectic days of January 2021, there was significant reason to suspect he continued to retain classified information at Mar-a-Lago.”

But as noted, the penalties for a violation of 18 USC 2071 are fairly minimal.  Was it really necessary  to send 30 FBI Agents from Washington DC to South Florida to search for 10 boxes of documents?  Is there some other motivation for the government to have acted so ham-handedly here?

As Andrew McCarthy writes,  “there is speculation that DOJ may be mobilizing now in order to trigger the Section 2071 disqualification. I doubt that. The Justice Department well knows that the qualifications for a presidential candidate are set out in the Constitution. They may not be altered by statute, precisely because the Framers did not want the executive branch to be dominated by the legislature, as would happen if Congress could disqualify incumbent or potential presidents simply by passing a law. The Constitution’s qualifications for the presidency are minimal – one must be over 35 and a natural-born citizen. Being a felon is not a disqualification, so even crimes potentially far more serious than mishandling classified information are not a bar to seeking the presidency.”

As a result, McCarthy “believe it would foolhardy for the Biden Justice Department to indict a former president on such debatable non-violent crime charges. That is especially so when it comes to a former president who could be the 2024 Republican nominee, since such charges would fuel the perception that Democrats are using the Justice Department as a political weapon.” 

In fact, McCarthy believes the Raid on Mar A Lago had another motive; “The Justice Department obviously used the potential classified information as a pretext to obtain a warrant so it could search for what it is really looking for: evidence that would tie Trump to a Capitol riot offense – either a violent crime, such as seditious conspiracy to forcibly attack a government installation (which is highly unlikely), or a non-violent crime, such as conspiracy to obstruct the January 6 joint session of Congress to count electoral votes, or conspiracy to defraud the government.”

This would explain the open-ended nature of the warrant, and the wide-ranging search throughout the former President’s residence – a classic “fishing expedition.”  Exactly what an objective issuing magistrate is duty-bond to prevent.

In another unusual move, as of this writing, the FBI, Justice Department, or White House have yet to make any public statement regarding the invasion of the Trump Florida residence.  Perhaps those entities realize they have overplayed their hand, and left themselves open to charges of overreach and politicization of the justice process?

Whatever the fall out, one thing is certain.  No matter how you may view former President Trump, if the government can use a pretext like the retention of some documents as a predicate for a full blown search of his property, what reliance can the rest of us have on the fairness and impartiality of our judges and magistrates?

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

Illustration: Pixabay