Category: Quick Analysis

There is mounting evidence that the 2024 vote face serious integrity issues, centered around illegal aliens voting.  Examine these media think tank, Attorneys general and other reports:

A late September Daily Mail report notes that “Democrats admit thousands of registered Arizona voters haven’t provided proof of citizenship after shock computer ‘glitch.’ Arizona‘s Democratic leaders, on a secret call, worried about a shocking discovery that, if made public, would see them accused of rigging the upcoming election and question the results of the last two.”

A Heritage Foundation election oversight report found that the Biden-Harris Administration’s voter registration drive has been conducted in a partisan manner.

The Research organization Just Facts notes that “Based on the latest available data and an enhanced version of a stress-tested methodology from a scholarly journal, a new study by Just Facts has found that about 10% to 27% of non-citizen adults in the U.S. are now illegally registered to vote. The U.S. Census recorded more than 19 million adult non-citizens living in the U.S. during 2022. Given their voter registration rates, this means that about two million to five million of them are illegally registered to vote. These figures are potentially high enough to overturn the will of the American people in major elections, including congressional seats and the presidency.”

A Federalist study stressed that “More than a dozen jurisdictions run by Democrats — including Washington, D.C., and several adjacent Maryland municipalities — allow noncitizens to vote in some local elections. San Francisco not only permits noncitizens to vote but appointed one to serve on its elections commission. Such developments, against a backdrop of millions of illegal migrants streaming into the United States under the Biden-Harris administration, bring new urgency to debates over election integrity. Many Republicans fear that a widespread effort is afoot to give noncitizens the full benefits of citizenship, including the right to vote in all elections, on top of benefits already available to illegal aliens in some places, notably driver’s licenses, food stamps, government health care, and work visas.”

In August, as reported earlier in this column, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in a coalition of twenty-three other attorneys general filed+ an amicus brief in support of an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote, asking the Supreme Court of the United States for an emergency stay of a federal district court’s injunction against the law.  “The Biden-Harris Administration has intentionally flooded our country with illegal aliens. Without proper safeguards, foreign nationals can and will illegally influence elections at the local, state, and national level,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The States have a constitutional right and responsibility to ensure that only legal votes from American citizens are counted. I hope the Supreme Court recognizes the urgency of this situation and moves to protect our national elections. Lawmakers in Texas must also make every effort to secure our elections and prevent noncitizens from voting. I urge them in the next legislative session to prioritize election integrity in Texas after millions of illegal aliens entered the state under the Biden-Harris Administration. As we also reported earlier,  Democratic party leaders haven’t been shy about their advocacy to rapidly allow illegal aliens to vote. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appearing on Bill Maher’s program, advocated quickly turning these unlawful arrivals into citizens. California’s Democratic Party is so intent on allowing illegals to vote that its super-majority in the state legislature voted for a bill that would prohibit local governments from seeking to apply common-sense voter ID. emocratic judges have even ignored voter demands for ballot security measures that would inhibit questionable voting practices. As noted by the New York Post “So much for no means no. That’s the message from the state Court of Appeals, which ruled last week that New Yorkers don’t need an excuse to cast an absentee ballot by mail when they’re otherwise able to vote in person — even though the voters themselves have directly rejected such a measure.”

Illustration: Pixabay

The question of whether there will be illegal voting in the 2024 election may have already been answered.

In three key examples, Democrats, including Attorney General Garland and allied organizations in California and elsewhere have moved to protect illegal voting by aliens in those states.

The New York Post reports that “Welfare offices and other agencies in at least 46 US states are providing voter registration forms to migrants without requiring proof of citizenship, leading Republicans and conservatives to call for swift federal action to stop the handouts. Every state but North Dakota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming gives applicants for either welfare benefits, driver’s licenses, or in some cases, mail-in ballots federal voter registration forms without demanding proof of citizenship. There is currently no requirement on federal voting forms to provide proof of US citizenship,”

In Pennsylvania, reports the Daily Caller, “ A criminal investigation has been launched after thousands of suspected fraudulent voter registrations were discovered in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania. The Lancaster County Board of Elections announced Friday that staff members identified 2,500 suspected fraudulent voter registration applications, which had been dropped off at the election office.”

In California, Governor Newsom has signed legislation forbidding local authorities from requiring photo ID to vote.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has opened an investigation into reports that organizations operating in Texas may be unlawfully registering noncitizens to vote in violation of state and federal law. 

Paxton notes that “Investigators from the Texas Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit recently conducted undercover operations to identify potential voter registration of noncitizens in Texas. The investigation has already confirmed that various nonprofit organizations have been located outside Texas Department of Public Safety Driver License offices, operating booths offering to assist in voter registration for persons doing business at the driver’s license offices. But all citizens have already been presented an opportunity to register to vote as part of the process of renewing or being issued an identification card or driver’s license, so there is no obvious need to assist citizens to register to vote outside DPS offices—calling into question the motives of the nonprofit groups.

“Texans are deeply troubled by the possibility that organizations purporting to assist with voter registration are illegally registering noncitizens to vote in our elections. If eligible citizens can legally register to vote when conducting their business at a DPS office, why would they need a second opportunity to register with a booth outside? My office is investigating every credible report we receive regarding potential criminal activity that could compromise the integrity of our elections. The Biden-Harris Administration has intentionally flooded our country with illegal aliens, and without proper safeguards, foreign nationals can illegally influence elections at the local, state, and national level. It is a crime to vote—or to register to vote—if you are not a United States Citizen. Any wrongdoing will be punished to the fullest extent of the law,” said Attorney General Paxton.

“It is a crime in Texas to lie about your citizenship when you register to vote—or to help someone else do so. You can be sentenced up to two years in a state jail and pay up to a $10,000 fine. It is a crime to vote in Texas if you are not a United States Citizen and a Texas Resident, or to help someone vote who is not. You can be sentenced up to 20 years in prison and pay up to a $10,000 fine. 

The undercover operations have been conducted throughout major metropolitan areas of Texas and are ongoing. 

In Virginia, an attempt to purge voter rolls self-identified non-citizens was blocked U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice.

In a release, Governor Youngkin stated: “Let’s be clear about what just happened: only eleven days before a Presidential election, a federal judge ordered Virginia to reinstate over 1,500 individuals–who self-identified themselves as noncitizens–back onto the voter rolls. Almost all these individuals had previously presented immigration documents confirming their noncitizen status, a fact recently verified by federal authorities. This is a Virginia law passed in 2006, signed by then-Governor Tim Kaine, that mandates certain procedures to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls, with safeguards in place to affirm citizenship before removal–and the ultimate failsafe of same-day registration for U.S. citizens to cast a provisional ballot. This law has been applied in every Presidential election by Republicans and Democrats since enacted 18 years ago.”

Illustration: Pixabay

A review of several actions across the nation have already answered the question of whether there will be cheating in the 2024 election.

Many have logically feared that the mass influx of many millions of undocumented and un-health inspected aliens raised initial concerns. When several states began allowing drivers licenses, the basic form of identification used to register to vote,  to be issued to them, those concerns were realized.

The Government Accountability Institute reports that “Since 2021, non-citizens have been import-ed into swing states by the tens of thousands—more than 168,500 using the most conservative estimates based on court filing data. Each swing state has taken in more non-citizens than the 2020 margin of victory in that state. And there is good reason to believe a significant portion will be able to vote in 2024.

USAGOVPolicy.com noted that in late September, a Daily Mail report notes that “Democrats admit thousands of registered Arizona voters haven’t provided proof of citizenship after shock computer ‘glitch.’ Arizona‘s Democratic leaders, on a secret call, worried about a shocking discovery that, if made public, would see them accused of rigging the upcoming election and question the results of the last two.”

It’s more than just neglect to catch the credentials of those registering to vote. There are instances in blue states to affirmatively prevent any enforcement of measures that prohibit illegal voting.

Two salient examples provide shocking examples. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland has attacked voting legitimacy in Virginia. The state sought to eliminate ineligible voters from its registration rolls.  But the U.S. Justice Department opposed the move on rather specious technical grounds.

In Georgia, as noted by ProPublica, , “ a Judge has ruled county election board members cannot block the certification of votes based on suspicions of fraud or error…The ruling, if it stands, puts to rest the question of whether local election officials would be allowed to throw out individual precincts from county vote totals if they suspect fraud or error. A new rule adopted by the State Election Board appeared to allow such exclusions.”

In California, Democracy Docket found that “California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill into law… bars local governments from enacting laws to require residents to show a valid form of identification in order to vote. The law is a direct response to a ballot initiative approved by voters in the coastal California city of Huntington Beach. In March, 53.4% of residents voted to adopt a ballot measure that requires all residents who want to cast a ballot in municipal elections to show a valid ID. But the measure runs afoul of state law and, after it passed, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) sued the city to block officials from enforcing it. “

Here is the operative section of the California law signed by Governor Newsom:

This bill would prohibit a local government from enacting or enforcing any charter provision, ordinance, or regulation requiring a person to present identification for the purpose of voting or submitting a ballot at any polling place, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted, as specified.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

A Heritage Foundation analysis notes that Some reforms were enacted in response to questions raised during the 2020 presidential election. “That said,” notes Heritage, “ in almost every state where these salutary reforms have been enacted, they have been subject to litigation. Often the Biden-Harris Justice Department,…and its political allies … have led the legal attacks…And there’s another big problem this time around, created by the leftist effort to get as many voters as possible to vote by mail instead of in-person. Recently, the two national organizations representing secretaries of state and state election directors wrote the U.S. Postal Service complaining about the mishandling and mismanagement of election mail, including absentee ballots. This has resulted in numerous problems, such as delays that have effectively disenfranchised voters.”

This could affect a significant number of Americans. According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, mail-in ballots accounted for 43% of the electorate in 2020, a 20 percentage point increase from 2016, and this election may be conducted even more extensively by mail. But voters should do everything they can to vote in person to ensure their vote will be counted. If they want to vote before Election Day, they should do it at an early voting site instead of using the U.S. Postal Service.

Photo: Pixabay

It’s “Garbage Time” in China. [Lèsè shíjiān] (垃圾时间) is what working age citizens of China have named the current economic environment. Younger workers, in particular, believe they are underdogs and have fallen so far behind it will be impossible to catch up with the rest of the world. There are quiet whispers among college graduates and young professionals that the communist system itself is broken [xìtǒng huàile] (系统坏了). It translates into a widespread malaise among urban workers who strongly believe the end is inevitable and approaching fast despite government efforts to prop up the domestic economy. Their response to it is a simmering anger that, since no amount of work will receive a financial reward or get one ahead in life, they might as well “lay flat” and “do the least amount of work” [píng tǎng, zuò hěn shǎo de gōngzuò] (平躺,做很少的工作) possible. The government, and the senior Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership, are concerned that the lèsè shíjiān concept is spreading in quiet discussions throughout the country.

Recently released official economic data indicates that once again China did not succeed in surpassing its  planned five percent growth in annual GDP. This is the fifth consecutive year when numbers have remained essentially flat. In 2010, Beijing was already overestimating economic growth by five percent, according to Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist specializing in the Chinese economy. He points out that the country is experiencing a Japanese style stagnation, and its economy has not grown at all in real terms in the last decade. He points out that, in addition, demographic data foretells a dire future for the CCP leadership and China. 

The government publicly admitted its population shrunk by 8 million for those under the age of five last year. Demographers point out that China no longer has the largest population in the world. It is also an aging population with so few females of child-bearing age that today whole villages have no young women. Those between the ages of 50-70 are the same in number as those who are 0-25 years. To maintain a healthy population, the 0-25 group needs to be two to three times larger than the 50-70 bracket. Zeihan says that it may even be smaller than reported as China has continuously overstated the population range by between 100 to 250 million. Most of the missing population are under age 40 according to independent demographers. That suggests that the 0-25 group may be overestimated by the government by as much as 80 to 150 million people. What makes this data even more catastrophic for China’s future is that the population under age 40 is typically the largest consumer group in a country, buying homes, and raising families. If China is not able to support a consumer-led economy at home, it will be heavily dependent on international trade in the coming years.

If no next generation is being born, then it will be impossible for China to build a strong domestic economy. At this point, there will be no economic growth in the country’s foreseeable future. When government spending is removed from the economic forecast, indications are that the Chinese economy has been shrinking for the last seven years. Zeihan says China’s last hope for recovery passed by six years ago and people inside the country are starting to take notice. 

When in office President Trump initiated sanctions on trade with China that exacerbated President Xi Jinping’s dilemma. Today, many other nation-states have joined the US and are also imposing trade sanctions. Economic risk analysts in Washington are talking about the impact on China if the rest of the international trade system cuts China out of the picture. 

Beijing is working to stop the hemorrhaging, but it does not appear to be working well. Sanctions on China continue to spread across Europe to Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, among other states. “Garbage time” in China accompanied by increased unemployment, deflation, and Beijing’s steadfast refusal to take bold action. This year’s economic numbers may be a solid demarcation point that marks the start of the end. 

The question still to be answered is: “Does this makes China a greater threat to peace in the world?” Xi Jinping is approaching the time in his career when Chinese leaders typically plan for their legacy. He may feel forced to act against Taiwan out of desperation. What occurs in Beijing in the next few years may be dependent, in large part, on who wins the November 5, 2024, presidential election in the United States.

Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said long ago that “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.” His economic adage can be applied to assess the state of the geopolitical world. Setting the type of governmental system aside, are nation-states doing a good job managing the threat level today as we approach the US presidential election?  It may be time to sound the alarm.

In 2024 the democratic world is not stable, nor are the revisionist powers responsible actors in world politics. Over the last four years, there has been an increasing number of multi-dimensional threats. They are complicated and span the globe. The United States, presumed leader of the free world, is essentially headless and without a coherent foreign policy. Without strong leadership over the last four years, virtually every continent has suffered from either economic or political instability, or both. The international order is in disarray.

The existential threat of our lifetime comes from China and Xi Jinping’s aggressive policy positions. More than once, he has stated his intent to remake the world according to China’s image with the government in Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at the head. The CCP literally has bought economic influence around the globe, including in Washington, DC, in pursuit of its goal. Former senior staffers of top Congressional officers are lobbying for Chinese military companies that the Department of Defense has designated as “directly or indirectly owned, controlled or beneficially owned by” the Chinese military, as well as those that contribute to China’s military-industrial complex, according to Robert Schmad of the daily Caller. 

This comes at a time when China’s grey zone policies include ongoing attempts to quarantine Taiwan. Analysts in Washington openly discuss China’s military capacity to launch an invasion of Taiwan, conduct an air and sea blockade the island, and control commerce across the South China Sea. They also debate whether the US could win a war in Asia against the communist giant. China is also applying pressure on international organizations to exclude Taiwan’s presence. Beijing’s reach today spans the globe and includes missions conducting research in the Arctic that concern the Pentagon due to their military nature.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is another leader complicit in the Axis of Disarray. It extends beyond his invasion of Ukraine, now approaching its 28 months this week. Russia’s so-called private security firms, in the post-Wagner period, are active in many regions. In Africa they are physically supporting counter insurgencies and anti-rebel groups in the Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Mozambique, and Sudan. Russia is also running active political commercial operations in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Madagascar, and Zimbabwe. 

Military technology is posing yet another problem. For the first time in history, air defense systems are seeing a rapid proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of surveillance, carrying a payload of missiles, and other stand off fires. These low-cost systems enable state and non-state actors to engage in more extensive operations than in the past and further destabilize the world. It also adds the challenge of defending commercial sea routes. Once insignificant states, such as North Korea, now possess nuclear weapons and threaten to use them against the West.

The global supply chain faces a number of challenges, including how to secure the transit of ships carrying commercial goods though the Bosphorus Strait and Bab El-Mandeb Strait (near Yemen), and Suez Canal. China today controls approximately 90% of the South China Sea. That area is transited by more than two-thirds of the world’s oceanic commerce. China also runs the port authority at both ends of the Panama Canal.

Global instability is further exacerbated by state and non-state actors threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Iran is conducting a nuclear program it labels as a “Field Project” at the Iman Khomeini Space Center and Missile Headquarters. Two weeks ago, Iran conducted an underground nuclear test about 62 miles from its Semnan test facility, according to US intelligence sources. This is the same location where Iran conducted nuclear tests in 2003. Russian President Putin has also threatened the use of nuclear weapons if the West continues to oppose his occupation of Ukraine. The Kremlin has field exercised their use near the Ukrainian border.The revisionist powers, including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, are coordinating their aggressive policies with the goal of eroding the balance of deterrence in the world. The threat level is high. With little leadership coming out of Washington, the Axis o

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