Biased Justice, A Better Deal for Black America, Germany Fails to Fund Military, Americans Warned Not to Use Chinese Cell Phones, The New Secessionists

NEW YORK ANALYSIS  OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT By Frank Vernuccio / New York Analysis of Policy & Government Frustration was expressed by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III   in his questioning of the legal right of the Special Counsel team to pursue charges unrelated to Russian collusion against Paul Manafort. Mueller’s move is seen by some as an attempt to frighten and bankrupt Manfort as a way to get him to desperately agree to testify against the President, even if that testimony is inaccurate, in an effort to preserve his freedom and his bank account from the crushing burden of a trial. It’s important to understand how an individual may be subjected to a ruinous process by a determined prosecutor even in the absence of an underlying crime. Assume that a prosecutor is determined to disrupt the life and career of a target, in this case, the President of the United States.  However, after a year of intensive investigation by a team that has close association to the President’s political opposition, there is no evidence of the alleged “crime.”  Indeed, it now seems that the whole basis of the case was based on nothing more than a document procured by the opposition campaign. The target understandably voices frustration-which is promptly labelled as “obstruction,” a wholly separate charge but a life line to keep the failed investigation alive. Additionally, The Special Counsel now seeks to find individuals who can provide any embarrassing facts about the target, even those that are wholly unrelated to the charge that initiated the existence of the investigation. Any individual, no matter how upstanding, can be made the subject of suspicion by a determined prosecutor.  Let’s take, dear reader, you as an example. Suppose an acquaintance of yours is the target of a so-far unsuccessful probe.  The prosecutor wants you to divulge something embarrassing about him.  You refuse; indeed, you may not know that any wrongdoing was ever committed.  So that prosecutor begins to dig into your life. He decides that you may be involved in a Chinese spy ring, which is totally untrue, but… You frequently order takeout from a Chinese restaurant that is part of a chain of stores that, unknown to you, is owned by a Beijing-based corporation that has fiscal ties to that nation’s government. This is known to investigators because you pay by credit card and your records have been subpoenaed by a diligent prosecutor. The prosecutor accuses you of being an unregistered foreign agent providing assistance to China.  When confronted with this absurdity, you tell, in anger, the investigator to go to hell, and you instruct your accountant, tax preparer, and credit card company not to comply with the investigation. As a result, you are charged with Obstruction.  You now face serious legal expenses and potential criminal charges.  However, you are quietly informed, if you simply provide damning statements about your acquaintance, all this can go away, and what’s left of your life and money can be preserved. Recently, according to published reports,  a former Trump campaign aide, Michael Caputo, exploded in anger at the Senate Intelligence Committee, labelling the Russian investigation a “witch hunt” that has cost him $125,000 in legal fees. A vigorous investigative process by a special counsel into the possible commission of a crime is wholly appropriate. But there are appropriate parameters that must be observed. First, there must be dependable evidence that an actual crime has been committed. In the Russian Collusion case, this has not occurred.  All that has been unearthed is that an unsubstantiated document procured by the Clinton campaign was presented to a FISA court, which almost always approves anything placed before it by the FBI, and the origin of that documented was not disclosed.  On top of that, this current FBI leadership has very real and very significant indications of bias, including the fact that approximately $700,000 in funds to the campaign of the wife of former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, was provided by Clinton allies, and clear evidence, including emails, exist indicating that key figures within that agency definitively sought to prevent the election of candidate  Donald Trump.  The special counsel, Robert Mueller, served as head of the FBI, and was succeeded by James Comey, who has also made no secret of his animosity to Trump. If this investigation, under similar biased circumstances, was taking place in another nation, many if not most of those cheering on Robert Mueller’s actions would have no hesitation in condemning it as a political show trial by one political faction against another. Many will never be convinced that Donald Trump is innocent.  That is their right. And it would be appropriate, upon their presentation of reliable, substantive evidence of actual collusion, to initiate a vigorous investigation, to be conducted by nonpartisan personnel.  That is not the current case, which is based on biased and unreliable evidence that underlies an investigation by partisan personnel. This analysis is neither pro nor anti-Trump.  It is, however, staunchly in favor of the concept of the fair and objective administration of justice. A Better Deal for Black America Some who claim to represent the black community have correctly pointed to the reality that poverty in their demographic remains higher than the rest of the nation.  They note that young black males have higher rates of incarceration and altercations with police. Defensively, some respond by pointing to a half-century of anti-poverty and affirmative action programs. Some blame police-black tensions on a higher proclivity to respond negatively to law enforcement on the part of those youth and suggest an absence of fathers as benevolent authority figures leading to that attitude. Both have a point.  Yes, there have been extensive anti-poverty programs, but those efforts have been a failure.  Nationwide poverty rates remain virtually unchanged in the half century since they were begun.  The fact is, those endeavors have been a great benefit to the politically connected who administer them or who had the opportunity to work in them, but they have done precious little for the intended recipients.  The rise of “poverty pimps” illustrates the problem. After the elimination of officially sanctioned segregation laws and the end of the Jim Crow era, it seemed that the path to full financial equality would finally begin.  The results have been disappointing.  In truth, because of those programs and the restrictions placed on the American economy at the federal, state and local levels by high taxes and excess regulations, blacks have been inadvertently denied the economic environment that allowed other ethnic groups who were once discriminated against to progress.  It is doubtful that, given these conditions, any prior downtrodden groups would have had a viable shot at moving up the economic ladder. The National Center for Policy Research has just provided an important study addressing the issue. The just-released “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” notes that “It has been over a half-century since the enactment of landmark civil rights legislation targeting the scourge of racial discrimination. Unfortunately, too many black families today suffer from a non-racial scourge – conditions that undermine upward mobility and perpetuate unacceptable levels of poverty, crime and other social ills. The vaunted social safety net has become a web that ensnares black families in a vicious cycle of dependency.” This is not a politicized report performed by remote academics. It is the work of “Project 21,” a network of diverse black leaders from across the nation. The study identified ten key areas of reform.  Here’s a very brief summary of the key points: Promoting K-12 Educational Choice: Establish federal needs-based vouchers. Improving Higher Education: Require schools to meet minimum graduation rate standards for both general and minority student populations to be eligible for federal student financial aid. Reducing Black Unemployment: Abolish the Jim Crow-era Davis-Bacon Act; initiate a second wave of welfare reform with work requirements. Strengthening Faith-Based Communities: Establish federal Tax Credit Scholarships; repeal the Johnson Amendment; create a tax credit for families paying for nursery-12 fees and tuition. Promoting Self-Determination: End fraudulent election practices that dilute black votes. Require proof of citizenship to register; vigorously prosecute those who target minority communities for fraud. Improve Police Relationships: Get police out of the regulation business; transfer the resources to support police community outreach programs; increase use of body cameras; end gun bans and put police in charge of safety training. End Excessive Regulation: Require “Minority Impact Assessments” for new regulations. Stop Wealth Transfer to Non-Citizens: Bar illegal aliens from using public services, except in emergencies. Reduce the Economic Harm of Excise Taxes: Repeal federal, state and local sin and gas taxes, all of which have a disproportionate negative impact on low-income families. Reform the Criminal Justice System: Require convictions for assets to be forfeited; prohibit incarceration for fine-only misdemeanors; require fines and forfeitures be transferred to general funds instead of enforcing agency budgets and consider ability to pay in levying fines. Germany Fails to Fund Military Angela Merkel’s visit to the White House came at a time when both trade and defense issues highlighted the relationship between the two nations. Despite a six-year high rate of economic growth  and a surplus of revenue over expenditures, Germany continues to starve its armed forces of necessary funding. According to Warfare ”Many primary weapons systems in the Bundeswehr are not available for training exercises or deployment, according to a new study for the Federal Ministry of Defence, the Bundesministerium der Verteidigung (BMVg).” The publication outlines key portions of the problem: “Number of weapon systems ready for action: Eurofighter Typhoon jet airplanes: 39 of 128 Tornado jet airplanes: 26 of 93 CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72 NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58 Tiger helicopters: 12 of 62 A400M transport planes: 3 of 15 Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224 Navy frigates: 5 of 13″ Business Insider reported in February that “Over the past several months, the entirety of Germany’s submarine fleet has gone out of action, the Bundeswehr, its armed forces, has outsourced helicopter training to a private company because its own helicopters are in need of repair, and more than half of the Bundeswehr’s Leopard 2 tanks, its most common model, were out of order, with just 95 of 244 in service. Those are only the latest reports of German military deficiencies…During a visit to Germany at the end of January, US Army Secretary Mark Esper, a former Raytheon executive, said he would take the German government at its word that it would increase defense spending to the 2% target, but he cautioned against falling short. ‘It’s important for all of our NATO allies to live up to their commitments,’ Esper said. ‘If not, it weakens the alliance, clearly, and Germany is such a critical member of NATO’.” The European Security Journal  found that, in addition to the fact that only a fraction of Germany’s crucial weapons system are capable of working, “21,000 positions are vacant within the German army… The armed forces situation of the biggest EU member state raises concerns for EU collective defence. Even with the planned increase of €5.4 billion by 2021 in the defence budget, Germany will still only spend 1.15% of its GDP in defence, far below from the NATO‘s 2025 target of 2% of GDP. “ The problem is not new. In 2017,Berlin reported  that “…active servicewomen and men are still being overburdened just as much as in the past in many areas… Since the 2011 Bundeswehr reform – following the suspension of compulsory military service, the number of German temporary-career volunteers and career soldiers has been 170,000 on paper, but this target had still not been reached by the end of 2016. In addition to this, however, the armed forces will, according to their own calculations, require 14,300 more servicewomen and men in order to close the personnel gaps that have now been identified; initially, though, only 7,000 new posts are to be created and filled by 2023. Seven years for a four-percent increase in personnel! This is taking too long. The situation is very similar when it comes to the full materiel resourcing of the Bundeswehr that is now envisaged. …everything new seems to be being put on the on hold, and nothing is happening quickly, from the new multirole combat ship to surface-to-air missile systems and the 100 second-hand Leopard 2s that will need to be modernised before they go into service alongside the 225 battle tanks the Bundeswehr currently has at its disposal. The Leopard 2s are to be available in 2023, but no contracts have been signed yet. There has already been sufficient discussion of the delays to many ongoing procurement programmes that are having such momentous consequences, from the A400M transport aircraft (Air Force) and the NH90 helicopter (Army) to the Type 125 frigates (Navy). It has not even been possible for the new combat clothing to be issued according to plan in the quantities required. “In order to strengthen Germany’s capacity to contribute to collective defence, and fully perform its obligations under European security policy and within NATO, it will not only be necessary to rapidly expand the Bundeswehr’s manpower. Full materiel resourcing will also have to be driven ahead. There are shortages of heavy major end items such as tanks, helicopters and ships, but also munitions and personal equipment for servicewomen and men, from uniforms to night-vision devices and protective clothing . The shortages are making themselves felt everywhere. They are having impacts on training, exercises and the confidence with which equipment is handled in action. The often excessively long amounts of time taken for the repair work carried out in the private sector are part of the problem when it comes to the major end items that are in short supply…Furthermore, large and small procurement projects must be sustainably speeded up. For example, planned decommissioning measures mean the Navy only has nine of the 15 large combat vessels that are supposed to be in its fleet today, and minesweepers, tenders and tankers are filling the gaps, its operational capability is in a critical state, to say nothing of the scandalous shortage of operational Navy helicopters (at a time when it theoretically has a total inventory of 43 helicopters). But it is not only the objective shortages of personnel and materiel themselves that represent a problem, for the laborious business of administering this scarcity is burdening the Bundeswehr additionally as well.” Americans Warned not to use Chinese Cell Phones An extraordinary example of the difficulties in America’s economic relations with China is being played out in the technology field, particularly concerning cell phones. Business Insider reports that: “US senators warned that China is trying to gain access to sensitive U.S. technologies and intellectual properties through telecommunications companies, academia and joint business ventures. Chinese firms have come under greater scrutiny in the United States in recent years over fears they may be conduits for spying, something they have consistently denied.” Writing for the Verge, James Vincent  reports that the heads of six major American intelligence agencies are advising U.S. citizens to not use products or services provided by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE. The problem has a lengthy history. In May 2017, a federal jury found that Huwaei engaged in industrial espionage within U.S. borders, and ordered the company to provide $4.8 million in damages to T-Mobile. In 2012  The House Intelligence Committee ”confirmed significant gaps in available information about the Chinese telecommunications sector, the histories and operations of specific companies operating in the United States, and those companies’ potential ties to the Chinese state. Most importantly, [a committee preliminary review] highlighted the potential security threat posed by Chinese telecommunications companies with potential ties to the Chinese government or military. In particular, to the extent these companies are influenced by the state, or provide Chinese intelligence services access to telecommunication networks, the opportunity exists for further economic and foreign espionage by a foreign nation-state already known to be a major perpetrator of cyber espionage. As many other countries show through their actions, the Committee believes the telecommunications sector plays a critical role in the safety and security of our nation, and is thus a target of foreign intelligence services. The Committee’s formal investigation focused on Huawei and ZTE, the top two Chinese telecommunications equipment manufacturers, as they seek to market their equipment to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.” In 2014 the FBI  charged five Chinese military hackers with illegally penetrating the computer networks of six U.S. victims. In a statement, the FBI noted that “It’s no secret that the Chinese government has blatantly sought to use cyber espionage to obtain economic advantage for its state-owned industries. Diplomatic efforts and public exposure have failed to curtail these activities. So we have taken the next step of securing an indictment of some of the most prolific hackers…These individuals are alleged to have used a variety of techniques, including e-mails that launched malicious software to steal proprietary and sensitive information from U.S. victims.” Although reluctant to publicly announce the reasons, U.S. telecommunications companies are backing away from some relations with their Chinese counterparts. The Wall Street Journal reported in January that AT&T “has walked away from a deal to sell smartphones made by Chinese electronics giant Huawei Technologies Co.” In April, ZTE was hit with another charge by the U.S. Commerce Department, which announced that its “Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has imposed a denial of export privileges against Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”). In March 2017, ZTE agreed to a combined civil and criminal penalty and forfeiture of $1.19 billion after illegally shipping telecommunications equipment to Iran and North Korea, making false statements, and obstructing justice including through preventing disclosure to and affirmatively misleading the U.S. Government.  In addition to these monetary penalties, ZTE also agreed a seven-year suspended denial of export privileges, which could be activated if any aspect of the agreement was not met and/or if the company committed additional violations of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).” In January, Rep. Mike Conway (TX-11) introduced H.R. 4747, The Defending U.S. Government Communications Act. This bill prohibits the U.S. government from purchasing or leasing telecommunications equipment and/or services from Huawei, ZTE, or any subsidiaries/affiliates thereof. Rep. Conway emphasized that “Chinese commercial technology is a vehicle for the Chinese government to spy on United States federal agencies, posing a severe national security threat… Allowing Huawei, ZTE, and other related entities access to U.S. government communications would be inviting Chinese surveillance into all aspects of our lives,,,This is an issue we’ve followed for years at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The threat… is now reemerging as the Chinese government is reattempting to embed themselves into U.S. technology. This is extremely dangerous because the Chinese government is trying to compromise the integrity of U.S. businesses and spy on our closely held national security secrets.” The New Secessionists Is America splitting apart? Some on both the right and the left are engaging in conversations not heard since the Civil War. The furious media and partisan assault on President Trump, combined with anguished reactions to the constitutionally questionable actions of Barack Obama, has prompted secessionist discussions. President Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” the United States. He kept his word. Foreign policy was reset to in a manner that overlooked Russian, Chinese, North Korean and Iranian military advances, while alienating traditional friends. America’s armed forces were sharply reduced.  Dramatic increases in some social programs (food stamps, for example) came at the expense of others (social security recipients received fewer and less cost of living increases than at any time since the current format was adopted.) Illegal immigration was largely ignored.  Federal agencies were re-tasked to assist partisan goals, especially the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Environmental Protection. Much of the electorate disapproved, and eventually expressed their displeasure at the ballot box. But to some, the memory of the damage remains too sharp, and to others, in states where Obama-style politics continue such as California, remedies remain too distant. Some centrists and conservatives in Californians are seeking to split their state in two. Some on the left, who vehemently disapprove of President Trump’s policies, have even called for California to secede from the union altogether. Some Texans are also considering secession, in frustration at Washington’s growth during the Obama years. An ABC news California affiliate  has reported that there is some support for legislation to split up California, in an effort to shield many of its citizens from the hard-left policies of Governor Brown and the Sacramento government. The referendum could appear on the November ballot. Supporters believe that the current state government has failed to protect the interests of its citizens, and wants to separate the more centrist and conservative rural areas from the rest of the state. According to the group’s Declaration of Independence, “California is a new state in development exercising its Constitutional Right to form from the State of California. The process to form New California is authorized and codified in: Article IV Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution….The current state of California has become governed by a tyranny, which rivals those expressed in the above documents. Therefore the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, the Constitution as adapted in 1783 by the Congress of the United States of America, the Alta California Declaration of Independence of 1836, the Sonoma Proclamation of 1846, and the California State Constitution of 1848 Mandate the Right, the Responsibility, the Duty of the People who are suffering the long train of abuses and usurpations at the hands of a tyrannical government to abolish and make New a Government by the People and for the People …” There is some precedent for a state splitting apart, although the circumstances were radically different.  During the Civil War, West Virginia split off from Virginia. According to History.com  ”Confederate forces occupied a portion of West Virginia during the war, but West Virginian statehood was nonetheless approved in a referendum and a state constitution drawn up. In April 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the admission of West Virginia into the Union effective June 20, 1863.” The radical concept of secession from the Union altogether has gained some traction in both Texas and California. The “Yes California”  movement is openly partisan.  It’s website notes: “Most of the time, California doesn’t get the national government we choose. We have voted for a Democratic majority in both chambers of the California Legislature since 1971 and have elected Democrats to the U.S. Senate since 1992. Clearly California leans left but by the time of the 2016 election we will have had a Republican-controlled House for 19 out of the last 24 years and a Republican-controlled Senate for 15 out of the last 24 years.” Some in Texas are also considering secession, although from an opposite political basis.  Fiercely independent, many Texans were shaken by President Obama’s move to increase federal power. Daniel Miller, author of “Texit: Why and How Texas Will Leave the Union,”  writes that “Texans are currently subjected to over 180,000 pages of Federal laws, administered by 440 separate agencies, and nearly 2 million unelected Federal bureaucrats…” The chances of either of these movements succeeding (or is that “seceding?”) are, of course, very small.  But they are indicators of the extraordinary anger that many Americans have. FRANK VERNUCCIO, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, [email protected]