Category: Quick Analysis

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

From the time that the first pioneers arrived at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown, America had always been a forward-looking nation. Now, however, it is mortgaging its future to pay for programs it simply can’t afford. The problem had been growing for decades, but the acceleration under the current Administration has reached a breaking point.

The problem is so vast that interest expenses on the national debt, now reaching $35 trillion, exceeds what America spends on its own national defense.

 In the current federal fiscal year, which began in October, interest payments have reached $514 billion dollars. The problem is accelerating. The deficit totaled $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2024, grows to $1.8 trillion in 2025, and then returns to $1.6 trillion by 2027. Thereafter, deficits steadily mount, reaching $2.6 trillion in 2034.  Those deficits will have to be paid for by borrowing, and interest rates will grow accordingly.

According to the Congressional Budget Office “Since the Great Depression, deficits have exceeded that level only during and shortly after World War II, the 2007–2009 financial crisis, and the corona­virus pandemic. Debt held by the public rises each year in relation to the size of the economy, reaching 116 percent of GDP in 2034—an amount greater than at any point in the nation’s history. From 2024 to 2034, increases in mandatory spending and interest costs outpace declines in discretionary spending and growth in revenues and the economy, driving up debt. That trend persists, pushing federal debt to 172 percent of GDP in 2054.”

If the U.S. government were a private company, it would be staring at bankruptcy. 

The problem hits every American hard through inflation. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget describes the impact on the economy: “Higher interest rates on federal debt and bank reserves increase interest rates throughout the economy on everything from mortgages to student loans to credit cards. They also contribute to a phenomenon called ‘crowd out,’ where investors purchase government bonds instead of investing in the private sector, thus slowing economic growth. CBO estimates that for every $1 of new U.S. government borrowing, total investment falls by 33 cents and an additional 24 cents of the return to investments goes abroad, resulting in slowing income growth over time.”

 A 2023 Heritage study notes “The amount of additional spending resulting from legislation passed between March 2020 and December 2022 is astonishing: $7.5 trillion—more than $57,400 dollars per household. While federal spending per American has steadily increased in real terms over the past several decades, the pace of the increase in recent years has been shocking.”

Senator Mitch McConnell stated t last year that “Since President Biden took office, consumer prices have risen more than 16 percent. American families are paying 20 percent more to put food on the table than they did in January 2021. And 36 percent more on energy. But over more than two years of Washington Democrats’ runaway inflation, President Biden’s top advisors have refused to even admit that there’s a problem – let alone that their policies are driving it.” 

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) worries that “The federal government faces an unsustainable long-term fiscal path that poses serious economic, security, and social challenges if not addressed. Congress and the administration will need to make difficult budgetary and policy decisions to address the key drivers of federal debt and change the government’s fiscal path. The sooner actions are taken to change the long-term fiscal path, the less drastic they will need to be. Debt is projected to grow faster than the economy over the long term.”

At the end of fiscal year 2023, the $26.2 trillion in debt held by the public was about 97 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). GAO projects that under current revenue and spending policies, debt held by the public will reach its historical high of 106 percent of GDP by 2028, and grow more than twice as fast as the economy over a 30-year period, reaching 200 percent of GDP by 2050.

Perpetually rising debt as a share of GDP is unsustainable and has many direct and indirect implications on the economy and American households and individuals. Debt held by the public is projected to grow faster than GDP.

Illustration: Pixabay

Russia, which has the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal, is emphasizing even further growth of its atomic weaponry.

According to Moscow’s semi-official news outlet RT “Russia will upgrade its nuclear arsenal as it is a primary guarantor of national security… President Vladimir Putin… revealed. We plan to further develop the nuclear triad as a guarantee of strategic deterrence and to preserve the balance of power in the world.”

Putin is also considering a revision to his announced doctrine to the doctrine that Russia’s nuclear doctrine that such weapons can only be used in the face of a threat to Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” 

According to the Office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence “Russia will continue to modernize its nuclear weapons capabilities and maintains the largest and most diverse nuclear weapons stockpile. Moscow views its nuclear capabilities as necessary for maintaining deterrence and achieving its goals in a potential conflict against the United States and NATO, and it sees this as the ultimate guarantor of the Russian Federation. Russia’s inability to achieve quick and decisive battlefield wins, coupled with Ukrainian strikes within Russia, continues to drive concerns that Putin might use nuclear weapons. In 2023, Putin publicly touted his willingness to move nuclear weapons to Belarus in response to a longstanding request from Minsk. Moscow will continue to develop long-range nuclear-capable missiles and underwater delivery systems meant to penetrate or bypass U.S. missile defenses. Russia is expanding and modernizing its large and diverse set of nonstrategic systems, which are capable of delivering nuclear or conventional warheads, because Moscow believes such systems offer options to deter adversaries, control the escalation of potential hostilities, and counter U.S. and Allied conventional forces.”

The Arms Control Center reports that in 2023, Putin suspended it participation in the New Start nuclear treaty. According to the organization, this “merely confirmed what was already Russian policy… The United States determined that Russia was not in compliance with the treaty in January 2023. A State Department Spokesperson explained, Russia’s refusal to facilitate inspection activities prevents the United States from exercising important rights under the treaty and threatens the viability of US-Russian nuclear arms control.” In August 2022, the Kremlin blocked treaty-bound inspections visits to its facilities and in November 2022, Moscow postponed the treaty’s bilateral consultative commission.”

The anti-nuclear weapons organization ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)  notes that “The question is on everyone’s mind- will he or won’t he?  Will the taboo against nuclear use in war hold? … Since the invasion of Ukraine … Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly violated international law.  No one wants to believe that nuclear weapons will be used, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, they can be used. That is what nuclear deterrence is based on- credibly threatening to mass murder civilians with nuclear weapons…”

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) explains that “Nuclear threats have been part of Russia’s strategy in Ukraine since the invasion in February 2022. The Kremlin clearly perceives some benefit from this strategy. One reason might be deterrence and nuclear signaling. But another reason Russia continues to rely on nuclear saber-rattling is because it is getting away with it. These risky behaviors are essentially cost-free to Moscow and have drawn little-to-no response from the wider international community, aside from statements of opprobrium by the United States and some European states. Reducing nuclear risks will require more countries to confront Russian nuclear saber-rattling, such as the latest drills, and impose diplomatic or economic costs.”

One reason why Putin feels confident in rattling his nuclear saber may be the diminished state of the American nuclear deterrent in the face of extraordinary challenges. Last year, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La) in a published article, worried that “we no longer face just one threat.  Russia still maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, but China’s nuclear stockpile is growing rapidly.  North Korea continues to threaten our allies with its collection of nuclear weapons.  And, thanks to the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, Iran is marching ever closer to developing nuclear weapons of its own. The United States must now counter nuclear superpowers in both China and Russia while also deterring the itchy trigger fingers of unstable dictators like Kim Jong Un and the Ayatollah in Iran.  We should be innovating and preparing our nuclear arsenal for this new global dynamic, but instead, our nuclear stockpile remains stuck in the Cold War. Simply put: America’s nuclear stockpile is old and shrinking.  And while modernizing our nuclear arsenal should be a top priority, our effort to restart nuclear weapon production has been riddled with delays and poor planning.  And we don’t have time to waste. The United States has not built a single nuclear warhead since the close of the Cold War.  Instead, we’ve focused on “life extension programs” to keep our old weapons operational by refurbishing them. “

Did anyone in Washington notice that China tested a nuclear capable long-range ICBM with a dummy warhead on September 25? It landed in the Pacific Ocean with no “notified” overflight announcement to nearby countries, although in Washington DOD said it had “some” notice from Beijing. Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation notes that China chose to launch at a time when international tensions are high not only in Europe and the Middle East but also across East Asia. The news gets worse. US lawmakers recently confirmed the CCP now has more ICBM launchers than the United States. This is a fivefold quicker increase than Washington predicted.  

Beijing has been preparing for war for a long time. As far back as 1980, a Chinese newspaper published a map of Asia with circles drawn to indicate the countries within the target area of its launch of a DF-5 missile. They included the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Nauru, the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu, western Samoa, and the New Hebrides. One member of the intelligence community active in the region recently commented, “We should have been seeing the lights flashing red, but we continue to ignore them.” ICBM’s have a range of over 3,500 miles. China’s missiles can strike targets almost anywhere in the world. Beijing’s DF-41, its longest-range missile, can travel an estimated 9,300 miles. San Francisco is 6,100 miles from Shanghai.

Washington must not be misled by suggestions that this week’s ICBM launch is simply a normal event, according to numerous members of the intelligence community. Sadler points out that China frequently tests fractional orbital bombardment missile systems, including a recent launch in July 2021. Beijing’s trajectory is not one of peace. It is not deterred by the West. It is accelerating and expanding its military readiness and technological capabilities to launch a war in the Pacific. Jeffrey Lewis, a missile expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies says “We’re entering a new age… where the United States and China are engulfed in what feels like an arms race… It is a China that does not feel constrained… and [they are] demonstrating to others they work.”

Taiwan’s President, William Lai, continues to warn about China’s ambition for global hegemony after the recent test. A spokesperson for the Australian government stated that “The launch comes in the context of China’s rapid military build-up, which is taking place without the transparency and reassurance that the region looks for from great powers… [It] is destabilizing and raises the risk of miscalculation in the region….” In Japan, the reaction was similar with a government spokesperson at a press conference noting Tokyo had “no advance notice.” This comes after China increased its military presence around Japan during the last month and, in an unprecedented move, breached Japanese air space using one of its military aircraft.

The CCP’s missile message also serves a domestic purpose. The government has endured repeated scandals over corruption within the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF). It purged many of its senior military leaders. Timothy Heath, a senior international defense researcher at RAND Corporation suggested “The test was an opportunity for the PLARF to restore its credibility with China’s leadership” and show that it remained capable despite the corruption scandals. Johnn Ciociari, dean of the Hamilton Lugar School of International Studies at Indiana University pointed out that “Within China, it supports a nationalist narrative about the government’s competence and resolve… Regionally, it is part of a broader effort to discourage China’s neighbors from challenging Beijing on Taiwan or other flashpoints.” He added that “To global audiences, the test may seek to amplify perceptions that China is gaining rapidly on the United States in military power and technological prowess.”

There is yet another urgent concern for Washington beyond China’s perceived intent to show it is ICBM-capable of attacking the United States. Some in the military intelligence community in Washington are concerned that due to the financial cost of Russia’s war in Ukraine, Moscow may be manufacturing and likely selling advanced military technologies that fill any remaining gaps the CCP has in its arsenal. The US must be prepared under the oceans, on the ground, and in space to confront Chinese aggression.

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

Photo: A Smart Dragon-3 carrier rocket carrying eight satellites blasts off from the waters near the city of Haiyang in east China’s Shandong Province, Sept. 24, 2024. China launched the rocket on Tuesday, placing eight satellites into planned orbit. The commercial rocket blasted off at 10:31 a.m. (Beijing Time), carrying Tianyi-41 and other satellites. The Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center carried out this offshore launch. (Photo by Guo Houze/Xinhua)

On September 25, the US Navy ship Big Horn ran aground and partially flooded off Oman, leaving the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group without its primary fuel source. The Big Horn was the only US Navy oiler in the entire Middle East. Most Americans slept through our post-Cold War dividend, believing that friendly relations with those antithetically opposed to American values won over the worst of the world’s worst. That time has run out with recent events around the world challenging the idea that if we stay neutral and ignore threats, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they will go away. Congress expanded funding for social welfare programs while failing to supply the money needed to, literally, keep our military afloat. Now Washington is faced with aiding Ukraine at a time when the size and strength of the US military is increasingly challenged.

Washington must assume that even a weakened Russia is taking notice of America’s failure to prepare for peace through strength. There is no doubt within the intelligence community this week that the Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis is preparing to face off with the West. The remaining question is one of timing. Misunderstanding the nature of the threat and how Putin perceives the West may be Washington’s greatest weakness.

Russian President Vladimir Putin made three bets according to Dr. Junhua Zhang, a senior associate at the European Institute for Asian Studies. They are not unlike those made by Saddam Hussein before his invasion of Kuwait. At that time President Bush failed to forcefully send a message to Hussein to back down. President Biden has failed to reign in Putin despite modest administration efforts inside the White House National Security Council.

Putin bet that no matter what occurred after the start of his “special military operation” he would have buyers for his country’s oil and gas to finance his effort. He received assurances in advance and today China and India continue to purchase at discounted prices that are high enough to support his war machine. 

Putin’s second bet may be short-lived but addresses Moscow’s immediate need as China is not parting with its Russian alliance. Several years after Putin’s invasion in Ukraine, Beijing continues its comprehensive support in diplomacy, finance, military, industry, and consumer goods. According to Reuters, Russia even allowed a Chinese toy factory to produce military drones, despite Beijing’s official protestations that “We are neutral, and we don’t deliver any weapons to any war party.” 

Finally, Putin bet on us in the West. He gambled that Washington, and other western capitals, would say they opposed Russian aggression, but would be deterred from immediate and substantial assistance to Ukraine. Putin surmised his threat to use nuclear weapons would be enough to stop any extensive action on the part of the West. Although the West is stepping up, Putin remains undeterred in using long-range missiles to hit Ukraine. At the same time, Ukrainian President Zelensky doesn’t receive comparable support from the West to move deeper into Russian territory. 

Some in the intelligence community are quietly discussing whether we are moving into a post-Westphalian rules-based order. Economic globalization, a lack of support in Washington for maintaining the most advanced military to deter aggression, and China’s emergence into the world order claiming leadership rights, all contribute to destabilizing the world. 

Perhaps, there is a fourth bet. By weakening the European Union (EU) and the United States, along with the euro-dollar and western financial sectors, Moscow can attempt to participate in leading new economic, social, and political expansions elsewhere in the world. The BRIC countries appear to be one target susceptible to Putin’s overtures as can be seen in their supportive actions at the United Nations. 

Earlier this month, following an interview after the Forum on United Cultures, Russian President Vladimir Putin again threatened the Western nations claiming that strikes on Russian territory meant direct participation by the Nort Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It isn’t the first time the Russian leader has made such a threat. It failed to deter the West despite additional threats from other senior Russian officials, including the current Deputy Chairperson of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, who claimed a nuclear response is possible. When backed into a corner Putin will strike out like a venomous snake, despite its impending death, says Rebecca Koffler, a former DIA Russian analyst and author of “Putin’s Playbook.”

Boris Bondarev, of the Jamestown Foundation, says “How the West responds to these is essential. Western states would benefit from responding the same way they have to the previous threats: take them into account but proceed from the fact that Putin himself is afraid of drastic and unpopular steps, whether in the political or military sphere.” The risk is that as the US military grows older and comparatively less capable over time, Putin’s threats could become reality should he see it as a last ditch effort to save the former Russian empire from dismantlement.

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

Photo: U.S.S. Big Horn (U.S. Navy photo)

Things have not gone well for Special Counsel Jack Smith this year.  First, the United States Supreme Court decided that a number of the allegations brought against former President Donald Trump in Smith’s “January 6″ indictment were subject to absolute immunity, and as such, could not form the basis for a criminal prosecution.  Then, Smith’s “classified documents” indictment was dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon, who followed the reasoning of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and ruled that Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel was illegal, which means Smith did not have the power to indict former President Trump in the first place.

These reversals, however, do not spell the end of Jack Smith’s efforts.  The intrepid Special Counsel has appealed Judge Cannon’s ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. His office has also filed a superseding indictment in the “January 6” case. 

As described by CNN, a superseding indictment is  “a document that amends and replaces the original indictment, listing the formal charges against a defendant. A grand jury typically approves a superseding indictment after additional information or evidence has been obtained, and the new document usually adds charges or defendants to the case…in rare instances, minor deletions of details included in the initial indictment have been permitted.” 

When the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Trump v. United States, Chief Justice Roberts distinguished between a President’s official, constitutionally mandated actions, which are entitled to absolute immunity, from acts which have a presumption of immunity, a presumption which can be rebutted, from unofficial acts which have no immunity.  Since “no court has thus far considered how to draw [these] distinction[s],” Roberts stated that “[t]his necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.”

Rather than allow District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin to perform this analysis, The Special Counsel filed a superseding indictment. “’The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions’…Smith’s office said.” 

In particular, Smith removed a section from the original indictment that accused Trump  of using “the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.” These allegations were specifically discussed in Chief Justice Robert’s opinion; “The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s ‘use of official power’…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.”  For this reason, these discussions are entitled to absolute immunity, since “[t]he President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'” (Citations omitted.)

Yet, the removal of these allegations does not cure the defects which are carried over from the original indictment to the superseding one.  In fact, this new indictment is just as facially insufficient and impossible to prove as was its predecessor.

The new indictment continues to assert that Donald Trump “used knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislators and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the Defendant’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., to electoral votes for the Defendant.”  It is also alleged that Trump “organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution and other federal and state laws.”

In Chapters 14 and 15 of our book, The Making of a Martyr, an Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump,  we review these particular allegations.  In particular, we discuss the inability to establish that Donald Trump did not sincerely believe that the 2020 President election was stolen from him through election fraud in the “seven targeted states.”  We noted that according to Jack Smith, “Donald Trump knew that there wasn’t any ‘outcome determinative fraud’ in the 2020 presidential election because other people told him so,” those other people being some of his attorneys and officials at the Justice Department.  However, “[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.”

Further, we also examine whether or not making use of alternate electors would even constitute a criminal act.  We trace prior instances of alternate electors, and efforts by progressive Democrats to convince duly-elected electors to change their votes, and conclude that “[m]ost federal prosecutors have better things to do than become involved in a political process and prosecute ‘invalid electors’ whose votes have been rejected by Congress, or those who encouraged the submission of those alternate votes.”

These problems from the original indictment remain in the superseding one.  A new problem, however, is presented by the re-worked allegations regarding former President Trump’s interaction with Vice-President Pence.

Originally, the indictment claimed that Trump  “attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results…using knowingly false claims of election fraud, (Trump) attempted to convince the Vice President to use the Defendant’s fraudulent electors, reject legitimate electoral votes, or send legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them.”

In Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he noted that Smith’s office “explained at oral argument that although it ‘has not yet had to come to grips with how [it] would analyze’ Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, there is ‘support’ to characterize that conduct as official…[i]ndeed, our constitutional system anticipates that the President and Vice President will remain in close contact regarding their official duties over the course of the President’s term in office.”

To get around this weakness in Smith’s case, the Special Counsel now asserts that Trump “attempted to enlist the Vice President, in his ceremonial role as President of the Senate at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” (Emphasis added.)  As this change is described by NBC News, “[t]he new indictment also notes Vice President Mike Pence’s role as president of the Senate on the day of the electoral vote count –  Jan. 6, 2021 – in an apparent nod to concerns from the Supreme Court about whether evidence of Trump’s campaign to get Pence to intervene in the count should be allowed. The Supreme Court ruling said, ‘Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct,’ and there is therefore a ‘presumption of immunity’ around their conversations. But the ruling also noted that Pence’s responsibility of ‘presiding over the Senate’ is not an ‘executive branch’ function.'” 

It is hard to see how this change suddenly converts Trump’s actions from official to unofficial.  In essence, Smith asserts that the former President was speaking 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.

 One fallacy  of this argument is the attempt to paint the Vice President’s role as President of the Senate as “ceremonial.”  In fact, this office is given to the Vice President specifically by the United States Constitution.   Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 4, “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”  Constitution Annotated makes clear that this role is far from “ceremonial”; “In addition to casting the tie-breaking vote when the Senate is divided equally, the President of the Senate also, among other things, conducts the electoral count and attests that an enrolled bill has been passed by the Senate. By affixing his or her signatures to an enrolled bill the President of the Senate along with the Speaker of the House indicates that the bill has passed Congress and is ready for presentment to the President.” 

Thus, Pence’s “ceremonial” role as President of the Senate is a duty which lies outside of his responsibilities to the Executive Branch as Vice President.  This is a duty he owes to the Legislative Branch.  But as outlined, that role is far more than “ceremonial.”

While it is true that the Supreme Court used the example of the President’s interaction with those he supervises in the Executive Branch (eg, the Attorney General) as a model for actions which enjoy absolute immunity, in adopting this example so closely, Smith takes the narrow view that the President’s interactions with those outside the Executive Branch are not actions which are entitled to immunity. 

This view is demonstrably wrong.

Under Article 2, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” (Emphasis added.)

Based on this clause in the United States Constitution, there is a view of the evidence possible, that then-President Trump was consulting with Vice President Pence, in Pence’s capacity as President of the Senate, “in consideration” of a measure that Trump deemed “necessary and expedient,” that is, securing a free and fair election.  If that were the case, then President Trump would be entitled to absolute immunity for his actions.

 At best, then, all Smith has done is state a claim in rebuttal of the presumption of Executive action entitled to absolute Immunity.  The allegations in the superseding indictment do not establish that Trump was acting solely as a candidate, in an unofficial capacity, and not as President, to insure that the election was fair.

Thus, much like Smith’s allegations regarding former President Trump’s “knowingly false claims of election fraud” and his “fraudulent slate of electors,” Smith has set up yet another straw man with his superseding indictment.  HIs allegations are premised on suppositions unsupported by logic, or the facts.  How can Smith prove that Vice President Pence’s role as President of the Senate is merely ceremonial, and how can he establish that Trump addressed Pence as a private candidate for office, and not in his Constitutional role as President of the United States, acting in consideration of something he felt was “necessary and expedient,” that is, to safeguard the nation’s election process from what Trump believed to be an obviously stolen election?

If Smith’s new allegations serve only as an attempt to rebut the assumption that former President Trump’s actions were taken in his official capacity, and therefore subject to immunity, then Jack Smith continues to fall short of the standard necessary to prove Donald Trump guilty of any crime, the standard that applies in all criminal cases – proof of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Special Counsel Jack Smith (official photo)