Archive by Author

Biden and Israel: A mutual love affair

As President Biden often reminds his Israeli interlocutors, he first visited Israel in 1973 when Golda Meir was prime minister. It was the year that Israel fought Egypt in the Yom Kippur War. Yitzhak Rabin, Meir’s successor, was ambassador to the United States during the early months of that year.

Israel was a relatively poor country in 1973. It had no relations with any Arab state, nor with India, China, or a hostile Soviet Union. It had few major trading partners. It was isolated in the United Nations, which two years later would equate Zionism with racism.

No longer. The Israel that Joe Biden just visited is at peace with six Arab states and has not-so-clandestine relations with several others, notably Saudi Arabia, which, apart from the Palestinian Authority is Biden’s only other Middle Eastern stop on this trip. Israel is now a high-tech economic powerhouse, counting China and India as among its greatest trading partners. Its per capita gross domestic product ranks 20th in the world, ahead of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Korea and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is not even isolated in the U.N., which rescinded its “ Zionism is a form of racism” resolution in 1991 and, in 2000, admitted Israel to the Western European group.

Israel’s fortunes may have changed, but Biden’s feelings toward the country have remained the same. He still relates to Israel as he did during his freshman year in the Senate. Indeed, at a time when his party’s left wing is increasingly hostile to the Jewish state, and when pro-Israel Jewish students have found themselves harassed and on the defensive on many American college campuses, Biden asserted that “you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.”

One highlight of Biden’s visit was his so-called “I2U2” summit meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Mohammed bin Zayed, ruler of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE. The meeting was intended to emphasize the growing economic cooperation among their countries but it also underlined Israel’s economic prowess. Yet, even more important to many Israelis, was what Biden did not do: The American embassy remains in Jerusalem and America still recognizes the Golan Heights part of Israel.

Biden’s meeting with Defense Minister Benny Gantz was no less significant than those with Lapid. The Israelis welcomed Biden’s assurance that he would not countenance an Iranian nuclear weapon. They also applauded his support for joint Israeli-American work on the Iron Beam laser defense against short- range missiles and mortars. Israel’s Rafael company has been developing the system since 2014. Gantz reportedly was elated that his meeting with Biden went so well.

There has been much speculation in Israel as to what extent Saudi Arabia will be willing to acknowledge publicly its relationship with Israel, one that has been ongoing for more than a decade. A senior defense ministry official evinced the hope that, at a minimum, Biden and his Saudi interlocutors will voice their concern about the Iranian threat without explicitly mentioning Israel. That way, it will be clear that Gulf Arab concerns are every bit as serious as those of Israel, yet independent of the views that Jerusalem has articulated for years. Whether Biden’s visit will also yield an announcement about joint Gulf-Israeli defense against Iranian missiles is uncertain, however. It appears that considerably more coordination must take place before any such a system can come into being.

If there is any concern on the part of Jerusalem, it is that Biden’s goodwill notwithstanding, America’s primary concerns are assisting Ukraine and deterring China. While that is certainly the case, it can only be reassuring to Israelis that, at least until the next presidential election, their country is fortunate to have a devoted, longstanding friend residing in the White House.

Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was under secretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy under secretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats pressure Biden to confront Saudi leader on Khashoggi murder

Democratic senators are raising concerns over President Biden’s scheduled meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and urging the president to confront the Saudi leader about his alleged role in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.  

The White House wouldn’t say before the meeting whether Biden would bring up Khashoggi with bin Salman. Democratic senators say that he should do so, and also raise the issue of Saudi Arabia’s track record on human rights more generally.  

Democratic senators are speaking up at a time when Republicans are criticizing Biden for asking the Saudis to release more oil into the international markets at a time of high inflation and expensive gas prices.  

“We need to meet with Saudi Arabia, he shouldn’t meet with MBS. That’s my strong belief,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  

“That doesn’t mean he couldn’t meet with the king, that doesn’t mean he couldn’t meet with the foreign minister, other officials. But I would not meet with MBS, the guy still has blood on his hands from the murder of a Washington Post journalist who lived in Virginia, who has family in Virginia, [and] there hasn’t been accountability for it,” he said.  

Kaine said meeting with an authoritarian leader with a bad human rights record sounds an off-key note at a time when Biden has rallied the world to help Ukraine resist the aggression of Russian President Vladimir Putin, another authoritarian leader.  

“Meeting with a dictator who killed a journalist, I don’t get it,” Kaine said of the meeting with bin Salman, adding that Biden “absolutely” should broach Khashoggi’s murder.  

The CIA concluded in 2018 that bin Salman had ordered the assassination of Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. This assessment was confirmed in an intelligence report released by the Biden administration last year.  

Khashoggi, a columnist for The Post, frequently criticized the Saudi regime and allied hardline religious leaders.  

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), another member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he also has concerns about Biden sitting down with the Saudi crown prince.  

“He should bring up the Khashoggi murder. He should bring up other human rights issues on this visit,” he said. “I understand why the president wants to make this visit but he should bring up a whole range of issues.” 

Van Hollen acknowledged “I do have some concerns about the trip.” 

“But I understand the president’s objectives,” he said. “I think the jury’s still out on whether or not this is going to be a successful visit because it depends on what the outcome is.”  

Biden called Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state during the 2020 campaign and pledged at the time to hold it accountable for its human rights record.  

But now the president finds himself in an awkward position as high gas prices have contributed to inflation. He needs Saudi Arabia’s help to increase the international oil supply at a time the United States and Europe have boycotted Russian oil exports during its war in Ukraine. 

Biden will meet with bin Salman in a bilateral meeting as part of his first official trip to the Middle East.  

Khashoggi’s widow, Hanan Khashoggi, said Wednesday that she expected Biden to talk about her husband’s murder after she said the administration assured her it would be a topic of discussion.  

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who is close to Biden, expressed confidence that the president would make good on that promise.  

“I think he will. President Biden has a very strong record on human rights over decades and I am confident that he knows full well the importance of making clear our profound differences over human rights across many different contexts and instances from the war in Yemen to domestic issues to the very specific and horrifying murder of a U.S.-based journalist,” Coons said.  

Biden, speaking at a news conference in Jerusalem on Thursday, said he’s “never been quiet about talking about human rights” but said the reason for his trip to Saudi Arabia “is much broader, it’s to promote U.S. interests.”

Two of Biden’s 2020 campaign rivals, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a joint resolution in the Senate Thursday to direct the removal of U.S. troops from any proximity to the war between a Saudi-backed coalition and Houthi rebels in Yemen.  

The senators identified a Saudi naval blockade of Yemen’s ports of causing a humanitarian disaster. 

“This war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis today and it is past time to end U.S. complicity in those horrors. Let us pass this resolution so we can focus on diplomacy to end this war,” Sanders said in a statement.  

Bin Salman played a central role in launching the war in Yemen in 2015, expecting the Houthis to be defeated quickly. 

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) noted that Biden will be meeting with other senior Saudi officials in addition to the crown prince but also said it’s important for the president to talk about the importance of respecting human rights.  

“He has to bring up our human rights concerns and he has to make that clear,” he said.  

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said last month that Biden “is not afraid to talk tough with foreign leaders.”  

“So I have every confidence that President Biden will handle this very well,” he said.  

But Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said there will be many issues to discuss with Saudi leaders and that a discussion over human rights won’t take over the meeting.  

“He should bring up human rights, democracy issues, of course,” he said. 

But he added “the reality is the president has a big agenda.” 

“It’s about creating a bulwark against Iran, it’s about creating peace among countries, it’s about deepening our ties with Israel and it’s about creating energy stability,” Menendez said.  

“In the midst of all of that,” talking about the Khashoggi and human rights “is part of the challenge he has meeting with MBS,” he said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

New law can fast-track 988 success

Our country is on the verge of transformational change in how we provide care for people dealing with mental health or substance use challenges. 

Beginning Saturday, July 16, people will be able to connect with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline through an easy-to-remember number: 988.  

This long overdue upgrade in crisis care will occur three weeks after passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the largest investment in our nation’s mental health programs since the 1960s.  
Independently, both developments are seismic shifts that will result in better mental health and substance use treatment. Together, they represent the biggest opportunity in a generation to transform access to lifesaving services. 

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (soon to be the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) is a network of more than 200 state and local call centers funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and administered by Vibrant Emotional Health. The Lifeline offers 24/7 access to trained crisis counselors who can help people experiencing suicidal, substance use and other mental health crises. 

Transitioning to 988 as the universal entry point will expand awareness of the Lifeline, which will likely increase demand for crisis services. In 2021, the Lifeline received 3.6 million calls, chats and texts, which includes over 540,000 calls routed to the Veterans Crisis Line – this number is expected to at least double within the first full year of 988 implementation. 

The July 16 transition to 988 is a great step forward and the beginning of the transformation. Just as it took many years for 911’s infrastructure to become what it is today, there is still much work to be done at the federal, state and local levels to expand crisis response capacity.  

While the Lifeline is itself a point of de-escalation and intervention, the ultimate vision for 988 is to have robust, in-person crisis services available in every community in the country. In other words, a viable alternative to calling 911 for anyone experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis. 
But there is another piece to this complicated crisis care puzzle. 

The expansion of Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs), which will receive funding through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, will help accelerate that timeline and supplement the ability of communities to respond to calls for help.  

Earlier this week, I joined President Biden, a bipartisan group of lawmakers and mental health and substance use care advocacy organizations to commemorate the new law. It provides a historic amount of funding to increase access to comprehensive mental health and substance use services, including millions in new funding for the Lifeline and for mental health awareness training programs. But most transformative, is the expansion of CCBHCs nationwide.  

CCBHCs are clinics that offer an expanded range of services, including 24/7 access and crisis services – to anyone who walks in the door, regardless of their ability to pay. At a minimum, CCBHCs provide prevention treatment and planning, 24/7 mobile crisis teams, suicide prevention, crisis stabilization, and extensive post-crisis care. Three out of four CCBHCs already operate a crisis call line, including through the Lifeline network.  

Originally implemented in eight (later 10) states through a Medicaid demonstration, their results are stunningly successful. CCBHCs reduce wait times and emergency room visits, reduce homelessness and expand states’ capacity to address the overdose crisis. 

Allowing all states the opportunity to apply for comprehensive CCBHC funding puts us on a fast track to fulfill the promise of 988. The increased presence of CCBHCs in communities nationwide will help ensure someone calling 988 not only has someone to talk to but someone to come to them or someplace to go, if needed.  

July 16 is just the beginning. More funding for the Lifeline is still needed and states must now act to take advantage of the CCBHC opportunity in front of them. But together, we’re well on our way to transforming mental health and substance use crisis care in America.  

Chuck Ingoglia is a licensed social worker and president and CEO of the National Council for Mental Wellbeing, a membership organization that drives policy and social change on behalf of over 3,100 mental health and substance use treatment organizations. 

Source: TEST FEED1

NAACP head calls on DOJ to investigate Jayland Walker killing

The head of the NAACP on Thursday urged the Justice Department to launch a probe into the killing of Jayland Walker, a Black man who suffered dozens of gun wounds after being shot by police in Akron, Ohio.

“No one is above the law, including law enforcement. Those responsible for hunting him down and firing 90 bullets at him should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. We are urging you and your Department of Justice to conduct a thorough investigation into the murder of Jayland Walker, and – if what we all saw with our own eyes is true – federally charge the officers responsible for his gruesome assassination,” Derrick Johnson, the president and CEO of the NAACP, wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Johnson argued that law enforcement handled a mass shooting in Highland Park, Ill., a predominantly white and affluent Chicago suburb, differently. He said that while the suspect involved in the July 4 shooting was arrested by law enforcement “with dignity,” the coroner’s office received Walker’s body while he was still handcuffed.

“If the officers’ conduct did not scream just how inhumane and fatally dangerous they are, the very fact that they handcuffed his corpse speaks volumes. This does not happen to white people in America,” Johnson said. “Just over a week ago, a mass shooter was detained as a ‘person of interest’ before being officially charged 24 hours later. He killed seven people and wounded countless others at a parade, yet officers did their job professionally and arrested him with dignity.”

“It is time to hold law enforcement officials accountable for treating Black Americans by different standards. We pray that your department will launch this critical investigation in the quest for justice in this case,” he added. 

The Justice Department told The Hill it did not have a comment on the Thursday letter, noting a previous statement they issued on the matter.

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, and the FBI Field Office in Akron, Ohio are closely monitoring and reviewing the circumstances surrounding the death of Jayland Walker,” a Justice Department spokesperson previously said.

“The FBI continues to coordinate with state and local partners to provide resources and specialized skills. If the evidence reveals potential violations of federal criminal statutes, the Justice Department will take appropriate action.”

The NAACP and some lawmakers have previously pressed the Justice Department to look into the shooting, which took place in late June.

Walker was stopped for equipment and traffic violations, with officials later turning into a two-part vehicle and foot pursuit. Police said they perceived Walker was a threat because a gunshot appeared to be fired from his car during the vehicular chase. 

A loaded magazine, gold ring and handgun were later recovered in his vehicle. 

Source: TEST FEED1

House to move toward vote on assault weapons ban

House Democrats will soon vote to move an assault weapons ban to the floor, marking the first time in decades that Congress has put lawmakers on record barring the popular firearms.

The announcement came Friday morning from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who said the panel will stage its markup of the bill next Wednesday. 

The move comes in response to a series of recent, high-profile shootings around the country, including a massacre in May at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were killed, and another at a July Fourth parade in Highland Park, Ill., which left seven people dead. 

In both cases, the alleged shooter was a young man using an AR-style semi-automatic rifle, which is a chief target of the Democrats’ legislation.   

“It is beyond frightening and disturbing that a weapon that was designed as a tool of war has found its way into the hands of 18 year olds and onto our streets,” Nadler said in a statement. “Any weapon that allows for the quick and efficient slaughter of children in our schools has no place in our communities.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), would prohibit the sale, transfer, import and manufacture of hundreds of models of semi-automatic weapon that boast certain specific features, including those that combine pistol grips with detachable magazines. The ban would not apply to those who already own such weapons.

Those firearms rank among the most popular in the country, and opponents of the ban — including all but a handful of Republicans — say it would trample on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owners. 

Supporters counter that the Constitution, written in an age of single-shot muzzle loaders, was not intended to apply to much more powerful and efficient weapons, especially since they’ve been the popular choice of perpetrators in countless mass shootings over the past decade.  

“How many more kids need to die in their schools before we finally crack down on these dangerous firearms which were designed for war?” said Cicilline.

It’s unclear when, or if, the bill would come to the floor after it passes through the Judiciary Committee, as expected. The ban is wildly popular among House Democrats — Cicilline’s bill has 211 Democratic co-sponsors — but several moderates facing tough reelection contests are not on board. 

“I don’t believe in bans on weapons,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said recently.

Still, liberal Democrats have been clamoring for a vote, if only to get Republicans on record opposing a concept that has widespread popular support. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday had promoted the ban as an effective public safety measure, while suggesting the Democrats have the votes to pass it on the floor. 

“There is great support in our caucus for an assault weapon ban,” she said. “It’s about our children. More children die from gun violence in each year than cancer, car accidents, or anything.”

The decision to move the legislation, even at the committee level, reflects the seismic shift in public attitudes when it comes to gun reform, which was considered a third-rail on Capitol Hill two decades ago, particularly for Democrats whose support for the 1994 assault weapons ban was considered a factor in securing George W. Bush’s White House victory in 2000. That ban expired in 2004. 

Since then, the country has has seen a long string of prominent mass shootings, including violence targeting a congresswoman in Tucson, Ariz., elementary school students in Newtown, Conn., nightclubbers in Orlando, churchgoers in Charleston, S.C., country music fans in Las Vegas, high schoolers in Parkland, Fla., and Jews praying at a synagogue in Pittsburgh. 

The carnage has altered the public’s perception of federal firearm policies in drastic ways, and Congress last month enacted a bipartisan package of reforms designed to promote public safety. It did not include the Democrats’ favored reforms, including a broad expansion of background checks and the assault weapons ban.

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin rejects adding climate spending, tax hikes on wealthy, striking blow to Biden agenda

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) told Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) “unequivocally” on Thursday that he will only support a narrow budget reconciliation package before Labor Day if is does not include new spending to fight climate change or taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, according to a Democrat briefed on the talks.

Manchin has informed Schumer that if Democrats move the reconciliation bill in August, he will only support a provision to lower prescription drug prices and a two-year extension of expiring health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, according to the source.  

Manchin has backed away from a commitment he made privately to Schumer last week to close a tax loophole on wealthy individuals and couples who earn more than $400,000 and $500,000 annually in pass-through income. That revenue would have been used to extend the solvency of Medicare’s hospital trust fund by three years to 2031.  

Senate Democrats now face a choice of either moving forward on a slimmed-down reconciliation bill to lower the costs of up to 20 prescription drugs and avoid a spike in Affordable Care Act-subsidized health care premiums before the November midterm elections or to keep trying to negotiate with Manchin over proposals to fight climate change.

Schumer is pushing to move the reconciliation package to the floor before September because many states are planning to announce Affordable Care Act premium increases next month.  

Waiting until the end of September, when the budget reconciliation instructions that protect the bill from a GOP filibuster are due to expire, could mean that it would then be too late to avoid health insurance premium increases.  

Given that the August recess is only a few weeks away, it doesn’t appear Senate Democrats will be able to pass any of the climate provisions that seemed possible just a few days ago, such as tax credits for clean energy and a fee on methane emissions.  

“Political headlines are of no value to the millions of Americans struggling to afford groceries and gas as inflation soars to 9.1 percent. Sen. Manchin believes it’s time for leaders to put political agendas aside, reevaluate and adjust to the economic realities the country faces to avoid taking steps that add fuel to the inflation fire,” said Manchin’s spokeswoman, Sam Runyon.  

Schumer’s office did not offer a public statement in response.  

Manchin’s explicit statement that he will not support a bill in August with any provisions addressing energy or the climate or raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations comes as he had previoiusly indicated his openness to supporting such proposals throughout the negotiation with Schumer.  

Schumer told Manchin during the talks that he wanted to spend $375 billion to address rising global temperatures and made several major concessions to win the West Virginia senator’s support.  

The Democratic leader committed the bill would use half of all revenue gained from tax increases and tax loophole closures to reduce the deficit, a major Manchin priority.  

Schumer also agreed to drop tax credits for electric vehicles, offering to strike the provision after months of trying to change Manchin’s mind on the subject. He told Manchin he would provide the same credits for hydrogen-battery fueled cars as for electric vehicles.  

And he offered Manchin concessions on permitting reform for oil and gas drilling, to make it easier to get fossil fuels to market.  

Despite weeks of cajoling and concessions, Manchin told Schumer flatly on Thursday that he will not support a bill that included the negotiated climate provisions, a major disappointment for progressives such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). 

Now green Democrats have to decide whether they’re willing to vote for a budget reconciliation bill next month that does not include any significant reforms to curb global warming.  

Even with Schumer’s concessions to Manchin, the package retained tax credits for clean energy initiatives and would have lowered carbon emissions by close to 40 percent by 2030, according to a Democratic estimate.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky calls Russian strike on Vinnytsia: Work of a 'terrorist state'

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday condemned the Russian missile attack in the city of Vinnytsia as the actions of a “terrorist state.”

The Russian strike on Thursday in the city in central Ukraine killed at least 23 people and wounded more than 100 others far from the front lines of the ongoing war. Zelensky accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of purposefully targeting civilians with no militaristic intent.

“And if someone launched a missile attack on a medical center in Dallas or Dresden, God forbid, what would it be called? Wouldn’t it be called terrorism?” Zelensky said.

The attack comes as Russia has engaged in a series of small-scale offensives in the last few days as the country continues its effort to win additional territory. Ukrainian forces said Wednesday that Russia launched 10 missiles into the city of Mykolaiv killing at least five people.

Rescue operations in Vinnytsia are ongoing as rescue teams with sniffer dogs continue to search for survivors. As of Friday, more than 73 people — including four children — remain hospitalized as a result of the strike, and 18 people are still missing.

Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said Friday that Russian forces had carried out more than 17,000 attacks on civilian targets since Putin invaded the country on Feb. 24.

Source: TEST FEED1

Is New York about to become the Wild West?

When the six conservatives on the Supreme Court struck down New York’s century-old Sullivan Act, requiring a license to pack a pistol on the street, alarmed New York legislators were perplexed as to what to do.

The venerable Sullivan law required “proper cause” to obtain a gun carry permit, and the Supreme Court held that this violated the Constitution’s guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So, New York enacted the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, to become effective Sept. 1, which may court even more litigation for the justices to fret about.

The new measure, containing 21 pages of carefully drafted verbiage, provides for pre-licensing background checks, mental health, social media screening and training in the use of a firearm, all of which will probably pass muster.

But the act also designates much of the state as a “sensitive location” where legally permitted guns will be legally prohibited. Sensitive locations must be “clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.” What makes a sign “clearly and conspicuously identified” will keep lawyers and judges busy for a decade.

Some New York locations are off limits to guns, period. For example, the legislation says, “the area commonly known as Times Square” will be gun free. But there are a host of practical problems. Does Times Square, “crossroads of the world,” mean the corner of Broadway and 42nd Street, the entire theater and business district nearby or something else? And if I can carry a gun legally on Broadway and 43rd Street, what do I do with it if I want to cross the border to 42nd Street? Central Park, like all New York state parks, is also off limits. Central Park, hosting 42 million visitors annually, comprehends 843 acres of Manhattan.

All private property, and places where liquor is served, is to be presumptively gun free. This would include stadiums, train stations, airports, theaters and the Empire State Building. But the property owner at the risk of social ostracism may post a sign saying, in substance, “guns are welcome.” So now there will be signs all over the state, insufficient to transmit the message to the blind, the illiterate or the non-English speaking, indicating whether or not guns are permitted inside. 

As Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, blanket bans in public buildings and, of course, courthouses are kosher. Federal law makes it a criminal offense to “knowingly possess… or cause… to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon” in or near a federal courtroom But for us lesser mortals, anyone you meet on the street or pass in a car may be legally armed and possibly dangerous.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which Thomas in 2018 called a “constitutional orphan,” has now discovered its parentage. The amendment on its face protects the existence of “well regulated” militias, not unregulated private armories. But the conservative justices, who profess to be “textualists,” ignore that language and see a personal right to keep and bear arms baked into the founding document. Another conservative judge, the late Chief Justice Warren Burger, famously said that this interpretation of the Second Amendment “is one of the greatest pieces of fraud that I have seen in my lifetime.”

While hunting as a sport is down in the United States, the number of guns in private hands has spiked by more than a third, to 120 guns per 100 Americans. And, post Bruen, this figure is sure to balloon even further. More licensed guns mean more guns on the street and more guns in the hands of criminals, who may acquire them illegally by gift, sale or theft from licensed gun owners.

America is already armed to the teeth. As of 2018, we accounted for less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but over 40 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns.

The National Rifle Association and the rest of the gun lobby have historically argued that guns do not kill people, people do that. Gun owners say that they need to have guns for their self-defense — to protect themselves from unforeseeable aggressors or to take up arms against the government. With almost 24,000 Americans dying this year as the result of gun violence, the gun lobby argument is as easy to demolish as shooting fish in a barrel.

All this evidences the militarization of American society. Assault weapons, capable of mass killings in the blink of an eye, were once illegal. Now they are readily available and are selling like hotcakes.

The six conservative justices have not thought it through. The court’s decision is virtually impossible to administer. The practical problems are enormous. If I can legally carry a revolver in my pocket and capriciously decide to approach a “sensitive location,” what do I do with the gun before entering?

And, if I can legally keep a gun in my apartment, and legally carry it on the street, how do I legally carry the weapon through the halls and public areas of the building without violating the law? The law says no guns on private property unless the landlord says OK.

What about guns on college campuses, where the cancelationists are clashing with the traditionalists and the wokesters are inhibiting the free speechers? The new law makes a “sensitive location” any “grounds, owned or leased of any educational institutions, colleges and universities.”

But how is this to be policed? As Justice Elena Kagan observed during oral argument in Bruen, many universities such as New York University have multiple campuses and multiple buildings separated by public streets.

And what of the burden on the police? It used to be that an officer, seeing someone with a bulge in his pocket in a high-crime area late at night, could “stop and frisk” the suspect for unlicensed weapons. But how does the cop distinguish between a licensed bulge in the pocket and an unlicensed one? Erased is the requisite “reasonable suspicion” that a crime is being committed.

Meanwhile, we can expect legal battles over how much signage is permitted and where it is to be placed. New York may become a thicket of “NO GUNS” and “GUNS WELCOME” signs obscuring the old “MEN WORKING” and “BUILD WE MUST FOR A BETTER NEW YORK.”

To borrow from Oscar Hammerstein, “There is nothing like a sign.”

James D. Zirin is a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.

Source: TEST FEED1

Yellen blasts Russian officials at G-20 meeting, says they are responsible for 'unjust war' in Ukraine

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Friday criticized Moscow during a meeting that included a top Russian minister and other officials from the Group of 20 (G-20) nations on Friday, asserting that Russian officials shared “responsibility for the innocent lives lost” in “Russia’s brutal and unjust war,” according to a Treasury official.

“I condemn Russia’s brutal and unjust war in the strongest possible terms. Russia’s war defies the G-20’s spirit of cooperation and has set back our efforts to ‘recover together, recover stronger,’” the Treasury secretary said during an opening session of the G-20 in Bali, Indonesia, according to the official.

“Russia’s officials, including those participating in this session, should recognize that they are adding to the horrific consequences of this war through their continued support of the Putin regime,” she reportedly noted. “You share responsibility for the innocent lives lost and the ongoing human and economic toll that the war is causing around the world.”

Russian Deputy Finance Minister Timur Maksimov was present at the closed-door meeting on Friday, according to a source familiar, who also confirmed that the top Russian official was still in the room when Yellen made her remarks.

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov was virtually present for the meeting, the source familiar said.

A Western official who spoke with the Post noted that Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland offered a similar sentiment to Russian officials during the meeting.

“It is not only generals who commit war crimes; it is the economic technocrats who allow the war to happen and to continue,” she said, the Post reported, citing the Western official.

It is not the first time that Yellen has taken action during scheduled G-20 meetings to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A U.S. Treasury official confirmed to The Hill in April that Yellen would be skipping some G-20 meetings in protest of the international conflict. 

Source: TEST FEED1