Category: Quick Analysis

The United States has entered into a post-reality era, in which facts, logic and truth have apparently become irrelevant.  The problem affects thinking, politics and policy on both domestic and foreign issues.

One salient example can be seen in the protests on college campuses, that illustrates the warped intellect that has replaced actual information and realism in public discourse.  The organization, “Queers for Palestine,” has advocated in favor of a middle eastern movement that has punished homosexuality with death.  Those who have sought to inform the members of the incongruity of their position have been met with rage, threats and taunts.

On a far greater scale is the issue of human-made climate change. Whether or not one subscribes to the existence of it, the reality is that none of the “solutions” advocated would have any significant impact on the matter.

Writing in Current Affairs, Benjamin Zycher notes that “The implicit assertion of various climate proposals is that they would, upon implementation, yield significant beneficial effects. Yet curiously, their proponents almost never specify the future effects in terms of temperatures and other important climate measurements. The reality is that even policies that would most aggressively reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would likely have only very small effects on climate…Even if we were to incorporate assumptions that exaggerate the impact of reduced greenhouse-gas emissions, full implementation of the “net-zero” emissions goals of the Biden administration would reduce global temperatures by 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100. That effect would be barely detectable given normal variation in the global temperature record. 

James Temple, who believes climate change is an existential threat, noted in MIT Technology Review that “We simply don’t know whether some of these proposed interventions will actually work on large scales, or what negative effects they could have on complex and interconnected ecosystems, says David Ho, an oceanography professor at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa who studies ocean-based carbon removal. These are also real dangers that plowing ahead into areas where the public is deeply uncomfortable will stall, not speed up, research in these fields.”

Progressive policies such as Universal Basic Income have become popular with the U.S. left recently. It’s not altogether new. The question of how it would be funded seems to have been downplayed. As far back as 2015, even the leftist-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that “There are over 300 million Americans today.  Suppose UBI provided everyone with $10,000 a year.  That would cost more than $3 trillion a year — and $30 trillion to $40 trillion over ten years. This single-year figure equals more than three-fourths of the entire yearly federal budget — and double the entire budget outside Social Security, Medicare, defense, and interest payments.  It’s also equal to close to 100 percent of all tax revenue the federal government collects.”

Nevertheless, many Democrats continue to advocate for it.

The increasingly urgent threat of a significant conflict looms large. China’s navy is vastly larger than America’s, and it uses its force to invade areas belonging to a U.S. ally. Iran, whose leaders have pledged “Death to America,” is about to get a nuclear arsenal. Russia’s Putin continues his invasion of Ukraine, and possess the planet’s most powerful atomic arsenal. Yet the media barely discusses the issue with candidates. The Biden-Harris Administration has proposed defense budgets that actually, accounting for inflation, reduces funds for the Pentagon.

The Democratic Party has nominated a candidate who steadfastly refuses to provide policy specifics, and denies responsibility for many of the most important policy positions she has taken during her five years in the Senate and almost four years as Vice President. Despite, literally, thousands of newspaper, internet, and electronic media articles proclaiming her the “border Czar,” the post-truth media, with limited exceptions, assists her evasion of any responsibility for the disastrous problems caused by the illegal immigrants flooding into the country during her watch. The crises facing America are complex, even existential. The failure of progressive politicians and their media supporters to address them honestly and factually presents an unprecedented level of danger.

Photo: Pixabay

It seems you can’t have a Presidential election anymore without a dreaded “October Surprise.”  For those unfamiliar with this phrase, according to Rutgers Today, “[t]he term was popularized in 1980. As president, Jimmy Carter could not get the Iranian hostages released, and his failure was one of the main reasons he was losing in the polls to Ronald Reagan. The October Surprise was going to be his last-minute success in getting them out. Obviously, it never happened…[n]ow the term refers to any late-breaking major news that upends the presidential election.” 

Since the 1980 election, there have been a series of revelations about various candidates, or events that have affected the race; “In October 1992, former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. George Bush Sr. was already behind in the polls, but this was seen as one more blow to his bid for a second term.”  However, other “October Surprises” have not been so detrimental to one candidate or the other; “A few days before the 2000 election, it was revealed that George Bush Jr. had been arrested for drunk driving…the news did not have any significant effect.”

When it comes to former President Trump, the phase “October Surprise” has become clearly overused. “In 2016, both the [Access Hollywood] videotape of Trump…and FBI director James Comey’s decision to reexamine Hillary Clinton’s emails were dubbed October Surprises. By 2020, the term was being used so promiscuously that it referred to any election-related news that occurred in October. When President Trump was hospitalized with Covid, some people called that an October Surprise.”  Ironically, “[t]he only [recent] October Surprise that seems to have had a direct impact on the outcome of the election was Comey’s investigation of Clinton. After that announcement, her lead over Trump narrowed and put him in striking distance.”

As the saying goes, hope springs eternal.  “Even as Congress was on break, this week featured a number of ‘October surprises,’ including Iran’s missile attack on Israel and special prosecutor Jack Smith’s long-awaited court filing on Donald Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol,” Ana Radelat writes in the MinnPost. “Smith’s brief, unsealed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan…said Trump ‘resorted to crimes’ while trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat and should not escape charges. It challenges Trump’s claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have immunity for actions committed in office by saying the alleged offenses were carried out in a ‘private capacity’ as a private citizen and political candidate.” 

We have previously discussed and analyzed the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity decision. “In Trump v. United States,” we wrote, “the US Supreme Court set up a three tiered system for examining claims of Presidential immunity.  The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to ‘absolute immunity.’  The next are acts that may have ‘presumptive immunity,’ and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity.  The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity.”  

As we also discussed, the Supreme Court ruled that certain acts taken by Donald Trump were immune from prosecution since these actions were “within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority.”  For instance, Jack Smith had accused Donald Trump of criminal acts when he instructed members of the Justice Department to investigate allegations of election fraud.  Yet, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote,  “The Executive Branch has ‘exclusive authority and absolute discretion’ to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime.” 

We then examined Jack Smith’s superseding indictment, in which he dropped some of the allegations against the former President that the Supreme Court ruled were immune from prosecution, while altering other allegations to conform to the High Court’s ruling.  “In essence,” we wrote, “Smith asserts that the former President [spoke] to Vice President Pence as a private citizen and candidate for office, and not as President of the United States, while Pence was not acting as Vice President, but in his ‘ceremonial’ capacity as President of the Senate.  In the alternative, Trump, as head of the Executive Branch, spoke to Pence outside of Pence’s Executive Branch responsibilities.” 

Now, Smith has filed a brief in support of the rewritten allegations brought in his superseding indictment.

The brief was originally filed under seal, but DC District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan “agreed to release part of the government’s new arguments against the former president, saying the public must understand the court’s eventual decision on immunity and therefore needs access to the government’s arguments.” 

Any analysis of Smith’s filing must begin with the unusual nature of this brief, and the timing of its filing and release to the public.  As described by Law Professor and former federal prosecutor Jonathan Turley,  “[t]o avoid…allegations of political manipulation of cases, the Justice Department has long followed a policy against making potentially influential filings within 60 or 90 days of an election. One section of the Justice Department manual states ‘Federal prosecutors… may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.’ Jack Smith, however, has long dismissed such considerations…In [this] latest move…Smith used the Supreme Court decision to file a type of preemptive defense – an excuse to lay out the allegations against Trump in a 165-page filing filled with damaging accounts and testimonials against Trump, just weeks ahead of the election.” 

Professor Turley clearly believes the brief was filed and unsealed as a joint effort by Special Counsel Smith and Judge Chutkin to commit election interference. “Even Chutkin herself acknowledged that Smith’s request was ‘procedurally irregular,’ but she still allowed it,” Turley writes. “This was a premature exercise that would ordinarily occur months later, after defense filings. She could have scheduled such filings just a few weeks from now. She could have easily kept the filing under seal to avoid the appearance of political machinations. But the political effect appears to be the point. Chutkin again selected the most politically impactful option, at Smith’s urging.”

Clearly, some in the media hope that Smith and Judge Chutkin have accomplished their apparent goal of interfering in the 2024 Presidential election.. For instance, as described by the Media Research Center, Eugene Daniels and Rachael Bade of Politico were “so excited about this newly unsealed Jack Smith filing designed to harm Donald Trump that they blatantly declared that this Smith filing was ‘The first October surprise of 2024.’ Let us now join Daniels and Bade gleefully delighting in Smith’s ‘mountain of evidence’ against Trump…’It looks like we have October Surprise No. 1, [Daniels and Bade write] courtesy of a man you may have forgotten about: special counsel JACK SMITH. [I]n an unsealed legal filing, Smith gave his most complete look yet at the mountain of evidence he’s amassed against Trump in the case laying out his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In recent American history, there are probably few moments that have been more scrutinized than the months leading up to Jan. 6, 2021, and yet the filing’s 165 pages were filled with new details and anecdotes.”  

The allegations, however, really aren’t anything new.  According to the brief, “[a]lthough the defendant was the incumbent President during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted – a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role.” 

The brief is clearly an effort to refocus and restate Smith’s allegations against former President Trump while trying to conform to the framework established by the Supreme Court.  Conversations between Donald Trump’s advisors and Vice President Mike Pence are repeatedly described as “private” and in Trump’s capacity as a “candidate.”  Smith claims, for instance, that “[t]he evidence demonstrates that the defendant knew his [election] fraud claims were false because he continued to make those claims even after his close advisors – acting not in an official capacity but in a private or Campaign-related capacity – told him they were not true.” 

The allegation that the former President didn’t believe his own assertions of election fraud is nothing new.  As we note in Chapter 14 of our book, The Making of a Martyr, an Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump, in discussing the original January 6 indictment, “[f]rom all appearances, Trump believed there was election fraud, that it was indeed ‘outcome determinative,’ and as a result, he challenged the results of the election in every way possible…But an inability to establish what was in the mind of Donald Trump doesn’t stop Jack Smith – Trump’s belief was not mistaken, it was false!  Why?  Because people in the Justice Department, some lawyers and some courts told him so!” 

The only new allegation here is that Trump’s actions were taken in his private capacity as a candidate for office, and not as the President of the United States, with immunity.  It remains just as impossible to show that Donald Trump is not entitled to his own sincerely-held opinion, an opinion that he held in contradiction to the opinions expressed to him by those around him.

In other words, whether Jack Smith asserts that Donald Trump acted in a non-Presidential capacity is irrelevant.  He still has an extremely weak case, built on factually unsupported suppositions, and filing 165 pages of allegations repackaged as the actions of a desperate  candidate instead of a President abusing his authority do not make these allegations any stronger.

Recall also, that the President of the United States does have an obligation to uphold the Constitution, and consequently would have a Presidential interest in insuring a fair election.  This means that many of the allegations made by Smith could involve acts which enjoy presumptive immunity (tier two of the Presidential Immunity decision).  Thus, Smith’s brief is largely an effort to rebut that presumption of immunity.

It’s unclear what effect the October Surprise brief filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith will have on the electorate. But so far, the effect seems to be negligible. Turning once more to Professor Jonathan Turley’s analysis, “[the] timing [of publicizing the brief] could well backfire. The weaponization of the legal system is central to this election, including the role of the Justice Department in pushing the debunked Russia-collusion allegations from the 2016 race. For many…Smith’s filing [t]itled a ‘Motion for Immunity Determination’…seems more like a ‘Motion for an Election Determination.’”

In other words, it’s the obviousness of this blatant attempt to sway the election with Smith’s brief that will most likely cause the effort to be ignored by all but the most rabid of Trump haters.

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

While I still served as a Criminal Court Judge, I was called on the carpet by one of my supervising Judges from the Office of Court Administration.  Seems I had insulted a number of my fellow judges when I quoted the line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that serves as the title of this column. I had used this phrase in an email in reference to some judges insisting on certain privileges being continued for supervising judges that were to be eliminated in a round of budget cuts for the rest of us.

“Did you mean to call them pigs?” I was asked.  I was dismayed to learn that a group of educated people, including the one questioning me, did not recognize the reference. Yet, I should not have been surprised.  My education came from Catholic institutions of learning that were, at the time, very anti-communist.  Many of my fellow jurists did not have the benefit of that experience.

It seems clear that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has never read any Orwell.  Without shame or self awareness, he practices the hypocrisy of unequal justice at every opportunity.

While justifying the prosecution of Donald Trump for allegedly falsifying his business records, Bragg intoned that “[a]s this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure everyone stands equal before the law…No amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring American principle.” 

There appears to be some truth in Bragg’s statement, for money and power do not appear to be the deciding factors regarding who will be prosecuted, and who will not.  Instead, that decision is now based on race, social position, and what political causes the defendant supports.

In June, “[d]ozens of anti-Israel protesters who occupied and barricaded themselves in buildings on the Columbia University campus in April had their charges dropped…[t]he office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg dropped cases against 30 students and staff members who were arrested during the campus unrest….[a]ll the protesters were arrested on April 30, hours after taking over Hamilton Hall, an academic building, and were initially charged with trespass in the third degree, a misdemeanor…[n]one of the students arrested had any prior criminal history, and all were facing disciplinary proceedings, including suspensions and expulsions, by Columbia University.” 

Then, in July, “Seven pro-Palestinian protesters associated with the City College of New York (CCNY) had charges against them dropped after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg determined there was insufficient evidence to convict them.” 

Bragg’s failure to prosecute protestors who advocate for progressive causes is nothing new. Going back to 2023, CBS News reported that “misdemeanor charges against protesters who were arrested after calling for justice in the aftermath of Jordan Neely’s death have been dropped. The Manhattan district attorney’s office says it’s dropping those charges following a comprehensive review. More than a dozen arrests were made in May after protesters clashed with police in the streets of SoHo and inside a subway station.” 

Remember Jordan Neely?  He was the homeless black man who threatened a subway car full of passengers when he was subdued by former Marine Daniel Penny.  Neely subsequently died from what the New York City Medical Examiner called “compression of neck (chokehold).”  Penny, who is white, was then arrested and charged by the Manhattan DA’s Office with manslaughter. 

In our discussion of this case last year, we noted the “recent, widespread pattern of ignoring the law of self-defense [and action taken in the defense of others}, and prosecuting people who, in the past, may have been considered justified in the actions they take.”  In that regard, we also noted that “certain leaders of our society, particularly certain prosecutors like Alvin Bragg…seek to punish people for protecting themselves and others from violence.”

Much like store clerk Jose Alba, a Dominican immigrant who was arrested for stabbing and killing an African American man who was assaulting him, Bragg’s office ignored evidence that points towards self-defense and commenced a prosecution against Penny.  In Alba’s case, however, following intense public outcry, Bragg’s office dropped charges against Alba. 

No such luck for Penny.  His case is scheduled to go forward to trial in October. “In January,” Fox5 New York reports, “a judge denied Penny’s request to dismiss the charges against him in the case despite the claim he acted to protect himself and other passengers.” 

We made the following observation in last year’s article, and asked this question: “Unlike Alba, Penny is white, and appears to be in a better social and economic situation than Neely, who was black.  Yet, like Alba, Penny has the exact same right to self-defense, as do we all.  Will Alvin Bragg continue to ignore that right, and hope that a Grand Jury will ignore it too?”

Bragg has apparently answered this question in the affirmative by charging someone else with a crime who has a strong self-defense claim.

According to The Daily Mail, “[a] New York City landlord who was arrested and charged with assault after defending himself against a homeless man wielding a wooden bat…Brian Chin, 32, of Manhattan, was arraigned on second and third-degree assault charges in Manhattan Criminal Court, after being accused of beating a homeless man…[s]urveillance footage from outside of Chin’s apartment building on Chrystie Street in the Lower East Side shows the landlord trying to help the man, who is believed to have been under the influence, outside of the Grand Street subway station. The man woke up, went ballistic and attacked him with a piece of plywood that had nails in it. Chin eventually… grabb[ed] the wood with both hands and tugg[ed] it out of his grasp. But when police eventually showed up, he [Chin] was arrested and whisked off to jail.” 

Chin is of Asian heritage.  The homeless man is African American.  The racial background of the defendant and victim should not be a factor.  But as we have seen in the cases involving Alba and Penny, Bragg’s office seems very interested in prosecuting people who defend themselves against African Americans, regardless of the law of self-defense.

Much like Alba and Penny, Chin has his proponents. “’Brian is a great guy. He’s like our local community activist, leader – he wants our neighborhood to be clean,’’ said a landlord whose family has owned a building on Chrystie Street, near where the incident occurred, for more than 40 years. ‘He wants the [local Sarah Roosevelt] park for kids to be what it was intended for – not open-air drug-dealing and homeless people sleeping on the benches,’’ the source told [The New York Post] ‘And we’re deeply grateful for that.’”  But to date, community sentiment in favor of Chin’s actions has had little impact on DA Bragg.

Writing in The New York Post, Wai Wah Chin, the President of the Chinese American Citizens

Alliance of Greater New York, summed up the situation presented by Chin’s arrest and prosecution; “Bragg is..the district attorney who launched his first day in office with his notorious ‘Day One Memo’ that effectively said that some people will be treated differently for certain crimes, including armed robbery… as Chin’s Chinatown neighborhood steadily deteriorated under the onslaught of Democratic soft-on-crime policies emanating not just from Bragg’s office but also from City Hall, the state Capitol and the White House, the landlord became an unpaid community activist trying to keep his block safe. All because our ideologically obsessed Democratic governments at all levels are failing miserably to fulfill the most fundamental of government responsibilities: that of ensuring basic physical safety for its citizens…[f]or Bragg, the law is a vehicle for his political agenda, which stands above everyone and everything else.” 

The logic of Wai Wah Chin’s position is inescapable.  Since 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.

For how long will New Yorkers tolerate this injustice?  The truth of Orwell’s statement about some pigs being more equal only applies when we allow those pigs to assert greater rights than the rest of us.

It is long past time to halt the piggish behavior of a District Attorney like Alvin Bragg.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

There is a dangerous belief that all major politicians support freedom of speech. Increasingly, that illusion is being exposed.

Many first became aware of the determination to stamp out opposition speech when the Biden Administration sought to establish a “Disinformation Governance Board.”

Statements by major figures such as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Climate envoy John Kerry, and New York Senator Charles Schumer have exposed the disdain many leftist Democrats have for the First Amendment.

Hillary Clinton actually suggested that Americans should be “criminally charged” for expressing views she opposes.

Kerry was quite blunt.  He suggested that the “First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it [ideas which the left disagrees with] out of existence.”

While Senator Schumer mentions the First Amendment by name, saying the “First Amendment is not absolute,” most progressive leaders use the phrase “disinformation.” They define disinformation, of course, as anything that disagrees with their point of view.

A Gatestone review recently quoted vice presidential candidate Tim Walz’s statement that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” The study also noted that “In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration’s Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded that social media stop certain people from publishing their expertise and views.”

The New York Post (D-Mass.) calling for companies like Amazon to use “enlightened” algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices.

The Future of Free Speech organization Warns that “The global landscape for freedom of expression has faced severe challenges … open democracies have implemented restrictive measures.”

Reason, a bipartisan publication, found that  Conservatives are attached to the principles of federalism and free speech online even when these principles make it harder to achieve their policy aims, suggest two recent studies. Meanwhile, liberals are more open to giving power to whichever arm of government—federal, state, or local—they think will best achieve their aims. And while they’re generally more open to the suppression of online speech that is inaccurate, they are more likely to shift positions based on whether this speech supports their side.

While many Progressive media analysts side with  pro-censorship politicians, some are raising alarms. Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Dustin Olson,  managing partner of American Pulse Research & Polling and the founder of the political consulting firm Olson Strategies & Advertising, warns that “Once a solid pillar of American society, free speech seems to be cracking. It used to be an American principle that the everyday American citizen could agree on, a universal given. But recent surveys reveal that this fundamental value is increasingly up for debate, and the speed of this change is alarming. In a new RealClear Opinion Research poll, nearly half of Democrats are comfortable openly admitting to a stranger over the phone that they support limiting what people can say. A startling 47 percent said that speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 52 percent of Democrats approved of government censoring social media posts for “national security.” Even more shocking, a third of Democrats believe Americans have “too much freedom.”

It is not difficult to understand why progressives, who currently control the Democrat Party, are so opposed to the First Amendment.  Their policies, as a whole, have failed decisively. The economy. Particularly regarding inflation, has suffered significantly due to leftist ideas. Displays of weakness abroad have invited aggression. Millions of illegals have been allowed to enter the nation unchecked, bringing in increases in crime, vast deaths from Fentanyl, job losses for U.S. citizens, sex trafficking, and increased competition for affordable houses. Local governments are suffering severe strains in their budgets. And, of course, the national debt has soared.

In a fair discussion or debate, these results would be devasting for the left. Recognizing this reality, progressives have resorted to censorship.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Chief of Space Operations, General Chance Saltzman, has laid out his vision for ensuring U.S. space superiority as threats dramatically increase

According to the Department of Defense, The U.S. now contends with an incredibly sophisticated array of threats such as space-based GPS jammers, anti-satellite weapons and cyberattacks against U.S. ground stations and space assets,

Saltzman revealed that both Russia and China are increasingly using space-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to enhance targeting capabilities for their precision-guided munitions. 

“Collectively, this rise in congestion and competition within the domain has led to a growing risk to our continued access to, and operation within, space,” Saltzman said. “We must protect our space capabilities, while also being able to deny an adversary the hostile use of its space capabilities…Only by pursuing space superiority in a disciplined way, can the Space Force ensure that the U.S. and our allies and partners have the peace we desire, and more specifically, that we can all access and exploit the space domain.”

The General emphasized that “…if we do not have space, we lose.”  

The Pentagon is heavily dependent on space-based satellites for much of the work it does to defend the United States. That reliance is expected to grow in coming years.

While space assets such as satellites will always be at risk from U.S. adversaries, the best way to ensure continued access to space capabilities is proliferation, Derek Tournear, director of the Space Development Agency (SDA), said.

“Proliferation is our biggest defense,” Tournear said while speaking at a panel discussion sponsored by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, a nonpartisan policy research institute based in Arlington, Va. “That’s how we plan on really getting the resilience and the defense of our entire architecture.”

The SDA is responsible for orchestrating development and implementation of the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA). The PWSA will include a mesh network of hundreds of satellites to provide space-based capabilities to the joint warfighter. 

The strength of that network of satellites, he said, is expected to come not from defensive capabilities that focus on individual satellites, but rather from the sheer number of satellites launched. Protecting individual satellites becomes less important, he said, when there are so many of them.

“That’s the way you have to look at it when you’re talking about proliferated constellations,” he said. “Each individual one you can’t really care about. You have to care about the health of the whole herd, the health of the whole architecture. And so, we have everything in place to make sure that we can maintain that resiliency and maintain … operations even if you start to lose [individual satellites].” 

Tournear also said that cybersecurity plays an important role in protecting the PWSA, however. 

“Obviously we have cyber protections in place to protect the entire architecture and the network, and we have a lot of the environmental sensing pieces that are in place to give us an idea of what’s going on,” he said. “We put GPS situational awareness sensors on our satellites for those kinds of things, to make sure that we can kind of sense the environment.”

The PWSA system will eventually include hundreds of satellites, delivered in tranches every two years, with each tranche providing more capability than the last.

The network of hundreds of optically connected satellites will deliver two primary capabilities to warfighters on the ground. The first is beyond line-of-sight targeting for ground and maritime time-sensitive targets, which includes mobile missiles and ships, for instance. The system will provide the ability to detect those targets, track them, calculate a fire control solution and deliver that solution down to a weapons platform so the target can be destroyed. The second capability is similar to the first, but for enemy missiles already in flight.

The PWSA involves seven layers, including a mesh network of hundreds of optically interconnected satellites in orbit that make up its transport layer. There will also be tracking, custody, deterrence, navigation, battle management and support layers.

Even as almost every military leader and defense analysts emphasize the dramatically increased importance of space, the Biden budget cut the Space Force budget by 2%.The FY 2025 Space Force budget request for $29.4 billion is down from the FY 2024 request for $30 billion.

Photo: U.S. Space Command

To a degree unprecedented in American history, the 2024 Democratic Party campaign relies on clearly proven falsehoods. While many politicians unfortunately are prone to exaggerations and loose interpretations of facts, the outright lies perpetrated by the ticket are in a class all its own. 

Vice President Harris is being described as a moderate favoring the middle-class. That is despite the reality that in 2019, she was rated the most liberal Senator – even more liberal than Bernie Sanders. As Vice president, she has been a part of an administration that is by far the most progressive. That’s not the opinion of Republicans, but observers such as the pro-Democrat Washington Post

The economic policies under Biden-Harris have crippled the middle-class with dramatic inflation, a clear result of its assault on energy and its prolific spending. It refuses to acknowledge its error, which resulted in a hike in inflation from 1.4% to a high of 9%.  The current rate is 2.9%, but the damage done to prices remains unaddressed. Incredibly, despite the availability of clear sources on inflation rates, President Biden overtly lies that inflation was 9% when he took office.

Ms. Harris’ proposals emphasize her progressivism. One example: According a recent media report, she reportedly wants to force Americans to be taxed up to 44.6% of the profits they make from selling their homes. The report comes after Harris endorsed President Joe Biden’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal.

The same can be said for Tim Walz. As noted by the New York Post, “After his party gained a one-seat majority in the state senate in 2022, Walz embraced nearly every insane idea it rammed through the legislature, including driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, marijuana legalization, voting rights for convicted felons, stricter gun laws, and automatic, permanent mailing of ballots to people who sign up just once to vote by mail. Walz signed a law mandating ‘antiracist’ education in ‘ethnic studies’ in elementary, middle and high schools and compelling critical race theory training for teachers while forcing schools to record the race of every student who is given recess detentions to prevent ‘institutional racism.’”

Democrats have alleged that the Trump campaign is based on megadonors. However, as reported by the New York Times, “An analysis of Federal Election Commission data by The New York Times shows that about 668,000 donors gave less than $200 to Mr. Trump, compared with 564,000 for Mr. Biden.”

Commentator Chris Cuomo has blasted the Democratic Party for pledging to go after corporations over price gouging — even as it charges big donors between $500,000 and $5 million for a luxury suite at its Chicago convention.

The Biden-Harris Administration has stated that it has a commendable record on job creation. It ignores the reality that many of those positions are not new, but merely returning after COVID. Further, rather than going to U.S. Citizens, a Congressional Committee report found that  “nearly half of all job growth since October can be attributed to immigrant groups, including illegal immigrants. “

The overall job numbers touted by the Democrats have been subjected to the sharpest downward revision in over a decade.  The Daily Political News reports that “A new economic report shocked social media users on Wednesday. The U.S. gained 818,000 fewer jobs than initially reported. The Bureau of Labor Statistics revised their numbers. They discovered over 800,000 jobs reported in March never existed. X users reacted strongly, with many blaming the Biden/Harris administration. They accused them of pushing policies that weakened the economy and then misrepresenting the numbers.”

Not unexpectedly, the Harris campaign has blamed Trump and the Republicans for the nation’s ills.  But the reality is, the Biden-Harris Administration has controlled the government for the past four years. Further, Democrats have largely controlled the federal government for 12 of the past 16 years.

Numerous speakers at the Democrat convention in Chicago have repeated long debunked claims about Trump comments, with no apparent sense of shame. One can only assume that have confidence that a biased media will not criticize them.

On defense, the manipulation of reality has been even more harsh. Democrats, while claiming a willingness to provide for an adequate defense, have, under the Biden-Harris Administration, presided over the shrinking of U.S. armed forces.  Year after year during the current White House, defense budgets have failed to keep up with inflation even as the danger of war increases and adversaries increasingly see the U.S. military as overstretched. As the Biden-Harris Administration draws to a close, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force are smaller than they were when it was sworn in.

The most consistent claim made by the Democratic 2024 presidential campaign is that it must win in order to “preserve democracy,” based largely on unsupported and long refuted allegations about their political opponents. But which side is actually a threat to fair play?

Forget, for a moment, about the Republicans. The treatment of fellow Democrats is telling.  Manipulating primary schedules was inappropriate.  The refusal to provide Secret Service protection to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., despite the assassination of his father and uncle is inexcusable.

Perhaps, it is not the Democratic Party that headlines the threat to democracy. It may very well be the biased media that refuses to acknowledge the lies that politicians have been unblushingly telling.

Illustration: Pixabay

The curious and worrisome relationship between the Democratic Party and Communist China is continuing with the nomination of Tim Walz.

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability recently stated that “Walz’s connections to China raise questions about possible CCP influence in his decision-making as governor—and should he be elected, as vice president.”

A review of the record indicates that Governor Walz In 1993, according to the Star-Herald, as a teacher, organized a trip to the PRC with Alliance High School students, where costs were paid by the Chinese government. In 1994, Mr. Walz set up a private company named “Educational Travel Adventures, Inc.,” which coordinated annual student trips to the PRC until 2003 and was led by Mr. Walz himself. The corporation was reportedly dissolved four days after he took congressional office in 2007. Since his first trip to China, Governor Walz has visited the PRC an estimated 30 times. While serving in Congress, Mr. Walz also served as a fellow at the Macau Polytechnic University, a Chinese institution that characterizes itself as having a “long held devotion to and love for the motherland.” Governor Walz spoke alongside the President of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, which, a year later, the Department of State exposed as “a Beijing-based organization tasked with co-opting subnational governments,” including efforts “to directly and malignly influence state and local leaders to promote the PRC’s global agenda.”

In a letter to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray, Committee Chairman Comer requested information, documents, and communications related to the CCP-connected entities and officials Governor Walz has engaged and partnered with, as well as any warnings or advice the FBI may have given to Governor Walz about U.S. political figures being targeted by or recruited for CCP influence operations.

“The CCP has sought to destroy the United States through coordinated influence and infiltration campaigns that target every aspect of American life, including our own elected officials. Americans should be deeply concerned that Governor Walz, Kamala Harris’s vice-presidential running mate, has a longstanding and cozy relationship with China. Mr. Walz has visited China dozens of times, served as a fellow at a Chinese institution that maintains a devotion to the CCP, and spoke alongside the President of a Chinese organization the State Department exposed as a CCP effort to influence and co-opt local leaders. FBI briefers recently informed the Committee that the Bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force investigates CCP activity that is similar to China’s engagement with Governor Walz. The American people deserve to fully understand how deep Governor Walz’s relationship with China goes,” said Chairman James Comer.

The Biden-Harris Administration’s relationship with China appears to have begun when Hunter Biden flew to China with then-Vice President Joe Biden aboard Air Force 2, and returned home with a vast financial gain, in return for no discernable commercial service.

The Biden-Harris Administration ties with China are just part of the Democratic Party’s concerning history with America’s most dangerous enemy.

  The late Democrat Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, employed a chauffeur, who according to CBS News, was a Chinese spy, reporting to the Chinese government about local California politics for 20 years. 

The Chinese communist spy who compromised Congressman Eric Swalwell, Fang Fang, also “socialized, networked with Rep. Judy Chu and then-Rep. Mike Honda, campaigned for now-Rep. Rho Khanna, volunteered for Bill Harrison, the mayor of Fremont, California at the time, and in some cases, developed romantic or sexual relationships with politicians to gain intelligence and send it back to her handlers, who were believed to be stationed in mainland China.” 

Beijing’s relationship with the Biden family and the Democrat Party has allowed it to treat the U.S. with arrogance. 

The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party held a hearing titled “From High Tech to Heavy Steel: Combatting the PRC’s Strategy to Dominate Semiconductors, Shipbuilding, and Drones.”

Chairman John Moolenaar describes the issue.

During the Second World War, America was called the Arsenal of Democracy. While our brave soldiers fought on the front lines, millions of men and women labored on the assembly lines to bury the Axis under a storm of steel. Today, the Chinese Communist Party aspires to become an Arsenal of Autocracy, repressing a billion people at home, and providing authoritarian regimes with the means to wage aggression abroad. To do so, the CCP seeks to control the key technologies and sectors that will determine future conflicts. We are looking in detail at three of these today: chips, ships, and drones. Chips, or semiconductors, power everything from the guidance system on missiles to satellites, mobile phones, computers, and cars. Ships transport cargo around the world and form the navies that can blockade global supply lines or enable invasions. This includes the risk to Taiwan, which would cut off the foundries that produce virtually the entire world’s supply of advanced semiconductors. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones will play a key role in the future of civilian and military airpower. In all three, America’s industrial capacity has waned while China has gained dominance or is in the process of gaining dominance over each.

China added more legacy semiconductor manufacturing capacity in 2024 than the rest of the world combined, and that capacity is expected to grow by a further 13 percent this year alone. With 18 new fabricators set to begin operations, and the CCP announcing a further $47.5 billion in subsidies in May. Today, the U.S. accounts for one-tenth of one percent of global shipbuilding, while Chinese shipyards, with nearly 20% of their operating costs subsidized by Beijing, account for 54%. DJI, a Chinese firm, controls roughly 80 percent of the U.S. commercial drone market. To be clear, our concerns with DJI, and PRC control of the drone ecosystem, are not about the competitiveness of American companies.

Rather, Congressional concern stems from the PRC having hundreds of thousands of spy balloon equivalents operating daily across our nation–not only jeopardizing our homeland but giving the PRC a dominant position in an industry that is already playing a key role on the frontline of modern warfare.

Across each of these sectors, the CCP playbook is simple, straightforward, and consistent. Using a combination of illegal subsidies, hardball tactics, IP theft, and forced labor, the party gains a stranglehold over the world’s most important supply chains. From Huawei, to SMIC, YMTC, DJI, and beyond, it’s the same play every time. In fact, we call it “the Huawei Playbook.” Pick a national champion in a strategic industry. Subsidize. Employ predatory pricing to offer its products at a massive, anti-competitive price point. Expand globally. Drive out the competition. Then leverage newfound dependencies to advance CCP interests. Like a football team running the triple option, it’s an effective play, and it can be hard to defend. But once you see the pattern, you can understand how to defeat it. We need to install market access barriers in strategic sectors to prevent malign PRC companies from taking over our domestic economy. We need to leverage and build upon crucial authorities to ensure the security of data and communications across our country. We need to cut off access to the U.S. technology and capital that helps fuel PRC national champions and critical sectors. And we need to coordinate with our allies to encourage them to mirror these steps.

Fortunately, there are those of us who have been watching the tape of similar games that threatened similar outcomes. Semiconductors were an American invention. The Soviets copied us. Others underpriced us. There were times when observers counted America out. But as Chris Miller, who is here with us today, documented in his exceptional book Chip War, no one has ever been rewarded for betting against America. We are joined today by Adam Bry, the founder and CEO of Skydio, an American drone manufacturer. American-made technology is safer, higher quality, and does not come with links to a totalitarian regime. I look forward to hearing Adam’s perspective on competing with the CCP’s economic warfare. We are also joined by Scott Paul from the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Scott has seen the CCP decimate the American manufacturing sector. And nowhere is this more costly for our nation than in our shipyards. The CCP is producing ships at a rate we couldn’t dream of here. Though they’re made using cheap steel and shoddy market practices, the People’s Liberation Army Navy represents a grave threat to the US and our allies.

Photo: Pixabay

For too long, China’s rapid increase in military power has been downplayed. That is a result of Beijing’s skillful use of economic influence over both key politicians and media outlets.  The problem has become a crisis during the Biden Administration.

 In 2021, key members of The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) reviewed testimony from Admiral Charles Richard, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, that China has moved a portion of its nuclear force to a Launch on Warning posture and has a nuclear weapons stockpile that is expected to at least double, if not triple, or quadruple, over the next decade. Based on most opensource estimates, to include those produced by the Department of Defense, this could bring size of the deployed Chinese nuclear deterrent to approximately 1,000 warheads by 2030. According to the China is fielding a full Cold War-style triad of nuclear assets — intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-armed bombers and submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles. China’s ballistic missile arsenal is “more survivable, more diverse, and on higher alert than in the past, including nuclear missile systems designed to manage regional escalation and ensure an intercontinental second-strike capability.” Combined, these statements by Admiral Richard and Director Haines mean that China is likely to reach a degree of nuclear parity with the United States by the end of the decade.

  Some outlets are beginning to comprehend the magnitude of the threat. In June, a Bloomberg report noted that “The US Needs More Nukes…Some Americans worry that building up the arsenal will start an arms race. Sorry, but China has already begun one.”

A Lowey analysis, citing information from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ 2024 Nuclear Notebook warns that “Of the nine nuclear-armed powers, China is thought to have one of the fastest-growing nuclear arsenals at present. Last October, the US Department of Defence in its 2023 Annual Report made two forecasts: First, as of May 2023, China has more than 500 active nuclear weapons, exceeding earlier estimates. The 2022 report estimated that the stockpile had surpassed 400 nuclear warheads. Second, in keeping with its modernisation objectives, China is expected to have more than 1,000 operable nuclear weapons by 2030, many of which will probably be “’deployed at higher readiness levels.’ … if China continues with the pace of its nuclear expansion, at the rate anticipated in 2022, China is likely to have a stockpile of about 1,500 warheads by 2035, the timeline by which the Chinese military plans to “basically complete modernisation”. The New York Times also reported in December last year that China may be preparing a military installation to ‘test a new generation of nuclear weapons.'”

A Federation of American Scientist Nuclear Information Project examination reveals that its not just nuclear bombs bit also the means to launch those devices that have increased in number. The study states that “China has continued to develop its three new missile silo fields for solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), expand the construction of new silos for its liquid-fuel DF-5 ICBMs, and has been developing new variants of ICBMs and advanced strategic delivery systems. China has further expanded its dual-capable DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) force, which appears to have completely replaced the medium-range DF-21 in the nuclear role. China has been refitting its Type 094 ballistic missile submarines with the longer-range JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). China has recently reassigned an operational nuclear mission to its bombers and is developing an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) that might have nuclear capability.”

While Beijing is swiftly growing its atomic forces, the U.S. is heading in the opposite direction. In January, Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) warned “…critical updates to our arsenal are underfunded and behind schedule. Congress and the White House must act quickly to solve these problems and prevent more from emerging…. Satellite imagery reveals that China has built more than 300 new ICBM silos since at least 2021—more than the U.S. has constructed in the last five decades. Beijing has tested a new weapon capable of orbital nuclear attacks with almost no warning and set a pace to exceed the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by 2030. Russia already commands the world’s largest nuclear force. It is now fielding heavy ICBMs of almost unlimited range. The Kremlin also boasts a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, as well as intercontinental-range nuclear-powered torpedoes and cruise missiles…the Biden administration’s economic policies and anemic military support have forced … all our urgently needed modernization efforts—to overcome staggering inflation and a lack of crucial technology suppliers, skilled labor and raw materials…”

Photo: China reveals its most advanced nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile, the DF-41, at the National Day parade in Beijing on October 1, 2019. Photo: Fan Lingzhi/GT

Taking a look at the horrific headlines facing the nation, it would be understandable to conclude that there is massive incompetence at the federal, state and local levels.

Why would any executive, legislator, or law enforcement official such as an attorney general or district attorney let repeat felons continuously out on low or no bail? Why would they penalize heroes who seek to defend themselves and others from assailants? Who in their right mind would “Defund the Police” in an era of rising crime?

Why would Washington leave the nation’s borders wide open to millions, despite the skyrocketing rise to power of drug cartels, human traffickers, and organized criminal gangs?

Why do state boards of education ignore the transfer of funds meant for academic subjects towards propaganda that vilifies the United States?

How could Washington enact, year after year absurd budgets that spend far more than is taken in by taxes? Why do they act as though essential items, such as defense, preserving social security, and other needs, have the same priority as pork barrel projects?

Why would the White House adopt scientifically unsound energy policies that result in spiraling inflation?
 

Of course, it is not that our elected officials are so incompetent that that they cannot understand how foolish their policies are. They hear the anguish of the residents of cities as they increasingly fall victim to crimes. They can clearly observe the devastation illegal immigration has produced throughout the nation. Despite all attempts at censorship, they know the American public sees through their nonsensical slander of more conservative political opponents, and that voters are sickened by attempts to divide the nation. Families know that the government cannot continue to spend more than they take in.

The fact is, it is not incompetence.  It is the pursuit of goals so alien to the American way of life and so contrary to the nation’s Constitution that motivates the elected officials, media kingpins, and academic elites that motivate these bizarre policies.

Underlying all of this is an attempt to end the capitalist economic system, and to eliminate the ability of the Bill of Rights and the legacy of personal freedom that would stand in the way of that goal.  That includes the right to inculcate your own children with the morals that you believe in, and the ability to pass on your assets to them.

Defending your property against thieves indicates that you have property rights in the first place, so worrying about criminals taking what doesn’t belong to them is not a priority. Pointing out that your tax dollars shouldn’t go to illegal aliens who have not produced anything is pointless to progressive leaders who don’t believe that the fruit of your labor belongs to you. They want to flood the nation with illegals who were not brought up in the history of individual rights, and who want and need a strong government to decide how to distribute income is an essential part of their gameplan.

They don’t care if their policies have made food, shelter and energy unaffordable, because that increases reliance on the government to bail you out and make you wholly dependent on them. Achieving the ability to fend for yourself is a distraction from the goal of giving the government the power to decide what you should spend your money on.

 That especially applies to your personal vehicles.  So what if you can’t afford to fuel your car?  The concept of personal transportation freedom is anathema to the advocates of socialism. To them, the government should decide when, where, and how to travel.

Illustration: Pixabay