Archive by Author

Biden applauds Senate advancing gun safety bill

President Biden on Thursday applauded the Senate for advancing gun safety legislation while acknowledging that Congress for too long has failed to make progress on gun violence.

“When I made the heartbreaking visit to families in Newtown nearly ten years ago, I promised them then that we would take action to help keep our kids safe in the classroom,” Biden said in a statement. 

“It’s taken a decade, because for too long Congress has failed to make meaningful progress on gun safety reform. Our country has endured too many tragedies since then, most recently with the horrific shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde,” he added.

Biden was vice president when a gunman killed 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in 2012. At the time, Congress failed to pass stronger gun laws, which would have expanded background checks and instituted an assault weapons ban. 

The president said families in Uvalde, Texas — where a gunman killed 21 people at an elementary school in May — called for action out of Washington when he visited them last month.

“When I traveled to Uvalde last month, I heard a clear message from families there: do something. Since then, I’ve carried their message forward – enough is enough, this time we have to do something,” he said.

The president said he is glad to see Congress moving closer to passing the legislation and called on lawmakers to send the bill to his desk. The Senate on Thursday advanced the bill past the threat of a filibuster, setting up a final vote for later in the day or Friday.

“Our kids in schools and our communities will be safer because of this legislation. I call on Congress to finish the job and get this bill to my desk,” he said.

The legislation, which would be the furthest-reaching gun legislation that Congress has considered in a decade, would enhance background checks for gun buyers younger than 21, provide money to administer red flag laws and crack down on straw purchasers. The measure advanced in a 65-34 vote, which included 15 Republican votes.

Biden has largely waited on the sidelines for the Senate to finalize such a bill and had left it up to Capitol Hill to come to an agreement.

Meanwhile earlier on Thursday, the president condemned the Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York state law that made it difficult to obtain a permit to carry a handgun outside the home, saying that more must be done to protect Americans in the wake of the Uvalde and Buffalo, N.Y., mass shootings.

Source: TEST FEED1

States can’t regulate guns, but they can ban abortions — why?

The Supreme Court has just limited substantially the power of the states to regulate the carrying of guns in public. The justices refused to recognize that different states, or different areas within states, have different needs with regard to gun control.  They have ruled that one size fits all under the Second Amendment.  

This ignores the reality that the “militia” referred to within the Second Amendment were well-regulated by the states. The words of the Constitution would certainly seem to authorize state-by-state and city-by-city differential regulation. But not for the Supreme Court, which has essentially denied states the inherent power to protect their citizens against gun violence. 

The Supreme Court will soon decide another case involving the regulation of abortions. Singing a completely different tune, the same majority which took the power to regulate guns from the states will likely give the power to regulate abortions back to the states.

Why the difference?

Defenders of this decision will argue that the right to bear arms is explicitly guaranteed by the Second Amendment, whereas there is no explicit reference to abortion in the Constitution. This argument goes too far.  The Second Amendment itself has limiting language in the words “well-regulated militia,” strongly suggesting that the states have the power to regulate gun ownership. Moreover, even though the word “abortion” is not in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people, including women, to be secure in their persons. At the time of the Framing, the words “secure” described what we today call “the right of privacy.”

It would seem to follow, even for a constitutional textualist, that both rights — to possess a gun in public and to end a pregnancy in private — have some basis in the Constitution. And both would seem to allow for some degree of state regulation. 

Absolutes are anathema to good governance. No right is ever absolute, even the freedom of speech, nor should any right be subject to complete abrogation. Our system of federalism divides the power to regulate between the states and the federal government. Our system of checks and balances also allocates different powers to the three branches of government. The Supreme Court’s decision in the gun case, and its likely decision in the abortion case, distorts these balances. 

The reality is that these decisions, both of which fly in the face of long precedents, are solely a function of numbers: After President Trump was able to nominate three justices — one of them improperly, in my opinion — the conservative majority is likely to prevail for a good many years. What is often ignored, however, is that the current conservative majority is anything but conservative. It is a judicially activist majority comprised of justices with agendas. They decide cases more broadly than necessary, and they render decisions depriving the other branches of government of their legitimate powers. 

What, then, is to be done to right these judicially imposed wrongs? In an ideal world, the Constitution would be amended to allow reasonable gun control and reasonable access to abortion. But ours is a Constitution that was deliberately designed to make amendments difficult. We have had only 27 amendments in the past two-and-a-quarter centuries. 

It is unlikely that either of these two cases could make it through the difficult amendment process, so executive and legislative actions would be required to test the limits of these dangerous decisions. But, in the final analysis, the Supreme Court will have the ultimate authority to determine the limit on actions by the popularly elected branches. 

In a democracy, the voices of the people cannot, however, be ignored. And both of these absolutist decisions — the ruling on guns just released, and the ruling still expected on abortion — will not be popular with a majority of Americans who support both reasonable gun control and reasonable access to abortion. 

This is the time for political action, not violence. It is the nature of democracy, as well, that you win some and lose some. We will have lost a good deal with these two decisions if the abortion decision turns out as expected, but the process is ongoing — and, as Martin Luther King reminded us, “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” 

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus for Harvard Law School, is the author of numerous books, including “The Case Against the New Censorship,” and “The Case for Color-Blind Equality in an Age of Identity Politics.” He is also the host of The Dershow on Rumble. Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.

Source: TEST FEED1

What will it take for Congress to up the ante for antibiotics?

This month marks one year since the reintroduction of The Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions To End Upsurging Resistance (PASTEUR) Act which fills a critical gap in our national and global healthecosystem by providing a mechanism to encourage biotech companies big and small to return to the long-abandoned business of antibiotic development. We are pleased to see growing support from both Democrats and Republicans for its innovative subscription model approach of paying for novel antibiotics based on value rather than volume. Yet, we don’t have time to wait for action. The very real threat of increasing antibiotic resistance makes the PASTEUR Act “must pass” legislation this year. Congress needs to up the ante and pass the PASTEUR Act. 

While most of us are fortunate enough to be able to treat infections with a quick course of oral antibiotics, the stakes could not be higher for individuals dealing with antibiotic resistance; this includes immunocompromised individuals, young children, athletes, individuals who recently gave birth, and those who live in hospital or nursing home environments. An increasing number of bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, potentially placing us on course for another pandemic that, unlike the current one we live in, is preventable if we prioritize rebuilding the antibiotics pipeline.    

People with cystic fibrosis (CF) face a heightened vulnerability to infections because of the persistent mucus in their lungs, which requires routine use of antibiotics as part of their CF care. And, as a result of this medically necessary treatment, many people with CF find themselves battling difficult-to-treat infections for which existing antibiotics are not effective.  One example of this is MRSA, a dangerous type of infection that is increasingly resistant to antibiotics which will affect one quarter of people living with CF in the United States each year (the median age of infection being 11 years old).   

One 19-year-old woman living with CF in New Jersey today has cultured MRSA as long as she can remember, however she can only count two antibiotics that have made a difference against this dangerous infection. As a child, she routinely took these antibiotics, which usually were enough to rebound her back to her baseline lung function before the infection. But with the routine use of these drugs came waning effectiveness. When she turned 16, those final two antibiotics no longer worked. She got very sick, leading to an elongated hospital stay that caused her to miss school. With no remaining treatments, the MRSA continues to threaten her health and her future. The PASTEUR Act can change this.  

Antibiotics are a hallmark of modern medicine, ensuring our safety in activities ranging from surgeries to having a baby, or playing high school sports. Yet we are watching their efficacy fade rapidly in real time because Congress won’t prioritize revitalizing this essential tool for all of our health by passing the PASTEUR Act.  

At the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, we invest in research to accelerate the development of new antibiotics. Our Infection Research Initiative is a comprehensive approach to improve outcomes associated with infection, including enhancing detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment that also has the potential to benefit the broader public. Three of the seven most common infections in people with CF — caused by Aspergillus, MRSA, and Pseudomonas — are part of the Center of Disease Control’s Watch List.   

The Foundation represents less than 1 percent of the American population, and we have spent $109 million in three years to address this issue. However, this crisis will not be solved with one organization’s funding. We are doing our part to develop new tools to combat infections, but research investment alone will not solve these challenges — we need Congress to do its part. 

CF is a rare disease, but in the case of antibiotic-resistant infections, people with CF face challenges today that a larger population is at risk for facing tomorrow if we do not continue to manage this issue and develop new antibiotics. Products in the antibiotics pipeline need to be supported by a robust ecosystem of incentives to combat the low market, high societal value of these goods. That’s where the PASTEUR Act comes in. We know just how high the stakes are if the PASTEUR Act does not pass.   

This week, nearly 70 teens who have CF or love someone with the disease are meeting with their members of Congress to urge action, especially on passing the PASTEUR Act. These teens are well-versed in what life is like when there is an increased risk of antibiotic-resistant infections.  

The question they are asking Congress, what we are all asking is this: Will Congress up the ante for antibiotics? 

Mary Dwight is senior vice president, chief policy and advocacy officer at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Filmmaker says Trumps did not have editorial control over documentary

The filmmaker set to testify before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol says the Trump family had not control over what would be contained in the documentary he was filming about the former president’s campaign around the time of the riot.

“The Trumps did not request and were not granted any editorial control over the series,” a legal representative for filmmaker Alex Holder wrote in a statement posted to Holder’s social media on Thursday.

Holder told the Trumps “from the onset” of his work that he would be the one with editorial control over the project.

The director is expected to testify before the committee Thursday after providing the panel with never before seen raw footage from his work on the documentary series, which is slated to run on Discovery+ and is titled “Unprecedented.”

In a trailer of the series, which published on Wednesday, Trump is seen saying, “I think I treat people well, unless they don’t treat me well, in which case you go to war.”

The filmmaker also captured the moment then-Vice President Pence was told that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wanted him to use the 25th Amendment against Trump.

In a subsequent clip posted to his Twitter account on Thursday, Holder showed footage of Trump stage managing the on-camera set up before an interview.

“The Trumps did not have editorial control,” he said. “Full stop.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Here are the 15 Republicans who voted to end a filibuster on gun safety legislation

Fifteen Republican senators voted Thursday to end a filibuster on legislation to enhance background checks and provide billions of dollars in new mental health services, giving the bill a good chance of passing Congress and getting signed into law.  

Congress passed legislation in 2018 to encourage states to share more records with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System but this bill is much more significant than that piece of legislation, according to senators and aides involved in the gun-safety negotiations.  

Senate Democrats thought there was slim chance of picking up even 10 Republican votes for a bill to meaningfully address gun violence in the wake of mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.

But the talks received a major boost when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tapped Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, to lead the negotiations with Democrats.  

Negotiators released the text of the 80-page bill Tuesday. Here are the 15 Republicans who voted Thursday to advance it to a final vote: 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) 

Cornyn is a former Texas Supreme Court justice and a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary panel with an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association.  

Cornyn attempted to negotiate a compromise with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in 2021 on legislation to expand background checks but the talks fizzled.  

The senior Texas senator made clear early in this spring’s talks that he would not support universal background checks or bans on assault-style rifles or high-capacity magazines.  

Cornyn emphasized throughout the negotiations that law-abiding gun owners would not face new regulatory hurdles but instead wanted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people who pose a threat to themselves or their communities.  

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) 

McConnell also has an A-plus rating from the NRA but he told reporters Tuesday that he’s more concerned about preventing future mass school shootings than keeping his perfect rating from the gun-rights group. 

“What I’m mainly concerned about is dealing with the issues that have been brought to the fore by these mass shootings which are directly related to school safety and mental health. And I think Sen. Cornyn and his team have put together a bill that addresses the problem,” he said. 

McConnell tapped Cornyn to lead the talks because he wanted to get a result, say Republicans who know McConnell well.  

The GOP leader says he’s willing to work with Democrats on what he sees as common sense legislation to move the country forward and he sees the gun-safety bill of doing just that. 

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) 

Tillis won a tough re-election race in 2020 and is viewed as a pragmatic lawmaker.  

Murphy, the lead Democratic negotiator, said he developed a good rapport with Tillis on a recent congressional delegation trip and hoped to work with him on an issue, not expecting that they would soon be negotiating a major gun safety bill.  

Tillis raised some concern over red flag legislation at the earliest stages of the negotiation but later found a way to hammer out a deal with Democrats.  

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) 

Toomey participated in one of the first bipartisan meetings after the Uvalde shooting and has worked on gun-safety issues for years.  

Toomey negotiated a proposal with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in 2013 to require background checks for all gun-show and online sales but created an exception for transactions between friends and family. 

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 

Collins helped lead the discussions on legislation to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking.  

She introduced the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act in April of last year and cosponsored legislation with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in 2018 to authorize and establish procedures for requesting a risk protection order from a court to take guns away from individuals who pose imminent risk to themselves or others. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) 

Graham has worked with Blumenthal for several years on red flag legislation and said early in the talks that he wanted to encourage states to administer red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.  

Graham has been criticized by conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) for being open to passing gun-safety legislation, claiming he would “hurt the very people that voted for him and put him in office.”  

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) 

Blunt played a big role in crafting the mental health component of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.  

He and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) announced their bill in June of last year to expand access to the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic program.  

The Blunt-Stabenow bill became a core component of the gun-safety legislation.  

Blunt, the Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman, is a member of McConnell’s leadership team and he will retire from Congress at the end of the year.  

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) 

Portman is also a member of McConnell’s leadership team, serving as an advisor.  

He played a leading role in negotiating last year’s $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package and often works with Democrats on legislation.  

He will retire from Congress at the end of the year.  

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) 

Burr is one of McConnell’s loyal allies in the Senate and will retire from Congress at the end of the year.  

Tillis’s role as a core negotiator gave Burr some added incentive to support the gun-safety legislation.  

He was one of 10 Republicans who signed his name to a bipartisan framework of gun-safety principles, along with 10 Democrats, on June 12.  

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) 

Romney is considered one of the three most likely Republican swing votes in the Senate along with Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). 

Romney kept his participation in the gun-safety talks at a low profile but he signed the bipartisan framework released earlier this month.  

Romney has not been afraid to split with most Republicans on big votes. He voted twice to convict former President Trump on impeachment charges in 2020 and 2021.  

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) 

Murkowski kept quiet in public throughout the gun-safety negotiations, deflecting reporters’ questions about the proposals under consideration by saying she was more focused on other issues.  

Murkowski did not support the Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks in 2013.  

She is one of only two Republican senators up for re-election to vote to advance the gun-safety bill  

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) 

Young is the other Republican senator up for re-election this year who voted in support of the bill.  

He is a former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee who served on McConnell’s elected leadership team in the last Congress.  

Young knows as well as any Republican senator how important it is to be able to appeal to suburban women voters in the midterm election.  

That bloc is seen as critical to Republican efforts to win back the Senate majority and strategists believe that school violence is a motivating issue for suburban moms.  

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) 

Ernst is a member of McConnell’s leadership team as the vice chairwoman of the Senate Republican Conference.  

Ernst signaled during the negotiations that she would be open to considering raising the minimum age limit for buying an AR-15 to 21.  

She did not sign the bipartisan framework of principles was considered a likely yes vote after she expressed willingness to consider a variety of options to prevent future mass shootings.  

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) 

Capito is an advisor to McConnell’s leadership team and viewed as a pragmatic dealmaker willing to work across the aisle. 

She negotiated for weeks with the Biden administration in 2021 in hopes of getting a bipartisan infrastructure deal. While she herself was not able to hammer out a final deal with senior administration officials, her efforts helped lay the groundwork for the bipartisan deal that emerged later in the year. 

Capito’s home-state colleague Joe Manchin has long been involved in bipartisan negotiations to reduce gun violence. Manchin participated in the bipartisan talks on the gun-safety bill from the very start and Capito’s “yes” vote establishes some more common ground with him.  

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) 

Cassidy, medical doctor, worked on the mental health component of the bill. He participated in the very first bipartisan meeting in Murphy’s Capitol basement hideaway over the phone.  

Cassidy has shown he’s not afraid to break with his party’s base on big votes, such as his vote to convict Trump on a charge of inciting insurrection.  

The Louisiana lawmaker is a no-nonsense policy expert who’s willing to work with Democrats on legislation he thinks makes good sense for the country.  

Source: TEST FEED1

US orchestras including more work from women and minorities

American orchestras have long favored the repertoires of classical composers like Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, and have struggled to incorporate the music of living composers, especially those from marginalized groups.  

But a new report released this week from the Institute for Composer Diversity shows that orchestras are improving in terms of the diversity of composers whose music they perform.  

Now, work from women and minority composers makes up almost 23 percent of programmed work, a 400 percent increase since 2015. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The study found that the use of work from living composers has almost doubled, with only 11.7 percent of all work used in orchestras coming from a living composer in 2015 to now 21.8 percent of pieces coming from living composers. 

While the programmed works by women and composers of color increased, programmed works by composers who are women of color have experienced the greatest boost, according to the study .  

In 2015, only 0.4 percent of programmed work in American orchestras were created by women composers of color, according to the report.  This year, that work from female composers of color jumped to 6.1 percent, representing a 1,425 percent increase over the last seven years. Programmed works by living composers who are women of color increased from 0.4 percent in 2015 to 4.6 percent in 2022.  

“The goal of this report is to explore the repertoire programming of professional orchestras in the United States in the 2021-2022 season and to put that programming into context through a longitudinal examination of repertoire since 2015,” the report states. “To spoil the surprise, they are indeed programming differently. Much has improved, but there’s still more work to do.” 

Women composers and composers of color with the most programmed performances this season include Lili Boulanger; Anna Clyne; Samuel Coleridge-Taylor; Duke Ellington; Gabriela Lena Frank; Jessie Montgomery; Florence Price; Joseph Bologne, chevalier de Saint-Georges; and William Grant Still.  

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

ENTIRE POLICE DEPARTMENT RESIGNS IN MISSOURI

UN CALLS FOR US, OTHERS TO END ‘IMPUNITY’ FOR POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE

RACIAL CONTROVERSY ERUPTS AROUND ROYALS AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE

PRINCIPAL ESCORTED OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION AFTER DELIVERING FIERY SPEECH

Source: TEST FEED1

Kinzinger gets his star turn on Jan. 6 panel

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of the most outspoken critics of former President Trump, will get his star turn on the Jan. 6 select committee Thursday when he leads the panel in laying out the case that Trump tried to pressure the Department of Justice (DOJ) into overturning the results of the 2020 election.

The six-term Illinois congressman is one of two Republicans on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, serving alongside Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the panel.

Both lawmakers broke with Trump in the aftermath of the Capitol riot. Since then, they have not shied away from hammering the ex-president and his top allies in the party, including their own congressional colleagues.

While Kinzinger’s prominence on the committee has been overshadowed to a degree by Cheney, who led the first hearing that laid out the panel’s case and has been a key figure in subsequent proceedings, his time at the microphone on Thursday is expected to make headlines, when the GOP congressman questions former Trump DOJ officials who rejected the then-president’s pressure campaign to keep himself in power.

Former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel are all slated to testify in-person.

The presentation will also put fissures within the GOP on full display, when the American public watches a Republican lawmaker — who has been lambasted by some and lionized by others in the party — argue that a former Republican president tried to use a federal agency to remain in power despite losing a legitimate election.

The hearing comes nearly 11 months to the day that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tapped Kinzinger to serve on the panel, solidifying the break between the Illinois congressman and a bulk of the Republican Party.

But the fracture began well before that.

On Jan. 7, one day after the Capitol riot, Kinzinger made headlines as the first GOP lawmaker to call for Trump’s removal using the 25th Amendment. The Illinois Republican said “the president caused this,” referring to the storming of the Capitol, and called Trump “unfit” and “unwell.”

“The president now must relinquish control of the executive branch voluntarily or involuntarily,” Kinzinger said.

But when the Cabinet did not invoke the 25th Amendment, and Congress decided to go down the path of impeachment, Kinzinger again made his objection to Trump known, voting to impeach the president for incitement of insurrection.

He was joined by nine Republican colleagues, including Cheney, whom he now sits beside on the dais during Jan. 6 hearings.

It was a complete reversal for Kinzinger, who joined all Republicans in opposing Trump’s impeachment in 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The congressman later said voting against Trump’s first impeachment was his “biggest regret.”

And then came his appointment to the Jan. 6 select committee. After Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) pulled all his nominees from the group as a response to Pelosi blocking two GOP lawmakers from sitting on the panel out of concern for “the integrity of the investigation,” the speaker said she was adding Kinzinger to the team.

The congressman accepted the invitation, but not without offering a veiled swipe at Trump and his allies.

The Illinois Republican said “For months, lies and conspiracy theories have been spread, threatening our self-governance.”

“Let me be clear, I’m a Republican dedicated to conservative values, but I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution—and while this is not the position I expected to be in or sought out, when duty calls, I will always answer,” he added.

Since then, Kinzinger has frequently flung insults at Trump and his colleagues in Congress, describing the former commander-in-chief as “one of the weakest men that I have ever seen,” and calling McCarthy a “feckless, weak, tired man.”

Republicans, however, have not ducked away from the conflict. In February 2022, the Republican National Committee (RNC) took the stunning step of formally censuring Kinzinger and Cheney for their criticism of Trump and participation in the Jan. 6 investigation.

“Nothing surprises me more,” Kinzinger said in response to the RNC’s decision.

The congressman did, however, surprise some when he announced in October, after much speculation, that he would not seek reelection this year, putting an expiration date on his 12-year tenure in the House.

In a video announcing the decision, the congressman denounced the bitter partisanship that has tainted politics.

Under new redistricting maps, Kinzinger would have been lumped into a district with Rep. Darin LaHood (R), setting the scene for a fierce primary battle.

The Illinois Republican has not yet indicated what he will do once he departs Washington at the end of the term, but in November he said “this isn’t the end of my political future, but the beginning.”

Last year he formed a new PAC, Country First, that was introduced as “a renewal of the Republican Party” and “a re-examination of the values and ideals that drew him toward the party to begin with.”

But despite next steps, Thursday’s hearing will perhaps be Kinzinger’s largest platform yet to take on the president he voted to impeach, and shed light on what the committee has described as a conspiracy Trump orchestrated to keep himself in power.

“We’re going to show what happened as the president was doing his best to basically put the Department of Justice stamp on his lies and conspiracies to embolden people,” Kinzinger told CNN on Wednesday, referring to Thursday’s hearing.

He said the presentation will show “yet another prong of what the president, the former president, tried to do to take away — no matter who you voted for, to take away your vote.”

Source: TEST FEED1

The dangers of Biden’s permissive environment

President Biden proclaimed “America is Back” when he took office in January 2021, but his actions have fallen short, and neither our allies nor our adversaries are buying it. Nicaragua’s recent approval for Russian forces to train within its borders and conduct military drills with its army is the latest example of America’s descent within its own hemisphere. The American public is losing confidence in Biden’s ability to lead the country and make sound decisions concerning national security.

Biden has created a permissive environment in which our adversaries perceive weakness, and our allies question our commitments. In many cases, Washington waits for others to take the lead and then reluctantly follows. Fear of “escalation” has constrained the U.S. and now we cower to threats from countries with nuclear weapons, cede to their demands, and actively avoid direct confrontation. Russia is testing this administration — and China, North Korea and Iran have taken notice. Biden’s permissive environment has reawakened President Bush’s “axis of evil.” 

Arguably, the state of the world today is the culmination of badly negotiated treaties, poorly thought-out policies and ill-advised decision-making. Some of this began early in the administration, when the Biden team announced its intention to renegotiate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal; issued executive orders that crippled domestic energy supplies, creating a dependence on foreign oil; and then accelerated the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, giving the Taliban control.  

The collapse of Afghanistan signaled a “green light” to our adversaries. When asked about the impact of the U.S. withdrawal, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus responded, “One can say with confidence that some potential American adversaries seized on that withdrawal to say … ‘See? We told you the U.S. is not a dependable partner and ally, and we told you that the U.S. is a great power in decline.’” Former Attorney General Bill Barr similarly said, “The Biden administration botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, and its repudiation of domestic energy supplies compelled [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to view Biden as weak, and the policies of the administration prompted Russia to invade Ukraine.”

Under the permissive environment created by the Biden administration, our adversaries have learned from one another just how far they can push the U.S. and NATO to get what they want. Some notable examples include:

China has warned against foreign interference in helping Taiwan to defend its independence. Putin similarly warned of “consequences that you have never experienced in your history” just days before invading Ukraine. China’s announcement of a security pact with the Solomon Islands in mid-April added another layer of security implications for the Pacific Rim to consider, as China continues to build island fortifications in the South China Sea, and now a naval base in Cambodia.

North Korea is executing Iran’s playbook of using provocations to gain concessions with missile launches. According to ABC News, “Some experts have said North Korea is trying to perfect its weapons technology and pressure the U.S. into offering concessions like sanctions relief amid long-stalled disarmament talks. North Korea also might view the U.S. preoccupation with the Ukraine conflict as a chance to accelerate testing activity without any serious response from Washington.”  

Iran fired up to 12 missiles in March toward the direction of the U.S. consulate in Erbil, Iraq. Coincidentally, negotiations had stalled in Vienna concerning the revival of the nuclear deal. Israel has opposed such a deal, saying it will do what is necessary to protect their country, prompting more threats from Iran. 

Without established boundaries, our adversaries will continue to push the envelope. Diplomacy has its limits, and economic deterrence doesn’t have much impact when like-minded countries support one another or control resources upon which the West depends. The Biden administration’s policy of “strategic ambiguity,” a cousin of the Obama administration’s “strategic patience,” provides zero deterrence. What we need is “strategic clarity.” 

Strong alliances and action provide the message that Russia, China, North Korea and Iran understand. Instead, our adversaries are hearing a loud and consistent message from this U.S. administration: If you have a nuclear weapon, have access to natural resources or finished products in high demand, or have territorial aspirations, we won’t necessarily stand in your way. 

Sadly, in fact, Biden’s permissive environment may actually accommodate our adversaries.

Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel, served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14, working with NATO partners in the Black Sea and Baltics. Follow him on Twitter @JESweet2022.

Michael Pregent, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as a U.S. Army Intelligence officer with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. After leaving the military, he was a subject matter expert for the Defense Intelligence Agency, with roles as an intelligence adviser to Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno in Iraq. Follow him on Twitter @MPPregent.

Source: TEST FEED1

NAACP, Vote.org teaming up to register, mobilize Black voters in lead-up to midterms

The NAACP announced that it has partnered with nonprofit organization Vote.org in an effort to mobilize and register eligible Black voters ahead of November’s midterm election. 

Both organizations in a statement on Thursday said the partnership, which will launch later this month, will provide digital voting tools and training to the NAACP’s network of over 2 million activists and leaders across the U.S.

NAACP leaders will use these voting tools in their communities in an effort to simplify the voting process, lower the barriers to political participation and increase turnout among Black voters.

Vote.org’s online tools helped more than 39 million people register to vote, verify registration, request mail ballots, find their polling location and obtain detailed information on their state’s voting information in 2020, according to the statement. 

Vote.org’s online tools also helped more than 4.2 million voters register to vote and reached minority and young voters more than 651 million times through its GOTV program, as well. 

“Instead of celebrating 2020’s historic voter turnout, state lawmakers have spent the past two years passing laws to prevent young people and communities of color from casting their ballots,“ Vote.org CEO Andrea Hailey said in a statement. “Our democracy is stronger when everyone can vote. Vote.org is proud to work with NAACP to defend voting rights and make sure that every eligible voter can make their voice heard in November and beyond.”

This comes as 19 U.S. states have either passed or enacted restrictive voting rights laws in the aftermath of President Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. 

From November 2020 to July 2021, more than 8.6 million voters were purged from official registration lists nationwide, with three counties disproportionately purging minority voters’ from their official registration, according to data analysis from TargetSmart.

“Our lives are being taken from us and our democracy is being stolen from us. We have been gunned-down at the grocery store and silenced at the ballot box. Now, the Supreme Court is coming for our constitutional rights as well,”  NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement.  “One thing is clear, our rights and our political power are being targeted and gutted as we speak.”

“At this moment, our right to defend all rights – the right to vote – hangs in the balance. If we don’t organize and exercise our right to vote this November, we may very well lose our ability to participate in future elections,” Johnson concluded. “This is why we are partnering with Vote.org. We are partnering to defend democracy for all.”

Source: TEST FEED1