Week of July 14, 2020


The Rise of Black Militias:

Americans Worrying about Violent Overthrow of US Government

America has a 244 year   old tradition of peaceful transition of power.  Even when incoming and outgoing presidents have had serious political disagreements, such as Trump and Obama, the transition took place peacefully at noon on January 20.

With the current nationwide violence, Americans are beginning to worry about violence marring the transition of power.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows half of American voters worried that a violent overthrow of the US government will be attempted in the next ten years.  The” Just the News” poll by Rasmussen showed 18% thinking it is very likely and 32% thinking it is somewhat likely.  The poll was taken over July 2 – 4.

“This was a surprise,” Scott Rasmussen said.  “Upon reflection, though, it probably shouldn’t have been.”

Rasmussen noted that although the gap between Democrats and Republicans is modest, Republicans are more likely to expect such violence.  This may be due to a perception among some that the current unrest is heading in that direction.

Many Republicans fear the left will respond with violence if Trump is reelected.  Many Democrats fear the same thing if Trump is defeated.

Those most convinced that there would be violence were younger demographics – 25 to 44 years of age.  Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to see violence in the future than whites.  Those who were very liberal or very conservative were also more likely to see a violent future.

In what should be a worry, with the unemployment caused by the Corona virus at historical levels, nearly two thirds of the unemployed saw a violent overthrow in the next ten years.  Those who made less money also agreed with that assessment.

This violence was a subject of President Trump’s Fourth of July speech at Mount Rushmore on July 3rd. He attempted to deflect criticism directed at him of instigating violence,  “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities,” Trump said.  “American people strong and proud, and they will not allow our country and all of its values, history, and culture to be taken from them.”


The Growth in Gun Purchases

That fear of violence has shown itself in the boom in firearms purchases in the past few weeks.  June 2020 saw the largest number of FBI firearms purchase background checks in history.  Handgun sales were up 177% over 2019 and rifle sales were up by 114%.  In total, more than 2.3 million firearms were sold in June 2020 – this in a nation that already has more than one firearm for every person in the nation.

According to anecdotal evidence, many rifle sales were for the popular AR-15, the civilian version of the US military rifle.

Ammunition has also been leaving the shelves of gun stores as Americans prepare for the worse.

Another interesting demographic about these increased gun sales is the first-time buyer.  While many previous gun sales have gone to current owners of firearms, in 2020 over 2 million Americans became first time gun owners.  Firearms retailers said about 40% of their guns sales are now first-time buyers.  Women, traditionally a minor firearm purchasing demographic, represented 40% of the first time buyers.

Another changing demographic is the ethnicity of gun owners.  Traditionally Whites have had the highest rate of gun ownership.  Hispanics and Blacks were less likely to own firearms.   Percentage Black ownership of firearms was only 2/3s that of Whites.  Hispanics owned less than half the guns Whites did in terms of percentage.

That is changing as Blacks are seeing the advantages of gun ownership.


The Rise of Black Militias

The idea of Black ownership of firearms has become more popular.  While some of these new gun owners have joined traditional gun organizations like the National Rifle Association, there are a growing number of Black gun organizations.  While some focus on the sporting aspect or Second Amendment politics, some are also focused on political aspects.

One group, the National African American Gun Association wants to fight the negative stereotype of a black with a gun.  While supportive of law enforcement, they worry that too many White police are likely to shoot a Black man lawfully carrying a firearm.

A dramatic change in how the Black community views firearms and their uses in self-defense was seen happened last weekend in Atlanta, Georgia.  A Black militia called NFAC (Not F**king Around Coalition) marched to Stone Mountain, the site of a Confederate memorial to protest.  The protest was peaceful.


Stone Mountain celebrates the three major persons of the Confederacy – President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.  Their portraits have been chiseled into the side of the mountain.  In the past, the site has been used by White supremacist groups like the KKK.  Some have called for its destruction.

NFAC Militia July 4, 2020, Atlanta Georgia



The leader of NFAC is a hip-hop music artist called John Jay Fitzgerald Johnson – known as Grandmaster Jay.

“Our initial goal was to have a formation of our militia in Stone Mountain to send a message that as long as you’re abolishing all these statues across the country, what about this one?”

Grand Master Jay also commended Stone Mountain police for allowing them to exercise their constitutional rights on July 4th.

“It was all Black … there were no brown people, no white people… everyone was Black. I am not a protester, I am the commanding general of my militia, we were swearing in new members,” he added.

It makes sense that a Black militia would form after the creation of so many right-wing militias.

However, the contrast to the White militias seen was dramatic.

While most White militias are small, the NFAC group was large and organized, Jay claimed in an interview that he is commending about 12000 members. Its 200 members marched in formation in black uniforms, while carrying rifles.  Georgia is a “open carry” state where citizens can carry firearms if they have permission.  NFAC said they checked to make sure persons carrying firearms had their permits before they could march.

According to Jay, many members are former military.  The political belief of the militia is Black Nationalism and their religious belief is Black Hebrew Israelites.  They claim that they are not affiliated with Black Lives Matter or organizations like the Black Panthers.  There are videos of them holding firearms practice in the past.  Many carry semiautomatic AR-15s.

The Southern Poverty Law Group has designated them a Black extremist hate group.

The NFAC said that although they only intend to protect the Black community, they are more than willing to fight White supremacist groups like the KKK.

However, there appears to be little chance of a firefight between White and black militias soon.

The NFAC still needs training (photos show many of the NFAC unit not familiar with their firearms – something that can be solved with a few days of training), while the right wing militias are focusing on limited missions like protecting monuments and memorials in their locality.  The two groups are also in different localities.  The black militias are in inner cities, while the right-wing militias are usually rural.  A conflict is unlikely unless one invades another’s territory.

The NFAC is unlikely to deploy in a 200-person unit.  What was seen on July 4thwas a publicity stunt to gain members around the nation.  Instead, the NFAC will probably engage in guerilla actions that use 5 to 10 person squads.  Tactics will be like those used in Rhodesia, former Yugoslavia, or during the Dirty War in Argentina.

However, the appearance of a large Black militia means that the unrest in America is moving into the next stage.  All sides are sure that major civil war is in the future and are gearing up by creating their own military units.

While the voices of confrontation are growing, it seems like the voices of moderation are growing fainter.

NFAC Militia



Week of June 19, 2020

The Militia Movement in America

After keeping out of sight for much of Trump’s presidency, the American militia movement is making itself felt.  In the last few weeks, the Michigan militia protected monuments in Hillsdale, Michigan and others were involved in a shooting in New Mexico, as protestors tried to tear down a statue.  In addition, an Air Force sergeant who is accused of shooting a Federal Security Officer in Oakland, CA. is reputed to be associated with an extremist group.

Most of the recent activity by the militia is directly related to the current spate of unrest across the country.  However, the history of the American Militia movement goes back to the settlement of America.

Militias were begun as a protection against raiding bands of Native Americans.  Each male settler was required to have a firearm and practice with it on a regular basis.  A century later, the militias were called upon to assist the British Army in the North American battles of the Seven Years War (called the French and Indian War in North America).

The golden moment of the American militia movement was on April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord.  There, 77 American militiamen were present at Lexington when the shooting began.  By that afternoon, hundreds of armed Americans were shooting at the British as they retreated towards Boston.  By that evening, reports of the time say that about 15,000 American colonists were besieging the British in Boston.

Months later, they would cause the British Army to sustain serious casualties at the Battle of Bunker Hill

It was this militia army that was the first American Army.  General George Washington was assigned by the Continental Congress to take command of them.

Unfortunately, the performance of the militias after these first skirmishes was not as memorable.  They were known for refusing to join battle and even leaving the field of battle in later fights with the British.  But their reputation had been established.

No doubt, the militia’s role in the Revolutionary War was a factor for the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which specifically mentioned the need of a “Well-regulated militia” as a reason for Americans to have the right to own firearms.

Militias continued their role as units in future wars like the War of 1812 (part of the Napoleonic Wars) and the American Civil War.  However, they died out as the need for a professional army was seen.

The modern militia movement started in the1980s and grew in the 1990s with the government attacks at Ruby Ridge and Waco.  They were seen by the Clinton Administration’s Department of Justice as relatively harmless as they are reactive, not proactive.

While the militia movement grew during the Obama years, they started to decline in the Trump years.

In recent years, the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified a couple of hundred militia groups.  Most are statewide and very few are national in character.

Militias see themselves as aiding local communities.  However, they do make it clear that they see themselves as a potential insurrectionist force if circumstances call for it.

The reality is that these militias are more of an armed presence than an actual military force.  Although many have former military experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, each militia has a separate command structure and disagreements on tactics are frequent.  Each militia group also has differing agendas – ranging from simply protecting local citizens to seeking an armed confrontation with federal agents.

They also have communications and other logistical gear necessary for sustained operations.

Little is known about these groups.  The foremost of these is Oath Keepers, a group of about 3,000 who are either former or serving military members or police, who have sworn that they will not obey unconstitutional orders given by the government.

Oath Keepers created a high profile for itself in the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014 because their headquarters are in Las Vegas and their nationwide network of members was able to quickly funnel money and supplies to the people at the Bundy Ranch.  Although not an actual militia, the presence of armed Oath Keepers and their visibility gained a lot of attention for the organization.

Several other militias exist, although their numbers are unknown – although they undoubtedly number less than an infantry company.  Other militia groups include the West Mountain Rangers, 912 Movement, and the III%.  In most cases, the numbers from each group probably are probably less than a dozen, although many supporters provide logistical support when necessary.

To limit infiltration by federal agents – something that was common in the Obama years – units are usually limited to a dozen or fewer members and usually consist of people who have known each other for years.  However, there are larger units.

Most states have statewide militias that even have websites on the internet.  The size depends on effective leadership and the politics of the day.  Most are conservative – ranging from pro-Trump to small government activists who see Republicans and Democrats as equally bad.  They have been involved in patrolling the US/Mexico border to prevent illegal immigration.  Some deployed at the Bundy Ranch in 2014.  Several units across the country have also deployed recently to protect monuments that have been threatened by protestors.

Many militias work with each other in training exercises.  Some even have leadership and “War College” training for potential militia leadership.

Not all militias are right wing.  A growing number are more radical and have either Marxist or anarchist political beliefs.

Some units have tried to create a nationwide presence, with more assets than a handful of semi automatic firearms.  One such unit is the Colonial Marine Militia, which deployed a mechanized unit to Hillsdale, Michigan last week.  The mechanized unit was the 8th Mechanized Regimental Combat Command, the Colonial Marine Militia.  The unit fielded 18 armored vehicles last week at Hillsdale.

The Colonial Marine Militia concept was established in the1980s by US Marine Corps veterans.  It was formed in Indiana and has grown to include units in 48 states.  They are based on the Regimental Combat Team concept which means each unit is self-sufficient with elements of logistics, communications, and medical support.  This gives them the ability to deploy across the nation at short notice.

There are currently 116 Colonial Marine Militia Regimental Combat Teams, with 49 cadres available for expansion.  There are four training commands and supporting arms that include mechanized and light artillery like mortars.  They also include airborne assets for airborne resupply and small airborne assaults. 

The Colonial Marine Militia also has an air force of cargo aircraft and even small jet powered aircraft that could be used in a tactical situation.

This may seem to be a unique threat to the US government; however, there have been such threats since the beginning of the nation.  Patriotic organizations, called “democratic republican societies” were formed, which were viewed as subversive by the federal government.  President Washington would later write, “I early gave it as my opinion to the confidential characters around me, that if these societies are not counteracted (not by prosecutions, the ready way to make them grow stronger)… they would shake the government to its foundation.”

Although these rebellions may lose, they do have the ability to change government.  For instance, the Whiskey Rebellion changed the complexion of the political landscape and led to the creation of the two-party system in America and led to the election of Thomas Jefferson.

Although the 1794 incident was a vastly larger rebellion than the current standoff in Seattle, the situations share important parallels including the use of what many people in each situation considered the disproportionate use of force by the government.  It also reflects the differing political views of the people in the more progressive, urban parts of the country and those in more conservative rural areas.  In this case, it was the rural parts of the country that rebelled.

The rebellion began in 1791 when Congress passed an excise tax on distilled whiskey with the firm backing of President George Washington and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton’s plan was to federalize the debt accumulated by the states during the Revolutionary War and pay it off through a variety of measures, including domestic taxation. On top of that, Hamilton wanted to fund a more widespread extension of government investment in the new country’s military and infrastructure. The tax was excessively high–about 25 percent of the value of each gallon of whiskey.  It encountered almost immediate opposition.

Opposition was fierce on the western frontier (then around Pittsburgh, PA), where farmers would turn excess corn into whiskey.  Not only was whiskey cheaper to transport over the dirt roads, in the money starved west, it was used as a form of money.  In addition, frontier people rarely saw the benefits of federal spending.  In a quote vaguely similar to the statements coming from supporters of the militia movement, one westerner wrote, “To be subject to all the burdens of government and enjoy none of the benefits arising from government is what we will never submit to.”

Western Pennsylvania rose up.  In four western counties of Pennsylvania, excise officers were terrorized; the Pittsburgh mail was robbed; federal judicial proceedings were stopped; and a small body of regular troops guarding the house of General John Neville, excise inspector for western Pennsylvania, was forced to surrender to the rebels.

Historian John Miller would later write that Hamilton “knew that he was committing the government to a trial of strength with Westerners, but he deliberately courted the contest” to display the power and legitimacy of the federal government. Goaded by Hamilton, Washington assembled one of the largest armies built in America up until that time. The president, with the treasury secretary by his side, would lead this force from the capitol in Philadelphia into the wilds of western Pennsylvania.  The size of the assembled army was astounding given the threat.

This force, called the “Watermelon army” by detractors, ended up arresting 30 rebels without any resistance.  Although the rebellion was quashed, the political damage was enormous.

Some Americans viewed the sudden expansion of government power as a blow to the principles fought for during the Revolution, and worried about a government quick to pull the trigger on legitimate freedom of assembly and protest.  The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, attacked the excise tax as an “infernal tax” and said that the “conduct of the ‘rebels’ was no worse than riotous.” He and many others called for an elimination or reduction of the hated tax.

From the scattered protests of leaders like Jefferson and others, a new party was formed to oppose the administration. Panicked Federalists, sensing the rise in support for “Republican” opposition, started to become more repressive in their tactics. Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 under President John Adams in response to the Republican protest during the short “Quasi War” with France, which severely curtailed civil liberties. The acts targeted Jefferson’s supporters. The political storm was growing, and Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, calling out the laws as unconstitutional and repressive.

The Resolutions became a political platform for the new party, and a massive wave of supporters was swept into office in 1798. That year’s election became known as the “Revolution of ‘98” and marked a major change in American politics.  Jefferson was elected president in 1800 and he appointed Albert Gallatin, who had spoken up for the rights of the western farmers, as his treasury secretary.  By tapping into these “patriot” societies of the time, he was able to politically establish a political counterbalance to the Federalist Party.

Although the political parties of that time have disappeared, they have set up the continuing philosophical differences of the two parties of today – one calling for more federal control, and one calling for more state and local control.


Are the Militias a Real Threat?

Given the size of the US military, it seems that the militia movement would be little threat to the US government.  However, it must be remembered that the US military has been in Afghanistan for nearly a generation and still has not won.

Although the military has better equipment, the militia and its supporters have the US military vastly outnumbered and can field more firearms.  In fact, there are more hunters out on the first day of deer hunting in Pennsylvania than are in the American Army.  Although the militia does not have machine guns, many firearms experts say semi automatic firearms are more accurate and use less ammunition.

The problem that the US Army faces is that they cannot be everywhere.  Most of their assets would be used to protect vital government installations like military bases and Washington DC.

Local police are also limited, as is being seen in the current protests. If the police can’t handle the rocks that are being thrown at them, they will be hard pressed to handle militias with training and experience from Afghanistan and Iraq.

At this point in time, the militia is in a reactive mode.  A study of militia websites seems to confirm that militias are gearing up for a potential civil war. Others are guarding communities or memorials. Others are advancing their training.  However, they all seem to be prepared for the worse – a second American Revolution.

If that is true, they are emulating the words of the commander of the Lexington militia, Captain John Parker, on April 19, 1775.  According to accounts, he said, “Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Week of May 22, 2020

Special Elections Give Insight into November Election

Although relatively insignificant, special elections show political experts a lot.  While polls show the leanings of adults, registered voters, and likely voters, special elections show who the real voters prefer.

The other difference is that special elections, although small have an impact.  In Tuesday’s case, they narrowed the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives by one vote.

The Republican wins in two congressional districts were more important in that they both occurred in states that have Democratic majorities – California and Wisconsin.  No doubt, Democratic Party leaders are worrying a bit.

The most dramatic Republican win is in the heavily Democratic state of California.  For the first time in over 20 years, Republicans have managed to flip a Democratic seat to Republican control.

The nationally watched congressional special election in California’s 25th congressional district appears to have gone to Republican Mike Garcia, although mail-in ballots have yet to be counted.  However, Garcia is leading by more than 11%, so his margin appears to be sound.

What is remarkable is that Hillary Clinton won this district in 2016 by 6%.  And, though the nonpartisan Cook political report rated the district a “toss-up,” Garcia’s margin of victory represents a major shift.  It is also the first time Republicans have flipped a California congressional district since 1998.

If the election results hold, Garcia will be the only House Republican to represent a district that Hillary Clinton won with more than 50% of the vote.

The other congressional special election win for Republicans was in Wisconsin’s district 7, where Tom Tiffany beat Tricia Zunker.  And, although Wisconsin went for Trump in 2016, the state is still overwhelmingly Democratic, the Republican won by a margin of 14% of the vote.  The district, which is rural, has started to tilt Republican over the last few years and Trump won handily in 2016.  However, Obama had won the district in both 2008 and 2012.

So, does this mean that Trump is on his way for reelection and the Republicans are set to retake the House?  Not necessarily.  The election is still half a year away and there is the political maxim that, “A week is an eternity in politics”

There are several factors still in play and no one really knows what will happen.

The Corona virus issue is still the great unknown.  While many thoughts that the number of cases and the declining economy would scuttle Trump’s reelection bid, this week’s Newsweek and CNN polls showed Trump with his highest approval rating since 2017.  Not only do voters think that China is to blame for the pandemic rather than Trump, the daily press briefings have given Trump more.

In fact, the CNN poll shows Trump beating Biden by 7 points in the battleground states which will decide the election.  However, Biden leads nationally, thanks to large majorities in solidly Democratic states like California, which does not count in the way the president is elected by the Electoral College.

No one, not even the medical experts know what will happen if the restrictions are eased.  Americans are getting tired of staying at home and the Democratic governors who are pushing for continued isolation are facing more resistance.  Some political commentators have even speculated that the strict isolation policy in California may have helped the Republicans win in California.

Will a surge of new Corona cases as the nation opens cause voters to turn against Trump?  Will the crashing economy cause voters to blame Trump?  Will voters turn against Democrats who want to keep restrictions in place?  No one can tell at this time.

Another issue is apparent Democratic presidential nominee Biden and his choice of a Vice Presidential candidate.  Many Democrats are worried about Biden’s fading mental capabilities and lackluster performance in the last couple of months.  They see Biden’s pick of a VP as a chance to energize the electorate and bring all the wings of the Democratic Party together for the election.

Another issue that the Democratic leadership is discussing – but not publicly – is replacing Biden if necessary.  Biden is losing support due to credible charges that he raped a member of his staff back in the early 1990s.  He is also having problems articulating himself in interviews.

If the problem gets worse, there may have to be a last-minute change in the Democratic presidential ticket. Although Biden has the largest number of delegates currently, Bernie Sanders has a sizable number too.  There are also quite a few uncommitted delegates from states that did not have their primaries due to the pandemic.

How these delegates are picked and how they will vote are big questions.  They will probably be picked at state conventions and their selection may depend on who controls the party in that state.  Democratic governors and senators will have a big say in who is picked and therefore, these delegates will be likely to support the governor’s or senator’s presidential choice.

However, these delegates will not be legally bound to any candidate, which can make the national convention a “free for all.”  It may be the first brokered convention since the end of World War Two.

If it is decided to pick someone to replace Biden, the Sanders delegates will expect that choice to be Sanders – something that the Democratic leadership will not tolerate.  The result might be that the Sanders delegates may walk out of the convention and not support the Democratic nominee in November.

Of course, the biggest determinant of the election is the economy.  A bad economy means the incumbent loses.  A good economy means the incumbent usually wins reelection.

However, this is a different situation.  The Corona virus, which voters may not blame on Trump, has caused the economy to go into a tailspin – a situation that more closely reflects the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Here the dynamic is interesting.  Franklin Roosevelt won reelection during the Great Depression, so the good economy/bad economy theory does not hold in extreme circumstances.

The other issue is that Republicans are pushing for reopening the economy, while the Democrats are insisting that the economy remain closed until the threat of the Corona virus is eliminated.

In this case, the issue is: do you want the economy to reopen and grow or do you want to stay home?

While many seem to want to remain in isolation, providing they can receive more stimulus money from the federal government, the increase in public demonstrations across the nation show that the majority of people want to reopen the nation and economy.

There is also a growing concern about the issue of Constitutional Rights.  As some states try to keep their citizens at home, there are more and more stories about police arresting people for being outside, opening their business, worshiping at church, or even protesting the isolation rules.

One of the governors at the center of this is Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, who has found herself in the center of the Constitutional Rights debate as thousands of Michigan citizens have protested her strict isolation rules.  As one of those on Biden’s list for Vice President, her political future may very well hang on how American voters view the guaranteed Constitutional Rights of assembly, religion, and petition of grievances.

Whitmer may have overplayed her hand this week.  Last week a 77-year-old barber, Karl Manke, opened his shop despite the governor’s orders.  Despite the revocation of his license and threats to arrest him, he opened the shop, which was then surrounded by armed Michigan militia who were there to prevent any police from arresting him.

However, the county Sheriff made it clear he would not arrest the barber, “Since the Michigan legislature did not extend the state of emergency beyond April 30as required by law.” Sheriff Begole noted his office’s “responsibility to serve and protect the citizens of Shiawassee County and to ensure their rights as described in both state and federal Constitution.”

Later a judge denied the state’s cease-and-desist order against Manke.  And, with it, probably goes Whitmer’s chances of going to Washington as Vice President.

In the end, it must be remembered that there is still a long road to the November elections.  Trump has improved his ratings and it appears, based on this week’s special elections, that Congress may have more Republicans next year.  However, the Republicans’ hold on the Senate is precarious as twice as many Republicans are up for reelection this year than Democrats.

If history holds, however, Trump should win reelection and increase Republican margins in Congress.

Admittedly, the Corona virus is an unknown, although the press briefings are helping Trump’s approval ratings.

The new factor is the shutdown of the nation and the growing issue of Constitutional Rights.  Americans want to leave their houses, spend their money as they wish, return to their jobs, and assemble in crowds or at their place of worship.  Some Democratic governors have probably overstepped their authority, and this may become a Republican issue in November.

But keep in mind that in the world of politics, the next six months is several eternities.

Week of May 01, 2020

Americans have no patience with continuous lockdown

245 years ago, this month, Americans showed their disdain for following the orders of their government.  In that case, it was American militiamen who refused to disperse when ordered by the British military.  The resulting firefight was the beginning of the American Revolution and what is now called the Battle of Lexington and Concord.

That same disdain for government edicts remains at the heart of the American Spirit.  While state governments have issued orders to keep Americans at home, tracking of cell phone traffic shows that Americans are leaving home in growing numbers.

One segment of the government, the courts, have aided the “breakout” as judges across the nation have ruled many of the government edicts unconstitutional and an infringement on American rights.

But courts or not, Americans are growing tired of staying at home.

Unacast used “anonymized cell phone location data” to measure foot traffic at retail locations.  According to the report, traffic increased by about 25% from the previous week.  Nor was the shopping just at drug stores or supermarkets.  It was a wide range of retail stores and travel facilities.  Although shopping trips are down 20% over last year, Americans made 103 million stops at retail stores on Friday, April 25.

This data raises several questions.  Is the economic downturn going to end within weeks instead of years?  Will this scoffing at government orders to stay home force state governors to recognize reality and allow the economy to restart?  And will the stimulus checks going out to Americans now help jump start all the economy – not just grocery stores?

States like Georgia have already allowed many stores to restart. In fact, retail traffic has surged above 2019 levels, which promises to bring the economy back quickly according to optimists.  Other states like Ohio and Wisconsin, who have allowed more business to open, are also seeing increased traffic.

Actual sales data has not come in, so how the stimulus money will be spent is still a question.  However, with the ability go places, the spending profile should change.  During the shutdown, groceries and medicines were in the greatest demand. Much of that demand went to internet “stores” like Amazon that offered home delivery.   There was also an increase in home improvement purchases as people stuck at home spent some of their time in home improvement projects.

Some of the money will be saved as Americans remain unsure of the future.  There will also be the paying of some overdue bills.

However, there will be increased demand for gasoline as Americans move about more.  Automobile and home sales, which dried up in the last two months, can be expected to pick up.  Travel and apparel purchases are also expected to come back.

Much will also depend on future stimulus checks and how quickly the unemployed can be reabsorbed into the workforce.  However, the ability of the economy to bounce back also depends on how optimistic consumers are.

Of the Western nations, the US is the most optimistic about the ability of the economy to recover.  In fact, for every European who is optimistic about their economy’s future rebound, there are two Americans who have faith in the US economy.

Given this bit of information, it appears that stories of America’s economic death have been greatly exaggerated.

The Case Against a Nationwide Lockdown

After being flooded with advice about locking down a nation to “flatten the curve,” many medical experts are questioning the tactic.

Some note that many people are delaying preventative care by not going to their doctor or an emergency room.  And many hospitals have stopped usually routine cancer screenings during the current emergency.

Now WHO’s Dr. Adhanom has officially endorsed the “no lockdown” approach by Sweden.

Evacuation of Washington still possible

Despite the confidence of Americans in the future, the US government is advancing its plans to evacuate the capital if the Corona virus spreads.

It now appears that the 106th Aviation Regiment, which is a National Guard unit, has been called up by the Pentagon.  The unit flies Blackhawk helicopters, which are used for moving soldiers, but also can carry a wide assortment of weapons.

The unit is now stationed at Fort Belvoir and has been isolated to prevent contamination by the Corona virus.

Captain Adam Kowalski of the 106th said, “We are the quick reaction force that allows us to help mobilize forces within the Washington DC area, evacuate people, or whatever that might be.  We are kind of that big taxicab that makes sure everybody gets where they need to be and keeps the government going.

However, the 106th Aviation Regiment is more than a “big taxicab.” They have also engaged in combat training.  A couple of years ago at Fort Irwin in California, a brigade of the 106th was involved in providing air assault capability for the 155th Armored Brigade Combat Team.

In an emergency, the 106th could move troops in order to secure parts of the capital, provide tactical fire support, and evacuate critical government personnel.

The 106th Aviation Regiment falls under the command of Major General Omar Jones, the Commander of the Washington Military District.

Logistics Chain Showing Signs of Stress

Over the past four weeks, a dozen large meat packing plants have closed due to many workers contracting the Corona virus.  As a result, meat products are starting to disappear at grocery stores.  And, while meat prices at the retail level are going up, the price for cattle, hogs, and chickens at the farm level are dropping.

According to Bloomberg, 25% of America’s pork and 10% of America’s beef processing capacity has gone offline in the last few weeks.

This week, Tyson Foods, a major meat processor, placed ads in several papers warning the nation about the problem.  They wrote, “As pork, beef and chicken plants are being forced to close, even for short periods of time, millions of pounds of meat will disappear from the supply chain…the food supply chain is breaking.” But some reports are circulating about euphemizing pork in many pork farms,

to get rid of the excesses created by lower demand in order to maintain higher prices.

As we have noted before, we are just about half a dozen meals away from a breakdown of society.  With widespread civil disobedience over the strict “stay at home” rules, a lack of food could quickly lead to massive civil unrest.

In order to keep the meat supply chain from falling apart, President Trump signed an executive order keeping meat processing plants open during the current crisis.  He is using the Defense Production Act, which was passed during the Korean War.  It has been used in the past in the wake of hurricanes and President Clinton and Bush used it to supply California utilities during an energy crisis.

Currently, many plants are decontaminating their equipment and taking steps to keep the Corona virus from infecting their workforce.  Some meat processors are also offering higher pay and bonuses for employees who return to work.

At the same time, Brazil and Australia are ready to scale up exports to the American meat market.

A Corona Virus Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Try as he might, it has been hard for Trump to withdraw forces from Afghanistan.  Many generals and officials insist that the US must remain in the country and have done their best to slow down the withdrawal process.

However, now it appears that the Corona virus may help Trump keep one of the campaigns promises he made in 2016.

The peace deal between the US and the Taliban includes a complete withdrawal of US and allied forces from the country in 14 months.  However, Trump is dissatisfied with the pace of the withdrawal.

Now US officials worry that the Corona virus could become rampant in Afghanistan given the country’s lack of health care and its border with Iran, which has been hit hard by the virus.  The Afghan health ministry is bracing for possibly millions of cases.

This leaves the US in a bind.  The soldiers could stay in Afghanistan but remain confined to a few bases.  US troops confined to base and unable to patrol would be an inviting target for attackers.  In that case, it makes more sense to withdraw them earlier than planned.

 Of course, there are generals who want to keep US forces in Afghanistan.  They argue that if Trump is that concerned about American troops getting infected, maybe the US should withdraw from Italy.

Week of April 24, 2020

Tensions Increase while US Navy is Stretched by Corona Virus

 While most of the world stays home and focuses on the spread of the Coronavirus, several hot spots are beginning to form – hot spots that may very well require the movement of US Navy warships – warships that are already stretched thin by the Coronavirus.

In the Mediterranean, Russian aircraft are challenging US Navy air patrols over the eastern Mediterranean.  In North Korea, the exact situation is uncertain, but that nation’s capital is locked down and it appears that Kim Jong Un hasn’t been seen recently and may be seriously ill.  In the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian boats are challenging US Naval and Coast Guard vessels and President Trump has given the Navy permission to shoot Iranian boats that get too close or become threatening.

Finally, a number of Chinese vessels are threatening Malaysian ships in an area that both nations claim.  At the same time, China has ordered increased air and naval patrols around the island of Taiwan.

The situation in North Korea is uncertain and Trump has admitted that “we don’t know what is going on.”  The capital of Pyongyang is locked down and there are signs of an abnormal situation taking place. Kim was last seen on April 11 at a politburo meeting. Many think he is seriously ill, and the precautions being taken are to ensure a smooth transition.

The problem is that two of Kim’s relatives may have a claim on the leadership. Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong is the Vice Director of Propaganda and Agitation for the Workers Party of Korea.  At the April 11th meeting, which was the last time that Kim Jong Un was seen, she was reinstated as an alternate politburo member. This has solidified her position as “Number Two” and the likely successor to Kim Jong Un.

However, Kim Jong Un has an older brother, Kim Jong Chul, who was passed over by their father Kim Jong Il because he was regarded as unfit to rule the country.  It is possible that he could make a bid for power.

The biggest question is who will control North Korea’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems? Could a fight evolve over who controls them and what could that mean to North Korea’s neighbors?

There are American military assets in the area, but the US will be unwilling to move those assets to other hot spots if the situation in North Korea remains uncertain.

The next potential hot spot is Syria. The US Navy accused the Russians of endangering the crew of a US Navy reconnaissance aircraft over the Eastern Mediterranean.

The US Navy’s Sixth Fleet said in a statement that, “The interception was determined to be unsafe because the Sukhoi Su-35 conducted an inverted high speed  maneuver, 25 feet facing the mission plane, thereby exposing our pilots and crew to danger.”  The air turbulence caused by the Russian aircraft made it difficult for the US patrol aircraft to operate for about 45 minutes.

These unsafe interceptions were more common in the past but have decreased in recent times.

During the Cold War, the Mediterranean was always home to two US aircraft carriers. However, as the number of American aircraft carriers has declined and there has been more focus on the Gulf region, the US Navy can no longer muster the naval air superiority it once did around Syria.  This has allowed Russian aircraft to challenge US patrol aircraft, who are likely tracking Russian submarines in the Eastern Mediterranean. Since there are few NATO facilities in the Eastern Mediterranean (now that Turkey is no longer working with NATO) American fighter aircraft cannot react as quickly to these Russian moves.

The US can move the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower into the Mediterranean, but that would take it away from its current position outside the Gulf region. And, as we will see, that is the last place the US Navy wants to leave without enough ship strength.

A bigger threat is the increasing harassment of US Navy warships in and around the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranians. That prompted President Trump to tweet a warning, “I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea.”

Currently the carrier USS Eisenhower and an Amphibious Readiness Group are stationed in the area and there are bases in the GCC nations that the US can use if hostilities break out.

Although the possibility for full blown hostilities to break out in the Strait of Hormuz is slim, the impact on the oil markets will be major. Iran, whose oil industry is a major foreign currency earner, wants to boost the price, which any danger to oil shipping in the Gulf will do.  Ironically, the US, which is now a major petroleum producer, is also anxious to keep prices up. And, although the Saudis want to keep their percentage of the oil market, it’s not in their interest in hostilities to break out, especially since they and the UAE have their hands full in Yemen.

However, some analysts in Washington believe that the biggest threat is not Iran, Russia, or North Korea. It is China and its expansionist policy in the South China Sea. There are several reports that the Chinese have made several provocative actions in what Malaysia considers its Exclusive Economic Zone.

China’s survey ship Haiyang Dizhi 8 and 10 Chinese Coast Guard escorts have remained 200 nautical miles off the coast of East Malaysia for several days near a Malaysian oil exploration vessel. The waters are claimed by Malaysia, China, and Vietnam.

The Australian Navy has helped take the pressure off the US Navy by dispatching a frigate to join the three ship American task force.

At the same time, China is making threatening moves towards Taiwan by increasing aircraft and naval patrols around the island nation.

Normally, this threat would call for the US Navy dispatching one of its carriers. In fact, the USS Roosevelt was deployed to the South China Sea before its crew was infected by the Coronavirus

The result is that the US Navy has sent an amphibious ship, the USS America, with its five F-35 fighters and some helicopters to the South China Sea. While the USS America is a potent weapon, it does not have the full range of capabilities of a nuclear aircraft carrier. And it is possibly not as capable as the new Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, which sailed into the Pacific on April 13th.

Clearly, the US Navy has left a vacuum in the Pacific that the Chinese are more than willing to fill. However, there is a question about the fitness of the Chinese Navy to carry out its mission after China was hit so hard by the Coronavirus.  The Chinese moves could be a bluff.

Another troubling sign is the withdrawal of several B-52s from their forward position in Guam back to the continental United States. They had been positioned there to give the US a strategic fast reaction force in the South China Sea.  However, with the USS Roosevelt docked in Guam and unable to rapidly deploy as most of its crew are on shore, the Pentagon decided that it was unwise to place too many strategic assets on the small island of Guam and risk a “Nuclear Pearl Harbor.”

While the US strategic bombers can reach the South China Sea from the United States, it will take longer to reach their target.

Clearly, while the number of aircraft carriers has declined, the number of potential hotspots has grown.  The result is that amphibious ships with some fighter aircraft capability are now being forced into roles that were once delegated to full deck nuclear carriers.

The one hope for America is that while the Coronavirus has infected several of the Pacific aircraft carrier crews, the great majority of crew show no signs of the illness. That means that in an instant, it is possible the Western Pacific aircraft carriers could set sail quickly in an emergency. In addition, other ships of the Pacific Fleet have been kept at sea and away from port so they will not be infected with the Coronavirus.

In the meantime, the Trump Administration is committed to increasing the number of Navy warships.

However, if any of these four hot spots blow up, the US Navy will find itself strained in the short term.

Week of April 17, 2020

Biden Starts Vetting of Vice-Presidential Choices

With Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren suspending their campaigns and formally endorsing former Vice President Biden, the vetting and interview process for picking a vice presidential choice has begun. But what are Biden and his political advisors looking for?

Traditionally, vice presidential nominees are picked to balance the ticket, geographically, and in terms of experience.  That’s why the experienced Senator Biden was picked by freshman Senator Obama.  That’s why Northeastern Senator Kennedy picked Southerner Senator Johnson.  It’s also why political novice Trump picked then-Indiana Governor and former Congressman Pence for his running mate.

Biden doesn’t have to pick someone with a lot of experience, since he has been in politics for decades.  But he needs to look for someone who can help win some of the states Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.  He also should look for an ideological balance that can excite some of the more liberal/left-leaning members of the Democratic Party.

However, one of the most important factors (and one that usually isn’t a major factor in picking a running mate) is to pick someone who can readily step into the office of president.

Given Biden’s obvious mental decline and age (77 years old), it is quite likely that the Democratic vice-presidential choice could become president in the next 4 years.  And, if Biden makes it through the first term, he is unlikely to run for a second term, which means the Vice President could be the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2024.

Biden said in one of the Democratic primary debates that he would select a female vice-presidential candidate that would align with him on key principles and shore up his weaknesses – probably an allusion to his age.

Voters aren’t as concerned about the sex of the vice-presidential nominee with the exception of a majority of women.  According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll released this week, voters overwhelmingly preferred someone with governing experience over gender or race.  Only 29% said it was important for Biden to choose a woman and only 22% said it was important to pick a person of color.

41% said it was important that Biden pick someone more liberal then himself and 31% wanted someone religious.

However, many Biden advisors want him to pick a woman of color.

Keeping in mind that the person running for president impacts voters more than the vice president, here are some of the top contenders for VP nominee:

Senator Kamala Harris.  Harris is young (55 years old), a Black woman, someone with experience in Washington as a senator from California, and as California Attorney General.  It doesn’t hurt that she endorsed Biden when she dropped out of the presidential race.

She does have weaknesses.  Her record as California’s Attorney General was attacked by her Democratic opponents during the presidential primary debates.  Her office was involved in a crime lab scandal that resulted in more than 1,000 drug cases being dismissed.  She was also accused of blocking evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until she was forced to by the courts.  Investigative reporting by the Sacramento Bee verified the charges and Harris didn’t have a good response to either charge.

This type of heavy handedness by Harris while Attorney General will hurt her in the Black community. Black men represent a large part of America’s prison population.

On the positive side, Harris is a favorite of the Democratic leadership.

Senator Amy Klobuchar.  If Biden hopes to do better than Hillary Clinton, he needs to win the Midwest.  This is where Klobuchar comes in.  Although Minnesota is considered Democratic, it has shifted towards Trump in polls over the past few years.  Klobuchar could hold her state for Biden, while her Midwest roots could help retake Wisconsin and Michigan.

Klobuchar is also one of the favorites of the Democratic leadership.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer.  As governor of Michigan, Whitmer promises to help Biden retake Michigan – a state that helped Trump win the presidency.

However, Whitmer’s recent performance during the Coronavirus epidemic has been lackluster.  She first outlawed the prescribing of anti-malarial drugs for Coronavirus, even though preliminary tests show it to be somewhat effective.  Then she turned around and asked for the same drugs from President Trump.

Her heavy handedness during the epidemic has outraged some Michigan voters, who are circulating a petition to recall her.  The petition already has about a quarter of a million signatures.

She has banned the sale of vegetable seeds or plants.  Her strict stay-at-home orders have led to silly arrests by the police- including a $1,000 fine for a person found alone in a state forest.  Her authoritarian approach during the epidemic led this week to large protests at the state capitol that blocked traffic for miles.  Four Michigan sheriffs have announced they will not follow extreme executive orders.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, “Decrees like those from the Michigan Governor’s office and their capricious enforcement run the risk of encouraging mass civil disobedience.”

Speaking not only of Whitmer’s actions, former Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino said, “Civil disobedience is about to make a bold comeback.”

Although her tangles with Trump will warm the anti-Trump bloc, her recent actions will do little to win over people who voted for Trump in 2016.

Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Warren is the obvious choice if Biden wants to reach out to dissatisfied Sanders voters.  However, Warren frequently tangled with Biden during the debates and she was the last 2020 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Biden.  She is also 70 years old, which negates the idea of bringing fresh, young blood to the ticket.

There are questions about her effectiveness as a campaigner despite her energy and good organization.  She lost the presidential primary in her home state of Massachusetts and did poorly across the nation although she was well financed.  She has also been caught in controversy that was exploited by Trump, including claiming she was partially Native American and that she was fired for being pregnant.

However, Warren has proved to be an effective fundraiser and fighter against corruption.  She is also one of the favorites of the Democratic leadership.

Senator Tammy Baldwin.  The senator from Wisconsin is the first openly gay senator, who withstood a strong effort by Republicans to unseat her in 2018.  This makes her a good choice to retake Wisconsin from Trump this year.

Although she isn’t as well-known as Warren, her liberal credentials put her in the same part of the ideological spectrum as Warren and Sanders.  This gives her some of the advantages of Warren, without any political baggage.

Stacey Abrams.  Abrams barely lost the race for governor in 2018, which would have made her the first Black woman to be a governor.

Abrams is popular with Black women, but her lack of experience and her refusal to admit defeat, while accusing the Republicans of voter fraud may make her more of a liability than an asset.

What is most likely to kill her chances to become the vice-presidential nominee is that she is actively seeking it – a negative in American politics.

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto.  Hispanics are the largest minority in America, and Cortez Masto may be the one to make a Hispanic person a nationally elected official.

One of Biden’s weaknesses during the primaries was with Hispanics, who went overwhelmingly for Sanders in Colorado, Nevada, and California.

One advantage that gives Cortez Masto the inside track for the nomination is that one of her supporters is former Senator Reid, who is close to Biden.  It’s quite likely that Reid will be pushing for her in the coming months.

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.  Grisham is the governor of New Mexico, a Democratic state.  However, as with Cortez Masto, she is a Hispanic and would help solidify a critical bloc of voters.

She has tangled with Trump over border enforcement.  She has pulled National Guard troops away from the border with Mexico and fought ranchers on the border who complained that the state wasn’t doing anything to close the border and protect their property. Some critics are asserting that border crime is higher in the New Mexico section the El Paso Border Patrol Sector than it is in the Texas section.

Although it is a given that Hispanics are for more flexibility on borders, polls show the average Hispanic voter wants more border security.  That and the large majority of voters who want America’s borders controlled, make Grisham a controversial choice for the vice-presidential nomination.

These are the women that are under consideration.  However, picking a woman isn’t a guarantee of election success.  Walter Mondale picked Geraldine Ferraro for his Vice-Presidential nominee and lost.  John McCain picked Sarah Palin for his vice-presidential nominee and lost.  And Hillary Clinton ran for president and lost to Trump. But time has changed and the mid-term election 2018 showed a wave of elected women to the congress.

Could there be a man that would make a better candidate?

The fact is that the current Democratic Party is so focused on gender and race that it can’t see that voters aren’t overly impressed by either factor.  They prefer experience.

This is one reason why New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is being considered as a vice presidential possibility, even though he has said he isn’t interested.

Cuomo has raised his profile with his daily news briefings on the Corona epidemic in New York.  He has tangled with Trump, but he has also thanked Trump for his help, which allows him to seem bipartisan.  All in all, he appears to be an effective executive although New York is America’s Coronavirus hotspot.

However, despite the positive news coverage, Cuomo has several problems.  First, New York State has the highest taxes in the nation and is losing people and businesses.  He is very anti-gun in a nation where the majority of voters’ support gun ownership.  And in past years, he has told conservatives that they aren’t welcome in his state.

While Cuomo has high visibility now, he is probably the most vulnerable of the other potential VP nominees.

So, who has the best chance to help Biden win?

According to some leaders in the democratic party and prior to Coronavirus crisis, the best choice probably is Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.  She is more moderate and comes from the Midwest, which is a Republican stronghold.

Some polls show that among the women mentioned for the vice-presidential nomination, Klobuchar has a stronger image among white voters, independents, Republicans, moderates, conservatives, and those with a favorable view of Trump.  She also is more popular than Warren or Harris in the Midwest, Northeast, South and West.

Although the sentiment for a progressive woman of color is great amongst some in the Democratic Party, the reality of vice-presidential politics will probably come to the fore.  More than anything, the vice-presidential nominee must help the presidential candidate win the election by delivering electoral votes. Again, her supporters claims that   Klobuchar could erode Trump support more than politicians like Warren or Harris.

However, will Klobuchar help Biden that much?  Incumbents usually win reelection and Trump’s popularity numbers have gone up and down during the Coronavirus epidemic.  Klobuchar may be more popular than the other potential Democratic VP nominees, but in the end, nearly all voters will be choosing between Trump and Biden, not Klobuchar and Pence.

In the end, that is what counts.

Week of April 10, 2020

American Leadership Crisis Scenario During the Corona Virus Epidemic

President Trump and Vice President Pence have remained very visible during the Corona epidemic, often being seen together in briefings on the epidemic.  Yet, according to the White House, both have been tested and shown so far, no Corona contamination.

Yet, the recent news that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was admitted to the hospital and placed in the intensive care unit indicates that this illness is no respecter of person or position.  It is quite possible that Trump, or Pence, or both could come down with the Corona virus.  If that happens, what then?

Currently, the US Constitution’s rules on succession of leadership is limited to singular events, not an epidemic that could incapacitate a number of those who might be required to fill the position of president.

The 25th Amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the states in the aftermath of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, provides the procedures for replacing the president or vice president in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation.  The Watergate scandal of the 1970s saw the application of these procedures, first when Gerald Ford replaced Spiro Agnew as vice president.  Then he replaced Richard Nixon as president after Watergate.  Then Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller to fill the resulting vacancy as vice president.

Sections 3 and 4 are the sections most applicable to the current epidemic.  Section 3 states that the president can send a letter to the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore stating that he can’t discharge the powers and duties of president.  In that case, the Vice President becomes acting president until the president sends a letter stating that is now capable of fulfilling his duty as President

Section 4 is for a situation when the president wants to retain the powers of president, even though he is incapacitated.  It states, “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

In other words, if Vice President Pence and the majority of the president’s cabinet decide that Trump is so seriously ill that he is unable to discharge the position of president, the Vice President becomes acting president.

Of course, in this case, Vice President Pence is the key player.  If Pence doesn’t feel that Trump is incapacitated, this option will not work.  If he does, the transfer of power could just take hours.

While the 25th Amendment allows for a quick transfer of power, it also allows the president to challenge any charges of incapacity.  It says, “Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.”

In other words, if Pence says Trump is too sick to be president, Trump can challenge it.  If the Vice President and majority of the cabinet continue to say the President is unable to carry out the office of president, it goes to Congress to determine the fitness of Trump.  It would take a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate to remove Trump.

Needless to say, the 21 days that Congress has to determine the fitness of Trump would be a politically unstable time, especially if the nation is suffering from a widespread epidemic.  If Trump is sick, then, it is quite possible that numerous members of Congress would be unable to attend because they are sick or under quarantine.

At least, there is a clear path for everyone to follow if Trump is incapacitated by the Corona virus.  Things get much murkier after that.  If the President is healthy, but the Vice President becomes incapacitated, there is no way to remove him.  He dies, resigns, or recovers.  If he dies or resigns, the president can nominate a new vice president, who must be confirmed by the Senate.

The problem is that currently the next in the line of succession to the presidency would be the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is a Democrat and opponent of Trump.  If something happens to Trump during the time when there is no vice president, Pelosi would become the president.

There is another issue that has never been decided.  If vice presidential spot is open, does the ability to declare Trump incapacitated or incompetent become Pelosi’s privilege?  If so, she could use that power to try to remove Trump – a possibility given the fact that many Democrats argued over the last three years that this was the way to remove Trump.  However, she would still have to garner most Cabinet officials and 2/3 of the Senate and House.

The problem becomes more complicated if both Trump and Pence fall ill to the Corona virus.  There is no constitutional way to remove them both.  The Speaker of the House could try to declare both the President and Vice President incapacitated, with the concurrence of the majority of the Cabinet.  Although the courts might allow this to take place, it is likely that the Cabinet officers, who are Republican, would prefer an incapacitated Republican president to a Democratic president.

This event might lead to a standoff that leads to the US not having a president for a short time.  However, while the bureaucracy would still function, there is a need for a president to sign legislation and budgets into law.

It’s possible that in such a situation, the Cabinet might negotiate with the Speaker of the House.  They might provide a majority vote to declare both the President and Vice President incapacitated in return for some consideration.

The reality is that the incapacitation of both President and Vice President poses some problems, especially if neither recovers nor dies, but remains on life support.  The same problem can continue farther down the line of succession – incapacitation of the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (both of whom are much older than the President and probably more susceptible to the virus).

There is a bigger problem if Pelosi tries to declare Trump and Pence incapacitated.  Such a move would have to ignore the limitations in the Constitution and would also mean a dramatic shift in the politics of the nation as the Democrats would then be in control of the White House.  This could very well lead to large scale civil unrest that the military would be unable or unwilling to suppress.

In other words, the legal ascension to the presidency could become a political battle (and possibly a street battle too) that could take weeks or months.  While the bureaucracy could manage to operate for a time, there must be someone who is clearly authorized to handle homeland security.

Fortunately, there is a plan in place, thanks to the Cold War and the possibility that Washington could have been leveled with a nuclear bomb, leaving the country without a clear civilian leader.  The advantage of this plan is that it can handle the slow pace of the pandemic.  The problem is that the walls of a bomb proof bunker might not stop this virus, which can infect others, even if they show no signs of illness.

As we noted in our analysis a couple of weeks ago, if the Corona virus gets out of control and the government must rely on military support, the authority will reside in the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) in Colorado Springs Colorado.  On February 1st, NORTHCOM received warning orders from the Secretary of Defense to be prepared to act.

Another part of the plan is the separation of Defense Secretary Esper and Deputy Defense Secretary Norquist in order to lessen the likelihood that both will be infected.  Defense Secretary Esper in is the fifth person in the line of succession and would be a likely candidate to be sent to an isolated command headquarters.

That isolated location might be the Cheyenne Mountain facility, which was built during the Cold War and is designed to withstand a 30-megaton nuclear bomb.  This bunker complex, which is 2,000 feet under the Colorado Rockies, was designed to wage a nuclear war even if the rest of America had been destroyed by a Soviet nuclear attack.

Corona-free staff have been sent into Cheyenne Mountain and are currently being isolated there.  There is also the probably that others in the presidential line of succession will be sent there, including the Vice President.

These measures are being taken, “To ensure that we can defend the homeland despite this pandemic,” NORAD and NORTHCOM Commander General O’Shaughnessy said in a briefing.  O’Shaughnessy would be the key commander if there is a problem with the presidential succession.  He will oversee efforts defending the US if an enemy tries to take advantage of the uncertainty to attack the US.  He would also be responsible for deploying the troops that would have to deal with any civil unrest caused by the political uncertainty.

There is also another team at a secret location that can take over if the Corona virus infects the Cheyenne Mountain Bunker.  Undoubtedly, someone in the line of succession will be stationed there.

If the Corona virus gets out of control on the East Coast, it is likely that Vice President Pence will be flown to Cheyenne Mountain for the duration.  With their separation, it should limit the chance that both the President and Vice President will be infected.  Then, if the epidemic gets out of control, there will still be a civilian in control of the military.

With the military and civilian leadership protected, there remains the military itself.  It appears that the four aircraft carriers in the Pacific all have cases of the Corona virus onboard – the USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Carl Vinson, USS Chester Nimitz, and the USS Ronald Reagan.  Given the threats posed by the Chinese in the South China Sea and the Iranians in the Middle East, there is no possibility that all four carriers can be sent to port all at one time for quarantine and decontamination.  The best alternative would be to ship the promising anti-malarial drugs to the ships so they can be given it at the earliest possible time.




Although the focus has been on those who die from the Corona virus, the evidence is that about 80% have few if any symptoms.  Seriously incapacitating symptoms usually are limited to 5% – 10% of the population.  So, although the civilian leadership is older (Trump 73, Pence 60, Pelosi 80, Grassley 86), the chances that they will all be incapacitated by the Corona virus are minimal.  It’s also likely that all four are currently taking anti-malarial medications.

Since age is a major factor in being incapacitated by the virus, it is more likely that President Pro Tempore of the Senate Grassley and Speaker of the House Pelosi would be the ones to have the biggest problems.  But House rules allow for an immediate vote for a new speaker if something happens to Pelosi.  The same type of rules pertains to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

The key person in any change of leadership would be Vice President Pence.  He is the one that is constitutionally delegated the sole authority to declare the president incapacitated, provided he is backed up by a majority of the Cabinet.  And, Pence is the youngest and least likely to be susceptible to infection.

The military leadership is much younger and likely in better health.  This means that the military side of any epidemic caused crisis is in better shape.

Although plans for succession are likely being reviewed, the chances that they will lead to a major shift in the leadership of the United States are unlikely.


Succession to the vacancy of the president:

1 – President

2 – Vice President

3 – Speaker of the House

4 – President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Week of April 3, 2020

Military Readiness in the Era of the Corona Virus

While there has been much talk about the readiness of the medical community and the government in terms of reacting to the Corona pandemic, there hasn’t been much conversation about military readiness, except in terms of how it can assist the government in keeping order or providing medical facilities.

However, in a world where there are dozens of conflicts, military readiness – the ability to fight in a conflict – is important.

That issue came to the fore this week when a letter from the captain of the American aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt to his superiors was leaked to the media.  In it, he posed the problem of balancing the lives of his sailors with the need to maintain military readiness.

A week ago, the Roosevelt only had a handful of Corona virus cases.  Now it has climbed to over one hundred.  The ship has pulled into Guam and offloaded the sick, but the rest of the crew has remained onboard in quarantine.  Unfortunately, the ship, with crowded sleeping quarters and meals served by potentially sick cooks makes the threat of a growing epidemic onboard a real possibility.

Captain Crozier wrote, “Due to a warships inherent limitation of space…the spread of the disease is ongoing and accelerating.”

The Captain then comes to the key factor – one that all militaries are probably considering.  He wrote, “If the Navy focuses on being battle ready, it will lead to losses to the virus…We are not at war.  Sailors do not need to die.  If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset – our sailors.”

The Captain then offers two options.  Take everyone off the ship, except for a 10% of the crew (about 500) to maintain the nuclear reactors and decontaminate the ship.  The other option is to maximize readiness despite the virus.  He wrote, “We go to war with the force we have and fight sick…there will be loses to the virus.”

He concludes, “As war is not imminent, we recommend the peace time end state.”

However, the Secretary of the Navy didn’t agree.  Acting US Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said Wednesday that he did not agree with the captain that all but 10% of the crew could be removed.

This is not the first time Crozier has been at the center of controversy.  He was stationed at Strike Force NATO (Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO) and was the Deputy Director for aircraft targeting for the Libyan operation (Operation Unified Protector).  Several of the bombings hit civilian targets and killed at least 72 Libyans.

The most serious incident according to Human rights Watch occurred in the rural village of Majer, 160 kilometers east of Tripoli. Human Rights Watch found remnants of GBU-12 laser guided bombs.

If the Navy had taken his advice, the Roosevelt would have been out of commission for at least 10 days.  And, even when it went back to sea, it would have probably been undermanned.

That however, is a moot issue as Crozier has been relieved of command. The new skipper will likely be more aggressive in returning the Roosevelt to combat readiness.

This is an unusual letter for the captain of a warship – especially one of the most powerful ships to ever go to sea.  Aircraft carrier captains are usually on the track to become admiral and this letter has probably scuttled his chances to achieve flag rank.  Operational information like this is always secret and by failing to send this to his superiors in a more restricted manner the leaked letter has given American enemies a critical piece of intelligence.

Of course, the leak may have been engineered in order to force the Pentagon to decide.

Of the captain’s letter, Navy Secretary Modly said, “It’s disappointing to hear him say that.  However, at the same time, I know that’s not the truth…This ship has weapons on it. It has munitions on it…It requires a certain number of people on that ship to maintain the safety and security of the ship.”

If the Navy took his advice, the Roosevelt will probably be out of commission for at least 10 days.  And, even when to goes back to sea, it will probably be undermanned.

Of course, this is taking place when tensions in the South China Sea are at a peak and there are indications that Iran may retaliate against American troops or assets in the Middle East.  Can the US afford to take a major part of its military force in the region out of commission?

Probably, sickness on board ships is nothing new and these ships have continued.  In 1977, the American aircraft carrier USS Saratoga faced a hepatitis epidemic when a cook, who made and served ice cream to the ship’s company, got hepatitis.  Unfortunately, there wasn’t enough gamma globulin in Western Europe to inoculate the crew, which led to an emergency effort to gather enough medication in the US to fly to the Mediterranean, where the Saratoga was deployed.  The ship continued its deployment and was even stationed off the coast of Lebanon for a while in case there was a need to evacuate US citizens during the civil war. But Corona virus situation is unprecedented and complicated any remedy.

This isn’t the only situation where the Corona virus has impacted American military readiness.  The US Air Force has expanded its crew in the NORAD command bunker at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado.  This bunker is designed to withstand a direct hit by a nuclear bomb and still carry out its mission of waging a war.  The crew sent to Cheyenne Mountain is virus free and will remain in isolation until the epidemic threat has passed.

The US Army also cancelled it NATO maneuvers this spring and sent its 20,000 soldiers back to the United States.  US military bases are also trying to isolate its occupants as much as possible in order to limit the spread of the Corona virus.

However, the fact is that hostilities do not end during a pandemic.  The Spanish influenza epidemic took place during World War One and killed more people than the war did.

In fact, a military that does lower its guard during an epidemic is making itself a target for an enemy attack.

That may be one reason that Trump publicized the fact that Iran or its “militia” allies were planning a sneak attack on US troops or assets in Iraq.  He warned, “It this happens, Iran will pay a very heavy price, indeed.

It’s interesting to note that if hostilities between the US and Iran take place, it will be the task of the USS Theodore Roosevelt to reinforce the American forces in the region – unless it is undergoing the decontamination routine suggested by the ship’s captain.  That’s probably one overriding reason for keeping the Roosevelt operationally ready.  If Iran were to start hostilities, including closing the Strait of Hormuz, the US would want to move two aircraft carriers into the Indian Ocean.

However, it isn’t only the Roosevelt that is suffering from the Corona virus.  Although the rate of illness in the US military is less than that in the general population, it has impacted the military.  According to the Military Times, the military is seeing a growth in those infected by 10% – 15% daily.

However, the Pentagon has ordered military units to not publicize their infection rate.  The Pentagon told the Military Times, “Unit-level readiness data for key military forces is information that is classified as a risk to operational security and could jeopardize operational or deterrence.”

At the time this being written, about half a dozen active duty military person has died.  However, military units across the globe have been impacted.  Two aircraft carriers, three training facilities, and the Army’s Fort Bragg have had cases of the virus.  The two carriers are both in the western Pacific.

The fact that Fort Bragg has Corona virus cases is a concern for the Pentagon.  It is the largest military installation in the world with 50,000 active duty personnel.  It is headquarters to the US Army Special Operations Command, the 1st Special Forces Command, and the 82nd Airborne Division.  It is the 82nd, that acts as a rapid reaction force and was the unit that deployed to the Middle East when the American embassy in Baghdad was targeted.

In Afghanistan, US forces have been isolated as much as possible in their bases in order to prevent more infections.  Due to the virus, experts worry that the military may have to stay in Afghanistan longer than planned.

“Protecting the force is our top priority,” Army Col. Sonny Leggett wrote on twitter.  “We continue to execute the ordered drawdown to 8,600.”

“To preserve our currently healthy force, Resolute Support is making the necessary adjustments to temporarily pause personnel movement into theater,” Army General Scott Miller, commander of US operations in Afghanistan, said in a statement.  “In some cases, these measures will necessitate some service members remaining beyond their scheduled departure dates to continue the mission.”

Only essential personnel can enter US bases in Afghanistan and Americans are using more teleconferencing to communicate with their Afghan counterparts.

Although there are Corona virus test kits at US bases in Afghanistan, they can only have them verified by sending them to Germany.  Currently there are about 1,500 soldiers in quarantine – not necessarily because they are exhibiting signs of illness, but because they are new arrivals or are returning from trips.

America isn’t alone in this case.  Militaries around the world are experiencing the same problems, although they are remaining quiet about the threat to their national security.

So, what is the solution?  It’s not as simple as the two options offered by the Captain of the Roosevelt – shut down or risk sailors dying.  Giving the military priority on testing and access to anti-malarial drugs, along with aggressive treatment (medicating those with the virus even before symptoms occur) would allow military units to remain operational during this period, that’s the pentagon hope.

As of this writing, it appears that about half of the crew of the Roosevelt will be moved off the ship (a good number of those will probably be the air wing).  This will still leave the ship capable of carrying out some operations if necessary.  There will also be emergency plans for bringing the rest of the crew onboard within hours if necessary.

To the Pentagon leaders who displayed anger at the Captain of the Roosevelt, they are asserting that what he forgot is that military units must always be prepared for war. He also forgot that being combat ready is as much a guarantee of peace as anything in their view.

As one American veteran who served in the US Navy said recently, “I’m glad the captain of the Roosevelt wasn’t in charge of an American carrier at the Battle of Midway.” *

*The Battle of Midway was an epic clash between the U.S. Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy that played out six months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The U.S. Navy’s decisive victory in the air-sea battle (June 3-6, 1942) and its successful defense of the major base located at Midway Island dashed Japan’s hopes of neutralizing the United States as a naval power and effectively turned the tide of World War II in the Pacific.

Week of March 29, 2020

Think Tanks Activity Summary
(For further details, scroll down to the PUBLICATIONS section)


The Heritage Foundation sees the US as the winner in the current situation in Syria, with conflict between Turkey, Russia and Syria.  They conclude, “That leaves the U.S. sitting in not-the-worst position of all the players. We still have some small teams in Syria conducting anti-ISIS operations, but no one seems to want to challenge them. In addition to hounding terrorists, the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping the problems of Syria from spilling over and destabilizing Iraq. As long as the U.S. can maintain a presence in Iraq, Washington can keep up that effort and continue to pressure and isolate Iran. In short, Syria is a big headache for many world leaders, but Trump has more to be happy about than most. A stable Middle East is important to the U.S. The three biggest threats to stability are extremists, terrorists, and Iran. At present, the U.S. military footprint there seems adequate to keep them all contained.”

The Heritage Foundation looks at America’s weak missile defense given the recent attacks in Iraq.  They note, “Patriot systems are ill-suited for use on or near the front line. Even a relatively small caliber bullet can damage the fragile missile launchers or radar. Patriots require a secure area, free from the danger of direct fire from weapons such as anti-tank missiles. Al Asad did not provide that level of protection. Its perimeter fence is, in many cases, within sight of the main airstrip and facilities.  Unless the Iraqis and the U.S. deliberately expand the base or change its security posture, Patriot systems are unlikely to be employed there.   The situation argues for the U.S. to develop a more hardened ballistic missile defense system, but that’s difficult—especially when it comes to radar. Space-based radar might one day solve this problem, but in the meantime, the answer may be either to move all U.S. troops who are within missile range of Iran (i.e., anywhere in the Middle East) to bases able to employ Patriot or to disperse them in smaller concentrations to locations with substantial early warning assets and shelter”

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy examines the fight between the Saudis and Russia over oil.  They conclude, “Riyadh sometimes has interpreted “reasonably priced” as “realistically priced.” But these days, such diplomatic smoothness is gone. Yesterday the Department of Energy issued a statement that included: “These attempts by state actors to manipulate and shock oil markets… [.]” Such language may be normal in dealing with Moscow but is new, at least publicly, for communication with Riyadh. The White House said today that President Trump spoke with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, or MbS, on Monday about global energy markets. When is this going to end? And how is this going to end?  The “when” is difficult to answer. It might end tomorrow if Iran were to launch another salvo of missiles against Saudi oil installations as it did last September. However, assuming the crisis remains a simple struggle between the rival ambitions of President Putin and MbS, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, then expect it to be a knife fight. Both men are ruthless and determined. One could perhaps debate who is more cunning. I know where my money is.


The Coronavirus Economy

Life-threatening pandemics aren’t easy to manage.  On the medical side, isolation and quarantine are the best answer because it stops the spreading of the virus.  However, on the impact to the economy, isolation and quarantine are the worst of all possible options.  True, some can work at home, but farming and food production can’t be run out of one’s living room.

This is the problem facing the national leaders around the world.  And, each is trying to balance these two sides of the problem in their own way, based on the advice they are receiving and their own common sense.

In the United States, the solution is to throw money at the problem, then to get the population back to work in a few weeks, and count on the medical profession to limit the spread of the virus.

It appears that the US is ready to start throwing money at the problem.  Early Wednesday morning, Senate leaders and the White House announced that a $2 trillion agreement had been reached to provide economic relief to the Corona virus epidemic.

The broad outlines of the deal include the following:

Direct cash payments of about $1,200 for each adult earning under $75,000 for single people and $150,000 for couples.  The amount received will taper off over these figures, but they will receive the whole amount initially.  The excess they receive will be owed in next year’s taxes.

The bill provides $367 billion in forgivable loans to employers with less than 500 employees.  The amount that will be forgiven will depend on how many employees are laid off.  The fewer laid off, the more of the loan is forgiven.

An interesting prohibition in the bill states that businesses controlled by the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and heads of executive departments can’t receive loans or investments from any Treasury programs.

The $500 billion loan program for larger companies includes an inspector general and a five-member congressional panel for oversight.

The bill increases unemployment benefits for those laid off.  According to Senator Schumer, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, the deal increases “the maximum unemployment benefit by $600 per week and ensures that laid-off workers, on average, receive their full pay for at least four months.”

Schumer also said the bill includes $150 billion for state and local governments.

The goal of this bill is to keep consumer demand up even as many consumers are staying at home.

On the positive side, by stimulating consumer demand, when it looks like it was about to take a dive, the proposed bill keeps many sectors of the economy (and their workers) operating.  This will make it easier to restart the economy when the pandemic has passed – especially if the money is handed out quickly and the workforce is able to leave their homes.

The problem is the size of the stimulus.  The planned (before the pandemic) federal budget for FY 2021 was to be $4.829 trillion.  Revenue was to bring in $3.863 trillion, but that assumed a good economy.  The deficit would be about one trillion.  That means coronavirus emergency spending has already boosted federal spending by 50%.

The result is that the amount that the government must borrow to pay for the emergency spending will cause this year’s budget deficit to triple.  Unfortunately, with no one to buy the additional Treasury bills and notes, the Federal Reserve will be forced to step in and buy the debt with newly created money.  And, as any economist will tell you, when demand, caused by additional money, goes after a limited supply of goods, inflation will occur.

Whether the money is just created by entries in the Federal Reserve computer or a couple of trillion dollar coins are minted, the result is just the same – the money supply will be increased without an increase in the economy’s ability to produce more goods and services.

With each adult receiving $1,200 and each child receiving $500, the boost in spending will be considerable.  However, given the current coronavirus situation, it won’t go equally into all sectors of the economy.  Based on recent spending patterns, the money will surge into the grocery sector – causing more empty shelves in stores and more inflation.  The question is how much.

In 2017, the agriculture and food industries contributed $1.053 trillion to the economy.  That is 5.4% of the nation’s GDP.

If consumers that receive a government check decide to buy groceries with the bulk of their money, the food sector could see an additional $250 billion in spending.  Unfortunately, increasing food supplies takes time either to raise the cattle or grow the crops.  The result could see food prices climb 25%, depending on imports and some consumers deciding to shift their spending away from food as food prices go up.

In the meantime, some sectors of the economy like housing, automobiles, brick and mortar retail stores, and traditional restaurants will see very little of that stimulus money, although drive-in restaurants and internet stores will gain.

In turn, these other sectors of the economy will not be buying supplies from their suppliers and paying rent to property owners.  As Bloomberg News noted, what happens to the billions in rent owed for business that have closed?  Since most property owners have high levels of debt themselves, what are they to do?

These and other issues mean that a stimulus bill can’t by itself solve the problem.  The economy can only operate if everyone can go back to work.  This is the issue Trump is facing.  Can the economy recover if everyone can go back to work, while current medications and potentially new vaccines keep enough people healthy to get the economy working at full capacity?

Unfortunately, there is little information to work with.  The last major pandemic was the Spanish flu that started in the last year of World War One.  The war and the lack of data collected make it hard to base policy on a pandemic that occurred over 100 years ago.  As a result, politicians are forced to rely upon models of epidemic growth and decline.  And, there are as many models as there are experts.  And many of the experts are willing to inflate the risk in order to help their organizations.

While some models forecast a future with millions of deaths, bankruptcies, increased suicides, and a depression unknown to the modern world, there are others that see the virus coming under control soon.  Politicians are left to make the hard choices based on a variety of models and theories.

One fact that makes it more likely for politicians to ignore the doomsday predictions has been the failure of the more pessimistic models to accurately predict events.  One of the pessimistic groups is COVID Act Now, which has used a model from the Imperial College, London, which was the one to predict 2 million American deaths.  It was widely quoted and used by governors and mayors of both parties to make decisions.

However, its predictions have been inaccurate.  They claimed that by March 19th, 5,400 New Yorkers would be hospitalized.  Only about 750 were hospitalized by the 19th.  They predicted 13,000 hospitalizations by March 23rd in New York.  By the 23rd, the actual number was only 2,500.

The COVID Act Now model was also wrong in predictions about Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, and Virginia.  Now COVID Act Now has admitted the problems of its model and has stated, “The model does not adjust for population density, culturally determined interaction frequency and closeness, humidity, temperature, etc. in calculating.”  They also admitted to many other problems with the model.

This isn’t the model that the President is basing his decisions on.  In the case of President Trump, he sees a more optimistic pandemic track.  His desire is to keep the US economy going, while trying to limit physical contact, and allowing doctors to use medications currently used for malaria.

The Wall Street Journal has come in on Trump’s desire to get the people back to work.  It noted that the third coronavirus stimulus plan will cost a lot, but so will a shutdown of the country.  They note, “Each month of a national shutdown costs the economy about a trillion dollars.  The damage will become harder to fix as businesses fire workers and close forever…A blanket lockdown can’t go on.”

They go on to note that keeping every business closed and every worker unemployed won’t work.  Nor will replacing the private economy with borrowed money won’t work.  They also noted that the private sector was taking steps as many businesses were already tailoring their businesses to working in the current environment.

Will the Trump plan work?  That is an unknown currently.  The President is aware that a shutdown of the nation will have serious side effects that may take years to recover.  On the other hand, an early return to “business as usual” may mean the number of coronavirus cases will rise, along with deaths.

Currently, Trump is looking at the number of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.  If those numbers are trending down by Easter and the anti-malarial drugs are shown to limit the severity of the coronavirus, he will probably try to get people back to work.  If he can do that, the stimulus money that everyone gets will be less likely to be spent solely on food and may flow into other sectors of the economy.  A family that is confident that there will be food at the grocery store may use the stimulus money for a down payment on a new automobile.

If Trump can do that, he will have reassured his reelection.


An Increasingly Aggressive Iran Warrants New Emphasis on Missile, Rocket Defense

By Thomas Spoehr

Heritage Foundation

March 24, 2020

On March 11, about 30 rockets rained down on Taji Air Base in central Iraq, killing two American troops and one British soldier. Three days later, more rockets landed on Taji, wounding another three U.S. service members. Last week lawmakers pressed Pentagon officials regarding the lack of missile and rocket defenses on Iraqi bases housing American forces. Why wasn’t our Army using the Iron Dome system or other capabilities to protect our troops? Similar concerns had been raised earlier, following Iranian missile attacks on the al-Asad and Irbil air bases, launched in response to the killing of Qassem Suleimani. The short answer is: our current missile defense systems are not optimized for use on remote bases. Our rocket defenses have progressed no further than what we fielded in Iraq from 2004 to 2010.

Read more at:


Syria Is the War Nobody Wins, Except Maybe Trump

By James Jay Carafano

Heritage Foundation

March 11, 2020

Many forces are waging war in Syria, all of them willing to fight to the last Syrian. But in this conflict, the United States is MIA. Thank goodness for that. The war in Syria is likely to devolve into another interminable, unwinnable conflict. Fighting recently flared in the Syrian province of Idlib. A year and a half ago, Russia and Turkey had negotiated a demilitarized zone in the province, one that separated the area controlled by the forces of President Bashar Assad from the territory held by rebels. Russian and Turkish patrols made sure that zone remained heavy-weapons-free until late last month, when the Syrian army moved in with the assistance of air cover from the Russians. From a military perspective, what happened next could not have gone worse for the Syrians. Years of war had already decimated their air and ground forces. Now, the Turks have gutted what was left. The Syrians lost the equivalent of two mechanized divisions and virtually all of its fixed wing and helicopter air force.

Read more at:


Russia and Saudis in a Knife Fight Over Oil—But We May Be the Victims

By Simon Henderson

Washington Institute

March 10, 2020

The Hill

A train wreck is about to occur in the oil market, and there will be casualties. Russia and Saudi Arabia, which previously had cooperated in making the world market well-supplied, no longer can agree on how to share the benefits. Today Riyadh announced it will step up output to a record 12.3 million barrels per day in April, the vast majority of which is exported. Russia also is increasing production but its incremental volumes are smaller. It’s a game of bluff: Who can survive longer? And we are the spectators…

Read more at:



Week of March 20, 2020

Part 1/2 series:

The American Corona Virus Apocalypse – What to Expect and What Could Happen

A month ago, predictions about the course of the Corona virus were varied.  Many insisted it was merely a typical mild winter sickness that would quickly dissipate when the weather got warmer.  Others warned this was a pandemic that could impact the world and how we live for decades.

It seems the pessimists were closer to the mark.  While the death rate has moderated itself in China and other nations in East Asia like Japan and South Korea, the West is experiencing an alarming growth of the disease.

It now appears that the West will have the same widespread problems China had.  Confirmed cases in the West are doubling every two to three days.  Some countries like Italy don’t have the medical infrastructure to handle the serious cases.  And, instead of just targeting the old, the Corona virus is also infecting and killing young people in their 20s and 30s.

In the meantime, all investments from stock to precious metals are losing value.  It appears that the only investment that is holding its value is food and sanitary supplies.  Major companies like Boeing are on the verge of bankruptcy and it appears that employment figures this month will be like those during the worldwide depression of the 1930s.

Fortunately, humans are resilient, and the world will come back – eventually.

So, how will this impact the world superpower – America?  The fact is that recovery will be slow.

Many companies will go bankrupt in the coming months.  And, others will take time to get back on their feet as they must gear up production and rebuild their customer base.  Although the US government is passing legislation to provide economic assistance, most of that will go to paying bills that must be paid despite the lack of sales and paying for sick leave for employees.  Companies may start up production, but there must be a market for their goods and demand for everything from aircraft to automobiles has crashed.  The result will be higher unemployment for a while – unemployment that can lead to civil unrest.

As billionaire Bill Ackman noted about government assistance, “You can’t borrow your way out of the problem. You can’t lend your way out of the crisis.  You have to kill the virus.”

There will be some positives in the long terms for America as this crisis has shown how dependent the US is on Chinese products.  Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act, which will bring critical manufacturing back to the US from China.  However, starting up production is something that takes years, not weeks or months.

The most important sector of the economy in this crisis is food – as seen in the empty shelves in American stores as people rushed out to buy food for self-imposed quarantines.  Here the US has an advantage.  Most American food production is in states that have not been seriously hit by the Corona virus.  Population density is low in farm country, so the virus will have problems spreading in the American food belt.  However, the weakness is to be found in the logistics that converts Midwestern wheat into flour and then the loaf of bread on the shelf in New York.  These factories, mills, food processing plants, warehouses, and truck lines are vulnerable to sick workers, food riots, theft, and economic factors.

Another long-term impact is social.  Although many of the lines in stores were orderly, many fights broke out between people over limited supplies of food and sanitary products.  One can only wonder what will happen when there isn’t enough food to go around.

The potential violence will be multiplied by the impact the virus is having on law enforcement, the courts, and prisons.  In order to limit contact with potential Corona virus carriers, law enforcement has been instructed to limit their enforcement actions to serious crime.  Shoplifting, petty crime, drugs, prostitution, and traffic laws will be overlooked in order to limit the chance the police are exposed to the virus.

The change is also found in the courts.  Court cases have been delayed; juries are not being empaneled due to the health risk, and warrants for minor crimes aren’t being issued.

This reduction in law enforcement and justice has been compounded by the release of some prisoners in order to keep prisons from becoming hot spots for the Corona virus.  Hopefully many of those released will go home and try to change their lives.  Unfortunately, many will go back to crime – especially since the chances of being caught and arrested are lower now.

An American Apocalypse?

Apocalyptic movies have been popular entertainment ever since Mad Max.  And, in recent years, these movies have used the theme of worldwide infections.  Popular movies like the Resident Evil series and the Maze Runner trilogy have popularized the idea of an epidemic destroying the world as we know it.

But, is real life beginning to resemble a movie?  Could the scuffles in American stores over toilet paper be just a sample of what may occur if the corona virus epidemic continues to grow at a geometric rate?

It’s not unlikely.  Food riots are common in some nations and the only thing keeping it from happening in America is the abundance of food and its low prices.

However, as Alfred Lewis observed in 1906, “There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.”  The same has been observed by others, including the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky.  While people can deal with other shortages like clothing or gasoline, food is an essential commodity.  And, if there is no food, even the most civilized person will commit a crime to feed themselves or their family.

The American food industry operates on thin profit margins and “just in time” stocking.  Unusual consumer demand, as America has seen in the last few weeks, can quickly empty the shelves.  And, the only way to refill those shelves is a rapid resupply by truck from the local warehouse, which in turn relies on food processors.  Any glitch in transportation, food processing or warehousing can keep shelves empty.

There is also the inflation problem.  The US is seriously looking at economic recovery legislation that will cost over $1 trillion.  And, since there isn’t that sort of money available to the federal government, it will be paid for with the selling of more government debt, which is purchased in large part by the Federal Reserve – using money it has created.  And has been seen in 1920s Germany, 2000 Argentina, and modern-day Venezuela, food supplies are most vulnerable in inflationary times.  Stores with the worst profit margin (usually in the poorer parts of a city) close first.  This, in turn leads to food riots.

Don’t forget that as food becomes scarcer, theft grows.  Hijacking trucks, warehouse thefts, and shoplifting become prevalent as food prices go up and law enforcement looks the other way.

It’s not hard to see food riots becoming common in the Western world.

If food riots come to the US, expect the US military to step in.  Many states have already called up the National Guard and California Governor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday that the state is prepared to declare martial law.

There are plans for such an eventuality in America.  In 2008, the Army War College issued a report saying that an economic crisis in the US could lead to massive civil unrest that would require the military to intervene to restore order.

Ironically, the military planning for such a civil disturbance is based on the same types of movies that are popular with the movie going public – zombies created by some infection.

As Time.com writer observed, “Dystopian movies used to reflect our anxieties, now they reflect our reality, mirroring…how our government views us.”

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) joined with the Department of Defense (DoD) to use zombies to train government agents in mock military drills.  In 2011, the DoD created a 31-page manual on how to protect America from an attack carried out by zombie forces. In 2012, the CDC released a guide for surviving a zombie plague.

The current plan for a military intervention during civil unrest is outlined in “CONOP 8888.”  According to a Foreign Policy article dated May 13, 2014, the document states, “This plan fulfills fictional contingency planning guidance tasking for US Strategic Command to develop a comprehensive [plan] to undertake military operations to preserve “non-zombie” humans from the threat posed by a zombie horde.”

Lest anyone think this was a joke, in the disclaimer section, it states, “This plan was not actually designed as a joke.”  Although zombies are the theoretical enemy, it outlines how the military envisions its role in any unrest.

By basing the study on “enemy zombies,” the Pentagon avoids any political fallout by picking a realistic threat like terrorists, white supremacists, leftists, black nationalists, militias, etc.

Although the Corona virus doesn’t create zombies, the manual does outline how the military will put down a civil uprising that may result from the Corona virus.  Its 6 phases to protect and restore the civilian government and civil peace are: shape, deter, seize initiative, dominate, stabilize, and restore civil authority.

The first step is to increase surveillance, carry out drills, and coordinate with state and local law enforcement.  This transitions into deterrence by recalling military personnel to their duty stations, fortifying military bases, and starting limited combat operations against the enemy.

The military would then shelter all essential government employees at these bases and then deploy troops to control waterways.  Reconnaissance forces would then reconnoiter remaining threats and survey the status of important infrastructure like water, power, and lines of communication.

The last step is restoring civilian authority and assisting them with military forces.  Any opposition hold outs will then be attacked.

Although there is no solid evidence that CONOP 8888 is seriously under consideration, the DoD has ordered troops to stay on base and is quickly moving the 20,000 troops currently in Europe on NATO exercises back to the US – movements that are similar to stage 2 in the plan.  They are also making plans to deploy two Navy hospital ships to Corona virus hot spots in order to care for patients that aren’t infected.  The Army Corps of Engineers is also planning to build temporary hospitals to handle hospital overflows.

But the employment of martial law and the military comes at a cost.  In America, there is a clear line separating the military and law enforcement – a legacy of the days when the United States was a British colony and British soldiers enforced the law.  As a result, any attempt to put the military on the streets to enforce laws will not be greeted with favor in many parts of the country.

Another problem with martial law is that some in government will use the situation to advance their agenda without public debate or legislation.  For instance, in the past week, some anti-gun politicians have used the state of emergency to restrict gun rights.  Many gun owners are concerned that some politicians could use martial law to try to confiscate firearms as they did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.  If that happens, the level of civil unrest will grow into a post-apocalyptic civil war.

What happens next depends on the course of the virus, the actions of health officials, and what politicians – who are trying to balance economic issues and health concerns – will allow.

Although an American Corona virus apocalypse is still an unlikely event, the chances of it occurring are much greater than they were just a few weeks ago.


*Next part 2 : Military Takes