Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Special Prosecutor Robert Hur’s report, dated February 5, 2024, states clearly on its first page, that “[o]ur investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen.”  However, “we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt… we decline prosecution of Mr. Biden.”

There are a variety of legal considerations for the non-prosecution decision addressed in the Hur Report that deserve further analysis.  However, the most glaring reason for the recommendation is today’s topic; “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Hur does not deny that there is evidence for Biden’s willful retention of classified documents.  In Chapter 11 of his Report, Hur states that “[i]n a recorded conversation on February 16, 2017, at Mr. Biden’s rental home in Virginia, Mr. Biden told Mark Zwonitzer (a writer working with Biden) that Mr. Biden had ‘just found all the classified stuff downstairs.’ According to what Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer, ‘all the classified stuff’ related to President Obama’s 2009 decision to surge American troops to Afghanistan, and to a pivotal moment when Mr. Biden sent President Obama his handwritten Thanksgiving memo opposing the troop surge. Photos of the Virginia home show that the lowest level ‘downstairs’-where Mr. Biden told Zwonitzer he had ‘just found all the classified stuff’-included rooms that Mr. Biden used as work and storage spaces.” (Citations omitted.)

Hur finds that “Mr. Biden had a strong motive to keep the classified Afghanistan documents. He believed President Obama’s 2009 troop surge was a mistake on par with Vietnam. He wanted the record to show that he was right about Afghanistan; that his critics were wrong; and that he had opposed President Obama’s mistaken decision forcefully when it was made-that his judgment was sound when it mattered most.”  (Citations omitted.)

“Nevertheless,” Hur concludes, “for the reasons below, we believe this evidence is not strong enough to establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Hur then examines in detail a series of defenses Biden could assert, including, incredibly, “Mr. Biden could have found the classified Afghanistan documents at the Virginia home in 2017 and then forgotten about them soon after.”

In 30 years of legal practice, I do not recall a single case where a defendant was able to win an acquittal by claiming he had forgotten he was breaking the law.  But maybe Robert Hur’s experience is different.

In support of the “forgot about it” defense, Hur details his basis for believing this potential defense:  “Mr. Biden’s memory also appeared to have significant limitations-both at the time he spoke to Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office. Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries. In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he ‘had a real difference’ of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.”

In other words, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who can’t remember when he was Vice President, or when his own son died, would not remember that he was storing classified documents that had once been important enough for Biden to maintain in his possession.

Biden himself, as well as his supporters, have been vociferous in their complaints regarding this particular finding.   At a Press Conference held immediately after the release of the Hur Report, “a reporter who raised the issue of Hur’s assertion a jury would find the president to be a ‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,’ Mr. Biden responded, ‘I’m well-meaning and I’m an elderly man and I know what the hell I’m doing. I’ve been president and I put this country back on its feet. I don’t need his recommendation.’ Mr. Biden said his memory is ‘fine,’ and ‘has not gotten worse’ over the course of his presidency.” Yet, during that same Press Conference, Biden mixed up the President of Egypt with the President of Mexico, and could not recall the name of the Church where he got a rosary in honor of his son, Beau.  These memory lapses were particularly poignant, as it came while Biden was defending his ability to remember. 

According to former US Attorney General Eric Holder, “Special Counsel Hur report on Biden classified documents issues contains way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with long standing [Justice Department] traditions,” an assessment echoed by Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general during the Obama administration, who said, “Totally gratuitous. After all, earlier in the report, it says Biden has all sorts of innocent explanations for his behavior.”  Yet, Hur’s findings are hardly extraneous or gratuitous – they serve as an explanation for why a jury might not believe that Joe Biden “willingly” retained classified information.  A weak explanation for a very anemic defense, but an explanation nonetheless.

All of this might be forgivable and almost comical on a particular level – if the man with significant memory loss was not the current President of the United States.

“I’ve been saying since he was candidate Joe Biden: This man does not have the cognitive wherewithal or ability to be our head of state,” according to “Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), a physician to both former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump and a member of the White House Medical Unit under President George W. Bush…’I’m not making a diagnosis. And I’m not saying the guy has Alzheimer’s or multi-infarct dementia or Parkinson’s or anything else,’ he clarified. ‘This guy has cognitive issues related to his age: He shuffles when he walks, he slurs his speech, he forgets where he’s at, what he’s doing, he can’t remember names, he can’t remember dates – that is not someone that should be in control of the nuclear codes in this country and controlling our fate overseas.'”  

To date, Joe Biden has rejected all calls for cognitive testing.   But make no mistake – this remains a significant issue, of great concern to the majority of voters regardless of their party affiliation.

As noted by NBC News, “[i]t was tough enough for Biden to reassure voters about his health before Hur’s report hit like a thunderclap…prompting members of his own party to question whether he could remain the nominee in November. ‘It’s a nightmare,’ said a Democratic House member who asked to speak anonymously to provide a frank assessment, adding that ‘it weakens President Biden electorally…[f]or Democrats, we’re in a grim situation.’” 

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

We met at nine, we met at eight, I was on time, no, you were late Ah, yes, I remember it well…Maurice Chavalier, Hermione Gingold, I Remember It Well

The classic duet quoted above is charming, as a woman continually corrects the faulty memory of her lover with tenderness and affection.  But less than charming is the declining mental health of President Joe Biden, which is obvious to anyone with eyes to see him fall, and ears to hear him shout in anger and forget what he was saying.  Obvious, that is – unless you’re a Democrat.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (called) Biden “sharp”, according to NBC News. “’The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing and detail-oriented and focused,’ Mayorkas told Meet the Press.”  The Hill reports these comments from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; “I’ve worked with the president for a long time…and he knows … I mean, he’s always on the ball…[a]nyone who would think that they’re at some advantage because of his age thinks that at their peril, because he’s very sharp.” 

Then there are the assessments of Biden’s allies in Congress; “Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, told DailyMail.com that Biden ‘is as sharp as ever.’  ‘The president is doing an incredible job, and I look forward to making sure he gets re-elected in 2024,’ Sen. RaphaelWarnock, D-Ga., added.  Another Democrat ElizabethWarren agreed, saying said. ‘I know his ability to do the job because he is doing the job. He is delivering every single day for the American people.’ ” 

While Warnock and Warren do not directly address Biden’s mental abilities in their comments, the implication is the same as the more direct statements of Mayorkas, Pelosi  and Blumenthal – don’t believe your lying eyes! 

Meanwhile, the American public displays increasing  recognition that the Emperor has no clothes.  “Three-quarters of voters, including half of Democrats, say they have concerns about President Joe Biden’s mental and physical health, according to the latest national NBC News poll... [i]n the new poll, a combined 76% of voters say they have major concerns (62%) or moderate concerns (14%) about Biden’s not having the necessary mental and physical health to be president for a second term…[b]y party, 95% of Republican voters, 81% of independents and 54% of Democrats say they have major or moderate concerns about Biden’s fitness for a second term.” 

As if these poll results were not bad enough news for Biden, along comes the long-anticipated report from Special Prosecutor Robert Hur to throw gasoline on the fire.

You may recall from our article published at usagovpolicy.com in January of 2023, Biden’s Garage of Secrets,   not long after the raid on Mar a Lago and the FBI’s seizure of classified documents from the home of former President Donald Trump, current President Biden’s attorney’s revealed that classified documents were also recovered from Joe Biden’s Wilmington, DE home and the Penn Biden Center at the University of Pennsylvania.  These documents dated back to the time before Biden was President, some dating back to his time as a Senator.

As we describe in Chapter 4 of my new book, The Making of a Martyr: An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump,   “On January 12, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Special Counsel Robert Hur, to investigate ‘the possible unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or other records discovered at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement and the Wilmington, Delaware, private residence of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’   Hur is the former US Attorney for Maryland, and according to the Associated Press, ‘Hur was principal associate attorney general under (Rod) Rosenstein at the Justice Department. Hur is also a former partner at the Washington law firm King & Spalding, where FBI Director Christopher Wray was once also a partner.’  

We also noted that “[i]t wasn’t until October of 2023 that Hur interviewed the current President in person, a move which PBS believes ‘could signal that the special counsel investigation is nearing its conclusion.’In fact, according to former federal prosecutor Jonathan Turley, ‘[u]nlike his counterpart, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has been aggressively prosecuting former president Donald Trump, Hur has virtually disappeared since his appointment to investigate President Joe Biden.'” 

Judge Wilson’s (ret.) Report concludes tomorrow

For many years, conservatives and “free market” economists have complained about the ever-expanding “Administrative State.” At the same time, those on the left have relied more and more on bureaucrats at various federal agencies to issue more and more regulations and restrictions on a variety of private industries, including oil refining, gas production, agriculture, and even fishing, usually in the name of increased safety or to control prices.

Since the early 1980’s, one tool used by a variety of government agencies responsible for the ever-expanding web of regulations is the US Supreme Court decision in Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Def. Council, 467 US 837 (1984).  Briefly stated, the case involved a challenge to regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding air pollution controls mandated for manufacturing and oil refining plants and factories. In Chevron, the Court held that “[a]n agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. Policy arguments…should be addressed to legislators or administrators, not to judges. The EPA’s interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference.”

The rationale for the Court’s decision was explained in this way; “[T]he Administrator’s interpretation represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference: the regulatory scheme is technical and complex, the agency considered the matter in a detailed and reasoned fashion, and the decision involves reconciling conflicting policies”, the Court wrote in Chevron. “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government…[w]hen a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency’s policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges-who have no constituency-have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.” (Citations omitted.)

For the past 40 years, this “Chevron deference” has been granted to a variety of determinations made by every regulatory agency of the federal government.  To paraphrase the substance of this deference, “they’re the experts – they know better.”

Recently, the Supreme Court has heard arguments in two cases which give the Court the chance to revisit the Chevron deference, and perhaps modify or overturn that standard.  But to understand this rule and the necessity of reversing this precedent, a review of history is necessary.

The ascension of the modern bureaucratic state was documented by the eminent Political Scientist, James Q. Wilson.   “There was no dispute in Congress that there should be executive departments, headed by single appointed officials, and, of course, the Constitution specified that these would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate”, Wilson wrote in The Rise of the Bureaucratic State.  “The original departments were small and had limited duties. The State Department, the first to be created, had but nine employees in addition to the Secretary. The War Department did not reach 80 civilian employees until 1801; it commanded only a few thousand soldiers. Only the Treasury Department had substantial powers—it collected taxes, managed the public debt, ran the national bank, conducted land surveys, and purchased military supplies. Because of this, Congress gave the closest scrutiny to its structure and its activities.” 

According to Wilson, “[a]fter 1861, the growth in the federal administrative system …reflected a new (or at least greater) emphasis on the enlargement of the scope of government. Between 1861 and 1901, over 200,000 civilian employees were added to the federal service…[b]y 1901 there were over 44,000 civilian defense employees, mostly workers in government-owned arsenals and shipyards. But even these could account for less than one fourth of the increase in employment during the preceding 40 years.” 

In the 1930’s, “[t]he New Deal was perhaps the high water mark…[n]ot only did various sectors of society, notably agriculture, begin receiving massive subsidies, but the government proposed, through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA), to cloak with public power a vast number of industrial groupings and trade associations so that they might control production and prices in ways that would end the depression. The NRA’s Blue Eagle fell before the Supreme Court—the wholesale delegation of public power to private interests was declared unconstitutional. But the piecemeal delegation was not, as the continued growth of specialized promotional agencies attests.”

Wilson’s analysis continued; “For many decades, the Supreme Court denied to the federal government any general ‘police power’ over occupations and businesses, and thus most such regulation occurred at the state level …(however), [w]hat clearly was within the regulatory province of the federal government was interstate commerce, and thus it is not surprising that the first major federal regulatory body should be the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), created in 1887… the ICC…became the principal example of federal discretionary authority.”

Wilson then detailed the current state of these ever-growing regulatory agencies; “Either in applying a vague but broad rule (‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity’) or in enforcing a clear and strict standard, the regulatory agency will tend to broaden the range and domain of its authority, to lag behind technological and economic change, to resist deregulation, to stimulate corruption, and to contribute to the bureaucratization of private institutions…[r]egulatory agencies are slow to respond to change for the same reason all organizations with an assured existence are slow: There is no incentive to respond. Furthermore, the requirements of due process and of political conciliation will make any response time-consuming.”

Most important to our analysis of the challenge which has been brought to the Chevron deference, Wilson presaged the basis for the current controversy; “The operation of regulatory bureaus may tend to bureaucratize the private sector. The costs of conforming to many regulations can be met most easily—often, only—by large firms and institutions with specialized bureaucracies of their own. Smaller firms and groups often must choose between unacceptably high overhead costs, violating the law, or going out of business. A small bakery producing limited runs of a high-quality product literally may not be able to meet the safety and health standards for equipment, or to keep track of and administer fairly its obligations to its two employees; but unless the bakery is willing to break the law, it must sell out to a big bakery that can afford to do these things, but may not be inclined to make and sell good bread.” (Emphasis in original.)

The application of the Chevron deference over the past 40 years has only encouraged this trend towards more and more regulations and bureaucratic rule-making, all in the name of vaguely worded policy objectives.  As Wilson described, federal agencies have promulgated so many rules, a small business has no chance of fully complying with these usually costly instructions, and turn a profit.

But this state of affairs is far from hopeless.

As described by Reuters,  “[I]n Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo…petitioners challenge regulations of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which impose a per diem fee on vessels to pay for the individual they are required to carry on trips to monitor compliance with fisheries rules under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).”  This case was consolidated with Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, [also] a challenge to the per diem fees imposed by the NMFS on vessels to pay the cost of the observers the NMFS sends out to monitor the health of fisheries.” 

From the oral arguments held on January 17 of this year, it is obvious that the Supreme Court intends on addressing the continued application of the Chevron deference.  As the discussion was described in the SCOTUSblog, “[t]he fishing companies (asked) the justices to weigh in on the rule itself but also to overrule Chevron. Roman Martinez, representing one group of fishing vessels, told the justices that…[u]nder the Chevron doctrine…even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’s interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is ‘not consistent with the rule of law.’”  

Justice Neil Gorsuch made an argument that echoed the concerns expressed by James Q. Wilson. “he was less concerned about businesses subject to changing regulations, observing that the companies ‘can take care of themselves’ and seek relief through the political process. Instead, Gorsuch pointed to less powerful individuals who may be affected by the actions of federal agencies, such as immigrants, veterans seeking benefits, and Social Security claimants. In those cases, Gorsuch stressed, Chevron virtually always works for the agencies and against the ‘little guy.’”

Indeed.  Justice Gorsuch has also expressed concerns regarding federal agency overreach in the past.  In his concurring opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor,    (where the Court found that the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] did not have the authority to mandate that private employers with more than 100 employees must require their employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine),   Gorsuch wrote “the national government’s power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs – with the people’s elected representatives. If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans…they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear grant of authority from Congress.”

As Justice Gorsuch reasoned, “[s]ometimes lawmakers may be tempted to delegate power to agencies to ‘reduc[e] the degree to which they will be held accountable for unpopular actions’…[i]f Congress could hand off all its legislative powers to unelected agency officials, it ‘would dash the whole scheme’ of our Constitution and enable intrusions into the private lives and freedoms of Americans by bare edict rather than only with the consent of their elected representatives.” (Citations omitted).

Herein lies the heart of the issue. 

Over the years, Congress has delegated increased authority to a plethora of federal agencies, each more specific in its focus and jurisdiction.  Many of these bureaus address technical and specialized issues beyond the expertise of Members of Congress and Judges, necessitating some level of trust in their judgments.  However, the “hands off” approach taken by the Courts since the inception of the Chevron deference has allowed these bureaucracies to establish rules that effectively, if not always intentionally, favor large corporations, who are the only ones who can afford to follow these ever-expanding regulations.  As James Q. Wilson put it, a small bakery cannot compete with a large bakery, or as Justice Gorsuch states, federal agencies end up working against the “little guy.”

The small fisheries who are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot afford the cost of carrying a government compliance officer on their ships, while larger fishing companies can easily bear this cost.  If the Courts continue to apply the Chevron deference, the judges would have no choice but to endorse the actions of the NMFS, and drive small scale fishermen out of business.

Further, if the Supreme Court continues to follow the Chevron deference, Congress will be encouraged to continue ceding their powers to unelected and increasingly unaccountable bureaucrats.

Perhaps the Court will not overturn the Chevron deference it its entirety.  But it is certain that a major modification of this doctrine is on the way.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) contends that controlling information through data manipulation, content restriction, and bot sharing on social media is key to modern cognitive warfare, according to a report published this week by the Jamestown Foundation. Freedom-loving people, and the governments they select to represent them, can no longer ignore the national threat emerging from the mass manipulation of TikTok and its parent company ByteDance by the CCP. The Chinese leadership uses the platform to serve its own malevolent purposes. 

TikTok, which is controlled by ByteDance and ultimately answerable to the CCP, is not the equivalent of its Western social media rivals. The CCP has the ability to leverage the platform directly while TikTok has no practical or legal means to resist its pressure. The Jamestown report analyzes the CCP’s capability and intent and concludes that the social media platform is “Controlled by ByteDance and ultimately answerable to the CCP… TikTok has become a powerful tool to influence mass sentiment. While harder to prove that it has influenced the views of tens of millions of monthly active users in the United States due to the opacity of the platform’s recommendation algorithm, certain preconditions for doing so are clearly met,” it points out. The report also argues that the company needs to be separated from the CCP itself to protect US national security. It is unlikely to occur under the Biden Administration.

ByteDance is located in China, has its own party committee, and is closely linked the party-army-state apparatus. Those ties come with numerous obligations and are subject to strong coercive state power. The CCP uses its influence to manipulate narratives and information to damage and weaken its adversaries and to achieve strategic advantages, according to the report. TikTok aids the CCP by manipulating its users on a mass scale. Jamestown Foundation experts also say that it is conceivable that other Chinese apps, including mobile games and e-commerce platforms, are also involved in manipulating American public opinion according to the CCP’s preferences. There are also indications that TikTok may have acted illegally, according to the report, in its “handling of users’ data” and how it “conducted other malicious activities, such as tracking journalists.”

Unlike the United States, China’s security apparatus can compel cooperation using extralegal coercion. Like other companies, ByteDance is under the CCP’s strict whole-of-society surveillance and control mechanisms and enforced using the state’s intelligence apparatus. The report points out that ByteDance has signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security and integrated its cyber police into their platforms to censor content. ByteDance has gone beyond passive collaboration and offered to work with numerous PRC agencies. It prioritizes material in a specialized review queue and directly reports material deemed “inappropriate” to the cyber police. 

How far does the reach of China’s control extend? (Call it a coincidence, however, while writing this article my computer was attacked, apparently, and access to the Jamestown Foundation website blocked with a message that I was “not allowed” to access the site.) 

Inside China, Bytedance has no choice. It must conform to China’s national security laws in place since 2014. Company documents reveal that moderators were told to censor political speech in livestreams and punish those who harmed “national honor” while padding feeds with content from “shadow accounts” operated by company employees posing as regular users. The updated 2021 Data Security Law goes further and mandates a centralized system for data security, with a global reach affecting PRC companies and their overseas subsidiaries, to assess and monitor security risks. 

Western intelligence services say the extent of China’s reach is comprehensive, but not fully known as agencies continue to uncover new intrusions and methods of operation. The CCP employs a complex approach to global information control. According to the Jamestown report, “The CCP has the intent and capability to, as well as a history of, manipulating narratives and the information environment to support its objectives. A clear strategy aims to shape public opinion and suppress information that could challenge the Party’s narrative.” The CCP today maintains an elevated role and coordinates closely with the People’s Liberation Army. “The State Council’s News Center and Douyin have jointly signed a cooperation memorandum to optimize short video dissemination for state-owned enterprises and promote the Belt and Road Initiative through creating positive public opinion,” it adds.

CCP efforts to influence the information environment, the report notes, include the selective shadow banning of content that portrays the PRC negatively and the posting of content that portrays the PRC positively. A document from The Network Contagion Research Institute, entitled “A Tik-Tok-ing Timebomb: How TikTok’s Global Platform Anomalies Align with the Chinese Communist Party’s Geostrategic Objectives.”, December 21, 2023,that analyzed hashtags on Instagram and Tiktok concludes that TikTok “systematically promotes or demotes content on the basis of whether it is aligned with or opposed to the interests of the Chinese Government.” With TikTok’s 170 million users in the United States alone, the CCP is using the platform as a megaphone to target American citizens and manipulating opinion to favor China’s perspective. 

In a January Marxism Research Net article entitled, “Xu Chengfang: Research on the Laws of Ideology Construction Under the Conditions of Long-Term Ruling of the Communist Party of China,” , a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences emphasized that platforms like TikTok should “subconsciously complete the questioning of the negative propaganda of the West” and that TikTok in particular should create an “awakening.” Congress and the American people should be asking why the CCP needs to maintain its ability to coerce and control TikTok and the long-term implications for US national security.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing a multilayered game entrapping many of his country’s youth groups in a growing militarization sweeping across the nation. These Kremlin-sponsored paramilitary groups appear ready to assume a more active role in Russian politics this spring under the strict guidance of the state. Last year the Russian government allocated 19 billion rubles (about $204.8 million) for one youth organization alone, with 10 billion rubles allocated to developing the movement throughout Russia’s regions and 4 billion rubles to the central party apparatus. 

It is not the first time a “cult of personality” was employed to build support for a Russian leader. Just over one hundred years ago the “Young Pioneers,” a Soviet youth group, was founded under Lenin’s rule. By 1924 it counted 161,000 among its ranks. In the five decades after its formation the “Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization” amassed a following of over 25 million. Under Putin, its main successor is known as the “Movement of the First” (MOF) group. It claims June 22, 2022, the hundredth anniversary of the Young Pioneers, as its date of formation. 

The MOF is fully-funded and considered more radicalized than earlier Leninist organizations. Despite Kremlin claims reported in Kommersant.ru, that the group’s goal is to simply help foster creativity among today’s young Russians, there are indications MOF is working to help restore the Soviet Union to its former glory and, eventually, to help expand it to include areas once recognized as part of the Russian Empire. Last week on March 18, Russian citizens, including MOF and members of other similar youth groups, gathered in Red Square to celebrate Putin’s re-election victory with “aggressive chants” heard among a “sea of young, smiling faces, reflecting the growing militarization of Russian culture,” says Richard Arnold in a March 25 Eurasian Daily Monitor article. The tagline on MOF’s website calls its members “pioneers of the motherland.” The movement’s self-proclaimed values are “to be with Russia, to be human, to be together, to be on the move, to be first” and familiar platitudes to “strong families” and “service to the Fatherland,” he adds. 

The MOF and other separate youth structures, such as Yunarmia  (Youth Army) and the Russian Union of School Children, replicate Russia’s management of paramilitary groups with some military analysts suggesting they provide a confusing and layered picture with potentially divided loyalties among Russian citizens. MOF is the “tip of the spear” according to one Russia watcher, who points out that Putin gives them special attention at rallies in Moscow. TASS says that at the MOF’s Congress in Moscow in early February, Putin greeted the 3,000 MOF delegates and at the closing ceremony declared the group is almost five million strong and “That’s a huge  army!”

MOF’s size will continue to grow, according to Arnold. It already has a council in every region of the Russian Federation, including occupied areas of Ukraine. Like its forerunner, the Young Pioneers, today’s Russian youth blur the line between practicing soft skills that can help them on the battlefield, as well as in everyday life. They restore national war memorials, run marathons and other physical competitions, and learn first aid skills. “Another more blatantly militarist action began in February in anticipation of the 79th Victory Day, Russia’s annual celebration of Nazi Germany’s defeat,” says Arnold. The MOF created an event called “Victory Classic.” It aims to institutionalize military historical memory, promote “respect for the Motherland,” and ensure “the safeguarding of traditions” among various youth groups. It is enlarging the event that was held in 2023. By building inter-group connections, the Kremlin is creating an intricate web of organizations rather than replacing structures. Putin appears to be replicating the proliferation of similar groups in paramilitary groups in other fascist systems found throughout history.

“It seems that the Movement of the First is here to stay and will socialize an angrier, more militant generation,” argues Arnold. What remains uncertain is the response of these various groups should there be increased political conflict among the leadership in Moscow. In a crisis, Russian youth may present a challenge as groups divide their loyalties among different political leaders. Although strong now, MOF and other youth groups may present a serious challenge to Putin and other Russian leaders in the future.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

The heroic accomplishments of America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines would not have been possible without the tools they need.  Those weapons come from the nation’s defense industrial base, the “arsenal of democracy.”

Imagine the aftermath in World War II if the U.S. was unable to rebuild its Pacific fleet after the devastation of the Pearl Harbor attack, or the tanks, planes and artillery required to repulse the armies of Nazi Germany and Japan.

Events over the last few years have revealed that asset to be inadequate to the needs of both the U.S. and its allies.

The Department of Defense is clearly worried. Recently, it published what can best be described as an anguished warning.

“The defense industrial base is facing serious challenges, and now is the time to help those businesses before it is too late,” noted David Norquist, president and chief executive officer of the National Defense Industrial Association and the deputy secretary of defense from 2019 to 2021, He explained that “The United States is seeing the return of great power competition and can no longer outpower its adversaries on size alone as it once did…The United States was simply bigger than Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. We had a larger economy, and we could show up late to the fight, producing volume and eventually getting around to victory; it would just take us a little while…China now has an economy similar to the U.S. and a larger population.”

From 2016 to 2022, the Defense Logistic Agency lost about 22%, or 3,000 vendors. Small businesses accounted for 2,300 of those losses. Overall, the Department of Defense lost 43.1% of its small businesses in the same timeframe. 

A Heritage study outlines a key challenge: “Not only have manufacturing and key industrial processes moved overseas, but—even worse—they have moved to China, America’s chief rival. The U.S. is in a ‘new Cold War’ with China even as the two countries’ economies are deeply intertwined.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has weighed in on the looming crisis.

“…an appropriately-sized industrial base is essential to the United States’ ability to supply and equip its military forces. In addition to supporting current military needs, the resources available must be able to accommodate future demand. This latter requirement makes surge capacity—the ability to quickly expand output in response to sudden upticks in demand—an important dimension of broader industrial capacity. If the Defense Industrial base too small, it will be unable to supply all of the materials, products, and services necessary to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives, and the military may lack the ability to execute its assigned missions…an appropriately-sized industrial base is essential to the United States’ ability to supply and equip its military forces. In addition to supporting current military needs, the resources available must be able to accommodate future demand. This latter requirement makes surge capacity—the ability to quickly expand output in response to sudden upticks in demand—an important dimension of broader industrial capacity. If the Defense Industrial base too small, it will be unable to supply all of the materials, products, and services necessary to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives, and the military may lack the ability to execute its assigned missions,”

CRS found that “Some analysts and policymakers have argued that the current capacity of the industrial base is insufficient for the demands of great power competition. As Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) framed the problem in a 2023 study: The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists. It is currently operating at a tempo better suited to a peacetime environment. In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait— the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense, leading to a problem of ‘empty bins.’”

Reversing the downturn in capacity would require reversing tax and regulatory policies that have chased American manufacturing offshore.  Reducing the difficulty of working with federal agencies would go a long way in encouraging smaller firms to build capacity to fulfill defense contracts would also be a major step forward.

Photo: DoD

The bizarre progressive policies of releasing vicious criminals, maintaining a weak foreign policy, promoting hyperinflationary actions, encouraging racial division, and eliminating border safeguards have a common theme.

Those concepts are certainly and provably irrational. Since the onset of “defund the Police” and “no cash bail,” crime has risen dramatically. As America has followed the path of “leading from behind,” Russia has invaded Ukraine, Hamas has slaughtered innocents in the Middle East, North Korea has resumed full missile and nuclear arms testing, and China has pressured its neighbors. Despite electing a black president and mayors of color in major American cities, race relations have been pushed back decades due to allegations that America is a racist nation.  Since most border controls were relaxed or eliminated, millions, including human traffickers, drug cartel members, and assorted individuals endangering national security have crossed into the U.S., bankrupting cities and states.

Behind all of those ideas is common ideology, and an equally common goal: the delegitimizing of America’s current form of government and its economic system.

President Obama famously stated that he desired to “Fundamentally transform” the country. Barely anyone in the media dared to ask,” transform it into what?” or even, what problems required drastic alteration. The U.S. had the most powerful economy.  It was, at the time, the planet’s sole superpower. Racial relations were at an all-time high. Crime was largely under control.

To the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, however, none of that mattered. Far above the physical safety of the citizenry in their own communities, ending racial issues, the prosperity of families, or even the national security of the country as a whole loomed the objective of transforming America into a government based on socialist principles, dominated by a vastly empowered central authority controlling most facets of daily life. 

A clear example can be seen in the environmental policies pursued by progressives.  Most of the solutions they propose to the challenges they discuss in this area have little to do with the issue itself, but everything to do with ending capitalism.  It is another example of irrationality.  It is clear that socialist societies are far worse stewards of the planet than their capitalist counterparts.  As pointed out by Foundation for Economic Education, in a comparison of East Germany’s environmental actions as opposed to its western counterpart:

• In 1989, the GDR emitted more than three times as much CO2 for each unit of GDP than the Federal Republic (West Germany).  In 1988, the GDR emitted 10 times as much sulphur dioxide per km2 as the Federal Republic. Almost half of the GDR’s major rivers were biologically dead in 1989 and 70 per cent were no longer allowed to be used for drinking water. Nearly half of the GDR’s residents received no clean drinking water.

Similarly, Science Direct found that “On a national scale, we found that North Korea experienced 6.7, 17.8, and 20.6 times greater amounts of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), and carbon monoxide (CO) per unit primary energy supply (PES) than South Korea from 2005 to 2018.”

But to Progressives in the U.S., capitalism is bad for the planet and should be replaced by socialism.

To the left, America’s leadership role across the globe is unacceptable. That is why they oppose adequate defense budgets and favor Washington’s enemies over its friends. Despite their stated support for gay and women’s rights, they favor appeasing Iran, the worst offender of those concepts.  Despite their self-description of being humanitarian, they have vigorously favored Hamas over Israel. 

Progressive leaders fully realize that their policies cannot standup to examination, and so they quickly label opponents with absurd labels, crying “racist” or “climate denier” to anyone who dares to use facts during a debate.