Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

President Biden has made numerous claims about economic progress, most of which are not supported by independent information and statistics.

Generally, the media would address the difference between a White House claim and reality.  However, in its partisan support for the 46^th president, it has been relatively silent, with only a few exceptions.

A review of the facts reveals an economy that has become worse since Biden took office.

Inflation: the Consumer Price Index (CPI) report for September stated inflation grew at a rate of 3.7 percent and cumulative inflation under President Biden grew to a staggering 17.1 percent. The cost of living has accelerated dramatically under the current president. A family of four is paying $15,133 per year, or $1,261 per month, more to purchase the same goods and services compared to the day he took office. The average cost of a gallon of gas was 2.372, compared to $3.09 today. The average cost of weekly groceries continues to grow, overall grocery prices was  11.3% higher in January 2023 compared to January 2022.

According to House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX)  “Hardworking families are being crushed by President Biden’s inflation-inducing fiscal policies. Today, a family of four is paying $15,133 per year, or $1,261 per month, more to purchase the same goods and services compared to the day President Biden took office. Every day, they are being forced to choose between medicine or the rent, putting food on the table or gas in the car.

Wages: real wages are lower today than they were at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in January 2021.There are various ways to measure real wages. Real average hourly earnings declined 1.7% between December 2021 and December 2022, while real average weekly earnings (which factors in the number of hours people worked) declined 3.1% over that period.

Debt: The New York Federal Reserve found  that “Total household debt rose by $16 billion to reach $17.06 trillion in the second quarter of 2023, according to the latest Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit. Credit card balances saw brisk growth, rising by $45 billion to a series high of $1.03 trillion. Other balances, which include retail credit cards and other consumer loans, and auto loans increased by $15 billion and $20 billion, respectively. 

Biden also alleges that he has reduced the federal deficit. Again, the facts don’t support the claim.  CNN’s Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.

Independent analysts and ratings organizations have taken note. In August, Fitch downgraded the U.S. credit rating. “The rating downgrade of the United States reflects the expected fiscal deterioration over the next three years, a high and growing general government debt burden, and the erosion of governance relative to ‘AA’ and ‘AAA’ rated peers over the last two decades that has manifested in repeated debt limit standoffs and last-minute resolutions.”

Prospects for reform under President Biden’s leadership are grim. The 46^th president continues to use the U.S. Treasury as a political piggybank to accommodate his progressive supporters and to, in essence, buy votes.  Despite the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the White Houses’ student-loan forgiveness program, noting that he lacks authority for such a move, the President has again promised to engage in similar action. He has burdened the states with massive new expenses resulting from his open border policies. His energy policies continue to keep the massive energy cost hikes he caused upon his inauguration excessively high.

The media criticism which would normally persuade a course change in an administration remains muted, as it seeks to limit support for GOP candidates.

Illustration: Pixabay

In July of last year, I discussed the case of Missouri v. Biden, in which Federal Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana issued an injunction against various members of the Biden Administration.  As the Court stated,  “[i]n their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” 

The decision, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals states that “since 2018, federal officials…have made public statements and demands to social-media platforms in an effort to induce them to censor disfavored speech and speakers…[federal officials] have threatened adverse consequences to social-media companies, such as reform of Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act, antitrust scrutiny/enforcement, increased regulations, and other measures, if those companies refuse to increase censorship. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields social-media companies from liability for actions taken on their websites…the threat of repealing Section 230 motivates the social-media companies to comply with [federal officials] censorship requests.”

Based on a wealth of overwhelming evidence, Judge Doughty ruled that “the United States Government, through the White House and numerous federal agencies, pressured and encouraged social-media companies to suppress free speech. Defendants used meetings and communications with social-media companies to pressure those companies to take down, reduce, and suppress the free speech of American citizens. They flagged posts and provided information on the type of posts they wanted suppressed. They also followed up with directives to the social-media companies to provide them with information as to action the company had taken with regard to the flagged post. This seemingly unrelenting pressure by Defendants had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.”

Never did I imagine that I would become one of those Americans subjected to censorship, and the violation of my right to free speech.

Last month, I published a book, The Making of a Martyr: An Analysis of the Indictments of Donald Trump. I have been examining and conducting an extensive review of each of the four criminal indictments brought against the former President, and after publishing my findings in a series of columns here on usagovpolicy.com, I assembled my research into a book.

The Making of a Martyr is available at Amazon, both as an EBook and in Paperback. 

That is, if you can find it.

A search on Amazon for the title, The Making of a Martyr, turns up a series of books, none of which are mine.  To find my book. you must search both the title and my name, John H. Wilson.

In an effort to increase sales and the visibility of my book. I submitted a proposal for an advertising campaign to Amazon.  I was willing to pay seventy-five cents per click (that is, when people clicked on the advertising banner on Amazon’s web site, I would be charged), with a daily budget of twelve dollars.  This seemed to be a modest place to start.  But a few days after I forwarded my proposal to Amazon, I received an email rejecting the campaign.  “Your ad…does not comply with our current Creative Acceptance Policies…your ad contains content or book(s) prohibited from advertising.  This may include books about a specific political party, issue, or candidate during an election year.”  I was referred to “section 4.3, Political books under Book Guidelines and Acceptance policies” and advised to “remove the content or book(s) from your ad.”

Under Section 4.3, Political Books, “Prohibited Books” are defined as “[b]ooks that contain a personal attack on a specific political candidate or elected official” or “[d]uring an election year: books about a specific political party, issue, or candidate.” 

Obviously, a book that is primarily a legal discussion of a series of criminal charges currently pending in four different jurisdictions is not a “personal attack on a specific political candidate or elected official.”  However, 2024 is an election year, and The Making of a Martyr is about a specific candidate – Donald Trump.

But so is President Biden The Collected Speeches; The 4 book collection of Too Much and Never Enough, Promise Me Dad, Dreams From My Father, and The Audacity Of Hope (two books each by Joe Biden and Barak Obama; and the 2018 audiobook. Conversations with Joe, which is described as “the edited highlights of Vice President Joe Biden’s 29 city US tour…[t]hese compelling, off-the-cuff conversations are designed to amplify Biden’s powerful message of unity and promise in heartfelt and entertaining fashion.” 

Aren’t most of these books about a specific political candidate during an election year?

Perhaps these books are not being specifically “advertised” on Amazon.  But if you go to the page for each book, you will see a group of suggested books. described as “People who bought this also bought,” or “Related to this topic.”  The suggested books are typically books by Kamala Harris, Barak Obama, or more books about Joe Biden – Obama being the only one who is not currently a candidate for office.

In fairness, the same thing happens when you research books by or about Donald Trump on Amazon.  For instance, when you search for Letters to Trump, which is described as “part of the incredible private collection of correspondence between President Trump and the countless world leaders, celebrities, athletes and business leaders who shaped the United States, and the world”,it is recommended that you also purchase Trump 45: American’s Greatest President.

Maybe these books are also not being specifically advertised.  But when have you seen The Making of a Martyr as a recommended additional purchase? 

You haven’t.

The inability to advertise my book on Amazon does nothing to help sales.  I am left to my own efforts to promote my work.  Is this an intentional act of suppression of free speech on the part of Amazon?  Or is it a legitimate concern for even-handedness during an election year?

As Judge Doughtry stated, “it is not imaginary or speculative to believe that in the event of any other real or perceived emergency event, the Defendants would once again use their power over social-media companies to suppress alternative views. And it is certainly not imaginary or speculative to predict that Defendants could use their power over millions of people to suppress alternative views or moderate content they do not agree with in the upcoming 2024 national election…”  

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Sweden has finally become a part of NATO, making it the 32^nd member of the alliance.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted the action makes the entire alliance stronger. The action came following a vote by Hungary’s parliament, the last holdout regarding Stockholm’s application.  In a statement, Stoltenberg noted that “I welcome the Hungarian parliament’s vote to ratify #Sweden’s membership in NATO.”

 The Nordic nation provides a significant boost to NATO’s armed forces. Overall, it is ranked as having the world’s 29^th (out of 145) most powerful military.

Published sources indicate that “The Swedish Armed Forces is made up of 24,400 active personnel, 11,400 military reserves, 21,500 Home Guard and 5,200 additional conscripts yearly into the Reserves (set to increase to 8,000 conscripts yearly by 2024) as of 2022. The Swedish army has 121 tanks (Leopard 2A5/Strv 122), roughly 1,300 APCs (Patria XA-360/203/180, RG-32 Scout), 800 IFVs (550 CV9040, 150 Bv410, 90 Bv308/309), 11,300 utility vehicles (ex. Bv206/208, MB G-Class 6×6 and 4×4, MB sprinter), 84 towed and 40 self-propelled mortar (12 cm grk m/41, grkpbv90) and 48 self-propelled artillery guns (Archer). It also consists of several different specialized vehicles. The Swedish Navy has a total of 387 ships, including 4 submarines (3 Gotland, 1 Södermanland), 7 corvettes (5 Visby, 2 Gävle), 9 minesweepers (5 Koster, 4 Styrsö), 13 larger patrol boats (2 Stockholm and 11 Tapper) and 9 specialised ships with different support duties. The rest is made up of different smaller vessels such as the CB90. Currently the Swedish Airforce has a total of 210 aircraft, 94 of those being JAS39C/D Gripen (60 JAS39E on order), 6 C130H Hercules (1 with aerial refueling capabilities), 4 SAAB 340 (2 AEW&C and 2 VIP transport), 4 Gulfstream IV (2 SIGINT and 2 VIP transport) as well as 15 UH-60 Blackhawk, 18 NH90 and 20 AgustaWestland helicopters. The rest is made up of different transport and trainer aircraft.”

International experts at the Wilson Center including Jason C. Moyer and Henri Winberg explain that “As a member of NATO, Sweden will provide the Alliance with 1) support from its strong defense industry, 2) high-technological competence, and 3) a significant air force. These contributions will be crucial in preparing the Alliance to combat modern threats, as well as providing a dramatic multiplier to NATO’s capacity in two vital regions—the Baltic Sea region and the Arctic. With Sweden’s modern and diverse capabilities soon to be added to NATO’s toolkit, it is worth taking a look at what the country will contribute to the Alliance, now and in the future…he country’s largest defense companies produce some of the most sophisticated equipment on the market, such as Saab’s Jas 39 Gripen and BAE System AB’s Combat Vehicle 90…The second benefit is the high level of technological competence in Sweden’s private sector. Sweden’s extensive public-private partnerships, considerable R&D funding, and highly-ranked education system are some of the factors behind its success in high-tech. The government launched a national ‘Cybercampus’ initiative in 2020 in partnership between the Swedish Defense Forces, public universities, and private companies, and established the Centre for Cyber Defence and Information Security in Stockholm. As NATO expands its ability to counter cyber and hybrid threats, Sweden’s technological know-how will help prepare the Alliance to prepare for tomorrow’s threats. In addition, with Sweden in NATO, two of the three manufacturers of 5G equipment—Ericsson and Nokia—will be in the same defensive alliance.”

The recent entry of Finland in 2023 and now Sweden is a clear rebuke to Russia’s Vladmir Putin, who at various times issued dire threats if the Nordic nations joined.  Since his invasion of Ukraine, formally passive nations have realized that Russia presents serious and imminent threats to all its neighbors.

Illustration: Pixabay

Iran and Russia may be preparing for a formal alliance after their latest cozying up session.

As Moscow pivots toward Asia, Tehran simultaneously is tilting toward Eurasia. The Christmas Day 2023 bilateral meeting resulted in “unprecedented” military sales of surface-to-surface ballistic missiles and “unparalleled” cooperation between the two countries. It concerns American military analysts in Washington who say that a new interstate treaty, directed at their shared opposition to the collective
West, will shape the two states bilateral relationship for several years.

“The expanding military cooperation is part of a broader geopolitical alignment between Iran and Russia,” says Emil Avdaliani of
the Eurasia Daily Monitor. At the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council’s Christmas Day meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, its members signed a Free Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)and its Member states, on one part, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other. It will lead to further cooperation in a
wide range of sectors, according to the EAEU. It also is an indication that it is unlikely for a rapprochement between Tehran and the West in the near future.

Last week, according to the publication Ukrainska Pravda, reports starting surfacing saying that Iran has supplied Russia with almost 400 surface-to-surface ballistic missile (Fateh-100 family design) that can travel several hundred kilometers. That means Putin’s forces can attack all parts of Ukraine’s infrastructure from inside Russian territory.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 24 months ago, Iran and Russia have expanded their ties. Last month’s announcement concerning the sale of Fateh-100 surface-to-surface missiles is an indication that the two countries are establishing a “new type of bilateral military relationship,” says Avdaliani.

Previously, Tehran was more cautious fearing a backlash from the United States and the European Union that could result in a re-imposition of UN sanctions. Last October the UN arms embargo on Iran
expired. It can now legally export missiles to Russia or import military technology int Iran. Second, the Islamic Republic may be supplying the missiles in reaction to Ira’s deteriorating position with the collective West.

The third consideration for Tehran is the war in Gaza. It is treading carefully as it knows Washington is supporting Israel and wants to avoid the Biden Administration’s criticism of Iran’s involvement.

“Two primary considerations likely played a role in Iran deciding to send missile exports to Russia. First, Iran stands to receive significant profits from the transfer,” says Avdaliani. The money could be used to
offset the impact of previous Western sanctions. Second, he suggests, is that Iran may recognize Russia’s increased need for ballistic missiles and, in exchange, no longer refuse to provide Iran with the type of
military it has long needed.

Iran and Russia have a number of active military transfer agreements. Tehran supplies Moscow with drones built in Central Asia and last summer agree to establish a join drone production in Russia,
Ekonomichna Pravda reports. Although denied by Iran, at the end of November, it received operational ready Yak-130 combat trainer aircraft and acquired a number of Su-35 Russian fighter jets along with
Mi-28 attack helicopters. Western intelligence sources believe the deals occurred as part of exchange for Iran’s support of Putin’s war in Ukraine. The Cradle, a journalist-driven publication covering West Asia, reports that rumor has it the recently signed interstate agreement will culminate in a 20-year deal to expand military, economic and political ties between Russian and Iran and, in effect, realign geopolitics in the region. The move to a more formal alliance, which is expected in the coming months,
will be a clear indication to democratic nations that Iran has no intention of rapprochement on the nuclear issue or continuing any effort at concerted cooperation with the collective West. “Iran’s
strategic vision is entirely in line with its pivot to Asia,” concludes Avadliani.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The federal budget is rapidly spiraling out of control.

The House Budget Committee is deeply worried about the Biden Administration’s massive overspending on items not directly related to the key needs of the nation.  

They note that: Last year, President Biden’s FY 2024 budget request had the highest sustained levels of taxes, spending, and deficits in American history. $82 trillion in spending over ten years; annual spending is equivalent to $100,000 per family of four, or $1 million over the ten-year budget. $18.9 trillion increase in projected spending compared to the baseline President Biden inherited. $17 trillion in deficits over ten years – the highest sustained level in American history. $1.3 trillion in interest payments on the debt by the end of the budgetary window, which is almost triple 2022 spending. $65 trillion in taxes over ten years – the highest sustained level in American history. $4.7 trillion proposed tax increase over ten years – the largest nominal tax increase in American history. $19 trillion in higher debt, which would increase the gross federal debt to $51 trillion by 2033.

Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) specifies that “President Biden has pushed reckless spending that’s fueled the fires of inflation and driven our nation further into debt. This is not the mark of a serious leader.”

Senator John Thune concurs.  “Federal spending has grown increasingly out of control under the Biden administration. The federal government will spend 40 percent more this year than it did just four years ago, yet the president and Democrats continue to propose more reckless spending and balk at Republicans’ responsible attempts to rein it in. Democrats have added trillions to the debt in the last two years and fueled an inflation crisis with their overspending. And their reluctance to engage in serious negotiations to reduce excess government spending risks precipitating a debt crisis. At $31.4 trillion, our national debt already exceeds the size of the entire U.S. economy, and it’s projected to rise to over $50 trillion in the next decade. This level of debt is not only unsustainable, it’s unacceptable. Government debt drives up interest rates, crowds out private investment, and weakens America’s economic and national security.  Just paying the interest alone on this much debt is an increasingly serious challenge. Unless common-sense fiscal policy is prioritized, 50 cents out of every dollar the government borrows over the next decade will go toward making interest payments. In a few years, interest payments will exceed what we spend on national defense, with Medicare and Social Security not far behind. “

The Budget Committee isn’t only worried about the total spending.  It is also concerned about non-essential spending.  Examples include:

$11.9 billion at the Department of Energy for “climate and clean energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment.” $3.9 billion to fund the Department of Homeland Security’s “climate resilience programs.” $8.2 billion at the State Department “to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” and funding “to recruit, retain, and develop a diverse…..workforce.” $2.6 billion for the Department of Transportation to address “environmental justice concerns and climate change by providing a funding source for transportation projects and programs.” $1.8 billion across the Environmental Protection Agency to “clean up pollution, advance racial equity, and secure environmental justice for communities… [facing] impacts of climate change.” $705 million for the Department of Health and Human Services to support “administration priorities such as racial equity, environmental justice, and climate change.” $100 million at the Department of Education in grant funding for communities to “promote racial and socioeconomic diversity in their schools.”

Adam Andrzeiejwwski writing for the Open the Books Substack emphasizes that about $20 billion was spent on refugee care in 2023.  

 A Wall Street Journal analysis notes that “CBO forecasts that under current law the national debt will grow to $48.3 trillion in 2034 from $26.2 trillion this last fiscal year—a whopping 84% increase. Debt as a share of GDP will rise to 116% in 2034 from 97.3%. As helpful historical context, the U.S. added $22.3 trillion in debt in its entire history through 2021, about as much as its projected to pile on over the next 10 years. Don’t blame Americans for not paying enough taxes. Revenues are expected to average 17.8% of GDP through 2034, which is more than the 17.3% average over the last 50 years. The problem is that spending over the next decade will average 23.5% of GDP—significantly more than the 50-year average (21%). Even these debt projections may be optimistic. They assume no recession and that the 2017 individual tax cuts and Inflation Reduction Act’s sweetened ObamaCare subsidies expire in 2025. Oh, and that Congress doesn’t lather on more spending, and more student debt isn’t canceled by executive decree.

Politics plays a vast role in the Biden Administration’s spending choices. His continual attempt to forgive student loans, despite the Supreme Court’s rebuke and the obvious violation of Constitutional provisions on how spending is authorized, is a major attempt to secure youthful votes.

Illustration: Pixabay

President Xi’s bellicose language towards its neighbors and the United States is demonstrably backed up by sheer and undeniable military strength.  

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the PLA (China’s People’s Liberation Army) has sought to modernize its capabilities and improve its proficiencies across all warfare domains so that, as a joint force, it can conduct the full range of land, air, and maritime as well as nuclear, space, counterspace, electronic warfare (EW), and cyberspace operations. The PLA’s evolving capabilities and concepts continue to strengthen the PRC’s ability to “fight and win wars” against a “strong enemy” (a likely euphemism for the United States), counter an intervention by a third party in a conflict along the PRC’s periphery, and project power globally.

China continues to modernize equipment and focus on combined arms and joint training in effort to meet the goal of becoming a world class military. Beijing demonstrated a new long-range fire capability in the PLA military response to the August 2022 U.S. Congressional Delegation visit to Taiwan. It continues to incorporate a twice a year conscript intake.

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has numerically the largest navy in the world with an overall battle force of over 370 ships and submarines, including more than 140 major surface combatants. The PLAN is largely composed of modern multi-mission ships and submarines. In 2022, the PLAN launched its third aircraft carrier, CV-18 Fujian. ‒ It also commissioned its third YUSHEN class Amphibious Assault Ships) and has likely begun construction on a fourth as of early 2023. In the near-term, the PLAN will have the ability to conduct long-range precision strikes against land targets from its submarine and surface combatants using land-attack cruise missiles, notably enhancing the PRC’s power projection capability. ‒ The PRC continues to challenge foreign military activities in its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in a manner that is inconsistent with the rules of customary international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. At the same time, the PLAN conducts activities in the EEZs of other countries, including the United States, Australia, Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

 The PLAAF and PLAN aviation together constitute the largest aviation force in the Indo-Pacific region. The PLAAF is rapidly catching up to western air forces. The PLAAF continues to modernize with the delivery of domestically built aircraft and a wide range of UASs. In October 2019, the PLAAF signaled the return of the airborne leg of its nuclear triad after the PLAAF publicly revealed the H-6N as its first nuclear-capable air-to-air refuelable bomber.

People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) is advancing its long-term modernization plans to enhance its ‘strategic deterrence’ capabilities. The PRC is developing new ICBMs that will significantly improve its nuclear-capable missile forces and will require increased nuclear warhead production, partially due to the introduction of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) capabilities. The PRC may be exploring development of conventionally-armed intercontinental range missile systems. If developed and fielded, such capabilities would allow the PRC to threaten conventional strikes against targets in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Indeed, the Stockholm Peace Research Institute notes that “China possesses an estimated 410 nuclear warheads as of January 2023, which marks an increase of around 60 warheads from the previous year…it makes clear that China’s historical reliance on a “minimum deterrent” has markedly shifted. Moreover, additional Chinese warheads are expected in the future. Along with its warhead expansion, China is advancing its “nuclear triad,” consisting of land-based, sea-based, and air-based nuclear delivery systems.”

China’s scientists continue to pioneer innovative weapons systems. One example, as reported by SCMP Chinese military scientists have developed a science-fiction like energy shield.”

President Xi has admonished his nation to “focus all its energy on fighting.” 

China’s growing preference for force and threats can be seen in its Taiwan and Hong Kong policies.  In gaining control of Hong Kong through the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, it agreed to conditions allowing Hong Kong to maintain existing structures of government and economy under a principle of “one country, two systems” for half a century.  Had it adhered to that provision, it would have been a signal to Taiwan that Beijing’s goal of unification was peaceful and that it would respect local rights.  In ignoring its Hong Kong obligations, it signaled that it would seek to takeover Taiwan by force.

The same can be said for Beijing’s attitude towards the rest of the world.  It’s diplomats scold and threaten representatives of the nations it deals with, in a strategy known as “wolf diplomacy.”  

Photo: Chinese force live-fire artillery training (China Defence Ministry)