Tag Archives: report on national security kinetics

Foreign Policy Research & Analysis, Intelligence Collection, Analysis & Estimates, National Security, Terrorism Information

RNSK Vol I, Edition 5

September 3, 2020

Transnational Organized Crime: What Makes It An American National Security Interest?  

NGO: Transnational Organized Crime Groups Make US$ 2.2 trillion a Year   photo courtesy of Global Financial Integrity

Introduction

The expanding size, scope, and influence of transnational organized crime and its impact on U.S. and international security and governance represents one of the most important challenges to nearly every country. During the past 20 years, technological innovation and globalization have proven to be an overwhelming force for good. However, transnational criminal organizations have taken advantage of our increasingly interconnected world to expand their illicit enterprises.

Threat Risks From Transnational Organized Crime

• Penetration of Foreign Government Institutions, Corruption, and Threats to Their Governance. Developing countries with weak rule of law can be particularly susceptible to Transnational Organized Crime (TOC) penetration. TOC penetration of states is deepening, leading to co-option in a few cases and further weakening of governance in many others. The apparent growing nexus in some states among TOC groups and elements of government—including intelligence services—and high-level business figures represents a significant threat to economic growth and democratic institutions.

• Threats to the Economy, U.S. Competitiveness, and Strategic Markets. Transnational Organized Crime threatens U.S. economic interests and can cause significant damage to the world financial system through its subversion, exploitation, and distortion of legitimate markets and economic activity. U.S. business leaders worry that U.S. firms are being put at a competitive disadvantage by Transnational Organized Crime and corruption, particularly in emerging markets where many perceive that rule of law is less reliable. The World Bank estimates over $1 trillion is spent each year to bribe public officials, causing an array of economic distortions and damage to legitimate economic activity. The price of doing business in countries affected by Transnational Organized Crime is also rising as companies budget for additional security costs, adversely impacting foreign direct investment in many parts of the world.

• Crime-Terror-Insurgency Nexus. Terrorists and insurgents increasingly are turning to Transnational Organized Crime to generate funding and acquire logistical support to carry out their violent acts. The Department of Justice maintains a classified report known as the Consolidated Priority Organization Targets (CPOT) list. The last time CPOT was declassified via a FOIA request was 2015.  That edition of the CPOT listed a total of 63 organizations, 29 of which, are significant international drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) that threaten the United States, AND have links to terrorist groups. Involvement in the drug trade by the Taliban and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) has been critical to the ability of these groups to fund terrorist activity. The U.S. Law Enforcement and  Intelligence Community is concerned about Hezbollah’s drug and criminal activities, as well as indications of links between al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb and the drug trade. Further, the terrorist organization al-Shabaab has engaged in criminal activities such as kidnapping for ransom and extortion, and may derive limited fees from extortion or protection of pirates to generate funding for its operations.  ISIS has also been very active in the TOC arena.

• Expansion of Drug Trafficking. Despite demonstrable counter-drug successes in the past 8-9 years, particularly against the cocaine trade, illicit drugs remain a serious threat to the health, safety, security, and financial well-being of Americans. The demand for illicit drugs, both in the United States and abroad, fuels the power, impunity, and violence of criminal organizations around the globe. Mexican DTOs have escalated their violence to consolidate their market share in the Western Hemisphere, protect their operations in Mexico, and expand their reach into the United States. In West Africa, Latin American cartels are exploiting local criminal organizations to move cocaine to Western Europe and the Middle East. Kenya, in Eastern Africa, has become a major distribution hub for heroin coming from Afghan DTOs to Europe and the United States. Many of the well-established organized criminal groups that had not been involved in drug trafficking—including those in Russia, China, Italy, and the Balkans—have now established ties to drug producers to develop their own distribution networks and markets.

• Human Smuggling/Trafficking. Human smuggling is the facilitation, transportation, attempted transportation, or illegal entry of a person or persons across an international border, in violation of one or more country’s laws, either clandestinely or through deception, whether with the use of fraudulent documents or through the evasion of legitimate border controls. It is a criminal commercial transaction between willing parties who go their separate ways once they have procured illegal entry into a country. The vast majority of people who are assisted in illegally entering the United States and other countries are smuggled, rather than trafficked. International human smuggling networks are linked to other transnational crimes including drug trafficking and the corruption of government officials.  In the past few years trafficking in children has begun to pick-up.

• Weapons Trafficking. Criminal networks and illicit arms dealers also play important roles in the black markets from which terrorists and drug traffickers procure some of their weapons. As detailed in the 2010 UN Organization on Drugs & Crime report, The Globalization of Crime (Note: this report was a massive undertaking and cannot be replicated yearly, however a new one was in preparation for 2020 before the COVID-19 Pandemic, so it is unlikely to be published this year), the value of the documented global authorized trade in small arms (i.e.; handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns) has been estimated at approximately $2.08 billion in 2010, with unrecorded but legal transactions making up another $120 million or so. The most commonly cited estimate for the size of the illicit market is approximately 20% of the legal market. According to the head of UNODC, these “illicit arms fuel the violence that undermines security, development and justice” worldwide. U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies have intercepted large numbers of weapons or related items being smuggled to China, Russia, Mexico, the Philippines, Somalia, Myanmar, Mali, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Syria and Yemen.  It is important to note this discussion does NOT include heavier weaponry, such as: Rocket Propelled Grenades, anti-tank rockets, heavy barrel machine guns (like the U.S. M2 .50 caliber machine gun, for example), fragmentation grenades, 40mm grenade launchers, mortars & field artillery.

• Intellectual Property Theft. TOC networks are engaged in the theft of critical U.S. intellectual property, including through intrusions into corporate and proprietary computer networks. Theft of intellectual property ranges from movies, music, and video games to imitations of popular and trusted brand names, to proprietary designs of high-tech devices and manufacturing processes. This intellectual property theft causes significant business losses, erodes U.S. competitiveness in the world marketplace, and in many cases threatens public health and safety. Between FY 2003 and FY 2010, the yearly domestic value of customs seizures at U.S. port and mail facilities related to intellectual property right (IPR) violations leaped from $94 million to $188 million. Products originating in China accounted for 66% of these IPR seizures in FY 2010.  Estimates for 2020 are in excess of $450 million, and China still leads the pack.

• Cybercrime. TOC networks are now significantly involved in cybercrime, as it has become increasingly difficult to launder money, and/or defeat institutional security systems which are controlled by networked computer systems.  Cybercrime costs consumers tens of billions of dollars annually, threatens sensitive corporate and government computer networks, and undermines worldwide confidence in the international financial system. Through cybercrime, transnational criminal organizations pose a significant threat to financial and trust systems—banking, stock markets, e-currency, and value and credit card services—on which the world economy depends. For example, some estimates indicate that online frauds perpetrated by Central European cybercrime networks have defrauded U.S. citizens or entities of more than $1 billion in a single year. According to the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates cybercrimes through its 31 Electronic Crimes Task Forces, financial crimes facilitated by anonymous online criminal elements, result in billions of dollars in losses to the Nation’s financial infrastructure. The National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), functions as a domestic focal point for 18 federal departments or agencies to coordinate, integrate, and share information related to cyber threat investigations, as well as make the Internet safer by pursuing terrorists, spies, and criminals who seek to exploit U.S. system.

• Information Warfare. The 2016 Presidential Election demonstrated that shadowy foreign government agencies, in concert with private TOC groups, have a significant capability of committing Information Warfare by exploiting America’s open society and means of mass communication.  Common social media platforms, such as YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, SnapChat, Facebook, Google, and others, have been infiltrated to influence public thinking.  Other aspects of criminal information warfare include developing misleading documents, such as the now debunked dossier procured by the Democratic National Committee that attempted to implicate the Trump Campaign in colluding with Russia to rig the election.  This dossier was actually used as evidence by the FBI to get a warrant to tap the phones of a Trump Campaign staffer.  We are seeing just the tip of the iceberg in TOC involvement in information warfare.  The allure of adversary governments using TOCs for these activities is simple:  TOCs are adept at working in the shadows, below the radar, because getting caught is not as big of a problem as losing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.  TOCs could care less about their operatives going to jail; they are not happy about losing money.  Adversary governments and terrorist groups are more than willing to pay for access to a TOCs well-developed network of money launderers, cyber criminals, black bag experts, etc.  At this juncture, no one really knows how much money TOCs are pulling-in to facilitate information warfare projects.  It now appears that some of these same shadowy TOCs are acting as conduits for money, planning and organizing insurrection and subversive activities in the U.S.

Ciao,

Steve Miller, IAPWE – Certified & Member
Managing Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

Standard
u.s. constitution, U.S. Presidency

RNSK Vol I, Edition 4

The American Presidency:

Is Success Predictable?

    

President of the United States - Wikipedia

Introduction

Predicting presidential success…a conundrum for the ages.  Here we are in 2020, and about to conduct our 58th American Presidential Election.  In the 57 preceding contests, there was just one that Americans were absolutely sure of electing a successful president: The first in 1788 when George Washington became the first President of the United States.  Every subsequent presidential election was clouded with a certain amount of trepidation; this includes Washington’s second term in office.

Starting with the second presidential election in 1792, politicians, academia, pundits, political strategists, historians and the American public, have tried to figure out what it takes to predict a successful presidency.  The first problem, however, is simply the fact that what it takes to get nominated, then get elected, and finally succeeding in the Presidency, are three different things entirely.  In a very real sense, each of these three processes are largely done on a standalone basis, with different factors & people, wanted & unwanted, that shape the man and the results throughout his journey.

Some Presidents have really applied themselves at times along the way; at other times they were the unexpected beneficiary of good fortune; some were the architect of their own disaster, and  sometimes they were the unwitting recipient of poor timing or bad luck.  For some Presidents, the office became like hell-on-earth, though they themselves were not ill-intentioned.  Some Presidents acknowledged the poor choices they made, like Ulysses Grant did in his final address to Congress regarding his choice of several cabinet secretaries who turned out to be dishonest.  Other Presidents worked hard, but, died in office, and only after their death did the public learn of scandal, turning the man’s presidency into a hell-of-a-mess.  As the saying goes: “sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

As you will see in the following discussion, predicting Presidential Success is not a tried n’ true process, or there would have been a lot more successful men in the Oval Office.  The processes of finding, developing and electing Presidents have changed quite a bit.  But, none of those things have improved the odds of Presidential success after the inauguration is over!

Factors and Traits of Presidents Prior to Taking Office

For this part of the discussion, see the Chart of the Presidents below.  Since the first Presidential Election in 1788, George Washington set the bar for positive factors and traits the public could look for in choosing, hopefully, a successful President.  But, are these things really valid in determining Presidential success?  If you think about it, a positive public image, significant public service time, and being a military veteran, are things that George Washington’s admirers seized upon in trumpeting their support of his Presidential candidacy.  In the Presidential Elections of 1788 and 1792, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were Washington’s competitors.  Although neither man served in the military, their contributions in forming the United States of America were highly regarded, and easily eclipsed everyone else except Washington.  In either man’s case, however, they did not risk life & limb on the battlefield, nor suffer the privations of war like George Washington.  The fact did not escape anyone’s attention that the American Revolution had to be won on the battlefield against the greatest army in the world, not by diplomacy or politics.  Washington clearly had all of the boxes checked for winning two Presidential Elections.

Washington’s successful Presidency was aided by the three characteristics mentioned above, but, they were not the real story.  Additional one-time factors in Washington’s success were: he was the first President, setting the precedent for defining success, and; he was America’s symbol of a new nation that was not led by a monarchy.  Subsequent Presidents would not have the luxury of these one-time positive characteristics.

Although the public seized upon Washington’s popularity, prior public service and war hero status, they were all extrinsic factors that were no guarantee of success.  Rather, Washington’s intrinsic abilities, such as leadership, a shrewd judge of character and clear thinking under pressure, benefited him far more than what was on public display.

The Top-Rated Presidents

In the historical rating of Presidential success, Washington and nine other men have rated above average, including: Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.  Of these nine Presidents, only Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, had all three of Washington’s pre-election characteristics of public image, public service and military service.  Were any of these factors clearly more important to voters at election time?  In the case of Jackson and Roosevelt, they were both war heroes, and Reagan cashed-in on his movie star fame.  But, none of the three pre-election positive characteristics made them successful Presidents.  Let’s take a look at the nine Presidents who rated above average like George Washington.

  • Thomas Jefferson.  No one expected Jefferson to be any less of a success than Washington, and he did not disappoint.  Did his popularity and public office experience help his success?  Those extrinsic factors may have helped indirectly, but, Jefferson’s intrinsic traits of intelligence, leadership and innate critical thinking skills carried the day.  His greatest achievements included the massive Louisiana Purchase of land, projected American power overseas with the U.S. Navy, and recalibrated the economy by shrinking the Federal Government & National Debt.
  • Andrew Jackson.  Jackson’s war hero status made him popular with the working-class.  He was the first President not from Virginia or Massachusetts; he hailed from rural Nashville, TN.  Jackson was a controversial President, with plenty of detractors.  He did, however, provide another critical recalibration of American society & government, similar to Jefferson.  His strong moral compass guided his success by pushing to payoff the National Debt, and slow the enrichment of east coast bankers and their wealthy clientele.  Jackson’s sense of right & wrong would be sorely tested throughout his eight years in office.
  • Ronald Reagan.  Reagan’s communication skills are probably better than any other President in American history.  These skills, however, go far beyond just writing and speaking.  He understood how to develop a plot, a story, how to act your way through a scene, such that, he had no disbelievers, especially the Soviets.  Reagan sensed the timing was right to push Soviet Communism over the cliff of economic disaster.  He did this by a massive increase in defense spending that accomplished two goals: It pulled the American economy out of a deep recession, and it forced the Soviets to spend huge amounts of money they did not have on a military build up.

The other above average Presidents had varying degrees of George Washington’s pre-election characteristics, including one President with only one of the traits, and another man who had none of them!  It really demonstrates that whatever characteristics a President had or did not have prior to election, did not necessarily guarantee success.  For example, except for Abraham Lincoln’s two years of military service in the 1840s, he was not elected based on popularity, and he had limited public office experience.  Lincoln was clearly a once-in-a-millenium leader who unexpectedly rose to the occasion, surprising millions.  Woodrow Wilson never served in the military, had just two years of experience as Governor of New Jersey, and was clearly not the most popular presidential candidate.  Had Theodore Roosevelt not split the Republican vote by trying to reenter politics against the popular President William Howard Taft, Wilson would not have won the election.  In spite of having none of the pre-election appeal of Taft or Roosevelt, and a belief that his intelligence was superior to everyone, Wilson did well in handling the enactment of child labor laws, creation of the Federal Reserve System, Women’s Suffrage, and keeping America out of the First World War for the first three out of four years.

Three of the remaining four Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman were successful, and often at odds with their own political party.  Both Roosevelts graduated from Harvard and the Columbia Law School, but, Truman dropped out of college after one year.  Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest successes include going up against his own contemporaries, like J.P. Morgan, to enact legislation and push through the courts the break-up of some of the world’s largest business trusts and monopolies.  Roosevelt also revamped the Interior Department by creating the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.  Roosevelt was the first president to push for conservation of natural resources during an era when little regard was paid to deforestation and animal extinction.  Franklin Roosevelt also eschewed his wealthy upbringing by lifting-up the country through numerous measures to vanquish the Great Depression.  He also successfully led the free world to victory in World War II.  And Harry Truman, a no nonsense, mid-westerner from Missouri, first became a local politician through a big-time Democratic Party boss in Kansas City.  It eventually led Truman to the U.S. Senate, where he proved he was his own man, not a puppet Democratic Party hack.  While President, he took ownership for some of the toughest decisions ever made in the Oval Office, such as: dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, and firing 5-star general, Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination during the Korean War.

Dwight Eisenhower is the final President with a successful rating.  Just like Donald Trump, Eisenhower had never held a political office.  His strong organizational skills as 5-star Army general carried him throughout his eight years.  Eisenhower made solid cabinet selections who were fiercely loyal to him.  His cabinet turnover in eight years is less than what Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had in just four-year terms.

The Least Successful Presidents

The Presidents who consistently rate poorly are mostly justified.  They all had reasonably good credentials prior to taking office, but, none of it helped them in avoiding an unsuccessful Presidency.  Some like William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, were extremely popular Army generals and war heroes, but, had the misfortune of dying after a short time in office.

President John Tyler, has been rated poorly when he really should not be.  Tyler was Vice President and took over the Presidency from Harrison after dying of pneumonia only 30 days into his term.  Tyler was the first Vice President to exercise the Constitution’s provision of Presidential Succession.  The Constitution did not specify what should happen after Tyler took office, and this created a crisis in Congress.  Tyler took the step, and thereby set the precedent, that the Constitution said he was supposed to be the President, and with no further clarification, that was that.  Congressional leaders were outraged, and excoriated Tyler at every opportunity.  In retrospect, Tyler did all of us a favor by setting the example of how a Vice President should conduct himself after replacing the person the public really wanted in the Oval Office.

The Tyler scenario would happen again when Millard Fillmore took over for the deceased Zachary Taylor.  Fillmore also collared a poor rating.  Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan received poor ratings for doing nothing to prevent the Civil War.  And Lincoln’s replacement, Andrew Johnson, is always rated poorly for his mishandling of Reconstruction following the Civil War.

Warren G. Harding was elected in 1920 and was wildly popular, but, died two and a half years after taking office.  Up to that point he had performed well.  After Harding died, however, and thus unable to deal with any future problems, it came to light that several of his Cabinet members had defrauded the Government while in office.  It also came out that Harding had fathered two illegitimate children, and the mothers were being paid ongoing hush money by political operatives to remain quiet.  There is no evidence that Harding knew about his dishonest cabinet secretaries, or that the two women he had affairs with were being paid-off.  In either case, Harding’s Presidency was tainted and rated poorly ever since.

The last President with a poor rating is Donald Trump.  Trump shares the dubious distinction with Woodrow Wilson of having none of George Washington’s pre-election favorable characteristics.  Wilson made those characteristics a non-factor in his Presidency, even when his lack of likability persisted throughout his time in office, and has never really changed.  It is difficult to say whether Trump’s Presidential legacy will be judged unsuccessful or not…time will tell.

Does the Perspective of Time Change Things?

Of all the men who have been President of the United States, only five have seen any change in their success rating.  Three have improved, and two have worsened.  Just like having some, or all three of Washington’s pre-election favorable characteristics were not very helpful in predicting Presidential success, neither has the passage of time, nor a better informed populace, changed a President’s success rating from when they first left office.

The three Presidents who have seen some minor improvement from poor to below average are: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and George W. Bush.  Taylor’s slight improvement is due to historians looking at his 18 months of service and concluding he actually accomplished some good, and should not be collared with a poor rating just because he had the misfortune of dying in office.  In Grant’s case, he had a poor rating for more than 120 years.  He has inched-up in the past 30 years after historians decided that his numerous dishonest cabinet appointees that pulled him down, should not completely outweigh Grant’s success in resolving the headaches of Reconstruction.

When George Bush left office, he had a low approval rating and graded-out poorly in terms of success, largely due to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  President Obama took office on a campaign promise to finish the job in both countries and bring the troops home.  Neither war zone was mopped-up as planned, even after Obama sent in more troops.  When Obama’s team ran into problems with the Iraqi government in negotiating a new SOFA (status of forces agreement), the President ordered American forces to pack-up and leave.  As a result of America’s departure, ISIS filled the void, and it took three years and the virtual destruction of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, to eradicate the insurgency.  In terms of President Obama’s success rating, it would be difficult to rate his Presidency as level two average, but, leave Bush at level four poor, for the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, when his successor did no better.  So, it only seems fair that Bush has moved upward from poor to below average.

The two Presidents who’s ratings dropped were two term President Grover Cleveland, and Herbert Hoover.  Cleveland served during the 1880-1890 timeframe.  For more than 100 years, Cleveland’s success rating had been level two average.  Over the past 20 years, however, Cleveland’s rating has slipped to below average.  Similarly, Herbert Hoover, who served from 1929 to 1933, had his success rating drop from below average to poor.  Why would these two Presidents see their ratings drop?  In simple terms, they presided over an economic collapse.  I will further explain below.

Well respected historians have an unwritten professional code:  You research history, analyze history, and write about history, but, you do not make history.  Historians enjoy finding new pieces of information about a previously well covered topic.  They are careful, however, in putting the new information in the proper context of preexisting information.  It is one thing to enhance or flesh-out an existing story, but, historians are loathe to be revisionists for the sake of stirring-up controversy, or self-aggrandizement.  This is why 39 out of 44 American Presidents have largely retained their success rating from the time they left office, until present day.

Understanding historical context is critical to evaluating events from a bygone era.  Presidential success ratings were assigned within the context of what historians and the public living in that era witnessed themselves.  We have the benefit of hindsight; they did not.  Here are a few examples to illustrate the point.  It was known then, and it is well documented now, that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.  In modern times someone might conclude that Washington and Jefferson were racists.  But, within the context of the times and locale they lived in, was that a universally accepted definition?  No, it was not.  It stands to reason that neither President’s success rating should be lowered based on a modern day definition.

We can also look at the opposite circumstance where a modern day definition of a successful Presidency could elevate a rating.  Take James K. Polk, for example, who served one term in the 1840s.  Polk had previously served as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, but, in the 1844 election, he was completely out of politics.  Polk was nominated at the Democratic Convention as a compromise candidate after several dozen rounds of voting failed to select a candidate.  Polk’s nomination & candidacy is what spawned the now famous phrase of being a “dark horse candidate.  When Polk accepted the nomination, he promised to only serve one term, and he did just that.  Polk, however, accomplished something that no other President before or since has ever done: He successfully completed all four of his four major campaign promises.  By modern day standards, that is considered nothing short of a miracle.  But, by 1840’s standards, Polk was merely seen as having done the job he was elected to do.  Polk’s level two average rating has never been elevated to the top level.

The foregoing examples demonstrate the reluctance of modern day historians and political scientists to alter a past President’s original success rating, with only a few exceptions.  Circling back to Grover Cleveland and Herbert Hoover, what caused a shift in their ratings?  In Cleveland’s case he is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms.  He served from 1885-1889, and 1893-1897, with President Benjamin Harrison sandwiched in between.  By time the 1892 election came around, the economic and financial changes occurring during Harrison’s tenure were perceived as needing a President “who knew what he was doing.”  This led to Cleveland’s reelection.  However, politicians at the time, and well into the 1930s, knew little about economics, big business and the financial markets.  There was still a strong belief that financial problems were cyclical and had a way of working themselves out.  When the Panic of 1893 hit, Cleveland failed to take the right actions to fix things, and the economic plunge persisted for his entire second term.  Likewise, Herbert Hoover was at the helm when the stock market crashed in 1929, leading to the Great Depression.  Hoover was not aggressive enough in taking government action, thinking like Cleveland that the economy and financial markets would self-correct; they did not.

Cleveland and Hoover did not take all of the blame for the two economic disasters.  Cleveland, for more than 100 years, was rated level two average, and Hoover was rated level three below average.  Two subsequent financial meltdowns seem to have changed historical sentiment for both men.  Jimmy Carter supervised a huge recession with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, from 1977-1981, and made no headway is resolving the crisis.  In 2008, President Bush was in the Oval Office when the mortgage banking industry collapsed.  After witnessing the events of 1977-1981, and the 2008 collapse, historians, politicians and the public decided that President’s actually had the power and responsibility to either reduce the likelihood of a financial collapse, or step-in to lead a recovery.  So, while revisionists were addressing Carter’s failure, and ensuring Bush took the appropriate blame, eyes were cast back to Cleveland and Hoover’s economic supervision during their tenure.  Revisionists have decided that both Presidents were really “asleep at the switch,” and could have done far more to cushion the collapse.  Cleveland’s Presidential success has been lowered to level three below average, and Hoover’s has dropped to level four poor.

Summary

A President’s pre-election traits and skills are rarely a good barometer of Presidential Success.  Success is normally attributable to a President’s intrinsic capabilities, and how he applies, or fails to apply them.  Success ratings pinned on a President as he leaves office, normally remain unchanged regardless the passage of time, even when things are better understood later on.  If a success rating is changed, the evidence to do so must be clear, and universally convincing.  One thing that does change after a President leaves office is: For better or worse, a departing President is no longer the same man he was when he first entered the White House; things will never be the same for him.  As the 1940s author, Thomas Wolfe said: “you can never go home again.”

Ciao,

Steve Miller
Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.comPresidents

Standard
National Security, Terrorism Information, The Judiciary, u.s. constitution, U.S. Presidency

RNSK Vol I, Edition 3

Written Statement of
William P. Barr
Attorney General

Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
July 28, 2020

    

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/William_Barr.jpg

 

On July 28, 2020, United States Attorney General, William Barr, will testify in front of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.  I want to call your attention to Attorney General Barr’s prepared statement released today, July 27th, and will be read into the Judiciary Committee’s proceedings by Barr.  The unabridged content of AG Barr’s statement is shown below.

My purpose in bringing this statement to your attention is simply due to the near identical wording in his statement about the current spate of domestic violence issues, and the outcome of that violence, in comparison to my words cited in last weeks RNSK Volume I, Edition 2.  It is important to me that my readers recognize that what I write is factual, and correctly analyzed.  It is not a fanciful opinion of little value to the discerning public.

Here are some excerpts from Barr’s Statement:

“I want to address a different breakdown in the rule of law that we have witnessed over the past two months. In the wake of George Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims. The current situation in Portland is a telling example. Every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse and other nearby federal property.

What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the Government of the United States.

Largely absent from these scenes of destruction are even superficial attempts by the rioters to connect their actions to George Floyd’s death or any legitimate call for reform.

Nor could such brazen acts of lawlessness plausibly be justified by a concern that police officers in Minnesota or elsewhere defied the law.

Remarkably, the response from many in the media and local elected offices to this organized assault has been to blame the federal government. To state what should be obvious, peaceful protesters do not throw explosives into federal courthouses, tear down plywood with crowbars, or launch fecal matter at federal officers. Such acts are in fact federal crimes under statutes enacted by this Congress.”

I invite you to read the rest of AG Barr’s prepared statement, and watch his Congressional testimony on July 28th at 10am EDT.  Most major television news outlets will carry the proceedings live.

Ciao,

Steve Miller
Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@millermgmtsys.com

470621233-Written-Statement-of-AG-Barr-HJC-07-28-20_Page_1470621233-Written-Statement-of-AG-Barr-HJC-07-28-20_Page_2470621233-Written-Statement-of-AG-Barr-HJC-07-28-20_Page_3470621233-Written-Statement-of-AG-Barr-HJC-07-28-20_Page_4470621233-Written-Statement-of-AG-Barr-HJC-07-28-20_Page_5470621233-Written-Statement-of-AG-Barr-HJC-07-28-20_Page_6

 

Standard
National Security, Terrorism Information, u.s. constitution, U.S. Presidency

RNSK Vol I, Edition 2

Defending the U.S. Against Foreign & Domestic Enemies

macarthur_manila

“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any treat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”

― Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army

There is a reason why our Founding Fathers were concerned about defending the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic, though this specific language did not expressly come to pass until the enactment of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations in 1966.

When did our Founding Fathers become aware of the concern over domestic enemies?  For a decade or more prior to 1776, there were violent and divisive elements at work in the 13 colonies, intent upon keeping the oppressive yoke of the British Crown over everyone.  This concern was memorialized and enumerated in the list of grievances noted in the Declaration of Independence.  This was the first document of lasting importance to denounce the practice of fomenting domestic enemies, to wit in reference to King George: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…”  America’s first leaders had no reason to believe that by simply declaring their independence, enemies bent on fomenting domestic insurrection would stop such actions.

The concern over these issues was aptly expressed later on in the Constitutional Convention by John Adams:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Ours is made only for moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Considering all of the social strife and upheaval in 2020 America, this article will focus on domestic enemies and disruptive, homegrown violence.

When America declared its independence, the whole world was a potential foreign enemy. It took two years of fighting on its own before France became the first sovereign nation to sign a treaty backing the United States of America. Domestic enemies were a concern because there were people living in the original 13 colonies at the time of the Revolution who did not support American independence. The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives and all they had for an independent America. Had any of them ever been caught by the British, they would have been tried and executed for treason against the British Crown. Supporters of the Revolution did not even know if they could trust their neighbors or members of their own family.

The Founding Fathers were similarly concerned about future domestic enemies, because from a national security perspective, it is natural to watch for external enemies, but not domestically. Why be concerned about domestic enemies? In simplest terms, our Founding Fathers recognized they were creating a nation with more citizen freedoms than any country on Earth.  Prior to the American Revolution, there had never been a constitutional democracy operated solely of the people, by the people, and for the people.  All previous efforts to create this sort of nation-state failed, largely due to internal upheaval.  The  Founding Fathers recognized the democratic freedoms they hoped to create could be abused & breed internal subversion and violent insurrection.

The need for addressing issues related to domestic enemies, insurrection and subversion first came under the watchful eye of General George Washington when he became commander of the Continental Army.  Dr. Matthew Spalding of The Heritage Foundation stated in a constitutional essay, “In England, subjects were required to swear loyalty to the reigning monarch; many early American documents included oaths of allegiance to the British king. During the American Revolution, General George Washington required all officers and men to subscribe to an oath renouncing any allegiance to King George III and pledging their fidelity to the United States. Most of the new state constitutions included elaborate oaths that tied allegiance to and provided a summary of the basic constitutional principles animating American constitutionalism.”

Washington’s actions became the first practical steps taken to make specific individuals accountable for avoiding the fomentation of insurrection and subversion in the United States.  Washington made good on his promise to enforce the oath when several officers and soldiers banded together with the intent of overthrowing the Continental Congress as a means of addressing their grievances.  When the plot was uncovered, Washington had the men arrested, tried under a summary courts martial, and ultimately convicted for insubordination and treason.  All of the men were punished, and the two most central figures were executed by hanging.

In the 1780s after the Revolutionary War ended in an American victory, the Congress convened a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention delegates from the 13 colonies elected George Washington to preside over the proceedings. The Constitutional Framers clearly wanted to establish a three-part governmental structure comprising a legislature, an executive and a judiciary.  Article I of the Constitution covers the legislature and spells out numerous specific duties the U.S. Congress is empowered to handle.  Article III covering the judiciary is concise and specific in narrowly defining the duties of this branch.  Once these two branches were constitutionally defined, Article II set about the duties of the executive branch.  It is important to note the generally recognized legal principal that once a law defines certain details of what must or must not be done, and no provision is made for any issue that falls outside the scope of the defined details, it means that such issues are not specifically forbidden, and therefore not against the law.  Until the law is revised to more narrowly define an issue outside the current scope, it is essentially lawful.

In order to avoid leaving too many loopholes in the Constitution when it came to defining the duties of each branch of the National Government, the Framers specified the executives duties in Article II to be everything else not assigned to the legislature or the judiciary.  To cement the executive’s all encompassing duties, the Framers added a word-for-word, specific oath of office in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Vasan Kesavan, in his Heritage Foundation article on the Presidential Oath of Office said, “The Framers…plainly believed that a special oath for the president was indispensable. At the Constitutional Convention…George Mason and James Madison moved to add the ‘preserve, protect and defend’ language.”  Kesavan went on to say, “The prospect of George Washington’s becoming president cannot be discounted.  The Framers perhaps desired an oath that would replicate the public values of the man who was presiding over the Convention. More significantly, because the presidency was unitary, there were no available internal checks, as there were in the other branches with their multiple members. A specially phrased internal check was therefore necessary, one that tied the president’s duty to “preserve, protect and defend” to his obligations to God, which is how the Founders understood what was meant by an oath or affirmation.”

The first time the Constitutional Framers actually memorialized their concern over foreign or domestic enemies was in Article IV, Section 4, which has become known as the Guarantee Clause, to wit:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

Robert G. Natelson, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at Independence Institute, stated “the federal government will assure the states ‘a republican form of government.’ This assurance did not appear in the Articles of Confederation. The guarantee of protection from domestic violence can also be seen as part of the republican guarantee.”  Natelson made a key point in understanding how domestic violence, or the more modern term, “domestic enemies,” related to a republican form of government and protection from invasion.  He stated, in part, “Founding-era dictionaries defined a ‘republic’ as a ‘commonwealth,’ a ‘free state,’ and ‘a state or government in which the supreme power is lodged in more than one.’ In other words, a republic was a state governed by those citizens who enjoyed the franchise rather than by a monarch or autocrat. Accordingly, founding-era dictionaries often defined ‘republican’ as ‘placing the government in the people.”

Natelson went on to point out that the Constitutional Framers generally identified “three criteria of republicanism, the lack of any of which would render a government un-republican.”  Natelson listed the following criteria:

  1. Popular rule. The Founders believed that for government to be republican, political decisions had to be made by a majority (or in some cases, a plurality) of voting citizens. The citizenry might act either directly or through elected representatives. Either way, republican government was government accountable to the citizenry.
  2. There could be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. When Alexander Hamilton proposed a president with lifetime tenure, the delegates disagreed so strongly that they did not even take the time to respond.
  3. A republic was the rule of law, a concept deemed fundamental to a free state. The Framers believed that ex post facto laws—most kinds of retroactive legislation, for example—were inconsistent with the rule of law, and therefore un-republican.  Simply put, you could not make something against the law, and then rewind the clock to go punish someone who committed or omitted an act not previously defined under the rule of law.

The primary purpose of the Guarantee Clause was to protect against any kind of monarchy.  Natelson noted, “based on precedents in ancient Greece, the drafters feared that kings in one or more of the states would attempt to expand their power in ways that would destabilize the entire federation. They believed that having a republican government in each state was necessary to protect republican government throughout the United States.”  Relating all of this back to domestic violence or domestic enemies, recall one of the primary grievances the Founding Fathers enumerated in the Declaration of Independence in reference to King George: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…”  Framers of the Constitution did not want any of the states to adopt even a constitutional monarchy, for fear that it could lead to suppression of the rights enumerated in the Preamble, thereby fomenting insurrection, meaning, domestic violence or enabling domestic enemies.  The Preamble states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

After addressing the president’s oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution at a macro level, and the governing structure and relationship between the National & State governments, the Framers understood that the president had to rely on others at the national and state levels to support and defend the Constitution on a micro level.  This was covered in the Oaths Clause in Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….

The Constitution only stipulated exact wording of the presidential oath, but, not for other government officials.  Part of the problem found with the Constitution’s predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, was it so heavily favored state’s right that it rendered the National Government impotent in creating any cohesion between the former 13 colonies.  This became a major reason for convening the Constitutional Convention.  Matthew Spalding noted in his constitutional essay that, “Edmund Randolph proposed, as part of the Virginia Plan, ‘that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of Union.’ When it was objected that this would unnecessarily intrude on state jurisdiction, Randolph responded that he considered it as necessary to prevent that competition between the National Constitution & laws, and those of the particular States, which had already been felt. The officers of the States are already under oath to the States. To preserve a due impartiality they ought to be equally bound to the National Government. The National authority needs every support we can give it.”  The convention delegates agreed with Randolph, but, rightly opined that the Oaths Clause should be revised to include national officials, and so it was.

The very first law passed by the first session of the House of Representatives was “An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths.”  By statute, the oath was simply worded: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”  Fred Warner noted in a May 2019 article for the New Right Network, entitled, Domestic Enemy Defined: Jaw-Dropping Realizations, that based on the Constitution and Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, the following individuals are required to take this oath of office:

  • U.S. Senators and Representatives, both current & past;
  • Members of the Presidential & Vice Presidential Electoral College;
  • Civilian employees of the U.S. Government;
  • Uniformed members of the U.S. military and Coast Guard;
  • Members of state legislatures;
  • Executive or judicial officers of any state.

The simple 1789 oath promulgated by Congress remained unchanged until the Civil War, when they significantly amended the oath’s statute to require civilian employees and military members to not only swear allegiance to the United States, but, also to affirm they had not engaged in any previous disloyal conduct. Congress repealed the latter condition in 1884, leaving wording that is nearly identical to the current oath promulgated in Title 5 in 1966.  Under current law, the parties listed above are required to take the following oath, which is the first time the oath contained the specific language of “…against all enemies, foreign and domestic:”

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” 

The Constitutional Convention dragged on throughout the sweltering Philadelphia summer of 1787.  The final version of the Constitution was a delicate compromise between a national government with enough clout to act on the world stage and bind the states together for the benefit of all, versus allowing individual states to retain a semblance of rights to govern as suited them locally.  States rights advocates were also concerned about a powerful national government trampling an individual citizen’s rights and freedoms.  Many of the states had addressed an individual’s rights in their state constitutions.  Proponents of a strong central government argued that the Constitution enumerated the powers and limits of the national government, which by implication constrained it from infringing upon an individual’s rights, leaving that in the hands of each state government.  The Constitutional language stood, as written, and 39 of the 53 delegates signed-off, which exceeded the agreed upon two-thirds super majority needed to submit it to the state legislatures for comment and ratification.

Not unexpected, James Madison of Virginia, pressed to make an individual citizen’s rights more universally explicit in the national Constitution, rather than the implication that each state could take-up the subject as they pleased at their level.  Ultimately, the Constitution was ratified, as is, and national elections were held in the autumn of 1788 for the President, Vice President, Senators and Representatives.  As soon as the First Congress was convened in 1789, they immediately set about creating the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Constitutional Amendments.  At the time of creation, no one considered there was anything contained in the amendments that particularly related to the individual state’s responsibility for subduing or preventing insurrection, subversion, domestic violence or the rise of domestic enemies. Neither did anyone make the connection of this responsibility based on republican government content in Article IV, Section 4, or the simple wording enacted by the First Congress to fulfill the Oaths Clause, which was: “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”  Seventy years later the Civil War would change everything.

Of the 10 Amendments included in the Bill of Rights that would later have significance in a state’s responsibility for subduing or preventing insurrection, subversion, domestic violence or the rise of domestic enemies, it was the 10th Amendment.  Charles Cooper, Chairman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, a renowned constitutional law firm, wrote: “The Tenth Amendment expresses the principle that undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution: the national government possesses only those powers delegated to it, and ‘leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.’  In The Federalist No. 39, The Framers of the Tenth Amendment had two purposes in mind when they drafted it. The first was a necessary rule of construction. The second was to reaffirm the nature of the federal system.”  The 10th Amendment reads as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As envisioned, the entire purpose of the 10th Amendment was to be a footnote of the previous nine, that just because the Bill of Rights was being made universal throughout the entirety of the United States, it did NOT imply that the national government’s reach of responsibility extended into any other areas of governance, except as originally delineated in the Constitution.  Proponents of the 10th Amendment were essentially hearkening back to one of John Heywood’s Proverbs of 1546, “Give him an inch, and he will take a mile.”  The basic concept of the Bill of Rights was, it was a one-time, “package deal,” with no intent to confer any other rights or duties on the national government.  In very simple terms, state’s rights advocates were asserting to the strong central government proponents, “stay out of our business; we will call you when we need you.”  What comes to mind are two old proverbs, “be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it,” and, “live by the sword, die by the sword.”  The southern states would learn this the hard way 70 years later.

When the Civil War broke out in 1860, the United States Government underpinned their opposition to the seceding states using all of the foregoing Constitutional information.  The national and state leaders of the seceding states had taken an oath of office to support the Constitution, which included the republican form of government, and because the 10th Amendment ensured that each state had all the authority to operate its government under the Constitution as it saw fit, and the Constitution gave no policing powers to the national government, ergo, it fell on the state governments to ensure the Preamble’s promise of domestic tranquility, and as Article IV noted, prevent domestic violence.  The United States Government saw that the elected officials of the seceding states had failed in their essential purpose, and thereby violated the Constitution.  Based on the tenets of Article IV, Section 4, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against…domestic Violence.”  President Lincoln and by Congressional Resolution, invoked this clause to stop the insurrection, subversion and domestic violence being fomented by people who were deemed domestic enemies of the state.  This same interpretation exists today in 2020 in reference to fomenting of domestic violence by domestic enemies of the state.

After the Civil War was over, President Abraham Lincoln’s assassination created a major shift in the plans and actions of Reconstruction in the former Confederate states.  Lincoln decided before his 1864 re-election bid to replace his Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, on the ticket with Andrew Johnson, his Military Governor of Tennessee.  Johnson was an accomplished politician with more than 20 years of experience that included 10 years in the House of Representatives and six years in the Senate.  Had Lincoln not been assassinated, there is no doubt his steadying hand would have made good use of Johnson’s experience with southern politicians, and Reconstruction likely would have been less contentious.  Instead, Johnson found himself pinned between northern politicians bent on punishing the southern states, and southern politicians trying to avoid the severe treatment, and get their states back into play in Washington, D.C.

Numerous bills came across Johnson’s desk that he vetoed as being overly punitive.  One of the most sweeping pieces of legislation was what became the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Johnson was eager to get Reconstruction over with, which included some controversial presidential pardons of prominent southerners.  The Congress was determined to not allow former Confederate leaders to simply get re-elected and act like the rebellious Civil War never happened, and they played no part in it.  To that end, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, was ratified and became law in June 1868.  Here is the language of Section 3:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Paul Mereno, the William and Berniece Grewcock Chair in Constitutional History at Hillsdale College, said this about the new Section 3, “The disqualification of former rebels for federal and state office was the most controversial section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Some called it vindictive. On the other hand, those who had taken a solemn oath to support the United States and had reneged on the oath could, it was argued, justifiably be prevented from simply re-assuming positions of authority in the government. Moreover, many former U.S. officials who had joined the Confederacy led the resistance to the passage of Reconstruction legislation and had supported the imposition of the onerous Black Codes on the freedmen. Other objections to the Disqualification Clause asserted that it intruded on the president’s pardon power, but obviously a constitutional amendment could modify that previously unlimited power. In any event, Congress might well have thought it prudent to limit President Andrew Johnson’s pro-Southern actions.”  Eventually, Congress removed all disqualifications for previous disloyal conduct in 1898.  The remainder of Section 3 is still in effect when it comes to government officers who may participate in insurrection or rebellion, including terrorist activities.”  In modern practice, the most important aspect of this section is that elected or appointed government officials can be held accountable by commission or omission for insurrection, subversion, domestic violence and/or failure to take action in foiling the acts of domestic enemies.  They themselves could be labeled a domestic enemy for failure to act in the face of insurrection, subversion or domestic violence.

But, even if we hold government officers accountable as noted above, it still does not answer the question: who are the insurgents, subversives and domestic enemies that are committing acts of domestic violence to take down local, state or the Federal Government?  In September 2013, then commander of Thule Air Base, Greenland, Colonel Joseph L. Prue, cited in an Air Force article, “Identifying the domestic enemy,” that “Insurgents are difficult to identify as they typically blend into the population and naturally thrive in a failed state environment.”  Then Connor Boyack of the Libertas Institute said, “the enemy is comprised  of one’s neighbors, friends, business associates, fellow church-goers, or amiable, well known individuals.”  In short, a domestic enemy can literally be anyone.

In May 2016, David Alpher, an adjunct professor from the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, wrote an article for The Conversation blog site entitled, “In America, Domestic Extremists Are a Bigger Risk than Foreign Terrorism.”  Alpher’s blog post started with a header line of, “Take America back from those who have stolen it.  Protect America from those who want to destroy it.  Restore the principles that these usurpers betrayed.”  Alpher went on to say, “I have spent nearly 15 years studying how the risk of violence grows within societies around the world, and running programs designed to stem the tide. I have [seen] rhetoric like this, used to mobilize violence in countries like Iraq and Kenya.  This same dynamic is taking shape within American society now.  Fear and anger make for strong motivation.”

Alpher continued his colloquy, “every violent group in history describes its own violence as the legitimate response to a threat that was forced on them.  Groups survive in the long term when that description makes sense to enough of the population to buy them tolerance and safe space to operate, plan and grow; that’s true of terrorism and violent extremism.  Their reasoning usually orbits around the belief that they are defending the Constitution, or stopping the theft of the political process, and resisting the takeover by hostile powers.”

In 2020, just about every American can read the foregoing and shake their head up & down vigorously, and say Alpher’s words are about homegrown Islamic extremists, or Antifa, or the socialist movement fueled by Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or the Deep State (whoever that is), or gun-toting right wing radicals, or racial injustice extremists, or the Cancel Culture, or the COVID-19 social backlash, or supporters of Donald Trump.

Here is the conundrum with Alpher’s commentary:  In 2016, all of his words were solely focused on Donald Trump and his supporters.  Supposedly, no one else was to blame.  The reality of how insurgents, subversives and domestic enemies work is: they do not care about the socio-political platform of any of these groups.  Their goal is to create anarchy, mob rule, breakdown of the social structure, overtax the politicians and government agencies, and create an environment of chaos with all of the aforementioned groups pointing fingers at each other.  The domestic enemies win.

I understand the injustice to all minorities, but, the BLM and other groups seeking social justice are getting their movements hijacked by subversives who are exploiting our country’s strife. For all the people who’ve unjustly lost their lives, such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, I believe they’re looking down on us & can see the difference between peaceful protest vs subversive actors fomenting riots, destroying property, killing cops and innocents, and the cancel culture. At this time in our country, we are destroying ourselves from within.

Regardless who is right or wrong, there is only one thing that matters right now, and that is reasserting our republican form of government and the rule of law.  We are reminded of these duties stated earlier in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, known as the Guarantee Clause:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

Based on this article in the Constitution, state and local governments have the first line of responsibility to preserve law and order, and restore domestic tranquility.  Allowing mob rule and rioting to go unchecked with the attitude that people will get tired and go home, is weak leadership, and emboldens further violence.  As it is noted in the Guarantee Clause, if the states decline to restore domestic tranquility, then the United States Government is obligated to take action.  And state & local officials who refuse to take action, are abetting domestic enemies and can be held accountable as is noted in the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

It is also important to keep in mind, that state & local law enforcement are being caught in the middle between domestic enemies and government leaders who fail to act properly.  When it comes to foiling domestic enemies, or a first strike by a foreign enemy, it’s not the U.S. military who will protect our national security…it will be local law enforcement. When the World Trade Center was attacked, it was local law enforcement and firefighters who ran TOWARD the danger & lost their lives. We need critical thinking & pondering by everyone to defeat social injustice & subversion.

Americans need to educate themselves on the rights and responsibilities all citizens and government leaders have to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

In June 1858 at the state capitol in Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln delivered his acceptance speech as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate.  What is likely one of the best known phrases uttered in a political campaign speech, came from Lincoln that day: “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.” It is my belief that these words in 2020 could never be more true.

I humbly pray that the Lord will grant us wisdom in determining who are America’s real domestic enemies, and hold our leaders and each other accountable to solve this terrible problem.  Amen.

Steve Miller
Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
vietvetsteve@reportnatlsecykinetics.com

Standard
Foreign Policy Research & Analysis, Intelligence Collection, Analysis & Estimates, Military Operations, History & Cyber Warfare, National Security, Terrorism Information, U.S. Presidency, Weapon Systems

RNSK Vol I, Edition 1

Introduction

     This is the premiere Edition of The Report on National Security Kinetics™ (RNSK).  There are dozens of publications out there with content that touches on some of the RNSK Focus Areas, but, require regular monitoring of a half-dozen or more of them to cover it all.  The RNSK format has been designed around a set of Focus Areas to help reduce a reader’s effort in keeping tabs on an important set of topics.

     The RNSK Focus Areas have been selected by the editor based on 40+ years of experience as a U.S. military veteran, national security analyst, international business manager, writer, foreign policy researcher, college teacher, and military & presidential historian.  It has been my honor to meet many women & men with similar backgrounds, including a shared belief in the importance of family, strong morals, human dignity, personal integrity, and putting country above self.  Recognizing the Kinetic nature of National Security, factual & timely information related to the Focus Areas is an important factor to this editor and like-minded individuals.

The RNSK National Security Focus Areas are:

  • Government-related Policy and Actions (U.S. & non-U.S.)
  • Weapon Systems
  • Intelligence Collection, Analysis and Counter-Terrorism
  • Military Operations & Cyber Warfare
  • Historical Commentary

     These Focus Areas may not always be covered in each edition.  Instead, the content will vary from one edition to the next based on what readers are asking for, global events, and the topical insights of RNSK correspondents with many decades of experience.  RNSK content is:

  • Reliable, well researched and factual;
  • Written with minimal opinions, speculation, or someone’s Ouija board;
  • Relative and timely, but, not a cyclical news source; RNSK has no competition-driven publishing deadlines.

The Need for Sources with Trustworthy, Verifiable Facts

     With the widespread use of the internet, it puts a staggering level of content at our fingertips.  The challenge for us, however, is determining the utility of what we read.  Because our research & reading time is limited, it leads us to determine which information sources are most utilitarian, and fit the closest to our needs.  For the serious consumer of useful web-based information, it is understood there is no “perfect” source, nor “one-size-fits-all.”  We look for reliable information sources that provide the best content, without investing too much of our limited time and resources.  In short, we want a good deal!

     When I think about reliable information sources, it reminds me of my paternal grandfather, Albert Miller, a veteran of World War I and World War II.  In between the wars, and for his last 20 years in the workforce, he was a pressroom manager for the Los Angeles Times.  Although he was a loyal consumer of L.A. Times content, he also was a strong proponent of the philosophy, “believe only half of what you read, and nothing of what you hear.”  He was a voracious reader of nearly everything he got his hands on.  Coupled with pondering and introspection, he developed strong convictions based on objectivity.  If he were alive today, he would have already applied his philosophy by carefully studying internet content for the favorable characteristics noted above.  He would be scolding the public for not following his advice, and the global fallout over “fake news.”

History Repeats Itself

     Prior to World War I, the average person was not overly challenged in differentiating between reliable and unreliable information purveyed to the public.  Name brand public information back then included respected outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and The Nation.  After World War I, broadcast radio spread like wildfire across the globe, much the same way the Internet has in the past 20+ years.  To illustrate the rapid spread of broadcast radio going into 1922, the year opened with only 28 radio stations in the United States.  At the close of 1922, America could boast of having 570 commercial radio stations!

     Radio broadcasting became so pervasive by the 1930s that Congress enacted legislation to form the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the industry.  Just like television became the entertainment centerpiece in every home by the 1960s, radio held the same position from the 1920s through the 1940s.  In the first half of the 20th Century, radio was literally the human lifeline to the rest of the world, the same as the Internet is today.

     With the ever-increasing pace of a global society throughout the radio era, numerous people took the attitude that they were too busy, and did not have time to read a daily newspaper; the radio industry was more than happy to fill the gap.  Radio carried the news, weather, sports, church services, music, and programmed entertainment, to name a few.  Back then, different types of broadcasts were discernible…news programs and fictional entertainment were done in different styles.  The overreliance on radio for all aspects of life spawned a common phrase that carried the force-of-truth behind it, “hey, I just heard on the radio…”  If you heard it on the radio, it has to be true, right?

     The bubble of truth in radio was burst in 1938 with the broadcast that came to be known as, “The War of the Worlds.”  A 22-year old actor, Orson Welles, conducted a radio broadcast meant to be science fiction entertainment, but, it was delivered like a real newscast.  Millions of people heard Welles’ “report,” and actually thought the Earth was under alien invasion!  Even though Welles’ intent was entertainment, the public’s reliance on radio allowed them to be duped into thinking they were under alien attack.  If you heard it on the radio, it has to be true, right?

     Fast forward this to the internet age, but, with public overreliance on web-based content instead of radio, it has once again allowed agents-of-manipulation to blur the lines between fact and fiction.  An unchecked social media was/is the perfect place to sow disinformation and blur-the-lines.  In simple terms, with the veneer stripped back, it is slick, subtle lying; which isn’t very “social” by most people’s standards.  This is evident in all the stories about “fake news” and the Information Warfare conducted during the 2016 Presidential Election.  But, make no mistake, the blurring of fact and fiction seen in the past two years has nothing to do with entertainment, nor is it strictly one-upmanship between competing web-based information sources.

     Duping the public with disinformation during the age of radio, or today’s internet, is not just information warfare; the root of the matter goes much deeper.  So, it is true; history does repeat itself, but, why?

     Web-based information distortion in some cases is an act-of-war; much like the information subterfuge undertaken by both sides in World War II.  Let’s call it what it really is, a term that does not mince words…Espionage.  It may not be a shooting war, but, it is warfare, nonetheless.  The circumstances behind public communication in wartime England may have had its Fascist & Communists intriguers who angered government authorities and were carefully watched.  The moment they crossed-the-line from just stirring things up, to proof of subversion, they were going to jail for espionage, at the least.

How Does This Relate to the RNSK?

     The foregoing discussion bothers me…it bothers me a LOT.  We can all agree that fiction is entertaining, but, not when we are looking for, and expecting to find the facts.  But, even when we successfully cull-out fictional information, facts may still not be the facts.  What someone says or writes may not be pure fiction, or manipulated fake news, but, what about intentional or unintentional co-mingling of fact and opinion?  Any purveyor of information, regardless of media type, if they want to be seen as a viable source of factual information, they must exercise overt care in identifying when something is an expressed opinion, versus a confirmed fact.  Whether a purveyor of opinion is honestly expressing just their opinion, it can and does, influence other people’s thinking and opinions.  Expressing an opinion that is co-mingled with fact, is a disservice to the consumer, at best; at worst, it intends to convince someone how to think and act.

     When it comes to writing and publishing the RNSK, the intent is to avoid the foregoing communication/information problems by the guidelines previously mentioned, to wit:

  • Reliable, well researched and factual;
  • Written with minimal opinions, speculation, or someone’s Ouija board;
  • Relative and timely, but, not a cyclical news source; RNSK has no competition-driven publishing deadlines.

     So, if you have an interest in rounding-out your national security knowledge in today’s kinetic environment, and want the confidence of knowing the content is based on the foregoing parameters in a defined set of Focus Areas, and has been written with an eye toward the values imbued by America’s Founding Fathers, then The Report on National Security Kinetics™  is what you need…Welcome!

     This is enough for now; the introduction has been done.  Rather than trying to include an actual content article buried at the bottom of this premiere edition, where it likely would get lost, we will begin publishing informational content in the next edition.  In the beginning, RNSK will be published bi-weekly.  If a published article is prepared by a correspondent other than the editor, their name/credentials will appear at the end of it.  Unless otherwise noted, all other content is by the editor & chief correspondent.

Ciao,

Steve Miller
Editor
The Report on National Security Kinetics™
Seattle, WA. USA
http://www.millermgmtsys.com

Standard