Category: Quick Analysis

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution.

Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely.

Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. 

By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. 

As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO  security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace.

“Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine.

Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a  NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals.  

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

According to energy experts, dispatchable generation refers to power sources that can be adjusted on demand by grid operators to match supply with electricity demand. Examples of dispatchable generation include coal-fired plants, natural gas plants, and large hydroelectric plants (all of which have targets on their back) that can quickly ramp up or down depending on the grid’s needs.  Dispatchable power is the capacity of these generation resources to provide reliable electricity when needed. It plays a fundamental role in grid stability by ensuring that fluctuations in demand can be met in real-time, which is critical in maintaining uninterrupted power supply and avoiding outages.

Unfortunately, for those people who want us to rely on solar and wind for all our energy needs, neither of these renewable sources are dispatchable with respect to generation or the ability to meet our needs 24/7.  This has to do with the completely intermittent and unreliable power generation from wind.  And the fact that solar generation during the day doesn’t meet the peak demand that occurs in the evening hour.  But that is only half of the story.

The LA Times recently acknowledged that the increasing oversupply (read that overkill!) of solar power in CA has created a situation where energy traders can buy our excess solar power at prices so low they become negative.  What does that mean?  We, read that consumers, must pay other states to take the excess energy off our hands lest it overload the grid.  Either that, or the solar farms must be shut down completely (they call that “curtailment”), except in those cases when solar farm operators can count on federal subsidies ($54 million in 2023) that pay out handsomely even when the energy is not needed.

Consider the following.  We used tax breaks, low interest loans, mandates, and incentives of various kinds to get all this solar built and now we are paying other states to take the electricity off our hands at CA rate payer expense.  Meanwhile, even more solar is being built.  These are a few of the reasons that the CA Public Utility Commission slashed financial incentives for roof top solar.  The LA Times reports that the State of New Mexico saved $35 million in 2022, at our expense, by taking our excess solar power.  Arizona has a 24-hour trading floor looking to buy cheap or negatively priced solar power from CA- that is how much power and money we are wasting while in our zeal we seek to eliminate dispatchable sources of electricity generation.

Zealots, like local supervisor Das Williams, will tell you that building industrial-scale battery plants can solve this problem.  But, as the Times reports, most industrial-sized batteries can only store power for four hours (not even enough to get us through the night).  In addition, battery storage effectively doubles the cost of solar.

In Britain, this same phenomenon is occurring with respect to wind power.   According to The Telegraph, British bill payers have spent an “absurd” £1bn (equivalent to $1.2 billion American) so far this year to temporarily switch off wind turbines as the grid struggles to cope with their excess power.  Sweden’s wind energy sector is also crashing financially.

In Germany, after they closed all their nuclear plants, the wind quit blowing!  What to do?  According to NPR, at least 20 coal-fired power plants nationwide are being resurrected or extended past their closing dates to ensure Germany has enough energy to get through the winter.

Additionally, as the AP reports, Germany risks “deindustrialization” as high energy costs and government inaction on other chronic problems threaten to send new factories and high-paying jobs elsewhere.  For instance, Volkswagen is projected to close three factories and lay off 10,000 workers due to electricity costs, EV mandates, and the inability to compete with Chinese EV imports.

Unfortunately, here in the echo chamber we call home, our green virtue-signaling leaders believe that we can never have enough solar and wind, making us consumers gluttons for high electricity bills.  The real problem, they believe, are the remaining few sources of dispatchable energy, e.g. natural gas, which they are trying to eliminate.  The elimination of this vital dispatchable and ubiquitous clean energy source comes by way of prohibiting both production and consumption.  Yet, natural gas is one of the only things propping up the green energy facade, while giving consumers an affordable alternative to wind and solar generated electricity.  And don’t get me started about CA’s shutdown of oil production which is leading to the closure of our gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel refineries which is going to cause a similar energy death spiral with respect to our transportation sector.

 Andy Caldwell is the Executive Director of COLAB Santa Barbara County

Photo: Pixabay

As is well known, for a jury to find a defendant guilty of a crime, that jury must be convinced that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  According to the New York State Jury Instructions, “[a] reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant’s guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.”

The fact that the Medical Examiner came to her conclusion without benefit of the toxicology report, and the fact that those drugs contributed to Neely’s death, would be enough to create a reasonable doubt that Penny had acted recklessly. The testimony from the DA’s own witnesses, attesting to their fear of Neely, would also serve to establish the justification defense.

Nevertheless, the jury deadlocked during deliberations on the top count, Manslaughter.  They could not agree on whether or not Penny had acted in a reckless fashion in restraining Neely.

It was then that something strange and unprecedented happened.

 As described by The New York Post, after the jury had sent out their second note reporting that they could not agree on the first count, “[t]he judge suggested that he might consider ordering a mistrial in the whole case rather than order one on just the top charge as jurors considered weighing the second. Wiley said he would have done this so as not to lead to a ‘compromise verdict, which New York state courts try to avoid’… Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran could then be seen pacing around the courtroom on her cell phone and talking to District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office staff in the front row of the gallery. The veteran homicide prosecutor left the room, but returned minutes later alongside Steven Wu, the chief of the DA’s office’s appeals bureau. Wu then argued to the judge that axing the manslaughter charge would eliminate the threat of a compromised split verdict.” 

Despite a strenuous objection from the defense, Judge Wiley agreed to dismiss the top count. “‘I’ll take a chance and grant the people’s application,’ Wiley said, instructing the jury to return Monday and deliberate the charge of criminally negligent homicide.”

Take a chance?  With a man facing years of imprisonment?

The defense argued that dismissing the top count at this stage of the trial “presented a violation of state laws and could encourage a precedent where prosecutors overcharge from the start, knowing they can downgrade charges later on the fly if their case doesn’t stand up. ‘[There is a]  risk here of a coercive verdict or a compromised verdict…New York is clear that compromised verdicts are discouraged,’ Penny’s lawyers told the judge. ‘It would force them into what we would submit would be manufactured, as to the lesser count of criminal negligence.'” 

In other words, Penny’s lawyers believed that dismissing the Manslaughter charge just because the jury couldn’t agree on that charge, would signal to the jury that they should convict on the Criminal Negligence charge.

What Judge Wiley seems to have forgotten is that dismissal of the top count was unnecessary.  Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 310.70, “[i]f the possibility of ultimate agreement with respect to the other submitted offenses…is so small…the court would be authorized to discharge the jury…the court must terminate the deliberation and order the jury to render a partial verdict with respect to those offenses and defendants upon which or with respect to whom it has reached a verdict.” 

This means that the Judge could have ordered the jury to bypass the Manslaughter charge, go ahead and deliberate on the Criminal Negligence charge, and if they could agree on that charge, either come back to the Manslaughter charge, or report their verdict on the Criminal Negligence charge.

Did Judge Wiley want to see a conviction so badly that he forgot this fundamental rule of trial?  Was he on the side of the prosecution , and decided to tip the scales in their favor? Or did he just not care, and want the trial over with one way or another?  In any of these scenarios, Judge Wiley created an appellate issue for Daniel Penny that would have certainly led to the reversal of any conviction.

If the Court meant to signal to the jury that they should convict on the Criminal Negligence charge, that hint backfired.  When the jury returned to their deliberations, Penny was quickly acquitted of the remaining charge. 

To “take a chance” and follow the advice of Alvin Bragg’s office, rather than research the law applicable to the situation points to a disturbing trend in the New York Courts.  We have witnessed the unfair and frankly illegal trial conducted by Judge Juan Merchan in New York County Supreme Court. https://www.usagovpolicy.com/did-trump-receive-a-fair-trial/ Now we have witnessed a possibly inadvertent, but just as unfair, attempt to place a thumb on the scales of justice against a criminal defendant in a politically charged case.

At this stage, it is fair to ask if the judges who sit in New York County Supreme Court are fair and impartial, or if they are there to enforce the will of Alvin Bragg and his brand of racial and progressive injustice.

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

Photo: Pixabay

In January of this year  and then in October,  we discussed the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg against former Marine Daniel Penny.  Bragg accused Penny of killing aggressive panhandler Jordan Neely by placing Neely in a chokehold. Penny asserted that he was acting in defense of himself and his fellow passengers – Neely had been in the process of threatening a group of passengers on a New York City subway car when Penny subdued him.

At that time, prior to the trial of this matter, we noted that Penny, who is white, was charged with criminally causing the death of Neely, who was black. At the same time, we reviewed a series of cases where Manhattan DA Bragg did not bring charges when the alleged perpetrator was black, even when the victim was of the same race.  Bragg also dropped charges for agitators, so long as they were engaged in progressive protests. 

We observed that “[s]ince his election, Alvin Bragg has used the power and authority of his office to prosecute people who have a strong self-defense claim, usually when that person is defending them self or others against someone who is African American.  Bragg has also failed to prosecute individuals who engage in civil disorder, so long as those persons are acting in support of causes of which Bragg and his fellow progressives approve.”

Bragg indicted Penny for two charges; Manslaughter in the Second Degree, and Criminally Negligent Homicide.  Under Penal Law Section 125.15, a person is guilty

of Manslaughter in the Second Degree when “he recklessly causes the death of another person.”   Meanwhile, to be guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide, under Penal Law Section 125.10, you must “cause the death of another person” while acting with “criminal negligence.” Both are felonies under New York law.

“Criminal Negligence” is defined at Penal Law Section 15.05, which states that “[a] person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” 

These statutes and definitions must be kept in mind as we discuss the arguments and evidence in the trial of Daniel Penny, which commenced in early November before Judge Maxwell Wiley in Manhattan Supreme Court (in New York, the District, or Superior Court, is called the Supreme Court). 

As described by CNN,  in her opening statement to the jury, the trial prosecutor, Dafna Yoran, stated that “Neely walked into a…subway car and began screaming threats. He talked about being hungry and thirsty. His voice was loud…[i]n response, ‘The defendant Daniel Penny took it upon himself to neutralize him. He wrapped his legs around Mr. Neely’s body and held him there…[h]e continued to choke Jordan Neely after Mr. Neely had lost consciousness.’”

The prosecutor also emphasized that “Penny has specialized training in chokeholds, ‘so he knew that continuing to choke Mr. Neely once he had already passed out could and would lead to his death’…[t]he prosecutor said Penny ‘went way too far.’”

CNN also detailed the opening statement made by defense attorney Thomas Kenniff, who told the jury that “Penny was responding to a threat on the subway when he moved to restrain Neely and put him in a chokehold. Kenniff said ‘seething, psychotic Jordan Neely’ displayed ‘unhinged rage,’ causing the passengers on the train – men, women and children – to cower in fear. As Neely screamed about being hungry and thirsty, Kenniff said, the environment changed when Neely took off his jacket, whipped it around his head and dropped it on the ground with such force the train fell silent. ‘At that moment Danny sees a mother barricading her son behind a stroller just as Mr. Neely appears to go for them,’ Kenniff said. ‘(Danny) hears the words, ‘I will kill.’ When Jordan Neely threatened to kill, there was only one thing Daniel Penny could do.’”

In essence, the defense presented a ‘justification” defense, which is described by the New York State Jury Instructions as follows: : “a person may use physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of [unlawful ] physical force by such individual.” 

From the beginning, the weakness of the prosecution’s case, and the strength of the justification defense was obvious.  ABC News described “[w]itnesses [who] testified they were scared for their lives and thanked Daniel Penny for intervening…’I heard the young man that’s on the floor saying, you know hey, I’m willing to die. You know, I’ll do anything. I’ll go to jail. I don’t care. I don’t care,’ Alethea Gittings said on body camera footage… A mother on the train with her 5-year-old told the court that Neely was ‘very erratic and unpredictable.’ She also said, ‘My son started asking me questions, ‘why did he want to go to prison,’ and also testified, ‘I actually took the stroller that I had and put it in front of my son to create a barrier.'” 

The strongest evidence for the prosecution’s argument that Penny recklessly caused the death of Neely came from Medical Examiner Cynthia Harris, who claimed that Neely’s death was caused by compression of the neck.  Yet, Harris made this determination without waiting for a toxicology report. . That report “revealed Neely had a synthetic cannabinoid otherwise known as K2 in his system,” yet the ME refused to acknowledge that either the drugs, or Neely’s sickle cell anemia had anything to do with his death. “Harris doubled down, telling the jury that Neely could have had enough fentanyl in his system to knock down an elephant and that still would not have changed her opinion.” 

This testimony was challenged by Dr. Satish Chundru, a forensic pathologist, called to testify as an expert witness for the defense. “Chundru testified [that] it was his opinion that ‘the chokehold did not cause death’…Chundru explained [that] in order for it to be a chokehold death, you have to put enough consistent pressure to render someone unconscious and sustain that pressure for an extended period of time. Using diagrams and the video of Penny and Neely from the subway incident, he told the jury it did not appear Penny applied a proper air or blood choke…[Further,] Chundru told the jury he believed the cause of death was the ‘combined effect of sickle cell crisis, the schizophrenia, the struggle and restraint, and the synthetic marijuana.'” 

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

Photo: Pixabay

Hot spots around the world are so numerous at the close of 2024 that the media is unable to provide adequate coverage. One evolving area is located in a nation-state that once sought to move close to the West and NATO. In a November 28 message, Georgia’s Prime Minister, Irakli Kobakhidze s announced the country is suspending integration talks with the European Union (EU) and imposing additional authoritarian measures. The government clampdown has sparked a “pre-revolutionary” environment in the country, according to Beja Chedia of the European Daily Monitor. In response to those demonstrations the Georgian government further intensified repression against the opposition who are protesting across the country. Palitravideo.ge says that David Zankaliani, the Georgian Ambassador to the United States, and previously the country’s Foreign Minister from the Georgian Dream Party, along with several other Georgian officials resigned last week. 

Chedia adds that “Georgian Dream has been taking steps to suppress any potential uprising and demonstrate its strong relations with the United States and the incoming Donald Trump administration to appease the Georgian people by means of disinformation and propaganda.” In Georgia, the population believes that it is up to the United States and other western countries now to respond to Kobakhidze or risk losing Georgia as an ally. Others argue that the ruling elite may eventually strengthen ties to Russia to help them retain power.

Protests and strikes have spread across Georgia since the end of November. The public is accusing the government of election fraud, seeking to re-establish a Russian-style authoritarian rule, and cracking down on dissenting voices. Over the last few weeks, the government has arrested hundreds of people, with many beaten, maimed, and imprisoned. The numbers include women and young teenagers, journalists, ordinary citizens, opposition political leaders and civil activists. The list is growing longer.  

Earlier this week, Georgia’s public defender, Levan Ioseliani, warned that if the unrest does not stop, the whole country will descend into civil war. On December 8, TV Pirveli reported that an unidentified masked group attacked journalists from an opposition TV channel live on air. While the ruling Georgian Dream party denied involvement in the incident, Chedia says that local media reports suggest that government agencies were behind the attacks. “As Georgians continue to protest Georgian Dream’s path away from EU integration and toward authoritarianism, Georgia’s Western turn becomes increasingly at risk,” he adds.

The government has introduced new legislative restrictions similar to repressive tactics seen in Russia as it views its current measures ineffective in addressing the mass protests. On December 8, through official channels, the prime minister announced that by January 1, 2025, there would be a new law prohibiting face coverings for those participating in public demonstrations. It is similar to a law approved by the pro-Russian regime in Ukraine in 2014 during the Euromaidan demonstrations. It went into effect as protests broke out when then-President Viktor Yanukovych decided to not sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. Protesters in Georgia are growing more concerned that police will continue to use tear gas and be targeted by special services for further retribution.

Georgian Dream and its supporters are making claims that in the coming week, from December 16-20, Western nations are planning to  support a revolution inside the country. In response the government is taking steps to halt the opposition, claiming that Georgia does not want a Velvet Revolution like that in Ukraine in 2014. Chedia points out that Mamuka Mdinaradze, the leader of the parliamentary majority, claims Georgian Dream was able to foil these supposed plans by revoking the licenses of schools of higher education who students and teachers went on strike after November 28. Leaders of the ruling elite, including the mayor of Tbilisi, have begun openly threatening state and local employees who signed a petition condemning the government’s latest actions. They are proposing a “reorganization” of government workers that could mean massive job losses for those opposing the repression.

 “The scale and content of misinformation in pro-Georgian Dream media have reached an incredible level, even going as far as promoting US politicians loyal to the incoming Trump administration,” says Chedia. At the end of November, the Biden Administration announced it was ending its strategic partnership with Georgia, which began in 2009. Kobakhidze addressed the decision, saying that Georgia’s strategic partnership with the United States had no practical significance because “we did not have direct flights, a visa-free regime, or a free trade regime.” President-elect Trump met with the countries pro-Western president, Salome Zourabichvili in Paris on December 7. The meeting was welcomed by the Georgian people as a positive sign that Washington understands the need for a strong bilateral relationship.

The incoming Trump administration needs to act decisively and quickly to avoid Georgia’s tilt toward authoritarian rule. If Washington falters in the coming months, some local observers believe that the Georgian Dream Party will move closer to Russia to retain power. Such a move could open the door for further Russian moves into Central Asia, further destabilizing the region.

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

Photo: Pixabay

While the fall of Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad has positive elements to it, the fact is that several elements of the forces, including Al-Qaeda and ISIS, that will replace his oppressive rule are not much better.  Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, otherwise known as HTS, is a U.S. and UN designated terrorist organization.

Al-Qaeda, of course, was founded by the terrorist leader behind the 9/11 assault, Osama bib Laden. ISIS has been behind terrorist activities worldwide.

President Biden spoke on December 9 with King Abdullah II of Jordan. The President emphasized his full support for a Syrian-led transition process under the auspices of the United Nations as outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. He also discussed the situation in eastern Syria to include the U.S. commitment to the D-ISIS mission, including the strikes conducted…against a concentration of ISIS fighters and leaders. 

Secretary of Defense Austin spoke with Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler to discuss the developments in Syria.  During the call, Austin emphasized that the U.S. is watching closely the various Syrian opposition groups’ statements and actions in the wake of Assad’s overthrow. 

Both leaders agreed that the opposition groups must take steps to protect civilians, including ethnic and religious minorities, and follow international humanitarian norms, according to a summary of the discussion provided by Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder. 

They also reaffirmed the importance of close coordination between the United States and Turkey to prevent further escalation of an already volatile situation, as well as to avoid any risk to U.S. forces and partners, and the Defeat-ISIS Mission

During the Obama Administration, the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from the area allowed the ISIS Caliphate to gain power. Subsequently, the Trump Administration was able to fairly expeditiously make up for the errors of its predecessor and defeat the terrorist organization, but ISIS survived in a much-weakened state.

The United States continues to battle ISIS, notes the Pentagon. According to  Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh, the U.S. Central Command will continue to work to prevent the militant group from reestablishing a foothold in the country following the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime over the weekend.  “Centcom, together with allies and partners in the region, will continue to carry out operations to degrade ISIS capabilities, even during this dynamic period in Syria,” Singh said.  

In pursuit of its goal to prevent ISIS’ return to power, U.S. forces conducted precision airstrikes against seventy-five targets in central Syria on December 7 against known ISIS camps and operatives. U.S. Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft struck more than 75 targets.  

Russia has suffered a major loss with Assad’s  (who is now in Moscow) fall from power. According to the Moscow Times, “At least 543 Russian soldiers and mercenaries were killed during Russia’s almost decade-long military intervention in Syria’s civil war, according to a tally by BBC Russia.” The Kremlin has a major air base in Khmeimim, and a key naval base in Tartus.

Andrew Neil, writing for the Daily Mail, reports that “The biggest losers, by far, from the collapse of the Syrian dictatorship yesterday — other than the brutal Assad family and its thuggish acolytes — are the ruling mullahs of Iran. Their dreams of Middle East hegemony are now in ruins, their genocidal aim of wiping Israel off the map now mission impossible, their ability to supply their murderous proxies across the region with weapons and boots on the ground now crippled.”

Assad had amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons and long range rockets which Israel’s defense forces have now attacked and secured. secured.

North Korea’s entry into Putin’s Ukraine invasion opens up a new and dangerous era.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced at the end of October that “it appears that North Korean troops will enter combat against Ukraine……We now assess that North Korea has sent around 10,000 of its soldiers to train in eastern Russia…Our most recent information indicates that about 8,000 of those soldiers are now in the Kursk Oblast.”

Austin said Russian forces have trained the North Korean soldiers in artillery operations, unmanned aerial vehicle operations and basic infantry tactics to include trench clearing. Austin also stated that the Kremlin has also provided these troops with Russian uniforms and equipment, and “all of that strongly indicates that Russia intends to use these foreign forces in frontline operations in its war of choice against Ukraine…”

Moscow and Pyongyang signed a strategic partnership treaty in June that guarantees mutual military support

Russian sources note that “North Korea will support Russia in the Ukraine conflict for as long as it takes, Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui has said, adding that Pyongyang has no doubts that Moscow will emerge victorious. Speaking at a meeting with her Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in Moscow on Friday, Choe noted that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “gave us an order to firmly and powerfully support and assist the Russian army and the Russian people in their holy war.” 

Nicholas Eberstadt, writing in the Washington Post, “With the dispatch of thousands of North Korean special forces toward the front lines in Russia’s war against Ukraine …the emerging contours of global struggle in the post-Cold War era are coming into sharper focus. As North Korean soldiers head into possible combat in Europe — the degree of their ultimate military involvement might turn out to be much greater than generally appreciated.”

Regional governments have designated the Pyongyang regime as a major threat to the indo-pacific area. An Australian government analysis conducted a number of years ago

North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un has increased his belligerent threats far beyond even his previous bellicose levels, and backed up that rhetoric with specific, clear, and provocative actions.

This autumn, a Hwasongpho-19 missile capable of reaching the United States was launched, reaching an altitude of 4,300 miles. Expert observers believe that Pyongyang’s nuclear missile program has progressed with the assistance of Russia, a possible payoff for granting significant assistance in the Ukraine invasion.

Russia’s trading off of nuclear and missile technology to North Korea  in return for military assistance in the Ukrainian invasion is not an isolated instance. A Washington Institute study warned that “Russia could also contribute to a potential future Iranian nuclear weapons effort by providing technology and know-how, whether covertly or openly. For instance, Russian scientists could help Iran advance its R&D on delivery systems, warhead development, and miniaturization, or collaborate on dual-use research relevant to weaponization… the Russian government has not viewed Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons with the same degree of alarm as the West”

An analysis by the Just Security publication revealed that “ North Korea now possesses credible nuclear strike capacities threatening Japan, South Korea, China, and even possibly the United States….Kim Jong Un has …escalated North Korea’s hostility and defiance toward the U.N. system and most of its member States, launching an increasing number of long-range missiles and conducting nuclear detonations in 2013, 2016, and 2017, the last of which may have been a thermonuclear fusion device, a technology allowing smaller warheads. Its reactors are reportedly producing both uranium and plutonium. North Korea now possesses credible nuclear strike capacities threatening Japan, South Korea, China, and even possibly the United States.”

Illustration: Pixabay

A key Fundamental issue facing the nation was left comparatively undiscussed by the media in the 2024 Presidential campaign.

There have been contentious debates on a number of issues. Inflation that has devastated family budgets, international crises that have spun out of control, a border that been left open, all have received attention.

But the violations of the most basic underpinnings of American rights remain relatively ignored.

An Investor’s Business Daily  noted several years ago that “Hillary Clinton and other leaders in her party…have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights …Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution…the fact that a major U.S. political party — which still considers itself mainstream — is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming….”

Take a closer look at the precarious state of our Bill of Rights.

First, and perhaps foremost, the continued assault on the Bill of Rights. The stunning attacks on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee are utterly unprecedented. From Senator Schumer’s (D-NY) proclamation that “the First Amendment is not absolute” to the Biden Administration’s continued attempts to label opposing views “misinformation” that could be banned, and John Kerry’s blatant advocacy of censorship, attempts to shelve this most basic right are becoming overwhelming. In just one example, A federal appeals court ruled last year that the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment in its relations with social media companies.

The Second Amendment was included as a measure to protect all the other rights. The chorus of support for making this right an anachronism grows constantly louder.

The Fourth Amendment is shrinking under relentless assaults from the current White House.  For example, a court opinion found that the FBI wrongly searched foreign surveillance data for the last names of a U.S. senator and a state senator. An NBC report noted that the “FBI ran a query using the Social Security number of a state judge.” FISA Section 702 is so broad that it has been liberally used by Democrats to assault pollical opponents, completely disregarding the right to privacy.

The Sixth Amendment provides a right to legal counsel. In its relentless lawfare against its political rival, the Biden Justice Department has ignored this. Commentator Mark Levin, quoted by retired Judge John Wilson,  notes that it has “been pierced in a serial nature when it applies to Donald Trump…(t)his is just more evidence of the unraveling of our liberties…(o)ur civil liberties are being violated…(i)f they can do this to Donald Trump or if they can drag lawyers in front of grand juries…take their testimony…Well, what’s left?”  

Two amendments, the Ninth and Tenth, have been violated repeatedly, not just recently, but for decades as the federal government has grown far beyond the role envisioned by those who composed the Bill of Rights.  The wording of those two bears repeating, for upon doing so, it reminds us of the shocking disregard for them:

AMENDMENT IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X:  The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited to it by the States, are reserved by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Consider the vast powers that Washington has amassed to itself, in so many different areas.  Passing not just laws but bureaucratic regulations that directly infringe upon the rights of not just individual citizens but the authority of state governments as well, overtly and defiantly ignoring both of these portions of the Bill of Rights.

The preservation of the Bill of Rights is crucial to the continued existence of the United States as a free people and a Constitutional Republic. It is a fundamental issue that was absent in media discussion about the 2024 election.  

The State of California is ramping up its war on oil and agriculture and, as a result, California is heading for some desperate times.

The war on oil includes production, trucking, and consumption.  The war on production includes banning fracking, drilling with 3,200 feet from so-called sensitive receptors, and a new bill that allows cities, counties, and voters to outright ban construction of new oil and gas wells in their community.  Another law requires gasoline refineries to have enough gasoline on hand to prevent price spikes that can create temporary shortages during the time the plants are shutdown to do maintenance.  Unless the companies can build enormous storage tanks to store any extra production in advance of the maintenance closure, the new law presents an impossible scenario. 

All this begs the question why any oil company would invest in California?  They won’t.  In fact, many are shutting down operations and leaving California.  Because in addition to these restraints on production, the state has also issued various death sentences on the ability to deliver oil by way of banning new pipelines or preventing the repair of existing lines (Sable, formerly Exxon, continues to run the gauntlet of agencies that just want to say no to restarting the Gaviota coast pipeline and plant).  The County of SLO blocked the construction of additional rail spurs that ended up causing Phillips 66 to close their Nipomo refinery and convert their gasoline refinery in the Bay Area to biofuels.  The county of Santa Barbara has also limited the ability to truck oil which explains why most of the oil production in the Santa Maria Valley has been shut down ever since the Nipomo refinery was shut down.  Then we have the closure of two Phillip 66 plants in Los Angeles that have been in production for 100 years for all the aforementioned reasons.  Meanwhile, California must now import 75% of the oil it consumes.

Of course, the biggest death blow to the future of the industry are the state mandates in effect that will effectively ban natural gas in new construction along with banning the sale of diesel- and gas-powered vehicles in this state.  The latter has already caused the largest trucking company in our region to close their business. 

The war on fossil fuels affects agriculture because all their equipment runs on diesel.  Farmers will have no ability to charge electric vehicles in the middle of a farm field.  Moreover, many of the products farmers use to destroy pests and diseases are also derived from fossil fuels, not to mention the fertilizers that help the plants grow vigorously.

This war on agriculture has a new and disturbing component to it.  Every county in our state has an Agricultural Commissioner who is charged with many duties including ensuring that only safe and approved herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are used and applied in accordance with the laws which have served to ensure the safest food supply in the world. 

However, just a few months ago, the president of the State Association of Ag Commissioners was forced to write a scathing letter to state officials complaining about how environmental justice warriors were tag-teaming with the State Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) in such a manner as to hinder the ability of the ag commissioners to do their job of protecting farmworkers, the public and the environment through the enforcement of current pesticide laws and regulations. 

Specifically, the letter expressed disappointment that DPR continues to cater to these stakeholders that support and facilitate false narratives such as the recent “Toxic Tour” of the Santa Maria Valley that DPR cosponsored with the local activist group CAUSE.

Finally, a state law known as SGMA, the State Groundwater Management Act, is a perfect example of the state mandating scarcity rather than creating abundance.  The law is causing ag property values to plummet in the state because it is serving to cut off groundwater use for agriculture.  The point here is that voters have authorized billions in bond measures to build more dam and reservoir capacity, but nothing has been built.  Hence, in the name of managing water, the state is effectively cutting off groundwater supplies to farmers.  Need I remind anyone that without water the farmer simply owns a bunch of dirt!  Hence, we now have the California dust belt emerging in the San Joaquin Valley which used to be the most productive ag land in the world.

How long before consumers figure out that this war on oil, trucking, and farming (not to mention our electricity and water rates) is a war against their very livelihood?   

Andy Caldwell is a distinguished radio host and government watchdog.

Photo: Pixabay

In June of 2024, Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was convicted of three federal felony charges after a jury trial in a Federal District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.  According to the Associated Press, “Jurors found Hunter Biden guilty of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.” 

At that time, the AP also noted that “President Joe Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the verdict that he would accept the outcome and ‘continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.’”

In September, the President’s son plead guilty to three felony tax charges, as well as six misdemeanor charges in a Los Angeles federal court.  The US Attorney’s Office stated that “Hunter Biden engaged in a four-year scheme in which he chose not to pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019 and to evade the assessment of taxes for tax year 2018 when he filed false returns.”  

Since this second conviction, President Biden has stated, either through his Press Secretary or in person, that he would not use his Presidential power to issue a pardon for his son.  For instance, “[i]n July [of 2023], Fox News’ Mark Meredith asked Jean-Pierre if there was any possibility Biden would end up pardoning his son as Hunter was facing two counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax. ‘No,’ Jean-Pierre simply said. She also interrupted an attempted following up question saying, ‘I just said no,’ before moving on to another reporter.”  

In June of 2024, “President Joe Biden said he would not pardon his son Hunter amid an ongoing felony gun trial during a[n]…exclusive interview with ABC News anchor David Muir at the Normandy American Cemetery on the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Muir asked Biden…if he would accept the outcome of his son’s trial in Wilmington, Delaware, to which the president said, ‘Yes.’ Biden also said ‘yes’ when asked by Muir if he would rule out a pardon for Hunter.” 

Many in the media took Biden at his word.  As described by the Daily Mail, “MSNBC host and Biden’s former press secretary Jen Psaki described the President’s decision as evidence of his principled honor and character. ‘[T]he justice system that convicted his only surviving son is the same justice system he vowed to protect,’ Psaki said in June. ‘If that doesn’t tell you who Joe Biden is, I don’t really know what does.’ MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski cited Biden’s decision as evidence that he was a more respectful president than former President Donald Trump. ‘The current president of the United States has so much respect for the law that he has said he would not pardon his son, again, it’s all about the contrast,’ she said.” 

A man who has “vowed to protect” the justice system.  A man with “respect for the law.”  A man who said, in no uncertain words that he would “accept the outcome” of his son’s trial and “continue to respect the judicial process.” This is the man Psaki, Brzezinski and Jean-Pierre would have you believe is the real Joseph Biden.

But most of us know better.  Most of us who have followed the corrupt history of the Biden crime family know better. And knowing better, are any of us really surprised that Joe Biden lied through his teeth to the American people about pardoning his son before his term as President expires?

“President Joe Biden announced Sunday [December 1] that he has pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who faced sentencing this month for federal tax and gun convictions…’Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter,’ the president said in a statement. It is a ‘full and unconditional pardon,’ according to a copy of the executive grant of clemency…The pardon means Hunter Biden won’t be sentenced for his crimes, and it eliminates any chance that he’ll be sent to prison, which was a possibility…The broadly crafted pardon explicitly grants clemency for the tax and gun offenses from his existing cases, plus any potential federal crimes that Hunter Biden may have committed ‘from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.’ This time frame, importantly, covers his entire tenure on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and much of his other overseas work, including in China.”

Yes, we on the right knew Biden was nothing more than a liar, but the outrage expressed by Republican members of Congress, while predictable, was still necessary to highlight Biden’s hypocricy. As reported by Fox News, “[o]n the heels of President Joe Biden’s move to pardon his son Hunter Biden, several Republican lawmakers highlighted a post on X from earlier this year in which the president had asserted, ‘No one is above the law.’ Reps. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and Eli Crane, R-Ariz., both shared Biden’s post and commented, ‘Unless your last name is Biden’…’You’ve been lied to every step of the way by this Administration and the corrupt Biden family. This is just the latest in their long coverup scheme. They never play by the same rules they force on everyone else. Disgraceful,’ Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., declared in response to the old Biden tweet.” 

The sweeping nature of the pardon gave rise to the inevitable comparisons with Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.  According to Politico, “’I have never seen language like this in a pardon document that purports to pardon offenses that have not apparently even been charged, with the exception of the Nixon pardon,’ said Margaret Love, who served from 1990 to 1997 as the U.S. pardon attorney, a Justice Department position devoted to assisting the president on clemency issues…rather than merely pardoning his son for the gun crimes for which he was convicted and the tax crimes for which he pleaded guilty, the president’s pardon covers all ‘offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in’ from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024. That language mirrors the language in Ford’s pardon of Nixon, which did not merely cover the Watergate scandal but extended to ‘all offenses against the United States’ that Nixon ‘has committed or may have committed’ between Jan. 20, 1969, and Aug. 9, 1974 – the exact span of Nixon’s presidency.” 

Republican Ford’s pardon of Republican Nixon is not the only controversial pardon to have occurred before this one.  As described by Time, “[i]n 1983, financier Marc Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland. Clinton’s eleventh-hour move…outraged Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rich pardon sparked an investigation into whether it was bought by the hefty donations Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had given to the Clintons and the Democrats. In the end, investigators did not find enough evidence to indict Clinton.” 

Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne spoke with one of the original Rich prosecutors, Martin Auerbach. “’I voted for Clinton three times,’ said Auerbach, who…was referring to his presidential votes in 1992 and 1996, and his ballot for Hillary Clinton in [2000’s] Senate contest. ‘I’ve defended Clinton for years. I always felt that the rules had changed around him. But this creates a whole different question in my mind.’ The problem with Rich is that ‘he thumbed his nose at the law every single time the country responded to a crisis,’ whether the matter was the energy crisis or the hostage crisis in Iran. ‘You may think tax rates are too high,’ Auerbach said. ‘But to unilaterally evade taxes on $100 million is not the way to go.’ Auerbach, still a political progressive, offers what should be a very troubling observation for liberals. ‘Think of all the kids who hot-wire cars and go to jail. They don’t get to choose between going behind bars or spending a rather comfortable exile.’ And he adds: ‘I sure would like an explanation from the former president: What was he thinking?’” 

Its pretty obvious, given the donations made by Rich’s wife to Team Clinton, what Bill was thinking.  Its also just as obvious what “Big Guy” Biden was thinking when he pardoned his son (and bagman) Hunter.  According to the woman he hired to lie for him, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, “‘One of the reasons the president did the pardon is because they didn’t seem like his political opponents would let go of it. It didn’t seem like they would move on,’ she told reporters on Air Force One during a trip to Angola. ‘They would continue to go after his son. That’s what he believed.'”

This effort to protect his son may have been yet another miscalculation by President Biden. According to the Denver Gazette, “Hunter Biden may no longer have the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent if called to testify under oath for his actions over the past 11 years after President Joe Biden pardoned the first son, legal experts say…[u]nder the Fifth Amendment, people can refuse to answer questions if their responses might incriminate them in criminal cases. However, with all criminal liability now erased by the pardon, Hunter Biden could face contempt charges if he refuses to testify before congressional panels. ‘Well, this now makes it much easier for a GOP Senate/House to call Hunter as a witness about his and his dad’s connections to Ukraine, etc. because the pardon prevents Hunter from asserting the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself,’ Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of the Four Boxes Diner legal analysis show, wrote on X.” 

Of course, this theory is predicated on Congressional investigations of the Biden Presidency continuing under a Trump Presidency, something many of us expect to occur.  There is also a chance that Donald Trump will concentrate on the economy, controlling illegal immigration, preventing a spread of the wars in the Ukraine and Israel, and not have time to encourage Congressional action against his Democrat enemies.   

Regardless, there is one concept involved here that is no theory – the President of the United States does have the power to grant this pardon to anyone, including his son. 

Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, “[t]he President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” As described at Constitution Annotated, “[t]he power, which has historical roots in early English law, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to ‘forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions.” 

Constitution Annotated does note that besides a Presidential pardon not being available for those who have been impeached, “clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States, meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.” Further, “the [Supreme] Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission, reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct.”

Thus, President Biden has the authority to give his son immunity for any crimes committed between 2014 and 2024, but not for any future federal crimes.  Biden also cannot pardon Hunter for any State level criminal charges.  This interpretation is also supported by the US Attorney’s Office, Office of the Pardon Attorney, who state clearly that “the President’s authority to grant clemency is limited to federal offenses…[a]n offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States.” 

This does tend to raise a question.  While Biden’s pardon of Hunter should cover any state charges predicated on violations of federal law, many federal crimes have state law counterparts.  For instance, in violating federal income tax reporting laws, Hunter Biden probably also violated Delaware state tax reporting laws.  Could then a Delaware State Prosecutor bring charges against Hunter Biden for these violations of state tax law?

Based upon the limitations placed upon the Presidential Pardon Power described above, the answer should be yes, so long as the Statute of Limitations has not expired for these charges.  But in reality, the local prosecutor in Wilmington, Delaware, Jack Stollsteimer, is a Democrat who has reportedly received funding for his campaign from George Soros.   How likely would Stollsteimer be to prosecute the son of soon to be former President Joe Biden?

Thus, while we acknowledge that Joe Biden has the authority to give his son clemency, we are left with the uncomfortable feeling that this pardon is an abuse of that authority, especially after telling the American people he would do no such thing.  We are left with the same feeling that Martin Auerbach had after watching his political idol, Bill Clinton, pardon a man who “thumbed his nose” at the law while “kids who hot wire cars go to jail.”  The same unhappy feeling those on the left had watching Ford pardon Nixon.

But at the same time, we who have studied the career of Joe Biden are not surprised.  We know Joe Biden to be a disreputable criminal who had no business being President of the United States.  We know that his son is also a criminal who has enjoyed the protection of his powerful father for years. 

The only surprise here is that Joe Biden cares so little for his legacy, that he is willing to go down in history as a abject liar, with a word that’s worth less than that of his Press Secretary, and a hypocrite, who dared to claim no one is above the law, while placing his son…beyond the reach of justice.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC