Author: Daria Novak

Putin is separating Ukrainian children from their parents and coercing, or forcing, their parents to relocate inside Russia in a systematic “filtration” operation, according to US Secretary of State Tony Blinken. In a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians, Russia is unlawfully transferring and deporting protected persons. It is a “war crime.” On the day before the Ukraine Accountability Conference on July 14, Blinken announced the United States will hold President Putin and his government accountable for the unlawful transfer and forced deportations in Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine. “Russian authorities must release those detained and allow Ukrainian citizens forcibly removed or coerced into leaving their country the ability to promptly and safely return home,” says Blinken.  

The US Government is calling for Russia to provide outside independent observers access to the “filtration” facilities and to forced deportation relocation areas in Russia. The numbers involved are staggering. Sources estimate that they total between 900,000 and 1.6 million Ukrainian citizens. Over 260,000 are young victims of Putin’s policy, that often sends them to isolated regions in the Far East. Families are not kept together, according to the policy. 

Military analysts familiar with the operation note that it is pre-meditated and resembles Russian actions during its war in Chechnya. The “filtration” operation is well-organized. Putin’s foot soldiers first separate families. They then confiscate the Ukrainian citizens’ passports and issue the victims Russian papers. One demographer suggested that this effort was in part due to Putin’s desire to change the demographic makeup of Ukraine. The “filtration” extends to abductions of children living in orphanages inside Ukraine, where there are seized and put up for adoption inside Russia. 

Eyewitnesses and survivors of “filtration” operations, detentions, and forced deportations report frequent threats, harassment, and incidents of torture by Russian security forces, according to Blinken.” During this process, Russian authorities also reportedly capture and store biometric and personal data, subject civilians to invasive searches and interrogations and coerce Ukrainian citizens into signing agreements to stay in Russia, hindering their ability to freely return home,” he adds.

Worse yet, according to the State Department, is mounting evidence that Russian authorities are detaining or disappearing thousands of Ukrainian civilians who do not pass “filtration” tests. Those detained or “filtered out” include Ukrainians deemed threatening because of their potential affiliation with the Ukrainian army, territorial defense forces, media, government, and civil society groups. 

Ukraine’s General Prosecutor, along with eyewitnesses and other survivors, have reported that Russian authorities recently transported tens of thousands of people to detention facilities inside Russian-controlled Donetsk, where many are reportedly tortured. Reports coming in from the region charge that many of the targeted individuals have been summarily executed. The evidence, notes a State Department official, is consistent with Russian atrocities committed in Bucha, Mariupol, and other locations inside Ukraine. Blinken said President Putin and his government will not be able to engage in these systematic abuses with impunity. “Accountability is imperative.  This is why we are supporting Ukrainian and international authorities’ efforts to collect, document, and preserve evidence of atrocities.  Together, we are dedicated to holding perpetrators of war crimes and other atrocities accountable.” The situation is complex and disorganized as the war moves into its sixth month. The United Nations reports that a full two-thirds of all Ukrainian children have been forced from their homes by the war. Tens of thousands of those children already were in Ukrainian institutions without a stable home life. Their fate is in more jeopardy now.

Speaking in June before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said her office has been looking into allegations of children forcibly deported from Ukraine to the Russian Federation. She told the Council: “we are concerned about the alleged plans of the Russian authorities to allow the movement of children from Ukraine to families in the Russian Federation… do not appear to include steps for family reunification or respect the best interest of the child.” It is proving a challenge to document the expansive number of cases and total abductions and executions of civilians. The full number may never be known, even if the West holds Putin accountable for the atrocities.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

It is not an overstatement to note that the recent NATO meeting held in Madrid, Spain was a watershed moment for the alliance.

The alliance noted the increased threat from Russia and the growth of a vast new one from China. The organization stated its determination to live up to its mission, and keep both its current and prospective members safe.

In a document issued following the gathering’s conclusion, it was stated that “NATO is determined to safeguard the freedom and security of Allies. Its key purpose and greatest responsibility is to ensure our collective defence, against all threats, from all directions. We are a defensive Alliance…NATO will continue to fulfil three core tasks: deterrence and defence; crisis prevention and management; and cooperative security. These are complementary to ensure the collective defence and security of all Allies. We will enhance our individual and collective resilience and technological edge. These efforts are critical to fulfil the Alliance’s core tasks.”

The challenges faced are clear, as noted during the meeting. “The Euro-Atlantic area is not at peace. The Russian Federation has violated the norms and principles that contributed to a stable and predictable European security order. We cannot discount the possibility of an attack against Allies’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. Strategic competition, pervasive instability and recurrent shocks define our broader security environment. The threats we face are global and interconnected…Authoritarian actors challenge our interests, values and democratic way of life. They are investing in sophisticated conventional, nuclear and missile capabilities, with little transparency or regard for international norms and commitments. Strategic competitors test our resilience and seek to exploit the openness, interconnectedness and digitalisation of our nations.”

It was clearly stated that the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. It seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct control through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation.

 It was also directly noted that “China’s ambitions and coercive policies challenge NATO’s interests, security and values…The PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up. The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security. The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains. The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests. “

While pointing out the dangers from Moscow, Beijing, and terrorist groups, the meeting sought to reassure all that the Alliance is defensive, does not seek confrontation, and posed no threat to its adversaries unless attacked.

There has been harsh criticism from the Kremlin about NATO’s enlargement. But the Alliance noted that NATO’s admission of new members “has been a historic success,” which strengthened the Alliance, ensured the security of millions of European citizens and contributed to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. The organization promised it would continue to admit new members who meet the necessary qualifications. 

In a truly historic move, the path to admission for both Sweden and Finland was assured, a step that will significantly improve the strength of the group, and serve as a major rebuke to Putin’s expansionist threats. The Madrid gathering stated they will continue to develop partnerships with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine to advance a common interest in Euro-Atlantic peace, stability and security.

Illustration: NATO

Youtube has informed many of its uses that “Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube. “ 

Interesting.  YouTube continues to publishes the now totally disproven allegations of Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and others that the President Trump engaged in Russian collusion.

It’s not just YouTube. An impartial Gizmodo study found that “Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential ‘trending news” section…workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users. Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially inject’ selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all.”

Increasing attention is being paid to the censorship of social media sites. Brad Pascale, writing for USATODAY found that “Americans must be wary of powerful institutions that seek to control what we see and hear.…Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google have increasingly sought to become the gatekeepers of the internet and political discourse. Without any sort of democratic mandate, these companies have appointed themselves the arbiters of acceptable thought, discussion and searches online. These companies’ pervasive command of the internet… is a direct threat to a free society. And arguably the worst offender is Google. Google & others are suppressing voices of conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. Google has directly targeted Republicans…research at Harvard University found that Google’s search rankings are not objective, and in 2017, the company was fined billions of dollars by the European Union for manipulating search results…When it’s not manipulating the internet to prevent users from viewing right-wing content, Google is directly attacking that content. A report by The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed that Google’s fact-checking service “fact-checked” only conservative news websites, and that in many cases, these fact-checks were outright wrong.”

It is tempting to believe that it is only biased social media sites, or the media in general, that attack those not conforming to leftist ideology. Far more insidious, however, is the reality that the machinery of government is wholly invested in suppressing moderates and conservatives.

The Internal Revenue Service has admitted that it blatantly assaulted conservatives during the Obama presidency, as did the Department of Justice during that era. The former head of the CIA and FBI agents essentially did the bidding of the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Despite the Left’s long history of engaging in outrageous, blatant violations of laws and ethics, their leaders remain unprosecuted by the courts. The orgy of violence, destruction, and rebellion that has dismayed America for years, the attempt to destroy a presidency based on sheer lies by Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff and others remains unpunished.

Radical district attorneys who intentionally avoid prosecuting criminals retain the support of progressives. The extreme leftist former New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio allowed $800 million to vanish during his administration.  There is not even a hint of an investigation upcoming. Meanwhile, while crime rages, the state Attorney General commits time and resources to what amounts to nuisance lawsuits against Donald Trump.

The recent Sussman trial made a mockery of the concept of equal justice. Partisan jurors were allowed to serve, and the judge had a clear proclivity to favor the defendant. If the roles had been reversed, there is little doubt the overt bias would have been non-stop headline news throughout print, internet, and electronic journalism.

In September of last year, we examined the concept of the Roman Catholic Church denying the sacrament of communion to politicians who professed to be members of the Church while supporting abortion, such as John Kerry, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.    At that time, we noted that Salvatore J. Cordileone, the Archbishop of San Francisco, had issued a letter  “calling for Holy Communion to be withheld from public figures who support abortion rights.”  While Cordileone did not mention Pelosi by name at that time, he did state that if “an ‘erring Catholic’ continues supporting abortion rights, even after conversations with church officials, a pastor’s ‘only recourse’ is to temporarily exclude them from the sacrament.” 

Did Nancy Pelosi heed the Archbishop’s warning?  Certainly not!  Late last year, the “Democratic-controlled House voted 218-211 largely along party lines to pass…legislation called the Women’s Health Protection Act. Just one Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted against the proposal…(t)he legislation follows enactment of a Texas law that effectively bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.” 

In fact, in the wake of the leak of the proposed Supreme Court opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade (discussed in more detail here), the Speaker of the House doubled down on her support for abortion. “House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol facing the Supreme Court…calling on the justices to defend access to abortion on the eve of abortion rights protests in Washington and nationwide.”   

Speaker Pelosi also “applauded the ‘righteous anger’ of abortion rights activists in a letter…to fellow House Democrats to encourage them to carry on the fight against the pro-life movement…'(w)ith this draft ruling striking down the nearly fifty-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade and undermining the Constitutional right to privacy, Republicans would rip away women’s right to make the most intimate and personal decisions. If handed down, this decision by GOP-appointed Justices would mean that, for the first time in our history, America’s daughters will have less freedom than their mothers,’ Pelosi wrote.”

Given these actions by Speaker Pelosi, it should come as no surprise that Archbishop Cordileone took the next logical step.  “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.  Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (Code of Canon Law, can. 915)” the Archbishop wrote in a public notification addressed directly to Nancy Pelosi.  “I communicated my concerns to you via letter on April 7, 2022, and informed you there that, should you not publically repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

“As you have not publically repudiated your position on abortion, and continue to refer to your Catholic faith in justifying your position and to receive Holy Communion, that time has now come.  Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco…by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.” (Emphasis in original.)

There were the usual and expected responses to the Archbishop’s letter. “Several trends regarding the announcement found their way onto Twitter, including ‘#TaxTheChurch.'” “Jamie L. Manson, the president of Catholics for Choice — a nonprofit organization that pushes for reproductive freedom — decried the move as one rooted against reproductive rights. ‘Speaker Pelosi is devoted to her Catholic faith, and it is not lost on me that, as a woman, she is being singled out in this continued battle,’ she said in a statement. ‘It is one more step in a long line of attacks that the Church hierarchy has waged on women and their reproductive rights.'” 

In understanding the actions of Archbishop Cortileone, it would be instructive to know just what is allowed by the Women’s Health Protection Act passed by the Pelosi-led House last fall.  

According to the WHPA, “(a) General Rule.—A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements…(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure…(11) A requirement that a patient seeking abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services, or a limitation on the provision or obtaining of abortion services at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services, regardless of whether the limitation is based on a health care provider’s degree of actual or constructive knowledge of such reason or reasons. ”  

This language would provide for an abortion on demand, without any prohibition, for any reason, before “fetal viability.”  How is “viability” defined? “The term ‘viability’ means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.”  In other words, “viability” is whenever a “health care provider” says so.  Note also the use of the  broad term “health care provider,” and not the word “doctor.”

Further,  “this Act supersedes and applies to the law of the Federal Government and each State government, and the implementation of such law, whether statutory, common law, or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of enactment of this Act, and neither the Federal Government nor any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. ” 

Thus, it is not hyperbole in any way to describe this law, passed by the House of Representatives, as allowing for abortion up to a very flexible point during pregnancy, without any interference by any federal or state law to the contrary.

While acceptable to the Democratic majority in the House, this law was too extreme for the US Senate, which, “(i)n a 49-51 vote…rejected the Democratic legislation, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and all Republicans voting against the measure…(b)oth Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who support abortion rights, opposed the Democratic bill. They see that legislation as too expansive and are instead pushing a narrower alternative that would codify the Roe and Casey decisions the Supreme Court is expected to overturn…(According to Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia)) Democrats are ‘trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it’s not,’ he argued, referring to the bill’s ban on some state restrictions on the procedure currently allowed. ‘This is not the same. It expands abortion.’”

For a prominent Catholic politician to support a position in such direct opposition to the views of the church to which she professes to belong invites the actions of Archbishop Cordileone.  As Rebecca Downs writes in Townhall, “(t)hose who make…arguments condemning the archbishop’s actions surely did not read this point made by the archbishop: ‘Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here. Speaker Pelosi remains our sister in Christ. Her advocacy for the care of the poor and vulnerable elicits my admiration. I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political. I have been very clear in my words and actions about this.’ Archbishop Cordileone is not wading into political matters of the U.S. Congress. He is fulfilling his pastoral duty to lead a member of the Church back into the light. Speaker Pelosi remains the speaker.” 

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church remains disunited on this issue.   “Despite Cordileone’s clear declaration, Pelosi (recently) received Holy Communion at the 9 a.m. Mass at Holy Trinity in Georgetown.” Cardinal Wilton Gregory of the Archdiocese of Washington DC has “largely dodged the issue of whether to give pro-choice politicians Communion…(h)e said that the bishops are ‘not there as police, we’re there as pastors, and as pastors, we certainly have to teach the faith of the Church, we have to be true to the Church’s heritage of faith, but we also have to bring people along with us. It is not simply a matter of pointing out their errors.'”

Cardinal Gregory would do well to review his Catechism; “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life… cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.”  When a politician, engaged in a secular occupation, supports and advocates for abortion rights, that is a matter between that politician and their constituents. However, when that politician professes to be a member of a faith that absolutely and unequivocally renounces the practice of abortion, a representative of that faith has every right to take measures to correct that member.  Archbishop Cordileone is acting in accordance with the teachings of his Church.  It is a simple matter of fact that Nancy Pelosi is not.

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

Photo: Pixabay

As we move into July’s heavy heat in the northern hemisphere few are thinking much about how Europeans will heat their homes this winter. Northwest Europe is enduring an 80% cut in Russian energy exports. EU economic sanctions are hitting the region hard this summer as Europe is highly dependent on Russia energy supplies. Over 45% of EU gas, 40% of coal imports, and 27% of its petroleum imports derive from Russian sources. “Europe is facing a serious economic downturn, with industrial production and real wages both falling rapidly and factories in key industries such as chemicals, steel and machinery closing, according to Thomas Duesterberg and Angelique Tamor of the Hudson Institute. 

Europe is experiencing the impact of its dual-pronged, energy approach. A combination of the region moving quickly toward a carbon free economy at same time as the EU is imposing economic sanctions on Russian energy has produced “skyrocketing” prices, note Duesterberg and Tamor. For years American leaders have warned the EU about its dependence on foreign energy supplies from Russia. The EU still went ahead with its new “REPower EU” plan. Its ultimate goal is to achieve independence from Russian fossil fuels by 2030. However, if friendly markets are not able to supply energy to the EU countries due to the Russian war in Ukraine and competing energy demands from other economies sanctioning Russia, the result may be an inability to increase short-term production to meet increasing demand. Western Europe could be left in the cold this winter.

European leaders are beginning to recognize the extent of the risk. If the Russian government decides to completely shut down energy supplies, and Europe is not prepared, it could result in a serious recession. Consumers may be unable to heat their homes and prices will continue their meteoric rise. Duesterberg and Tamor say that Germany and other EU countries finally are beginning to implement crisis mitigation measures, including rationing gas supplies to manufacturers. Support for Ukraine may also suffer if leaders believe they are forced to choose between securing energy supplies for their economies and the war effort. 

The Biden Administration is ramping up American energy exports to Europe to stem the crisis, while ignoring high gasoline prices at home. The proportion of US LNG exports heading to Europe increased from 34% to 74% so far this year and monthly oil shipments to Europe jumped to their highest level in half a decade. Duesterberg and Tamor called the Administration’s policy “incoherent,” saying “…Biden’s current energy policy remains clearly opposed to increased fossil fuel production and processing and thus severely constrains capacity to help alleviate Europe’s mounting energy crisis.” In a June 15 June 15 interview US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm simultaneously demanded that oil companies invest massively to increase oil production. At the same time, she spoke about the Administration’s ambitions to shut them down within the decade. Duesterberg and Tamor report that “America’s international efforts to increase global energy supply may also be detrimental politically and environmentally in the long run, as they have focused on expanding oil exports from hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. They say the President is now “having to do an embarrassing geopolitical turnaround to request increased production from Saudi Arabia.” It also is likely that idled oil refineries inside China may begin delivering the excess capacity to Western nations and raising energy dependence on the communist giant. “Without increased US production and exports to Europe, it will continue having devastating supply sourcing issues and increasingly become reliant on China’s growing capacity to export refined petroleum products using discounted Russian oil for competitive advantage,” according to a Hudson Institute report.  The European and US energy crisis may soon fracture the strong unity over the response to the war in Ukraine and undermine US-European relations on global issues, while simultaneously enhancing China’s position among western democratic states. The Biden Administration and EU leaders have a lot of homework to do in the coming weeks.

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

Photo: Pixabay

British MI-5 Director General McCallum announced this week his service has more than doubled the number of personnel working to constrain Chinese spying in his country. American FBI Director Christopher Wray, in a speech alongside McCallum in London, added that the US also considers the Chinese government the “biggest long-term threat” to the US economy and its national security. Other Western allies in Europe also identify China as an extremely dangerous regime to watch. Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine may have relegated headlines about the Chinese threat to the bottom of the news cycle, but the danger posed by  President Xi Jinping’s communist regime has not subsided to democratic states across the globe. 

In a Reuters interview this week Wray said that “The Chinese government is trying to shape the world by interfering in our politics…” and that there already was direct interference in New York in a 2022 US Congressional race. Beijing intended to covertly defeat a candidate it disliked. The unnamed candidate was seen by China as voicing criticism of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in which its troops descended on the Square and murdered over 1,000 young people. It occurred when unarmed students occupying Tiananmen Square in Beijing participated in protests for freedom and then refused to leave the area. The CCP has censored information on the events surrounding the massacre so effectively that many young Chinese inside the country have never heard of it, the names of student leaders involved, or seen photos of those killed by Chinese troops.

On the economic side, even sophisticated American businesses are unaware of the level of threat coming from Beijing and the CCP leadership, according to Wray. He says that China is “set on stealing your technology.” Its hacking programs, he adds, are more extensive than those of every major country in the world combined. Reuters reports that in May Director General McCallum noted that the UK shared intelligence with 37 countries to help them defend against cyber espionage from China and other unfriendly nations. McCallum noted that the UK has disrupted a sophisticated threat targeting critical aerospace companies. Wray, in recent statements on Taiwan, said he believes China may try to forcibly take over the island. He notes that if it occurs “it would represent one of the most horrific business disruptions the world has ever seen.”

China is not liberalizing its economy or expanding domestic political freedoms, unlike predictions made by the Clinton Administration. The President granted China permanent MFN trade status during the Christmas holiday in 2001. It effectively eliminated the requirement that China show progress toward improved its domestic economic and political freedom. McCallum says the West was pure wrong when it assumed increasing connectivity to the world would lead to expanded political freedom. In response, the Chinese government defends itself by claiming the West has a “Cold War mentality” that is out of date.

Over the last three years, the UK has tightened its procedures to prevent the theft of sensitive academic research. It resulted in the expulsion of 50 Chinese students with links to the Chinese military studying in the country. The Guardian reports, however, that there still are over 150,000 Chinese studying in the UK. They made up the largest cohort of foreign students at 32% of the total number in the UK. The largest foreign component of students at American universities also comes from China. They compose 35% of the foreign student body in the US with 317,299 studying here during the 2020/2021 academic year. Over the past seven years the FBI has been opening one case against China every 12 hours. It represents a 1,300% increase over earlier periods. There are about 13,778 special agents in the entire FBI organization. In February Wray said he was blown away by the sheer numbers he learned when he took over as director. There currently are over 2,000 cases involving China underway in the FBI. He called China “more brazen, more damaging than ever before” in a speech at the Reagan Library earlier this year. The Russian invasion of Ukraine may be the immediate threat to stability in the world, but China has no equal according to Wray.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

President Vladimir Putin is deliberately torpedoing his country’s economy in a futile attempt to fragment Western unity on Ukraine. Pavel Baev, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, says that is “exactly” what the Russian leader is doing in addition to his attempts to exploit European vulnerabilities. At the recent G7 meeting in the Bavarian Alps, Western leaders agreed to open-ended support of Ukraine in its fight to rid the country of invading Russian forces. After the G7, at the NATO summit in Madrid, there was a similar “unprecedented level of Western solidarity” among leaders, according to Baev.  Putin is betting heavily that the Western united front will be short-lived, although Russian media are admitting Western solidarity remains strong and determined. 

Even French President Macron has pulled back from his protracted conversations with Putin, says Baev, as he finds them pointless. In Norway, the government decided to disallow the cross-border transit of supplies to a Russian-populated settlement on the Svalbard archipelago, according to a recent Izvestia report. Lithuania, too, is abiding by European sanctions and, despite protests from Moscow, has not lifted restrictions on the rail transit of banned goods going to Kaliningrad. There is little Putin can leverage at this point. The Eurasian Daily Monitor notes that “the European Commission announced plans to cut European Union imports of Russian natural gas by two-thirds by the end of 2022.” In response Putin attempted to make cuts to natural gas supplies to Europe at a faster rate than the EU can diversify its supplies. Daria Korzhova, writing in The Bell, says that Putin’s decision caused severe disruptions in the Russian energy sector and resulted in Gazprom deciding against paying its shareholders any dividends in 2022.  A week ago, Putin signed a decree which effectively nationalized the Sakhalin-2 energy project, despite Mitsui and Mitsubishi’s plans to stay. The Japanese companies now face terms dictated by the Kremlin, according to Baev. Putin is not altering his plans.

Chinese giants Huawei and Lenovo both are pulling back on their activities inside Russia, although the economic data showing its extent is being camouflaged by Russian authorities. Putin needs Chinese support. To dull any fallout from NATO, the Russian publication Kommersant reports this week that the country is selling China large quantities of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from this well-functioning project instead of earning more by sending it to Japan. 

Kommersant also reported that there is a 96.7% decline in the production of Russian automobiles due to disruptions in the supply chain from Western sanctions. The Moscow Times called it “reminiscent” of the gray economy of the 1990’s when Western goods all but disappeared from Russian store shelves. Ekaterina Grobman notes in Vedomosti that Putin decided the country could not paralyze industries crucial to his “special military operation” in Ukraine so Moscow is drafting legislation that makes it compulsory for businesses to abide by prices and schedules set by state agencies and to deliver first on all military related orders. Putin, however, may still face production delays as the lack of parts prohibit the finished production of many advanced technology goods and the spare parts needed for industrial equipment.

“Putin can rely neither on business lobbies in Germany and France, since their investments in Russia are transferred to the “net losses” budget bracket, nor on the multiple trans-border channels for exporting corruption, which have been curtailed and are being investigated in the West with sudden keenness. His “messaging” to Western counterparts comes increasingly in the form of missile strikes on apartment buildings and shopping malls in Mykolaiv, Odesa or Kremenchuk—and the recurrent horrors of these war crimes only strengthen the conclusion within the transatlantic community that Russian aggression cannot be contained and must be defeated,” says Baev.NATO’s New Strategic Concept that emerged from the Summit further exacerbates Putin’s domestic economic problems. Jamestown Foundation’s Vladimir Socor writes that “Although the new Concept restates NATO’s 360° approach to the Alliance’s security, it is Russia and the gamut of threats emanating from it that hold the front and center….” The 2022 document says that “The Euro-Atlantic Area is not at peace. The Russian Federation has violated the norms and principles [of] a stable and predictable European security order.” Therefore, “We cannot consider the Russian Federation to be our partner.” On the contrary, it adds, “The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” So far, Putin has failed to create even a minor chasm among Western nations, while instigating an economic crisis at home that could drive him from office in the coming year and sink the Russian economy. One US military analyst familiar with Putin said that like a cornered snake he will continue to strike out until he wins or dies trying. He may take down the Russian economy along the way.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Aficionados of the television show The X Files will recall the mantra most commonly attributed to FBI Special Agent Fox Mulder as he investigated paranormal phenomenon and other strange doings with the assistance of Physicist Dana Scully – the truth is out there.  “The quote does pop up from time to time and is actually said by members of the cast at certain times. However, most viewers remember the quote as the tagline from the show as seen during the opening credits of each episode.”  What does it mean?  “(T)he things that we believe to be fact right this very moment may turn out to be wrong once we discover the truth on how something actually works. We shouldn’t be complacent and be confident in what we currently know. We should always be searching for knowledge” 

Election integrity is one area where the quest for the facts must be a constant and on-going search for knowledge.  This is particularly relevant in regards to the questions which continue to surround the Presidential election of 2020.  

According to an ABC News Poll from January of 2022, “America’s faith in the integrity of the election system remains shaken…with only 20% of the public saying it’s very confident about the system…(t)he lack of strong confidence in the country’s ability to conduct an honest election crosses partisan lines. Among Democrats…(only) 30% say they are very confident in the U.S. election systems overall. Regarding independents, only 1 in 5 consider themselves ‘very confident’ in the nation’s elections. Even fewer Republicans (13%) are very confident, with a considerable majority (59%) having little faith in the system, responding that they either are ‘not so confident’ or ‘not confident at all…'” 

Though ABC News linked this lack of confidence to the “insurrection” of January 6, 2021, even ABC had to admit that “large shares of Republicans felt that Joe Biden’s election was not legitimate alongside feelings that those present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 may have been attempting to protect democracy, rather than threaten it.”  How to explain this belief among Republicans that something underhanded occurred in the 2020 election?  According to political scientist William Howell, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, “(w)idespread distrust in our electoral system overlays deep divisions over our democracy. Republicans lack confidence, in no small part, because of lies propagated by their leaders. And Democrats lack confidence because of ongoing efforts of Republicans to politicize the administration of elections. This is a bad equilibrium.”

So that’s the answer – Republicans are being misled!  There was no election fraud during the 2020 Presidential election! After all, shortly after the results were announced, “members of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council...and others called the 2020 election the ‘most secure in American history’…(t)he statement from the agencies said ‘there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'”  That should put an end to the issue, shouldn’t it?

And yet, despite these definitive statements from the experts, there are those who continue to have no confidence in the official position.  One of those is the filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

“A tactic of mass fraud was used in the 2020 presidential elections, where alleged paid couriers, called ‘mules,’ were traveling to various nonprofit groups and ballot drop boxes across county lines to stuff illegal ballots. This is the conclusion of a new documentary, 2000 Mules, from filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza, and supported by surveillance footage, massive amounts of data, and whistleblowers who agreed to go on camera….’We’re talking about very significant fraud…if you subtract the fraud from the Biden column, you begin to see Biden states moving into the Trump camp,’ D’Souza said.” 

In his latest film, D’Souza explores the method used to stuff absentee ballot boxes with thousands of ballots of questionable legality.  “True The Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht and 30-year election intelligence expert Greg Phillips… analyzed more than a petabyte (1,000 terabytes) of data from smartphones in Phoenix, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Las Vegas, covering the time period from October 1 through Election Day (and through January 6 in Georgia to cover the Senate runoff). In Atlanta, the group says that by using that data, they identified 242 ‘mules’ who met their criteria (visited 10 different ballot drop boxes and at least five different nonprofit organizations identified as ‘stash houses’) during that time frame.” 

In coordination with the cellphone data, Engelbrecht and Phillips secured hundreds of hours of surveillance video for various ballot drop boxes.  D’Souza’s movie makes use of these videos, revealing footage of people placing multiple ballots in drop boxes, some in the early morning hours, one even wearing surgical gloves (which she discards immediately after dropping off her ballots), and in some cases, taking photos of the drop box. 

According to True the Vote, “(w)e do have video showing the same person at multiple drop boxes. Some of that footage was shown in the first trailer. It was taken out because the video is extremely poor quality. We address this issue in the film. Most jurisdictions had no video or if they did, it was (illegally) destroyed. Of what does exist, 85% of it is bad; the camera poorly positioned, out of focus, the video compiled out of chronological sequence, inexplicably missing blocks of days and times. This is why the geospatial evidence is the key.  One thing this exercise proved to us is that drop box surveillance video was never monitored, as voters expected it would be. Like so many other election processes, it was a false promise of security.”   

It didn’t take long for the attacks on D’Souza’s work to begin.  “2000 Mules is Plandemic for election truthers. For the non-insane, it’s a hilarious mockumentary,” writes Amanda Carpenter in The Bulwark. “(A)n investigative documentary in roughly the same way Reno 911 was a hard-hitting look at real-life police work…(i)t’s better to view the film as a performance piece, a comedic triumph where the joke is on the rubes gullible enough to give D’Souza their money.” 

More serious efforts at debunking the information detailed in 2000 Mules are contained in various “fact check” articles. “Politifact and (the) Associated Press led the charge, and many outlets ran the AP’s flawed and amateurish report, magnifying its reach. Of course, as RedState noted, the PolitiFact and AP pieces are nearly identical, almost as if they were coordinated… the hit pieces published by the mainstream media were not intended to find the truth but only to discredit the shocking findings presented in the film…”

For instance,”experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby. ‘You could use cellular evidence to say this person was in that area, but to say they were at the ballot box, you’re stretching it a lot,’ said Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame. ‘There’salways a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.'”

But, according to True the Vote, “(t)hat’s simply not true. In the first sentence of the quote, the writer says that experts say that a smartphone can be reliably tracked within a few meters. Depending on what ‘a few’ means in this case, that could be six or nine feet. That’s hardly leaving a healthy amount of uncertainty. Also, we’re not just talking about one visit to a ballot box.”

Ironically, “(p)ieces in the Washington Post and the New York Times also characterize cellphone location data as quite specific and reliable. For example,(a) May 4 WaPo article stok(ed) fear that the Patriarchy could use phone data to determine who got an abortion should abortion become illegal in some states. The New York Times also admitted in a recent report that federal agents used geo-tracking to identify the protesters attending the January 6 protests in Washington DC. So the media is well aware of the usefulness and capability of geo-tracking. Their own reports explain and promote the technology.”

Rather than listen to “fact checkers,” see 2000 Mules.  Then decide for yourself.  The truth remains out there.

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

Those protesting recent Supreme Court decisions are unwittingly endorsing an ancient system of litigation, known as trial by combat.

Trial by combat was a practice in which litigants literally and violently fought each other rather than rely on law, precedent, or a judicial system to determine the outcome of a dispute. 

In recent years, whether in matters concerning alleged police misconduct or in the heated response by those opposed to recent Supreme Court decisions on Roe v. Wade, school funding, and concealed carry rights, protestors and rioters have taken to the streets, frequently in a violent manner, in an attempt to either influence the outcome of a trial or to seek to negate the implementation of a judge or jury’s decision. Missing in these upheavals is the concept of what’s actually in the law and the Constitution.

The verbal and threatened physical abuse heaped upon the U.S. Supreme Court collectively, and specific judges individually, makes a mockery of the entire concept of a nation governed by laws.

The Department of Homeland Security recently issued a warning, noting that “Some domestic violent extremists (DVE) … will likely exploit the recent US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe V. Wade to intensify violence against a wide range of targets… Faith-based organizations across the United States continue to report numerous criminal incidents against religious institutions connected to abortion rights. We are aware of at least 11 incidents of vandalism threatening violence targeting religious facilities perceived as being opposed to abortion, and one threat to “bomb” and “burn” a church in New York. These incidents of vandalism against faith-based organizations could indicate future targets of DVE attacks.”

The examples are as numerous as they are stunning.

The Daily Mail reports that the activist group ‘Ruth Sent Us’ told protestors to target CHILDREN, home and church of Supreme Justice Amy Coney after Roe v Wade draft opinion was leaked. Associate Justice Kavanaugh was endangered when an armed man intent on harming him was fund near his home. Throughout the period of ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter riots, court buildings were targeted.

In March 2020, Senator Charles “Chuck” Schumer stated “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said at the rally. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Maxine Waters has stated “To hell with the Supreme Court.”  A similar comment was made by California Lt. Gov. (D) Eleni Kounalakis, who said Americans should “live in defiance” of the Supreme Court. “Jane’s Revenge,” which has been linked to arson attacks against the buildings of ideological opponents, shared a post online encouraging a “night of rage” following the Supreme Court announcement, stating, “we need the state to feel our full wrath” and “we need them to be afraid of us.”

Despite the increased danger to the nation’s highest judicial body, the deeply partisan Biden Justice Department was reluctant to provide appropriate protection.  The legislative branch was forced to write a law mandating such action, in response to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s failure to do his duty. Shockingly, 27 Democrats refused to endorse the measure, a clear rebuke to the entire concept of the rule of law.

The entire concept of a nation governed by laws and not violence is under clear and direct threat by all this. The Constitution provides clear and specific ways to address grievances, even in response to Supreme Court decisions. The rejection of these methods is part of a larger threat to America by leftist extremists, now so prominent in the Democratic Party, who seek to replace both the Constitution and the Bill of rights with a government subservient to their radical ideology.

Photo: Pixabay

As we celebrate our Independence Day, it is vital to recognize that it is vastly different than other government’s “National Holidays.”  Far more than just a commemoration of the founding of America, it is the recognition of a major advance, indeed, a turning point in human rights. 

That major advance is deeply threatened at home and abroad.

We are challenged overseas by the mightiest conglomeration of military power ever arrayed against us, as Russia has developed the world’s mightiest nuclear force and China has constructed the planet’s largest navy.  Both Moscow and Beijing have engaged in overt acts of aggression and hostility.

At home, the very principles which caused our Revolution to be so courageously initiated are being challenged as never before.  Censorship, the very antithesis of everything that is quintessentially American, is rapidly gaining acceptance. The repugnant effort to establish a “disinformation agency” which quite transparently has as its mission the suppression of views that oppose the current White House regime is but one part of that.

Hyper-partisan media moguls on the web, television, and print conspire to omit news that challenges their biases.  District attorneys and attorneys general elected with funding from villainous foreign billionaires ignore the rampage of crime and instead engage in political witch hunts against those they disagree with.  Leftist elected officials ignore and in some instances materially support those who for months on end riot, burn, assault, invade police stations and attack federal courthouses, but use a one-day, inexcusable, event by a small collection of idiots to persecute an entire political party.

In dramatic fashion over the past decade, we have endured relentless assaults on our Bill of Rights by some of the most powerful figures in the realm. An entire false narrative was developed and pursued by top bureaucrats and politicians in an attempt to overturn the 2016 election and destroy the subsequent presidency that resulted from it.

Even as we celebrate July 4, 1776 with fireworks and barbeques, we do so in an era when our centers of learning falsify the history of our nation’s founding, turning heroes into villains.  Indeed, those academics and progressives in power today would be far more comfortable, as this column has noted previously, with George III than George Washington.

As our experiment in freedom matured, it spread ever wider. Despite that, a sizeable fraction of Progressives ceaselessly strives to disunite the United States, in some cases contriving false grievances and in others rehashing wrongs that have long been rectified.

Those courageous colonists fought against the world’s mightiest empire to win their freedom (by the way, Mr. Biden, those farmers and tradesman DID have cannonballs and other weapons, despite your recent comments) against all odds to win their freedom. Despite the extreme power of the Progressive Leftists who currently dominate our society, patriots will prevail if we do not lose heart.

This fight is not unexpected. On January 5, 1967, Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural address as governor of California, warned: “Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.” A little over a hundred years prior, Abraham Lincoln, speaking at Gettysburg, proclaimed that “Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.”

The challenges today aren’t coming from armed Confederate slaveholders, but from politicians, billionaires and extremists who would turn us into slaves.