Month: October 2022

Many in the media, in Hollywood, and in government, have often portrayed illegal aliens in a sympathetic light.  Calling them “hard working,” or “in search of a better life,” while also using descriptions such as “refugees,” those who enter our country without legal status often have more positive publicity than many celebrities.

But of all those here illegally, none has stirred more overall sympathy than children who were brought here by illegal alien parents.  Many have grown up in this country, do not speak their native languages fluently, and think of themselves as American.  Most hearts go out to such people – can’t something be done to make an exception for these children?

Building on this sentiment, in June of 2012, then-President Barak Obama announced an initiative  “to mend our nation’s immigration policy, to make it more fair, more efficient, and more just — specifically for certain young people sometimes called ‘Dreamers.’” He described the “Dreamers” as “Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one:  on paper.  They were brought to this country by their parents — sometimes even as infants — and often have no idea that they’re undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver’s license, or a college scholarship.”

Obama described the sympathy for these “Dreamers” as “what gave rise to the DREAM Act.  It says that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here for five years, and you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship.”  However, while “Democrats passed the DREAM Act in the House…Republicans walked away from it.  It got 55 votes in the Senate, but Republicans blocked it.”

Rather than acknowledge that under our Constitution, Congress makes the laws, and the President is tasked with the enforcement of those laws, Obama unilaterally decided that “(i)n the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system…the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people.  Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.”

At the time, Obama also said “this is not amnesty, this is not immunity.  This is not a path to citizenship.  It’s not a permanent fix.  This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.” 

In keeping with this statement, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, issued a Memorandum describing “how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, (DHS) should enforce the Nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.”  The Memorandum goes on state that “these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law and our ongoing review of pending removal cases is already offering administrative closure to many of them. However, additional measures are necessary to ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities.” 

Initially, since the majority of these “Dreamers” were largely sympathetic, there wasn’t any serious attempt to invalidate Obama’s actions despite their unlawful nature;  that is, until November of 2014, when Homeland Security attempted  “expanding certain parameters of DACA and issuing guidance for case-by-case use of deferred action for those adults who have been in this country since January 1, 2010, are the parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and who are otherwise not enforcement priorities.” 

This expansion of what had been described by Obama as a “temporary stopgap measure” was challenged by several states, and in November of 2015, in State of Texas v United States, the Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court’s injunction against implementation of the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (‘DAPA’).”  As described by the Fifth Circuit, “The states sued to prevent DAPA’s implementation…they asserted that DAPA…did not undergo the requisite notice-and-comment rulemaking….that DHS lacked the authority to implement the program even if it followed the correct rulemaking process (and) that DAPA was an abrogation of the President’s constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ U.S. CONST . art. II, § 3.” 

Putting aside the failure to engage in any notice or commentary period before implementation of the new policy, in particular, the Fifth Circuit found that “DAPA would have a major effect on the states… causing millions of dollars of losses in Texas alone, and…in Texas, the causal chain is especially direct: DAPA would enable beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses, and many would do so, resulting in Texas’s injury.”  Further, “(i)f 500,000 unlawfully present aliens residing in Texas were reclassified as lawfully present pursuant to DAPA, they would become eligible for driver’s licenses at a subsidized fee. Congress did not intend to make immune from judicial review an agency action that reclassifies millions of illegal aliens in a way that imposes substantial costs on states (like Texas).”

As stated by the Fifth Circuit, “DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and ‘we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.’ DAPA undoubtedly implicates ‘question[s] of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.'”

In other words, the DAPA expansion was an act in excess of the authority granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security by Congress.

But what about DACA itself?  Wasn’t this also an unconstitutional overreach? Recently, the Fifth Circuit has provided us with an answer.

Once more led by Texas, a group of 26 states sued to invalidate DACA.  As described by the Fifth Circuit in State of Texas v. United States, (DACA) the lower court concluded that DACA was “‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction’ and ‘short of statutory right’ . . . .because ‘Congress’s clear articulation of laws for removal, lawful presence, and work authorization illustrates a manifest intent to reserve for itself the authority to determine the framework of the nation’s immigration system.’” 

“DACA creates a new class of otherwise removable aliens who may obtain lawful presence, work authorization, and associated benefits,” the Fifth Circuit reasoned.  “Congress determined which aliens can receive these benefits, and it did not include DACA recipients among them. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and its conclusions that the DACA Memorandum contravenes comprehensive statutory schemes for removal, allocation of lawful presence, and allocation of work authorization.”  

However, despite the illegal overreach of the Obama Administration’s “temporary stopgap measure’ in 2012, the new ruling from the Fifth Circuit is not the end of DACA.  

In August of 2022, DHS issued a “Final Rule,” effective at the end of October, 2022, which purports to  establish regulations to preserve and fortify (DACA) policy to defer removal of certain noncitizens who years earlier came to the United States as children.” While the Fifth Circuit was asked to find the “Final Rule” equally invalid, the Court decided to remand the matter to the lower court for further proceedings.  “We do not have the administrative record before us,” the Court stated.  “We cannot determine whether there are material differences in that record and the record before the district court regarding the 2012 DACA Memorandum…(a) district court is in the best position to review the administrative record in the rulemaking proceeding and determine whether our holdings as to the 2012 DACA Memorandum fully resolve issues concerning the Final Rule.”

Further, while the Fifth Circuit found the original DACA Memorandum of 2012 to be an unconstitutional overreach, the Court did not invalidate DACA completely.  In fact, reversal of the policy was not something the States had requested.  Instead, “(t)he remedy the States ultimately seek is to ‘phase out the DACA program within two years.’ They do not seek to ‘require the Executive to immediately rescind any existing DACA permits that confer lawful presence or work authorization.'”  Instead, “Plaintiff States are amenable to an injunction that prospectively enjoins Defendants in the future from renewing or issuing any new DACA permits.”  

Why not end the “temporary stopgap measure” of DACA immediately?  As described in the “Final Rule.”  “Since 2012, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action under the DACA policy… DACA recipients have grown into adulthood and built lives for themselves and their loved ones in the United States. They have gotten married and had U.S. citizen children. Over 250,000 children have been born in the United States with at least one parent who is a DACA recipient, and about 1.5 million people in the United States share a home with a DACA recipient… In reliance on DACA, its recipients have enrolled in degree programs, started businesses, obtained professional licenses, and purchased homes.”

With the potential to disrupt the lives of that many people, DACA will not be ended anytime soon.   Instead, the best one can hope for is a moratorium on new submissions for a deferral, and a gradual phase out of the program.

In 2012, the Obama Administration instituted a lawless process to grant backdoor status to a select group of illegal aliens, and described it as a “temporary stopgap measure.”  Now, 10 years later, rather than disrupt the lives of people who have come to rely upon the deferral, the Courts have allowed this overreach of authority to stand.  

The lessons are clear.  Any illegal usurpation of authority by the President and his Secretaries must be addressed immediately, before the policy is relied upon by its beneficiaries.  Think, for example, of those who receive forgiveness of all or part of their student loans – will the Courts force those people to return to paying their debts after those debts are forgiven?

Further, we must have a Chief Executive who respects and follows the separation of authority granted to Congress and the President by the United States Constitution.

Finally, never trust anyone who tells you their action is a “temporary stopgap measure.”  They are lying.

Judge John H. Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Partisan loyalty has dangerously eclipsed devotion to the higher calling of dedication to the good of the nation.

Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, have historically “played to their base.” But never before has one side, in this case, the progressive-led Democrat party, done so to a degree that so deeply and seriously damages the citizenry and jeopardizes America’s safety and economy.

The harm done to the nation over the past several years has been unprecedented. Truly irrational decisions have brought about significant and unnecessary harm to the entire body politic.  It’s not just a singular issue, or even a class of issues, where this is evident.

Biden’s open border has resulted in a massive influx of dangerous criminal activity, major expense to local governments, and the risk of spreading disease. In addition to the crisis itself, the stunning and abashed falsehoods emanating from the White House and the President’s appointees, who insist, despite massive evidence to the contrary, that “The border is closed” has slashed trust in government.

Upon taking office, Mr. Biden, acting in lockstep with the most extreme elements of the so-called “Green movement,” vigorously assaulted energy production, stopping the Keystone XL pipeline, and doing everything possible to limit U.S. fossil fuel production.  Unfortunately, there is, within the next few decades, nothing that can replace fossil fuel beyond a mere 20%.  His actions, along with unchecked spending, resulted in massive inflation in everything from gasoline to food.  The worst is yet to come.  As gimmicks such as emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve come to an end, prices will soar to unprecedented levels. Again, the Biden Administration has willfully lied to the American public, as it alleges that it has provided for an adequate number of drilling permits.  Nothing of the sort has occurred.

On the more local level, progressive Democrat District attorneys, mayors, and governors have unleashed absolute havoc on the streets. Following radical ideological theories of “social justice,” violent criminals and mentally disturbed perpetrators have been allowed to roam free.  There can be no dispute on the horrifying statistics. Despite that, elected officials in major cities and states refuse to return their jurisdictions to the level of safety that existed before their rash and misguided theories were enacted.

The aftermath of the 2016 election was unlike anything seen before.  Donald Trump unexpectedly defeated Hillary Clinton.  Rather than accept the result, or even just continuously complain about it as Mr. Trump has done since his loss in 2020, Democrats sought to destroy his presidency, and the harm this caused to America was vast.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) unabashedly and blatantly lied, claiming he had clear and indisputable evidence of “Russian collusion.” It is now clear, after years of investigation and tens of millions of dollars spent, that no such collusion ever existed, and the entire matter was fabricated by the Clinton campaign.

The list could go on, but it is important not to overlook a clear, present, and immediate threat to the American Republic and its Constitution.  There is no clear indication, as of this writing, who is actually in charge of the national government.  Pointing out the obvious incapacity of Joe Biden is tragically seen as a partisan move. But it is evident that the man has significant difficulties with even the most basic functions of his office.

Equally worrisome, the key question of whether he, even if not intellectually incapacitated, is compromised by what appears to be overt influence peddling payments from China, is viewed as yet another political assault. But the evidence is genuine and deep.

Partisanship at this level is a cancer. When it reaches this degree, it is incumbent on those, whatever their party or philosophy, to place the good of the nation above loyalty to party.

Today’s global leaders, unlike those of the Cold War era, have not lived through a major great power war. Putin’s war in Ukraine may be changing that dynamic. The risk of widespread European conflict is growing daily as the Russian leader continues to prepare for and threaten the use of his military’s nuclear weapons. Although unlikely the Russians would risk using even a small, battlefield nuclear weapon, the world cannot risk that Putin is bluffing. An error could mean thousands of civilian lives lost and territory rendered uninhabitable for years due to nuclear fallout. 

Earlier this week reports emerged that one of Putin’s nuclear submarines is no longer in its home port; its whereabouts are unknown. Although the Russian military has exercised for nuclear war for a long time, this year the Russian president personally oversaw military drills transitioning his armed forces from a conventional to a nuclear war stance when he supervised his “strategic forces” in a preparatory drill shortly after invading Ukraine. 

Unlike other weapons, the level of death and destruction from a nuclear device is almost beyond human conception. It is, in part, why nuclear deterrence has worked well in the post-WWII period. The question military analysts in the US are discussing now concerns whether the doctrine will continue to keep the Russia’s nuclear arsenal quiet in their silos. Putin is losing popularity at home, increasingly challenged by his own political elite, and acting in what appears to be a more desperate manner. Reports suggest he spends time in hiding in one of his secret palaces and is paranoid that one of his trusted cadre will murder him. 

It appears the Russian leader is losing political ground at home among the citizenry, territory in Ukraine, and support among formerly friendly nation-states in the international community. That makes Putin dangerous and unpredictable. Last week the two underwater Nordstream pipelines were bombed in four separate places. It appears to be a Russian attack. It serves as a warning from Putin to Western Europe that he still can control the supply of energy the continent needs for the upcoming winter season. Destroying natural gas lines does not equate to the level of a nuclear event. Would Putin dare to raise the bar and conduct a preventive nuclear strike? It is not out of the realm of possibility. Rebecca Koffler, a Russian specialist formerly with the US Government, says that Putin will fight to the death if cornered without regard to the impact of his decision on others.

Twelve years ago, the released Russian nuclear doctrine reflected a series of internal debates following the comments of Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Security Council, who reportedly explained that delays in completing the new military doctrine were due to discussions concerning the right of “preventive nuclear strikes.” A year earlier, in 2009, Russia conducted a simulated nuclear strike on Polish soil during the Zapad 2009 exercise. In 2010 Moscow rehearsed the use of nuclear weapons against separatist forces in the 2010 Vostok maneuvers. The potential use of nuclear weapons still appears to be included in the set of alternatives presented to Putin by his military chiefs. He may be considering moving from a conventional conflict to one of limited nuclear war. Or, he may be testing the limits of deterrence theory in a desperate attempt to change the course of the war in Ukraine.

What is certain is that simply retaining the option to go nuclear raises the risk of an accident widening the conflict in Ukraine into a large regional war overnight. Accidents do happen. On September 1, 1983,  a Korean Air Lines commercial airliner flight KAL 007, carrying US Congressman Larry McDonald on board, was shot down by the Eastern command of the Russian air force after it mistakenly entered closed Russian air space near the Sea of Japan. Two hundred sixty-nine lives were lost due to a miscommunication. Even if Vladimir Putin is bluffing and is not intending to use a nuclear weapon, there is an elevated risk that western nations should find unacceptable. The editor of War on the Rocks, wrote last month that “After the Russian military collapse in and around Kharkiv Oblast, there is now renewed concern that Russian leaders could behave unpredictably and use nuclear weapons to halt the Ukrainian offensive, or to intimidate the leadership in Kyiv to settle the conflict on terms favorable to Moscow.” It Putin does not heed the warning signs inside Russia and among the western states it could be a true nuclear winter.  

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

The same social media barons who had no reservations about publicizing organizations and individuals that condoned the assault on federal courthouses, innocent passersby, police stations and businesses large and small don’t like a small nonprofit named COPSHOT, that offers cash rewards to those who provide information leading to the arrest of criminals that attack cops.

On August 2, when an individual attempted to post a request to contribute to the group, the information was blocked and the following message was inserted:

You can’t Share this link Your content couldn’t be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards

The purpose of COPSHOT is to offer a standing reward of $10,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone shooting a New York City police officer, based on the information received.  In addition, COPSHOT may award grants to the officer’s widow or wife, as the case may be, and the dependent minor child or children of police officers shot or killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.

The National Fraternal Order of Police reports that (nationwide) as of 31 July, there have been 210 officers shot so far in 2022, 39 of whom were killed by gunfire. There have been 46 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers this year, which have resulted in 71 officers shot, 18 of whom were killed.

According to the FBI, 59 police officers were killed in the line of duty from January 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021. This marks a 51 percent increase in the number of police officers killed when compared to the same period last year. Nationally, 60,105 law enforcement officers were assaulted while performing their duties in 2020. These assaults were reported to the FBI by 9,895 law enforcement agencies. Based on these reports, there were 4,071 more officers assaulted in 2020 than the 56,034 assaults reported in 2019.

In an interview during Police Week events last October, FBI Director Christopher Wray noted that “We are looking at now 59 officers or agents murdered in the line of duty this year. That’s an over 50 percent increase from last year. That basically translates to every five days—more often than every five days in this country—an officer is murdered in the line of duty. And that’s totally unacceptable, and it’s a tragedy and it needs attention…”

In what amounts to a wide-scale assault on police and public safety, radical District attorneys funded by a progressive billionaire have endangered officers on a variety of levels.  Releasing those who assault cops is a deadly enough tactic, but many officers are mentally prepared to face physical danger.  But the possibility of losing their jobs, their pension, and their homes as a result of leftist policies that view the world through a bizarre lens in which those that protect society are “oppressors” and criminals are somehow “victims” is a whole other challenge.

The publication Force Science explains the absurd world-view of those leftist politicians and Progressive District Attorneys who favor criminals over cops: “To those who believe that the police are oppressors, and therefore illegitimate, any use-of-force may be characterized as ‘police brutality.’ Even lawful force might be condemned as a result of officers too eager to resort to force, unwilling to respect the dignity of the individual, and unwilling to value the sanctity of life…Recasting the police as oppressors transforms criminals into the ‘victims’ of this oppression. As ‘victims,’ criminals are more easily excused for their crimes.”

It’s a terrible belief system that is destroying American cities.

Illustration: Pixabay

In a sign of the growing closeness of Russia and China, Putin and Xi are communicating with each other more than ever.

While the Ukraine invasion and growing tensions over Taiwan have been factors moving the two closer together, the reality is that this is a trend that has been in the making for well over a decade. China’s ambition to dramatically reduce western influence, and Russia’s drive to re-establish the Soviet empire against the wishes of American and its allies have produced a commonality of interest that grows more intense each year.

Moscow’s and Beijing’s economies have become more intertwined since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. According to Russia’s semi-official RT news source, “Russia is now in the top three markets for yuan (Chinese currency) payments. The change has come rapidly…Last month, Russian businesses and financial institutions were reportedly involved in nearly 4% of international yuan payments by value, compared to only 1.42% recorded in June…Earlier this week, data tracked by the Moscow Exchange showed that yuan-ruble trading has outpaced the dollar-ruble pairing for the first time, while the yuan-ruble pair exceeded volumes in the euro-ruble pair in late July.”

Radio Free Europe  reports that “China’s growing appetite for discounted Russian oil has made it the leading financier of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine by giving Moscow a reliable revenue source that blunts the impact of tough Western sanctions against its economy…China has overtaken Germany as the biggest single buyer of Russian energy… helping to fill a gap left by Europe, Russia’s biggest export market…Despite being sold at a steep discount, the purchases — along with climbing oil prices — have allowed Russian revenues to grow in the face of Western pressure and given Moscow a crucial financial lifeline to keep funding its war effort.

Energy, of course, is the linchpin of Sino-Russian commerce. A Voice of America  analysis found that Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia to become China’s top oil provider as the West sanctions Moscow’s energy exports…Beijing has refused to publicly condemn Moscow’s war and has instead exacted economic gains from its isolated neighbor.”

Defying international sanctions, Beijing has adopted a policy of “no limits” on trade between the two giant nations. While the U.S. and Europe have crippled their economies with “green” restrictions, Russian sources boast that China purchased 7.42 million tons of Russian coal last month, noting that “China is Russia’s largest coal buyer, taking in more than 50 million tons of the commodity worth $7.4 billion last year via rail and sea, from Russia’s Far East. Russia accounted for roughly 15% of China’s total coal imports.”

The Congressional Research Service reports that Since 2014, China and Russia have reached agreements in trade, energy, finance, technology, and aerospace, while increasing diplomatic and defense cooperation. Bilateral trade has expanded since 2014, but flows are asymmetric. In 2021, China accounted for 18% of Russia’s trade while Russia represented a 2% share of China’s trade. China’s share of Russia’s trade has steadily grown from 11% in 2013, largely at the expense of the European Union.

Even greater growth can be expected. On August 6, Wang Wentao, Minister of Commerce, and Maksim Reshetnikov, Minister of Economic Development of Russia, co-chaired the 25th meeting of the Economic and Trade Cooperation Sub-committee of the China-Russia Prime Ministers’ Regular Meeting Committee. According to the Chinese trade ministry, “The two sides exchanged in-depth views on developing bilateral trade, strengthening cooperation on emerging and key areas, promoting trade and investment facilitation, and deepening cooperation in multilateral arena, and reached several consensuses.”

There has been substantial disappointment that the U.S. Navy has not been given the funds to keep pace with the dramatic increase in size and sophistication from China’s maritime force.

In a recent document released by the Pentagon, Admiral Gilday, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, outlined both the need for an adequate maritime force and the impact of American naval supremacy on the world economy. He stressed that “America has always been a maritime nation. The seas are the lifeblood of our economy, our  national security, and our way of life.  After World War II, America and its allies ushered in an era of great power peace and shared  prosperity around the globe, establishing an international rules-based order. As a result,  global trade fueled economic growth and raised standards of living across the nation. The  benefits of this prosperity spread around the world: child mortality declined, life expectancy  lengthened, poverty plummeted, and literacy skyrocketed. This progress and prosperity did not happen by accident. American sea power, combined  with the dedication of our allies and partners, guaranteed freedom of navigation, maintained  peace, and fostered a rules-based order grounded in fairness for all.”

The peace and prosperity Admiral Gilday described is beginning to unravel. He is concerned that for the first time in a generation, America faces strategic competitors who care little for the peace and prosperity that has benefited the globe thanks to America’s oversight of the oceans.

According to Gilday, “The People’s Republic of China is building all-domain military capabilities to challenge  the United States. Its aggressive behavior is threatening U.S. interests, undermining alliances  and partnerships, and undercutting the rules-based system. Russia invaded Ukraine,  shattering the post-Cold War peace in Europe and creating new security challenges on that  continent and beyond. Meanwhile, the world is entering a new age of warfare, one in which  the integration of technology, concepts,  partners, and systems—more than fleet size  alone—will determine victory in conflict.”

While there has been little enthusiasm from the current White House to do so, experts agree with the Admiral’s warning that maintaining the world’s best Navy is an  investment in the security and prosperity  of the United States, as well as the stability  of our world…This is a critical decade. As global challengers rise to threaten U.S. interests, America must  maintain maritime dominance.”

The nature of the growing challenge is clear, and outlined by Admiral Gilday:

Today, our Navy operates in a battlespace that is quickly growing in lethality and complexity.  We face many challenges across the globe, but they largely stem from three significant  trends. It includes the erosion of credible military deterrence, particularly due to China’s rapidly  increasing military capabilities, increasingly aggressive Chinese and Russian behavior that undermines the  international rules-based order, and the accelerating pace of technological change and the expanding impact of the  information environment. 

The growth of the threat at sea has been breathtaking. Gilday reports that over the past three decades, the PRC aggressively leveraged its economic power to grow and modernize its military. China tripled the size of its Navy, expanded its strategic  nuclear capacity and capability, advanced its cyber and space capabilities, and constructed  a system of sophisticated sensors and long-range precision weapons to intimidate  neighbors, challenge free and open access to the seas, and hold U.S. naval forces at risk.  These investments in offensive warfighting systems—across all domains—are aimed at the  heart of America’s maritime power. China designs its force for one purpose: to reshape the  security environment to its advantage by denying the United States military access to the  western Pacific and beyond. 

Under the cover of its growing military capabilities, China is conducting a variety of  incremental, malign activities, carefully calculated to take place in the gray zone—below the  threshold of triggering armed conflict. Using a multi-layered fleet of naval ships, maritime  militia and coast guard vessels, China is undermining international norms by staking  illegal maritime claims, militarizing geographic features in the South and East China Seas,  and attempting to intimidate its neighbors out of their offshore resources. This aggressive  behavior threatens U.S. interests and destabilizes the rules-based system. 

Photo: Naval special operations soldiers assigned to the 41st Chinese naval escort taskforce conduct live-firing training on the guided missile destroyer Suzhou (Hull No. 132) on July 15, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Xiang Liming)

What is so Far Right about Giorgia Meloni and the Brothers of Italy?

If you only glance at the news, you would believe that Italy has reinstated Fascism.  “Italians have elected their country’s most right-wing government since the end of World War II,” according to NPR.  Giorgia Meloni, leader of Fratelli d’Italia, the Brothers of Italy party…will become Italy’s first female prime minister…(h)er party has roots in the neo-fascist movement that emerged out of the ruins of World War II…(t)he party flag includes a tricolor flame that was a symbol of fascism in the early 20th century. Meloni has refused to remove the flame from the party’s logo.” 

Oh no!  The Brothers of Italy party has a flame in its logo!  But so does the New York State Conservative Party – who knew that having a flame in your logo was fascist?

Then there is this report from The Atlantic; Meloni…represent(s) continuity with Italy’s darkest episode: the interwar dictatorship of Benito Mussolini…Brothers of Italy, which Meloni has led since 2014, has an underlying and sinister familiarity. The party formed a decade ago to carry forth the spirit and legacy of the extreme right in Italy, which dates back to the Italian Social Movement (MSI), the party that formed in place of the National Fascist Party, which was banned after World War II. Now, just weeks before the 100th anniversary of the March on Rome—the October 1922 event that put Mussolini in power—Italy may have a former MSI activist for its prime minister and a government rooted in fascism.” 

Meloni…Mussolini…a 1922 march…well, they all begin with an M, so there must be a connection…

But leave it to Politico to wrap every Democrat’s fears together into one package with this report; “U.S. conservatives are rallying behind Italy’s newly elected far-right prime minister — praise that highlights the Trumpification of GOP foreign policy doctrines…(e)mbracing Meloni…could be a risky play for Republicans. Her party, Brothers of Italy, espouses staunchly anti-immigration policies with a rallying cry against ‘globalists’…Meloni’s government is shaping up as Italy’s most far-right in the history of the republic formed after the demise of Benito Mussolini…(a)s Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy opens rifts among U.S. conservatives over continued aid to Ukraine, with the former president signaling a desire to stop funding Kyiv, the GOP boost for Meloni runs the risk of emboldening the party’s MAGA wing against more establishment voices who want to continue aiding Ukraine. Some of Meloni’s coalition partners have allied with Vladimir Putin in the past and, more recently, refused to condemn his brutal invasion.”

Well, there you have it – Mussolini, to Trump, to Meloni – the pattern has been established for all to see.

Or has it?

A review of the website for the Brothers of Italy (FDI) tells a different story.  Several Party members are also members of the European Parliament.  For instance, Nicola Procaccini, “President of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with South Asian countries,” recently expressed his  “apprehension (over) the dramatic news that continues to arrive from Pakistan following the devastating effects of the monsoon rains on the country. The latest official bulletin from Islamabad speaks of over a thousand victims and incalculable damage to structures and land. I express, on behalf of the European Parliament and on behalf of the delegation of the European Parliament, our full solidarity with the Pakistani government and people, and welcome the EU’s allocation of EUR 1.8 million in humanitarian aid to families affected by the floods.” 

How very Far-Right of Procaccini – allocating funds to assist flood victims in Pakistan.

Well, what about this statement from FDI member Raffaele Stancanelli; “Today, as Vice-President, I represented the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament at the ceremony for the signing of the directive on the disclosure of information on income tax by certain companies and branches. I express my appreciation for the agreed text requiring multinational or autonomous companies, with a turnover of over 750 million euros, to disclose to the public information on income tax in each Member State, whether they are based in the EU or that they have it outside.” 

Hmm…since when is requiring the disclosure of income tax information by multinational corporations a particularly Far-Right (or even moderately Conservative) position?

Then there is this statement from Raffaele Fitto  the co-president of the FDI delegation to the European Parliament, “speaking during the Conference of Presidents in the exchange of views with the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltemberg (Fitto said) ‘Transatlantic relations and EU-NATO cooperation, in full compliance with the principles established in the treaties and those agreed by the European Council, are essential elements for successfully facing the geopolitical and common security challenges of the coming years… NATO represents the true guarantor of Euro-Atlantic security and in this perspective we must take all the necessary actions to strengthen our defense capabilities…I believe that it is essential to continue the support action in favor of Ukraine against the barbaric aggression of Moscow and to guarantee the free choice of other countries to join the Atlantic alliance, freeing them from Russian pressure and threats…'”

But wait – didn’t Politico claim that “some of Meloni’s coalition partners have allied with Vladimir Putin in the past and, more recently, refused to condemn his brutal invasion?”  Here is the Co-President of the delegation to the EU condemning the “barbaric aggression of Moscow!”  Could Politico be wrong? 

Perhaps Fitto is an outlier, speaking on his own, without support from Meloni and the Italian government.  Not according to this statement made by Fitto on May 3, 2022; “The sanctions adopted and the rediscovered cooperation with our traditional partners of the Atlantic Alliance represent a clear signal of European support for Ukraine and its people, but above all they testify to the commitment in defense of those values ​​of freedom, independence and democracy that they are the foundation of our societies. Actions and behaviors with respect to which we Conservatives here in Europe, but also in Italy through Brothers of Italy and its president, Giorgia Meloni, have never lacked our serious and responsible support.” 

Politico doesn’t identify “coalition partners” who are “aligned with Putin” and who “refuse to condemn” the invasion of Ukraine.  Perhaps they exist.  More likely, they are the outliers, extremists who exist on the edge of every party.

However, the American Press is not completely wrong – the Brothers of Italy are Conservatives.  In April,   “(t)he Brothers delegation of Italy…voted against the negotiating mandate at European Parliament on the issue of equal pay for men and women. We would have liked to amend a text that once again the left had full of references to gender ideology, with the risk of affecting the rights of women, reduced to mere screen of an ideology that is wreaking havoc in every sphere social, even in sports.”    Further, in June, Fitto issued this statement; “We express disappointment at the decision to provide funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) without applying any conditionality or responsibility for the PA’s problematic school curricula, which have consistently failed to meet Unesco’s standards of peace, tolerance, coexistence and non violence… the Commission’s strategy on combating anti-Semitism notes that EU external funds cannot be misallocated to activities that incite hatred and violence… and has strongly condemned hate speech, violence and anti-Semitism that continue to be present in school curricula of the (PA)… (t)he Commission can be assured of our continued support to try to reform and make Palestinian school curricula sound.” 

There is also the Brother of Italy’s unabashed position against illegal immigration.  At a Conference held in Rome in June, according to FDI member Alberto Balboni, “The Italian legislation is too permissive towards those who land illegally in Italy…people who are often not refugees or persecuted but arrive in Italy in search of fortune. The route of the illegal immigrants is also the one used by Islamic terrorists to strike Europe. The Italian government pretends not to see. The only solution remains the naval blockade to prevent departures and accommodate only those who really need it.” 

Opposition to illegal immigration, anti-Semitism and gender politics, but support for NATO, Ukraine and transparency in business affairs.  This is the true face of the Brothers of Italy – Center-Right, not Far Right.

And if Italy’s new Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni is the leader of the FDI, can her views be much dissimilar from those of the party she leads?

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

Photo: Vox España – CPAC 2022 con Hermann Tertsch y Victor Gonzalez., CC0,