Archive by Author

Matthew McConaughey urges 'call to action' after school shooting in Texas hometown

Matthew McConaughey is urging a “call to action” after a school shooting in his hometown of Uvalde, Texas, saying the country cannot “accept these tragic realities as the status quo.”

The “Dallas Buyers Club” actor issued a statement on Instagram on Tuesday, just hours after reports that a gunman killed at least 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School in the Lone Star State.

“Once again, we have tragically proven that we are failing to be responsible for the rights our freedoms grant us,” McConaughey, 52, said.

The Academy Award winner said Americans should ask themselves, “What is it that we truly value? How do we repair the problem? What small sacrifices can we individually take today, to preserve a healthier and safer nation, state, and neighborhood tomorrow?”

It’s time, McConaughey said, to “re-evaluate, and renegotiate our wants from our needs.”

“This is an epidemic we can control, and whichever said of the aisle we may stand on, we all know we can do better. We must do better,” the “Greenlights” author, who last year flirted with a potential Texas gubernatorial run, said in his statement.

“Action must be taken so that no parent has to experience what the parents in Uvalde and the others before them have endured,” McConaughey wrote.

“And to those who dropped off their loved ones today not knowing it was goodbye,” the father of three added, “no words can comprehend or heal your loss, but if prayers can provide comfort, we will keep them coming.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump, Cruz scheduled to speak at NRA convention days after Texas shooting

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), former President Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are all scheduled to speak at the National Rifle Association leadership summit in Houston — which will now take place in the shadow of a horrific Texas school shooting.

The event, which begins Friday, has been in the works for months. It is hosted by the Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the NRA.

The NRA’s website states that Trump will headline a “star-studded cast of political heavyweights” in what will be a “celebration of Second Amendment rights.”

Also included among the speakers are South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R), North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson (R) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas).

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is also featured on the speakers list on the event’s website as of Wednesday, but a spokesperson from his office told The Hill that “prior to the tragedy in Uvalde we had already informed the NRA he would not be able to speak due to an unexpected change in his schedule.”

“He has to be in D.C. for personal reasons on Friday,” a statement added.

The NRA did not immediately respond to The Hill when asked if the event is still scheduled to go ahead.

Abbott, Trump, Cruz and Noem did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.

Cruz came under criticism on Twitter from progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) over the event.

Cruz called the killings of 19 school children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas “horrific” and thanked law enforcement for their quick response.

Ocasio-Cortez responded to Cruz’s tweet by saying: “Aren’t you slated to headline a speaking gig for the NRA in three days – in Houston, no less? You can do more than pray. Faith without works is dead.”

Source: TEST FEED1

EPA proposes protections for Alaska salmon fishery, in blow to proposed mine

The Biden administration is moving toward protections for a major sockeye salmon fishery in Alaska — at the expense of a proposed gold and copper mine.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a decision that would protect the the Bristol Bay watershed, dealing yet another blow to the imperiled Pebble Mine project. 

The issue has been ongoing for years and has pitted environmentalists, tribes and fishing interests against mining interests. 

During the Trump administration the mine, which had been vetoed under former President Obama, appeared on its way to approval. 

But, after prominent conservatives rallied against it — and executives were caught making controversial remarks on tape— the Trump administration decided to deny a permit for the mine.

Since then, the Biden administration has also previously indicated that it was likely to protect the mine. 

This story is developing and will be updated.

Source: TEST FEED1

What powers do states have to regulate guns and abortions?

Two of the major cases awaiting Supreme Court decisions involve opposite sides of the same coin. A New York case involves the power of the states to regulate guns; a Mississippi case involves the power of the states to regulate abortions. Many of those who support the power of the state in one situation oppose it in the other because the politics point in opposite directions.  

There are constitutional differences between the cases, but there also are similarities. Both should be considered in a nonpartisan manner.  

New York’s gun case involves a construction of the Second Amendment, which guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But it guarantees that right in the context of “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The juxtaposition of the right to bear arms with a well-regulated militia strongly suggests that the Constitution’s framers intended the bearing of arms to be “well regulated,” as a militia would be. The Framers could simply have articulated the right as absolute (in the way the First Amendment does) without preceding it by a limiting reason.  

Accordingly, there is a strong constitutional argument that the states — which in colonial times had the power to regulate their militias — maintain the power to regulate gun ownership and use. This view is strengthened by the Tenth Amendment, which relegates to the states or to the people “all the powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it.” 

Thus, the issue of state power to regulate guns under the Second Amendment is squarely before the court. So, too, is the issue of state power to regulate abortions.

Unlike “arms,” abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. But the Fourth Amendment does guarantee “the right of the people to be secure in their persons.”  This surely has some implication for the right of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. The state may well have the power to regulate abortion to some degree but, as with guns, the issue before the Supreme Court is how much power does the state have? 

Here the Ninth Amendment comes into play. It says that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The “people” include pregnant women, and the question is whether the Ninth Amendment, taken together with the Fourth Amendment, accords pregnant women some degree of control over their “persons.” Although the Fourth Amendment does not mention the word “privacy,” it uses a word that commonly included what we now regard as the right of privacy — namely, “security.”

Most Americans believe that a woman should have control over her pregnant body during the early months of her pregnancy but not during the late months. They recognize that a fetus is not like an appendix, which can be removed simply at the will of the person and their doctor. The fetus is a something; even at its earliest stage, it is a potential life. 

When exactly it becomes an actual life, subject to legal protection against abortion, is a complex matter of science, morality and religion. For most Americans, it is a matter of degree — but for some, on both sides of the political spectrum, it is not. For deeply religious Catholics and evangelicals, life begins at conception, and there is no matter of degree involved; they regard the earliest fetus as no different than a child. For some advocates of a woman’s right to choose, that choice extends even to the end of pregnancy; they regard the fetus as constitutionally indistinguishable from an appendix which a woman can simply chose to remove at any stage.

In the abortion case before the Supreme Court, the issue presented is whether a Mississippi statute which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks is constitutional if a state decides on that cutoff. The issue before the court, therefore, is not whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled but whether it should be limited to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

If the leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito turns out to be the final majority decision, the court would have reached out to decide an issue not properly before it. Such a decision would constitute judicial activism and would violate the constitutional limitations on the courts to decide only “cases” and “controversies” that are properly before them. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have no constitutional authority to render advisory opinions on issues that are not necessary to decide in order to resolve the specific case.

In these two controversial cases, the current court is likely to decide in favor of more state power to regulate abortions than guns. This may reflect the political leanings of the justices as much as neutral constitutional principles regarding the allocation of power and rights among the states, federal government, courts and people. 

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.” Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Manufacturers, FDA commissioner testify on baby formula shortage

Baby formula manufacturers and the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are slated to testify before a House panel Wednesday morning.

The hearing comes amid an ongoing baby formula shortage. It is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Will the rhetoric of Biden’s Asian Odyssey stand up against China?

President Biden accomplished an incredible array of policy goals in his five-day Northeast Asian swing. Perhaps most important of all, he repudiated the legacy of his predecessor, Donald Trump. There would be no more love-ins with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, with whom Trump professed to have “fallen in love” after their summit nearly four years ago in Singapore, and the U.S. would resume an aggressive role in gathering a host of nations together in a display of economic goodwill after Trump gratuitously yanked the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the day he was inaugurated as president in January 2017.

It’s a toss-up as to which of Biden’s avowed aims is more important. High on the list is his understanding with South Korea’s new president, Yoon Suk-yeol, for resuming real-live joint military exercises that Trump canceled as an unexpected bonus for Kim in the glow of the first few hours after the summit. The cancellation apparently was news to Jim Mattis, then the U.S. defense secretary, who wasn’t informed, much less consulted, about it. American and South Korean military commanders say it’s necessary for troops to coordinate in actual ground, air and naval exercises if they are to withstand a North Korean attack. The computer games the Americans and South Koreans have played since 2019 are fine but they’re no substitute for troops in action.

But agreement on joint war games is just one dividend of Biden’s visit to Seoul. When Biden got to Tokyo, he sought to relieve Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of doubts as to the depths of American support in case of a war with China over Taiwan. To Japan, a Chinese invasion of the island province, 100 miles off China’s coast, would present the specter of Chinese attack on Japan, beginning with takeover of the Senkaku Island grouping in waters near Taiwan.

Japan kept the Senkakus after the Japanese surrender in August 1945 while abandoning Taiwan, which it had ruled since defeating China in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. Now Japan stubbornly holds on to the Senkakus against challenges by Chinese “fishing boats,” which the Japanese Coast Guard fends off with water cannon and mega-loudspeaker warnings. The “Nationalist Chinese” government of the Republic of China also lays claim to the Senkakus, but Taiwan is not aggressively pursuing its claim. In Taipei, President Tsai Ing-wen is far more worried about planes from the mainland intruding regularly on Taiwan’s air defense identification zone.

Biden did not dispute acknowledgement of the “one China” policy — under which the U.S. acknowledges Taiwan as a Chinese province — but he pleased Kishida by remarking that the U.S. will remain true to its “commitment” to Taiwan and join in its defense if China invades. He was safe in offering that reassurance. It’s clear, as he intimated, that China would not stage an attack that would result in a bitter war similar to that of resistance by Ukraine to Russia’s invasion. There was no departure from America’s long held policy of “strategic ambiguity” when it comes to Taiwan, which is purchasing vast amounts of U.S. military hardware even though no U.S. troops or even advisers are on the island.

Realistically, the economic component to Biden’s mission was just as important as the military. “Resilience” in the supply chain of semiconductors has been a major concern to manufacturers relying on a steady flow of chips for just about everything. That’s why Biden’s visit to Samsung’s huge plant, soon after landing at Osan Air Base south of Seoul on Air Force One on the first day of his trip, was of more than symbolic importance.

Economic understanding may have been the real centerpiece of Biden’s trip, as seen in the promulgation in Tokyo of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework in which 13 countries, including the U.S., pledged to participate. The actual statement, however, was long on flowery language and short on specifics. What matters in the end is how, or even if, they will strive to achieve such lofty aims as fair and resilient trade, supply chain resilience, infrastructure and clean energy while reforming taxes and cleaning up corruption.

As if to round off his mission on an even more incredible high note, Biden on the last day drew together the leaders of what’s called “the Quad” — Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. The Quad is obviously an anti-China grouping, and the four would appear to agree on the need to stand up to China. 

As in the case of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, however, the appearance of unity was a little deceptive. It was all very well to decry the war in Ukraine, but India’s Narendra Modi has not signed on to the idea of castigating Russia for the invasion. As in the days when the late Secretary of State John Foster Dulles railed against “the immorality of neutrality,” India still does not want to offend Russia. And the dedication of Australia’s newly-minted prime minister, Labor leader Anthony Albanese, who flew to Tokyo almost immediately after his election victory over the outgoing conservative Scott Morrison, was not certain, too, considering his background as a leftist who in younger days seemed almost anti-American.

Still, to superficial appearances, Biden’s trip was a resounding success, in which he said the right things, responded to the concerns of Korea and Japan, and got together a range of nations in pursuit of their own and American interests. So doing, he undid the damage done by Trump’s policies while challenging China’s aggressive intentions around its periphery.

Now it remains to be seen whether the rhetoric of Biden’s Asian Odyssey will stand up against challenges from China and divisions among the nations whom Washington would like to bring together. It’s not likely, for example, that South Korea and Japan will bury historic differences even though Korea’s President Yoon has promised to strengthen ties to the U.S. while disavowing the efforts of his predecessor, former President Moon Jae-In, in appeasing North Korea.

In the glow of all the summitry, Washington would like to believe Seoul and Tokyo are united in common cause. If they really are, then Biden’s mission will go down as a true success.

Donald Kirk has been a journalist for more than 60 years, focusing much of his career on conflict in Asia and the Middle East, including as a correspondent for the Washington Star and Chicago Tribune. He currently is a freelance correspondent covering North and South Korea. He is the author of several books about Asian affairs.

Source: TEST FEED1

Chris Jansing pledges ‘the straight story’ with new MSNBC anchor gig

Chris Jansing says she’s ready to focus on the facts and “old-fashioned good news” as the new anchor of “MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Reports.”

“I don’t remember a time this intense, and in many ways as consequential to everyday Americans, back to back to back,” Jansing tells ITK in an interview this week ahead of her debut Thursday as the face of the cable network’s 1 p.m. hour.

“It’s unrelenting,” she said, citing inflation, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Supreme Court’s leaked draft ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the midterm elections and the COVID-19 pandemic. “And so part of what we want to do is have a safe place essentially for people to come and know that we’re going to give them the straight story. That’s all — it’s just the straight story.”

The veteran journalist — who’s spent more than two decades at MSNBC — was named the new anchor earlier this month, following a programming shuffle that saw the Chuck Todd-hosted “Meet the Press Daily” move to NBC News’s streaming platform.

The rejiggering also comes amid MSNBC’s wave of big-name hires among former Biden administration officials. Symone Sanders, Vice President Harris’s former chief spokeswoman, launched her eponymous weekend show on MSNBC in early May, while on Tuesday ex-White House press secretary Jen Psaki was named as host of a new streaming program premiering next year.

Asked if the opinion programming headed by prominent Democrats affects her work, Jansing replied, “It doesn’t. And I’ll say honestly: Next month I will have been at MSNBC and NBC News for 23 years, and never once in 23 years has anybody at MSNBC ever suggested to me that I should slant my reporting in any way. And if they did, I couldn’t work there.”

“Do people know the difference between what I do and what Symone does? Of course they do,” Jansing said. “And do they come to us for different purposes? I do believe that they do.”

“I think that there’s a place for that reporting, that analysis, that opinion. I watch it myself. And I’ve always believed — again, going back to the old-fashioned reporting — that if you give people both sides of the story, it allows them to make an important decision,” she added.

Talking to ITK from Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport following her reporting on Georgia’s primary elections, Jansing said she expects to continue racking up the frequent flyer miles covering not only huge, breaking news events, but also issues that “deserve more attention.”

“I’ve traveled literally around the world,” the senior national correspondent said. “And there’s no substitute for being there for a big story. So that is absolutely something that we’re going to prioritize, is being on the ground where big news happens.”

While she has the focus for “MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Reports” mapped out, Jansing said her lunchtime plans are a different story.

“I have filled in every single hour of the day on MSNBC, and it’s a question I always ask: When am I supposed to eat? Because I’m hungry pretty much all the time,” Jansing said.

“Honestly, it’s going to have to be early breakfast, early light lunch, second light lunch mid-day before dinner.”

“If you watch MSNBC, you’ve seen a hangry Chris Jansing. It’s not pretty,” she quipped.

One of 12 children growing up in Ohio, Jansing credits her career to her super-sized family.

At her father’s urging, the whole brood used to sit down together every night to watch the evening newscasts.

“It was really important to him that not just his children be educated, but that they take part in the democratic process,” Jansing, 65, recalled.

“But I think more than that, for the reporting part of it, when you’re the youngest of 12, you have to ask a lot of questions or you will be left in the dust,” Jansing said.

“It’s a true story that my oldest sister — who was nearly 20 years older when she left the house right about the time I was born — I did not realize she was my sister until I was about 4½ years old.”

“She’d come over and visit all the time and then I heard her call my mom ‘Mom.’ And I said, ‘Why are you calling her mom?’ And she said, ‘Because she’s my mother. I’m your sister,’” Jansing said.

“So I learned early on that asking questions is a pretty good way to get information.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Texas shooting suspect allegedly bought assault rifles days after turning 18

The suspected gunman in a mass shooting that left 19 children and 2 teachers dead at a Texas school allegedly bought two assault rifles and ammunition legally in the days after his 18th birthday.

Texas state Sens. John Whitmire (D) and Roland Gutierrez (D), who had been briefed by authorities, said that the suspect, Salvador Ramos, had legally purchased one of the rifles from a federally licensed gun store on May 17, according to multiple news reports. That was one day after he turned 18.

The following day, on May 18, he reportedly purchased 375 rounds of ammunition, according to the Houston Chronicle. Then, on May 20, he allegedly bought his second rifle.

Ramos also posted ominous messages on social media, suggesting that “the kids should watch out,” and hinted that he had bought two “assault weapons,” Gutierrez said, according to the Associated Press.

Ramos had made multiple online statements, including posting pictures of the two AR-15-style rifles on the Instagram account “salv8dor_” which classmates confirmed to CNN belonged to the suspected shooter. The Instagram account with the posts was deleted shortly after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) identified Ramos as the alleged shooter.

Ramos also allegedly messaged a former classmate, who remained anonymous, pictures of the guns and ammunition.

“He would message me here and there, and four days ago he sent me a picture of the AR he was using … and a backpack full of 5.56 rounds, probably like seven mags,” the classmate told CNN.

“I was like, ‘bro, why do you have this?’ and he was like, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ ” he added.

Ramos also posted to a TikTok page, which only had a single clip of a Subway Surfers mobile game. However, the bio read “Kids be scared irl [in real life].”

The shooting comes just days after the shooting at a Tops supermarket in Buffalo that left 10 dead.

Following the two massacres, Senate Democrats are pushing for a major floor debate on gun control as Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) faces increasing pressure to bring a gun-control measure to the floor before the July 4 recess.

Source: TEST FEED1

Here’s the gun control bill Steve Kerr called on Senate to pass

In an impassioned speech just after a school shooting in Texas left at least 19 children and two adults dead on Tuesday, Golden State Warriors’ head coach Steve Kerr criticized the U.S. Senate for failing to vote on background check legislation.

“There’s 50 senators, right now, who refuse to vote on H.R. 8, which is a background check rule that the House passed,” Kerr said ahead of his team’s game versus the Dallas Mavericks in remarks that went viral. “There’s a reason they won’t vote on it: to hold on to power.” 

“So I ask you, Mitch McConnell, I ask all of you senators who refuse to do anything about the violence and school shootings and supermarket shootings … I ask you, are you going to put your own desire for power ahead of the lives of our children, and our elderly and our churchgoers?”

“When are we gonna do something?” Kerr added. “I’m so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families that are out there. … I’m tired of the moments of silence. Enough!”

Kerr, a longtime gun safety advocate whose father was assassinated in a shooting outside his office in Beirut in 1984, referenced a bill known as the Bipartisan Background Checks Act that would expand federal background checks required for gun purchases.

Currently, federal law does not require that unlicensed gun sellers operating online or at gun shows conduct background checks prior to the purchase of arms. 

H.R. 8, which passed the House in March 2021, would close loopholes in gun purchases, requiring a background check for all gun sales.

Twenty-two percent of Americans reported that they purchased their most recent gun without any background check, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

Background checks have effectively blocked 4 million sales “to people prohibited by law from having guns,” the group said.

Still, H.R. 8 and another proposal to strengthen background checks have stalled for over a year in the Senate, where 10 Republican votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has begun the process of getting those bills on the upper chamber’s calendar.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), however, has said H.R. 8 is too far-reaching.  The centrist Democrat has instead pushed to vote on a narrower plan that exempts transfers and sales between family and friends, a proposal he negotiated with input from the National Rifle Association (NRA) in 2013.

“It’s astonishingly frustrating,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said of the process. “These are things that most gun owners want and yet this rabid god-damned NRA won’t let the Republicans move.”  

Source: TEST FEED1