Archive by Author

Is the West considering the ripple effects of the war in Ukraine?

This week the United States Congress approved another $40 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, bringing the total to $54 billion since the outbreak of the war. The West’s focus on the provision of military aid is sensible, yet as others have written, little thought has been given to the ends to which those weapons are put. 

Three months into the war, it appears not much consideration has been given to the effects of this war and the impact regional response to the conflict will have in the longer term. Washington and other European capitals must think beyond the immediate military campaign to the broader geopolitical strategic questions and considerations, not the least of which is a militarily and economically hobbled pariah Russian state — something that is being obscured by the unwarranted triumphalist rhetoric and narrow focus on the theatre aspects of this war. 

There are, unsurprisingly, far more questions than answers as the war is not yet over and the post-war environment is equally unclear. Nonetheless, there are outlines forming and issues on the horizon with which the West will have to contend. Sadly, one would be forgiven for thinking that that policy and news cycles appear to have moved on. Here, it is not the absence of answers that is alarming, but the fact that the questions are not being asked at all that should concern the public.  

Ukraine’s forces have, in some places, pushed Russian forces back to pre-invasion lines of control and borders — progress that is to be commended. There is a risk that the newly emergent triumphalism will be just as blinding as the (accurate) narratives of Ukrainian heroism in the face of overwhelming odds. This has led to ill-considered rhetorical questions as to whether Ukraine will invade Russia. These questions do nothing more than illustrate the lack of forethought in policymaking and feed into Russia’s information war.  

There is also the risk of mismanaged expectations for Ukrainian success, that Kyiv’s progress will somehow lead to a reversal of 2014 losses and it retaking Crimea and ending the frozen conflict on its eastern border. At the same time, much of the punditry’s discussions about the war’s end have omitted the agency of the Ukrainians themselves, as though an accord will be reached between Washington and Moscow.  

Washington and others must also begin thinking through how the war’s end could set the stage for the next conflict. A militarily weakened and economically hobbled Russia will not sit idly by, simply retreating to its corner and refraining from responding. This is not a call for limited aims when it comes to Russia, rather, a recognition that the war’s end will inevitably affect European peace and security in the year after and the five years beyond. Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO (Turkey’s objections notwithstanding) will unequivocally be a net positive for the alliance, but considering how the enlarged alliance will respond to Russia’s post-Ukraine behavior is critical for its long-term success.  

The full effect of Western sanctions on Russia is also yet to be felt. In the near term, Moscow has artificially buoyed the ruble and, at least superficially (and likely temporarily), adapted to the economic pressure — due to significant state intervention. Expectations that this should continue to be the case are misguided. The long tail economic impact is unclear. The shortage of precursor goods and finished products will increasingly affect Russia’s industrial base, and whilst autarky is attractive for some within Russia’s politics, it is likely unsustainable for the country. 

While the economic interconnectedness of Russia with Europe and the world did not stop it from invading Ukraine, a wholly disconnected Russia would have little to lose from acting in the future, whether under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin or a successor. The West’s willingness to incur continued economic disruption as a function of disconnecting from Russia is by no means guaranteed. Severing energy relationships may be politically palatable now, but as market competitiveness decreases and domestic populations feel the pain, it is unclear whether this is sustainable. This is to say nothing of the fact that the non-Western world — Latin and South America, Africa, and Asia — have continued to trade with Russia. A global response to Ukraine, this is assuredly not.  

The cover story of the most recent Economist highlights the critically underappreciated secondary and tertiary effects of the war, not the least of which is food shortages. Russia and Ukraine are two of the world’s largest producers of grains and as a result of sanctions on the former and the war in the latter, this production is severely disrupted, if not outright halted. This will dramatically affect the Middle East and Africa, which imports a significant amount of its food from both countries. This, in turn, raises prices, puts pressure on government subsidies and leads to greater instability. Is the West preparing for or thinking about the resulting conflicts, whether new or exacerbated? Likely not.   

While Europe has rhetorically and militarily responded effectively to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has not fully gripped the leadership mantel of a war on its doorstep. That still resides with Washington as does, thus far, the bill for economic aid and relief to Kyiv. Rebuilding and reconnecting Ukraine with the world will not be cheap, and European leadership and investment will be critical. The G7’s recent commitment to provide $19.8 billion to aid Ukraine’s public finances is a good start. Yet, will European capitals be able and willing to address the longer-term challenges both in Ukraine and within their own countries resulting from the war? 

The military aspect of the conflict in Ukraine will likely, in hindsight, appear to have been the easiest and simplest part of the war. It is insufficient to only focus on this part of the war. The West must think about the war’s impact beyond Ukraine and how the ripples will be felt in other parts of the world and the global nature of global affairs. 

Joshua C. Huminski is director of the Mike Rogers Center for Intelligence & Global Affairs at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress and a George Mason University National Security Institute fellow. He can be found on Twitter @joshuachuminski. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Indiana fireman fatally shot trying to help motorist

An Indiana fireman was fatally shot earlier this week after attempting to help a motorist in southern Palmyra, Ind.

Indiana State Police reported on Wednesday that, according to investigators, Kentucky resident Justin Moore had been driving on an Indiana highway when he pulled over on Monday night and sought help to get gas, having apparently run out.

A reserve officer, the fireman, Jacob McClanahan, and one of McClanahan’s friends pulled over to stop and assist Moore. Moore told the officer during their interaction that he did not have any weapons in the car, though he did have a small knife, which he had been asked to have returned to the car, according to Indiana State Police.

“The investigation reveals that as Justin Moore entered his car to return the knife, he quickly turned around brandishing a shot gun and fired at Officer Holly. Officer Holly then returned fire with his department pistol. Justin Moore fired the shotgun a second time and fatally struck Jacob McClanahan. Officer Holly continued to return fire with his department weapon, fatally striking Justin Moore,” official said in their release.

An earlier press release noted the reserve officer was treated for minor injuries following the incident. 

Harrison Township Fire Department identified McClanahan as one of their firefighters, mourning his death in a post on Facebook.

“Nothing makes sense that anyone could be murdered while stopping & rendering aid. Jacob is a true hero that will forever be remembered living the selfless life he did. A true firefighter that was always there when you needed help. Godspeed Jacob T. McClanahan. Your brothers at Harrison Township will miss you. Gone but never forgotten. #RFB,” the fire department said Tuesday. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump endorses Loudermilk following Jan. 6 committee's request to cooperate

Former President Trump announced on Saturday he was endorsing Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) two days after the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol requested him to voluntarily cooperate with its probe.

“Congressman Barry Loudermilk is a fantastic Representative for the incredible people of Georgia’s 11th Congressional District,” Trump said in a statement issued through his Save America PAC.

“A U.S. Air Force veteran, Barry is working hard to Support our Vets, Grow the Economy, Lower Gas Prices, Secure our Border, Defend the Second Amendment, and Shrink the Size and Scope of the Federal Government by holding it accountable for unacceptable performance – just like we did with Accountability at the VA! Barry Loudermilk has my Complete and Total Endorsement!” he added.

On Thursday, the Jan. 6 committee wrote to Loudermilk requesting him to voluntarily cooperate with their investigation. The committee pointed to a tour that the congressman gave through the building before the riot. Following the attack, concerns that some members of Congress gave reconnaissance tours surfaced.

“Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021,” chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Minn.) wrote.

In a March joint statement issued by Loudermilk and the top Republican on the Administration Committee, Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), the two claimed that the tour was made by a “constituent family with young children meeting with their Member of Congress” and added it was “not a suspicious group or ‘reconnaissance tour.’ The family never entered the Capitol building.”

In a video released through the House Republicans on the Administration Committee on Friday, Loudermilk further claimed he had taken the family to have lunch at a House building cafeteria and said “some were actually wearing red baseball caps.”

Trump’s statement is among a slew of endorsements he offered on Saturday. Georgia’s primary is next Tuesday.

Source: TEST FEED1

Patients deserve immediate access to FDA-approved innovations — not bureaucratic restrictions

Innovation is the lifeblood that has made America the most economically successful nation in the modern era. Biomedical innovation, however, is a costly and risky business. For example, only 5 percent of new cancer compounds make it to patients. Once breakthrough drugs or devices are approved as safe and effective for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) patients — especially those on public health programs — should have immediate access to them. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. 

For example, Alzheimer’s patients had high hopes for Aduhelm from Biogen, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) apparently did not trust FDA’s judgment in approving the drug. Medicare limited coverage of Aduhelm to only people receiving it as participants in clinical trials.

While highly restricted coverage for an FDA-approved drug is unusual, Medicare regularly exercises coverage discretion with respect to medical devices. Approval from both FDA and CMS takes an average of 4.5 years, and cost as much as $94 million. For comparison, the process in Europe is often completed in about 11 months and in as little as three, and at much lower cost. For example, it took CMS 35 months to make a coverage determination on Independence Ibot Mobility System, a wheelchair that can navigate stairs and restore mobility.

Such delays disproportionately affect the poor, minorities and seniors. The wealthy among us can afford to pay out of pocket in full for FDA-approved breakthrough therapies and devices if their providers offer them. The more vulnerable members of our society, particularly, minority seniors on fixed incomes, do not have this option, leading to an equity gap because of government red tape.  

Aside from the negative impact on health, such delays increase barriers to innovation, especially for small technology startups. It takes these smaller firms longer to recoup their risky investments, if at all, and increases the costs of taking future risks to develop more lifechanging innovations.  

Health care access for vulnerable people drove the Trump administration to push the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technologies (MCIT) rule. This policy would have allowed for immediate provisional coverage of breakthrough designated devices approved by FDA, while CMS worked through the process of making a final coverage determination.  

Unfortunately, the Biden administration repealed MCIT shortly after taking office, a move protested by 61 bipartisan members of the House. The fact that CMS and FDA recently felt the need to justify these actions in a joint statement is telling. Promises to replace the program remain unkept.

When the Biden administration ends a program that helps the vulnerable, or severely limits access, the complaints of health disparities and inequity from the left ring hollow, and disingenuous. It is the poor, the underprivileged and the sick who are directly harmed by the repeal of this policy, not the wealthy and the healthy.  

Fortunately, not all policymakers in Washington view things the same way as the Biden administration. The House Republican Healthy Futures Task Force Treatments Subcommittee, spearheaded by Reps. Brad Wenstrup, DPM (R-Ohio), John Joyce, MD (R-Pa.) and Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), released a new set of policy solutions designed to encourage innovation and remove government bureaucrats from the equation so patients and their doctors can decide the best treatment options. 

These solutions include speeding up CMS coverage of breakthrough medical devices and treatments. They also include speeding up the FDA approval process for breakthrough technologies and expanding the availability of clinical trials to the willing public. This is a strategy akin to Operation Warp Speed for COVID-19, which would accelerate the discovery to market process while increasing access for more Americans, particularly those in rural areas. Additionally, these lawmakers oppose the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), an arguably flawed measure of the value of a life that other nations use to distribute health care resources. Treatment decisions should remain with patients, families and their doctors. 

America needs an economically sustainable public financing policy for health that incentivizes innovation and increases access to the latest technologies for the disadvantaged. This is particularly important for FDA approved breakthroughs that can make a difference to the lives of people who can least afford them. Bottom line: We believe that you and your doctor should decide on your care, and have that care available under your health plan — not have it ruled out by some bureaucrat in Washington.

Phillip H. Phan, Ph.D., is Alonzo and Virginia Decker professor at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School with joint appointment as professor in the Johns Hopkins Department of Medicine.  

Joe Grogan, JD is a visiting senior fellow at the USC Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, as well as former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under President Donald Trump.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Montana not following transgender birth certificate ruling

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — It’s been a month since a Montana judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a state law that required transgender people to undergo surgery before they could change their gender on their birth certificate, and the state still isn’t in compliance with the court order, the ACLU of Montana said.

Jon Ebelt, spokesperson for the state health department, said the agency is still working with the Department of Justice to review the April 21 ruling and its implications. He did not respond to an email asking if that meant the state was evaluating whether to appeal the order.

“We have continued to be patient in allowing the state time to comply with the court ordered preliminary injunction,” the ACLU of Montana said in a recent statement. “However, close to one month has passed and the State’s willful indifference to the court order is inexcusable.”

Montana is among a growing list of Republican-controlled states that have moved to restrict transgender rights, including requiring student-athletes to participate in sports based on their gender assigned at birth or making it illegal for transgender minors to be treated with hormones or puberty blockers.

Beginning in late 2017, transgender residents could apply to change the gender on their Montana birth certificate by filing a sworn affidavit with the health department. District Court Judge Michael Moses’ order requires the state to revert back to that process while the challenge to the new law is pending.

“The fact that the state refuses … evidences its lack of respect for the judiciary and utter disregard for the transgender Montanans who seek to have a birth certificate that accurately indicates what they know their sex to be,” the ACLU said.

If the state continues to violate the preliminary injunction, ACLU of Montana staff attorney Akila Lane said the organization would ask the court to step in.

“We’re only looking for the state to comply” with the preliminary injunction, Lane said Friday.

A week after the ruling was issued, Billings attorney Colin Gersten inquired about an updated gender designation application form on behalf of a friend. The Office of Vital Records responded saying: “We will contact you once we are able to discuss your options.”

Gersten made another inquiry about the proper form on May 11 and did not receive a reply, according to emails shared with The Associated Press.

Many transgender people choose not to undergo gender-confirmation surgeries. Such procedures are sometimes deemed unnecessary or too expensive, two transgender Montanans argued in their July 2021 lawsuit.

Republican state Sen. Carl Glimm, who sponsored the legislation, has argued that the Department of Public Health and Human Services overstepped its authority in 2017 by changing the designation on a birth certificate from “sex” to “gender” and then setting rules by which the designation could be changed.

Half the states, plus the District of Columbia, allow transgender residents to change the gender designation on their birth certificates without surgical requirements or court orders, according to the policy organization Movement Advancement Project. Just over a dozen states require surgical intervention, and such barriers are being challenged in several states, including Montana.

Over the past few years, other legislation has been aimed at transgender people, and the new laws are being challenged in court.

Alabama passed a law making it a felony to prescribe gender-confirming puberty blockers and hormones to transgender minors, but a judge has blocked the law. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott ordered child welfare officials to investigate parents of children receiving puberty blockers and other gender-confirming care as potential abuse. That, too, was blocked by a judge.

At least a dozen states have recently passed laws to ban transgender girls and women from participating in female sports, most recently Utah.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Judge hands Biden a legal defeat but a political reprieve

A federal judge appointed by former President Trump gave President Biden and Democrats an odd kind of reprieve on Friday.

Judge Robert R. Summerhays issued a preliminary injunction Friday afternoon preventing the White House from lifting Title 42, the controversial measure that has been used to turn back migrants and people seeking asylum at the southern border.

Biden had intended to end the measure on Monday. But his plans to do so had caused a near-mutiny in Democratic ranks, amid both practical and political fears.

There are concerns about the readiness of government agencies to deal with a massive new influx of migrants — projected to rise as high as 18,000 per day. 

There are also fears about the political potency of the issue, and its capacity to be weaponized by the GOP in the run-up to the midterm elections. 

Democrats already face a grim environment in those elections, with Biden’s approval ratings at a low ebb and inflation running at its highest levels since the early 1980s.

The judge’s injunction may only buy the Biden administration time. It prevents the administration from lifting the policy while an underlying case, in which 24 GOP-led states sued, is decided.

But for the moment, it gets the president off a painful hook.

Biden had been caught between the growing chorus of Democrats calling for Title 42 to be extended and other voices — both in the mainstream of his party and among the activist base – who believe its rescission is already overdue.

Democratic senators facing tough reelection battles this fall have been especially to the fore in resisting Biden’s plans. 

They include Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.) and Raphael Warnock (Ga.). Some liberal-leaning candidates have also expressed misgivings, including the party’s Senate nominee in Pennsylvania John Fetterman and Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, who is also a Senate candidate.

On the other side of the equation, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called for Title 42 to be ended, as have New Jersey’s two Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Robert Menendez.

The judge’s ruling at least permits Biden to say — for the moment — that he tried to end Title 42 — without immediately having to face the consequences for doing so. Politically, that may not be the worst position to be in.

Keir Murray, a Democratic strategist based in Texas, told this column: “Among the contingent in the Democratic base that strongly feels Title 42 should be repealed, if you can put that on a judge, that removes culpability in their eyes — while on the practical matter, not having to deal with the fallout.”

Murray, who stressed that he was speaking about the political implications of the Title 42 debate rather than the morality of the policy, added:

“I do think it is a political vulnerability [for Democrats] simply because there has been a large surge in folks coming to the southern border at a time when we are still in recovery from COVID. There is a lot of concern about public safety, generally speaking, around the country. It creates a political challenge for Democrats, absolutely.”  

The challenge is especially acute because of the huge numbers of attempted border crossings in recent months. Newly released figures for April saw that figure rise to 234,088 encounters — the highest number on record.

Opponents of lifting Title 42 note that if the Department of Homeland Security’s projection of up to 18,000 crossings per day became reality, it would amount to more than 500,000 crossings per month.

Republicans have been blasting away at the White House, seeking to brand the situation “Biden’s border crisis.” Those attacks — and the realities of the situation — are having an impact.

In a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, just 28 percent of adults approved of Biden’s handling of the situation at the southern border, while 58 percent disapproved. Among independent voters, 61 percent disapproved of how Biden had coped with the issue.

Matt Mackowiak, the chair of the Republican Party in Texas’s Travis County, said that when it came to the politics of the issue “all you need to know is that vulnerable House and Senate Dems opposed revoking Title 42. There’s huge risk if Biden goes through with it.”

Speaking moments before the judge’s decision was announced, Mackowiak predicted that Biden would be “hoping a judge blocks it. That way he can tell progressives he tried, but not actually do it.”

In a Friday evening statement responding to the judge’s ruling, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre noted that the administration “disagrees with the court’s ruling” and that the Department of Justice will appeal. But she also stated that, “in compliance with the court’s injunction, the Biden Administration will continue to enforce” the regulation until the appeal is decided.

Richard Murray, a senior research fellow at the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston, noted that the whole debate over Title 42 was “a pretty big deal if you are in Texas, with our 1800-mile border.”

Had the policy been lifted, he added, “all of that will intensify.”

That won’t happen just yet. 

But the White House has only got some temporary respite from the gathering storm.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

75 percent of Black Americans fear physical attack based on their race: poll

Three quarters of Black Americans say they are worried that they or someone they love will be physically attacked because of their race, according to a new poll released on Saturday.

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 75 percent of Black Americans polled are worried that they or someone they care about will be physically harmed because they are Black, a development that comes one week after a fatal shooting in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y.

Seventy percent of Black Americans polled said they believed half or more white Americans hold white supremacist beliefs compared to 19 percent who believed fewer than half white Americans do.

Two-thirds of those polled said white supremacy is a bigger problem today compared to five years ago. In comparison, 28 percent said the size of the problem is the same, while five percent said it was a smaller problem today.

Respondents were also asked about their feelings following the Buffalo shooting, in which a suspect, who is white, allegedly shot and killed 10 people and injured three others. Eleven of the 13 victims were Black, and the suspect allegedly espoused the racist “great replacement theory.” 

Seventy percent of respondents said the shooting made them feel sad, while 62 percent also said they felt angry. Just over half said they felt troubled, 34 percent said they felt afraid, 21 percent said they felt shocked and 8 percent said surprised. 

Speaking to The Washington Post’s Early 202 newsletter, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that lawmakers could only legislate a response to hate if “you first admit that the problem exists.”

“You never know what it is. It could be a severe enough punishment to be a deterrent. But if you don’t ever admit that it’s there, you can’t legislate it. No problem can be solved until you first admit that the problem exists. And we still refuse to admit that we have a race problem in this country. And it’s been there for over 400 years,” he said.

Clyburn, who was part of the civil rights movement lamented that the country had become used to tragedy.

“It seems as if they were just supposed to happen then you go and wait for the next one to happen. And they’re going to keep happening. But look at where we are (in) the country. It seems to be it’s coming from all sides. You wonder whether or not people just decided that the pursuit of a more perfect union has come to an end,” he said.

The Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted between May 18 and May 20 with 806 Black Americans. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump’s vice presidential running mate for 2024?

Every day, more and more Republicans seem convinced that Donald Trump will run for president again in 2024 and secure the party’s nomination. If that happens, who might he select as his running mate? One logical candidate comes to mind: former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during Trump’s administration.

Haley has elevated herself into the discussion of potential Republican presidential candidates for 2024. At least for me, realistic candidates include Trump, Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and perhaps Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who gets kudos from the base while challenging the entrenched, elite GOP establishment in Washington.

Haley has been traveling the nation, acquiring valuable chits from politicians. If she should run for president, a number of them could be in her debt. That said, she is also on record as saying that if Trump runs in 2024, she will not oppose him. That scenario could put her in play for the vice presidency.   

As a candidate in 2024, Trump would encounter a political landscape far different from the one he successfully navigated in 2015 and 2016. Today, Vice President Kamala Harris is the first woman to hold that position — and she could become the first female president if President Biden chooses to retire early.

It appears many Americans are comfortable with a woman occupying the two highest offices of our land. More than that, many have come to expect it to happen. Any political adviser worth his or her salt — or any presidential candidate, for that matter — would argue for the necessity of having a woman on the 2024 Republican ticket.   

Haley has a remarkable life story that could resonate with millions of working-class Americans.

The daughter of immigrants from India, she grew up in a small town in South Carolina and dealt with segregation, bigotry, and a physical assault by a neighbor. She learned how to do without, but never once gave up on achieving her American Dream.  

What Haley has achieved, she did so on her own. If she were a Democrat, the mainstream media would have embraced her remarkable biography and praised her accomplishments. Today, Haley has forged herself into the foreign policy voice of the Republican Party. That strength of hers was a weakness of Trump’s — of others, perhaps, in the potential GOP field. She has been one of the few voices consistently warning against China’s aggression and human rights abuses, and has criticized Russia’s irredentism and Vladimir Putin, even before his February invasion of Ukraine.

Beyond Haley, who might make a good running mate for Trump? Unfortunately, the party’s “highly accomplished” female politician bench is not nearly as deep as the Democrats’. There are three women GOP governors: Kay Ivey of Alabama, Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Kim Reynolds of Iowa. Reynolds might be a viable candidate for vice president, but Ivey isn’t yet a nationally known household name, and Noem recently has lost the support of some Republicans in her state.

Among the eight Republican women lieutenant governors, one could make the case for Jeanette Nunez of Florida. As a Floridian, she could help Trump short up the state’s 29 electoral votes and the Hispanic vote.   

Of the eight Republican female senators, a case also could be made for Joni Ernst of Iowa, based on her distinguished career in the U.S. Army, her conservative credentials, and her sustained public support for Trump’s policies. 

But among all these possibilities, Haley is still the most well known and most likely to garner widespread votes.  

In the recent past, one of the traditional roles of a vice presidential candidate was to lob harsh criticism at the opposition so that the presidential candidate could take the high road. In the “Age of Trump,” however, Trump himself eagerly fired non-stop insults at anyone opposing him. Yet Haley has shown that she is more than capable of taking on the responsibility, if necessary.   

In January, regarding President Biden’s reaction to a potential war in Ukraine, Haley tweeted: “Biden should care about our own border as much as he claims to care about the Ukrainian border. #ProtectAmerica.” And, in February she tweeted: “The world’s worst dictators realize just how weak Joe Biden is. It’s why Russia is eyeing Ukraine.”

While we can assume Haley meant what she said, we can also agree that both comments dovetail nicely with Trump’s “America First” policies and his belief that the world’s dictators view Biden as soft.

As it stands now, I believe that if Trump does not run for the White House in 2024, Haley will be one of the last Republican candidates standing. And if he does run, she has set herself up as his best running mate.

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration. His latest book is “The 56: Liberty Lessons From Those Who Risked All to Sign the Declaration of Independence.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Lincoln Memorial temporarily closed following university graduation celebration

Officials announced on Saturday that the Lincoln Memorial would be temporarily closed after a university graduation ceremony left the area littered, just one day before the memorial’s centennial celebration.

“The Lincoln Memorial is closed this morning following a local university graduation celebration that left litter, broken bottles and spilled wine and champagne covering the steps. We will reopen as soon as the area has been cleaned and made safe,” National Mall and Memorial Parks, National Park Service tweeted.

The tweet also included a photo that showed the area blocked off.

NPS spokesperson Mike Litterst told NBC4 Washington that no citations or arrests had been issued. 

It was not immediately clear which university was involved. The Hill has reached out to the NPS for more information.

The NPS and Lincoln Group of DC will be holding a centennial celebration on Sunday morning “to highlight the full range of meaning behind the Lincoln Memorial, from its original meaning as a memorial to Lincoln’s life and contribution as savior of the Union to becoming a symbol of civil rights,” according to the NPS’ Lincoln Memorial centennial events schedule.

Source: TEST FEED1