Category: NY Analysis

Listen to talk radio that both fascinates you and respects your intelligence. If you missed this week’s program on your local radio station, tune in to

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MTaAM1ByJFqI-nKA3oDs1Ie2sgUFJuaR/view?ts=659efc10

The Biden Administration has done far more than normalize the practice of illegal immigration, in open defiance of U.S. law.  It has created an environment in which the needs of those entering the nation illegitimately have priority over citizens.   In some jurisdictions, Funding for essential services is jeopardized due to the fiscal strain resulting from the influx of border crossers.

Not long after taking office, the newly elected Administration limited arrests and deportations carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Colorado Rep. Douglas Lamborn notes that President Obama’s reckless immigration policies and unlawful executive amnesty orders have led to a staggering increase of 2.5 million illegal immigrants nationwide. The American people understand what a dangerous precedent this is. Each year, hundreds of thousands of aliens deliberately violate our nation’s laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Today, there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.

U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has emphasized that President Biden has the authority to address the crisis at the southern border, but he has simply chosen not to act. … the crisis at the border from becoming a full-blown catastrophe.

Rather than address the challenges of illegal immigration, the Administration has done all it can to encourage the practice.   The Federation for American Immigration Reform reports that Former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott has testified that the Biden Administration’s priority [is]  to release aliens as quickly as possible.  He stated, “During my tenure as Chief, the Biden administration’s team at DHS was laser-focused on expediting the processing and flow of migrants into the U.S.  They downplayed or completely refused to accept the significant vulnerability this creates for terrorists, narcotics smugglers, human traffickers, and even hostile nations to gain access to our homeland.”

Not satisfied with ignoring U.S. law regarding illegal immigration and encouraging more border crossing, Biden has attacked those who have attempted to deal with the problem. His Administration has criticized Border Patrol Agents for merely doing their job, and has now attacked the State of Texas for implementing water-borne barriers.  It has abandoned material already purchased by the prior Administration meant to be used for border wall construction.

A Heritage study found that “The list of lies administration officials have told regarding their handling of illegal immigration is extensive and still growing. When asked why the administration was flying illegal immigrants in the middle of the night, press secretary Jen Psaki belittled the reporter and then lied. By failing to detain or remove single adult males, the Administration has removed the last disincentive to illegal immigration.

In August, CBS reported that the White House has allowed 200,000 migrants to enter the U.S. in just the prior10 months.

The President’s tilt towards illegals at the expense of the citizenry is a nod towards his party’s preferences.  Democrats in the House have recently filed legislation to issue green cards to illegals.

In 2022, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody took legal action against the Biden administration for ignoring federal immigration law. She noted that “According to federal law, arriving immigrants, including those claiming asylum, are required by law to be detained while immigration courts determine if there is a valid basis to enter the United States. As a result of the Biden administration’s illegal abdication of duty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already released more than 225,000 illegal border crossers this year… The Biden administration’s brazen disregard for federal immigration law is jeopardizing the safety and security of our state and nation…Biden’s border policy is an open invitation to dangerous criminals, human traffickers and drug traffickers to enter the United States—creating a crisis at the Southern Border like we have never seen. Because Biden is not requiring those crossing the border to go through the legally mandated channels, they are coming into our country without being properly processed…The federal government cannot simply ignore federal laws because it does not agree with them politically.”

Photo: U.S. Mexican border (Pixabay)

In the early 1980’s, when China first opened to the West, American businessmen received verbal warnings from those who previously had traveled to China to trade with the communist state. Typically one might be told, “You need to be aware that the Chinese government has nèibù [内部] and wàibù [外部] laws that foreigners must follow.” The problem centered on that it was illegal for a Chinese citizen to discuss the details of nèibù or “internal only laws” with foreigners, although all non-Chinese must obey both internal and external rules. This past week President Xi Jinping promulgated a new law that Beijing says legitimizes even tougher measures on foreigners, to deal with qīlíng [欺凌] or “bullying” by the West. The statute, according to Willy Wo-Lap Law of the Jamestown Foundation, took effect on July 1. He says: “’The Law on Foreign Relations of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’… will… anchor the supreme leader’s long-standing aspiration to build a China-centric global order that will challenge the framework established by the US-led Western Alliance since the end of World War II.” 

By codifying Xi’s total control over all policies regarding diplomacy and national security, the Chinese publication People’s Daily says that “the law stays true to the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable global security, and endeavors to strengthen international security cooperation and its participation in mechanisms of global security governance.” In pragmatic terms the new law blatantly justifies Beijing to take “corresponding countermeasures and restrictive measures” when it believes others are violating international laws or that “endanger China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests.”

The Global Times reports the statute is in response to “new challenges in foreign relations, especially when China has been facing frequent external interference in its internal affairs under the western hegemony with unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction.” It appears the law allows the retaliatory blacklisting of foreign nationals and institutions if other nation-states act against Chinese firms for spying, theft of intellectual property, or other unsanctioned economic activities. Lam says that the promulgation of a counter-espionage law earlier this year “already places businesspeople from different countries in a potentially compromising situation.” The environment is more inhospitable today.

China’s definition of “spying” or the “leaking of state secrets” is very different from definitions used in the West. This year public security officers have cracked down on a number of multinational due diligence companies, accounting firms and others handling sensitive financial dates, notes Lam. He adds that “the CCP administration has also restricted the activities of American IT firm Micron in an apparent tit-for-tat response to Washington’s efforts to punish Chinese IT firms with links to national security and military units.” 

China does not abide by global norms and practices in the areas of freedom of information, disclosure of holdings of stakeholders, or rules for open bidding on contracts. Nor has President Xi condemned Putin’s “special military action” in Ukraine, despite China’s claim that it respects the territorial integrity of all nations. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in recent times has moved aggressively in the Taiwan Strait, Sea of Japan, and the South China Sea belying its commitment to the rules-based international system. It also continues to challenge the order in the region in defiance of the United Nations’ Court of Final Appeal in the Hague condemning China for violations of international law. At every turn China is defying the international rules-based order. It also remains silent on the Wagner mercenary group move against the Kremlin, although the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister did make an unplanned trip to Beijing last week to meet with Chinese officials. 

Analysts in Washington note that the Wagner Group has weakened Putin’s position and as a key ally of Xi’s, also hurt China’s attempt to establish an “axis of autocratic states” in Central Asia under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS mechanism. Chinese officials defiantly argue that they will not allow the country to be contained by Washington or the West, and that it will continue pushing its open-door policy as formulated under Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Lam points out that promises made earlier by Beijing “regarding the liberalization of control of foreign-exchange movements and other measures deemed to restrict the business opportunities of multinationals have yet to be honored.” 

In the end the new law effectively provides Xi additional cover for his support of Vladimir Putin. Western analysts point out that Xi may prefer to keep Putin in power so the West remains focused on Europe and not on Asia. More significantly, some suggest Xi is concerned that a successor may not be as agreeable to play the secondary role in the bilateral relationship under his “Great renaissance of the Chinese nation” that is intended to remake the world order following a Chinese model.  

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

Photo: Minister Wang Wentao Attended State Council Information Office Press Conference to Brief Reporter on Commerce issues (China Trade Ministry)

Bilateral cooperation between Russia and Iran runs much deeper than a single shipment of Iranian-made drones for Moscow’s use in the war in Ukraine. Regular arms deliveries from Tehran to Moscow now also include large shipments of drones and surface-to-surface missiles. Russia, in turn, is sending advanced weapons stolen from the West and cash to Iran. In late November Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported that Iran is studying the weapons it receives and working to reverse engineer the systems. According to Stephen Blank of the Jamestown Foundation, it is possible that the “modifications Russian forces introduced to the Shaheed-136 drone to improve its accuracy may have been communicated to Iran ahead of time, as suggested by the drone strike on an Israeli-owned oil tanker on November 15.” It does not stop there. Asia Times notes that Russian re-engineered drones produced originally by Iran could pose a major existential threat to shipping routes from the Persian Gulf, Black, Baltic, and Mediterranean seas and as far away as the Indian Ocean. Naval experts in Washington are concerned that progress on these weapons could be the first part of an Iranian sea-denial strategy aimed at fulfilling Tehran’s desire to control vast swaths of the Middle East and beyond. Earlier this summer Tehran launched its Khayyam satellite on a Russian Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. It was designed for use, according to Iranian sources, for “border surveillance of agriculture, monitoring land use changes such as unauthorized construction, deforestation and environmental hazards and scouting for mineral deposits, among others.

More concerning it that the satellite could be used to conduct reconnaissance of Ukrainian groupings and weapons systems, according to an August 11 Russian Space Web story. It reports that beginning in 2018 Russia and Iran have also been conducting negotiating to secure delivery of a Russian Kanopus-V satellite with “high-resolution cameras” for Tehran. Many in the US intelligence community also believe that Iran wants Russia’s help to expand and speed its nuclear program in the area of nuclear materials and fuel fabrication. Although Iran may not possess an assembled nuclear weapon, with Russia’s assistance it could achieve “nuclear latency,” or the ability to assemble one in a short period of time. As Russo-Irian political and economic ties strengthen, so does anti-American sentiment driving those policies. 

In December the Tasnim News Agency (TNA) reported that Iran and Russia were working on new frameworks and mechanisms for deepening their relationship that “go beyond Syria and military transfers to include the Caucasus, where Iran is already expanding its influence to the point of dangerously mounting tensions with Azerbaijan and Turkey.” TNA says that Russia and Iran were growing closer before the war in Ukraine, but are even closer now. It points out that “a gas swap, which would allow Iran to import Russian gas and then export it to third countries, is in the works.” As Putin and the Iranian president continue building cooperative ties, Iran is working to circumvent Western sanctions through a joint working group. Lastly, Iran asked for Putin’s help in suppressing the long-running demonstrations across the country by transferring Russian anti-riot equipment and training to Tehran earlier this month. As the war progresses in Ukraine, the West must remember that Russia is engaged in other parts of the world, including the Middle East and the Caucasus. Israel has labeled the growing bilateral relationship “dangerous” and that this new entente will give Tehran cover in Syria to expand its activities up to the Israeli border. Russia, the Jerusalem Post says, “might step in to limit Israeli air strikes against Iranian facilities and installations there.” Taking advantage of the increasingly visible estrangement between Riyadh and Washington, the Post suggests that Moscow is trying to facilitate a means by which Iran and Saudi Arabia might mend their differences, a development that, if it occurs, would send shockwaves throughout the Middle East. Russia’s growing ties with Iran could represent a risk to Middle East stability and security and a major rupture in the non-proliferation order. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

As Arctic-like temperatures descend on the United States this week, we are reminded that there is a great frozen north that can impact events outside the immediate region. The Arctic today plays an increasingly important geopolitical role with the growing potential of a year-round new Northern Passage for commercial shipping, technologically available energy rich resources, and an expanded Russian military presence in the area. Moscow is continuing to build military bases there despite Putin’s ongoing war in Ukraine. CNN reports that in an exclusive interview on Friday NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said there is now “a significant Russian military build-up in the high north,” with recent tensions causing the alliance to “double its presence” in response.

A senior Western intelligence official, according to CNN, says Russia has withdrawn as much as 75% of its land forces from the High North region near the Arctic and reassigned them to the war in Ukraine. Maxar Technologies, a company that provides disruptive earth intelligence to governments and the private sector, was able to produce a series of satellite pictures that show while the number of soldiers may have decreased, Russian radar bases and runways in the Arctic are undergoing improvements over the past year. The geospacial information indicates that even though resources are scarce, it is evidence Putin continues to prioritize fortification and expansion of the country’s defensive posture in the High North. Many analysts agree that a regional conflict among great powers remains unlikely in the near future. Putin’s determination to continue military projects, however, remains significant.

There are important changes to the radar stations at the Olenegorsk site, on the Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia, and at Vorkuta, just north of the Arctic circle. Satellite images also depict work moving ahead to complete one of five Rezonans-N radar systems at Ostrovnoy, a site located by the Barents Sea, near Norway and Finland in Russia’s west. These radar systems, according to Russian military officials, can detect stealth aircraft and objects. Russia is not only building radar systems but radomes, the weatherproof enclosures used to the radar antennas. At the Nagurskoye and “Temp” Air Bases, Russia is also making improvements to the runways and aprons.

The Arctic is key to Russia’s expanding oil and gas sector but more importantly, from a military perspective, it is critical to Moscow’s nuclear defenses. By refurbishing and upgrading Soviet era bases Putin can project power and protect the country’s sophisticated nuclear weaponry and submarine facilities. “That deterrence has always been ready,” said a senior Western intelligence official. “It’s never down to low readiness; it’s a high status all the time,” the official told CNN Friday. Stoltenberg points out that “The shortest way from Russia to North America is over the Arctic North Pole. The strategic importance of these areas has not changed because of the war in Ukraine… We see Russia reopening old Soviet bases, military sites” and its “testing novel weapons in the Arctic and the high north.” 

Economically the region’s contributions amount to about 20% of Russia’s total GDP. Although Russia’s land force strength in the region is lower, Moscow’s navy is not impacted, nor is its overall defense posture. The area’s rapidly melting ice will soon open a much shorter commercial shipping route along Russia’s coastline from Southeast Asia to Europe.

 Unlike the United States Russia owns a fleet of atomic-powered ice breakers that will enable it to take full advantage of the warming trend. “The war in Ukraine has boosted NATO’s presence in the region. Once Finland and Sweden join the block, as is widely expected, seven out of eight Arctic states will be NATO members,” according to Nick Walsh and Sarah Dean of CNN. They point out that NATO has also become increasingly concerned about the potential sabotage of Norway’s oil and gas infrastructure. Since Russian energy is subject to sanctions, Norway’s natural gas makes up more than 20% of Europe’s supply. To ensure energy security, Stoltenberg says NATO has doubled its presence in the region with submarines and maritime patrol aircraft as a message of readiness and deterrence in the protection of critical infrastructure. Should Putin decide to return troops to the Arctic bases, he can do it in a short period of time.

It will be important to watch developments over the coming year to see if Putin has other plans for the region given th country’s commitment to building permanent infrastructure.  

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

Photo: Pixabay

Americans opening up their latest energy bill are, in some cases, being forced to choose between paying it or putting an adequate amount of food on the table.

The shock and hardships endured by Americans from their current energy charges, at home, at the gas station, and even in the products they buy is directly due to the influence of environmental extremists, who have caused massive harm to both personal and national finances and international relations.

The reality is that “alternative” energy sources can, currently, only provide about 20% of the world’s energy needs, and that will not change until major technological innovations occur, which will not happen for many years. It is as if, in the year 1776, someone had suggested that in a century or so the automobile would be invented and proceeded to shoot all the horses.

Despite that reality and that timeline, the extremists have successfully assaulted fossil fuels and nuclear energy without regard to the harm they are causing. It is apparently of no consequence to them that they have fueled—pardon the pun—international crises, harmed national economies, and devastated family budgets. 

The dramatic increase in both your energy bills, and the inflationary prices in everything else, are the specific and direct result of the Biden Administration’s assault on American energy independence at the behest of environmental extremists. On day one of his reign, Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline. He then stopped energy development in a portion of Alaska, and forbade further energy development on federal lands. This left the U.S. dependent on foreign nations to fulfill our energy.

It also dramatically started an inflationary cycle. Everything you eat, buy, or use takes energy to produce, manufacture, and transport to you or your store. The hike in food prices is as related to energy policy as much as the cost of gasoline for your car.

The leftist politicians who buy into anti-fossil fuel policies cannot feign ignorance of the devastating impact they have on the population. In 2008, Barack Obama clearly stated “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” He should have added that the price of everything else would “skyrocket” as well.

Bureaucrats haven’t been coy about this, either. Also in 2008, Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s said he was attempting to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

There is no practical way in which, under current technology, “zero emissions” can be achieved in any realistic manner.  A total reliance on solar and wind, even if feasible, would require that up to 20% of the entire U.S. landmass would have to be covered in solar panels and wildlife-killing wind turbines, an environmental disaster in and of itself.  Since solar panels and wind turbines have relatively short lifespans, the problem of disposing those used and non-biodegradable devices will result in a further crisis.

A Wall Street Journal analysis reports that:

“Costs will continue to rise if politicians remain bent on achieving net-zero emissions globally. Bank of America finds that achieving net zero globally by 2050 will cost $150 trillion over 30 years—almost twice the combined annual gross domestic product of every country on earth.”

In addition to massive inflation, extreme environmental policies are responsible for deteriorating international relations.

The late Senator John McCain once said that “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a nation.” Biden’s anti-fossil fuel policies are a gift-wrapped present to Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin’s aggressive actions towards Russia’s neighbors are fueled by the vast riches it has gained from the sale of energy. As environmental extremists slash energy production in the West, Putin gets wealthier, and his uses that wealth to build his military.

Illustration: Pixabay 

After 27 years as a Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer decided to retire late in January of this year.  Breyer, at 83 years old, was originally appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and is the oldest member of the Court at present. Breyer’s decision does not appear to have been spontaneous. “Liberal activists have urged him for months to retire while Democrats hold both the White House and the Senate… Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, urged Breyer to retire in a Washington Post op-ed article in May…(t)he progressive group Demand Justice hired a truck last year to drive around Washington with the sign: ‘Breyer Retire. It’s time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice.'” Did Joe Biden happen to see that truck while wandering around DC? Probably not –  “On the campaign trail, Biden vowed to nominate a Black woman should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, a pledge he reaffirmed after Breyer’s announcement.” According to The Hill, “Biden said he would consult with senators from both parties, leading legal scholars and Vice President Harris before settling on a nominee…’I will listen carefully to all the advice I’m given, and I’ll study the records and former cases carefully…I’ll meet with the potential nominees, and it is my intention…to announce my decision before the end of February.'” True to his word, at the end of February, President Biden picked Ketanji Brown Jackson – a black woman – as his nominee to replace Breyer on the US Supreme Court. According to Ballotpedia, Brown Jackson was “born in 1970 in Washington, D.C.  She then moved with her family to Florida, where she graduated from Miami Palmetto High School in 1988. She received a bachelor’s degree in government, magna cum laude, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard University in 1992 and 1996, respectively. She served as the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review from 1995 to 1996.”  She has served as a Law Clerk to Justice Breyer; has been a federal public defender; was appointed to be a Judge of the Federal District Court in DC in 2013 by President Obama; and was elevated to the DC Federal Court of Appeals in 2021 by President Biden.  Both times, she passed Senate confirmation without difficulty. On the surface, Brown Jackson would seem to be a candidate who could garner a good deal of bipartisan support.  But according to Fox News, “(m)issing (from most news reports) are details like her work drafting an amicus brief on behalf of pro-abortion organizations in a buffer zone case in which she repeatedly disparaged the peaceful and often prayerful clinic protesters as engaging in ‘in-your-face’ and ‘chaotic’ activity that somehow fell short of ‘pure speech.’ She also represented several Guantanamo Bay detainees as a public defender and continued that representation on a pro bono basis after moving back to private practice. That was before her tenure as vice chair of the United States Sentencing Commission, during which the Commission reduced its sentencing recommendations for crack-cocaine offenses, advocated the repeal of mandatory-minimum sentences, and raised concerns about demographic disparities in sentencing.” These actions while in her legal practice reveal someone with a clear left of center viewpoint.  But it is Brown Jackson’s record as a judge that reveal a few things about her judicial philosophy that may be of concern to Constitutional conservatives. According to BuzzFeed.News, “(a)s a district court judge, Jackson presided over a set of challenges by federal labor unions to three executive orders issued by Trump that gave agencies new directives about how they should handle collective bargaining. Jackson in August 2018 rejected the administration’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case and ruled that the bulk of the challenged orders violated federal law…The DC Circuit later reversed her on the front-end jurisdiction issue and dismissed the case.” In September of 2019, “a coalition of immigrant rights group’s challenged the Trump administration’s plan to expand the category of undocumented immigrants eligible for fast-track deportations…(Brown Jackson) issued a preliminary injunction blocking the changes…(t)he DC Circuit later reversed Jackson’s injunction.”  Further, “(i)n October 2020, Jackson sided with immigrant advocacy groups who sued the Trump administration over a lesson plan used to train federal immigration officers who screen potential asylum seekers slated for fast-track deportations. The challengers argued the language adopted in 2019 wrongly raised the bar too high for the initial round of vetting to see if a person had shown a ‘credible fear’ of persecution in their home country. Jackson agreed. The Justice Department decided not to pursue an appeal. “One of Jackson’s most famous decisions came in late 2019, when she concluded that then-president Donald Trump’s first White House counsel Don McGahn could not claim absolute immunity against a congressional subpoena to testify in the Russia investigation…(b)acked by the Justice Department under Trump, McGahn argued that current and former senior advisers to the president enjoyed absolute immunity against congressional subpoenas, that the president had the final word on when to assert that immunity, and that courts lacked authority to intervene. Jackson rejected all of the DOJ’s positions. Her opinion was stacked with sweeping declarations about how every person, including the president, ultimately is bound by the law… The case ping-ponged around the DC Circuit for the next year and a half on the question of whether the court had authority to hear it.  The first time it went up on appeal, a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to dismiss the case, but then the full court sided with Jackson and ruled it could go forward. The Trump administration raised a second challenge on different grounds, and the DC Circuit again ruled 2-1 to toss it out. Before the full court could weigh in again, McGahn reached an agreement to testify, ending the legal fight.” Much like her activities as a lawyer, these decisions while on the DC bench show a pattern of sympathy towards progressive priorities, such as allowing faster acceptance of illegal immigrant applications for asylum, and the manipulation of federal law to support outcomes that either blocked action by the Trump Administration, or forced Trump Administration members to testify in the now-discredited investigation into “Russian collusion.” Perhaps Joe Biden really did  “study the records and former cases carefully” before selecting his nominee. Like Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MI), it would be easy to dismiss Joe Biden’s nominee as “a ‘beneficiary’ of affirmative action.”  However, such a simplistic view ignores the fact that even if Brown Jackson did receive opportunities for advancement due to her status as a black woman, she still had to do the work required to maintain those positions.  Her record as a lawyer and a judge, while exhibiting a leftward, anti-Trump slant, cannot be minimized so easily. Of course, Brown Jackson is smart enough not to tell you in advance how she will rule as a Judge. During her confirmation hearings for the DC Court of Appeals, when asked to “describe the importance you place on working with colleagues who may have different views,” Brown Jackson stated that “(b)ecause the D.C. Circuit often address complicated and potentially contentious legal issues, the ability to listen with an open mind to other points of view, and to be respectful even if a judge ultimately disagrees with another judge’s analysis or conclusions, is crucial to the effective operation of the court, and, ultimately, maintains public trust in the court as an institution.” Nonetheless, given her published opinions, Brown Jackson will no doubt serve as another progressive voice on the Court, chipping away at the measures taken by Republican Administrations and the laws enacted by Republican Congresses for decades. As in the McGhan case, she will use “sweeping” legal language and broad concepts to disguise her real motivations. Unlike Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who exhibited “a view that progress toward equal justice and greater liberty, when carried out by courts, is more likely to last when it is taken in small, careful steps rather than via radical changes,”   you can instead expect Brown Jackson to be “a judge who will deviate from the text of the Constitution and statutes without hesitation to ensure the left’s preferred policy outcomes.” Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.