Archive by Author

UFO hearings set for Tuesday morning in House intelligence subcommittee

A House Intelligence subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday at 9 a.m. on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), with testimony expected from top U.S. intelligence and defense officials.

The hearing will be broadcast live on the House Intelligence committee’s Youtube page.

The Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and Counterproliferation subcommittee, chaired by André Carson (D-Ind.), will oversee the first Capitol Hill hearings on UFOs in more than 50 years.

The committee is expected to hear from Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security Ronald Moultrie and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence Scott Bray.

The hearing follows a report on UAPs last year from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which found 144 UAP encounters from 2004 to 2021.

The report fell short of identifying what exactly the UAPs were — not drawing any specific conclusions on the UAPs and redacting information, which exasperated UFO enthusiasts.

Last year, the Pentagon created the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) to succeed a task force operated by the Navy that looked into UAP encounters.

AOIMSG, which is headed by Moultrie, will “synchronize efforts” across the defense department to detect and identify UAPs.

Congress has not held a hearing on UFOs since the 1969 closure of Project Blue Book, an Air Force report on UFO encounters. Lawmakers held hearings in the ’50s and ’60s regarding the existence of UFOs and mysterious encounters in the U.S.

Avi Loeb, who heads Harvard’s Galileo Project, which searches for extraterrestrial technology, said in an opinion piece in The Hill last week he hopes the hearings establish the baseline for a more robust pursuit of UAPs.

Loeb also hopes the hearing creates more attention around aerial phenomena in general.

“It is common practice for experts to raise dust and claim that they cannot see anything,” he said. “We should seek evidence-based knowledge without being boxed by our egos, emotions or national security traps. This is my wish for the congressional hearing next week.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Government overreach in firing decisions won't stop with big companies

Owning your own business is the ultimate American dream. That aspiration helped make Shark Tank a television sensation, and over the years countless success stories of women and men who risked it all to create globally-recognized brands have been a source of great encouragement. 

America’s entrepreneurial success story would not have happened if governments imposed vast restrictions on business operations — that is, telling small business owners when they could work, how they could work, or who they could work with.   

Over the years, small business advocates have had to push back on some pretty intrusive policies. And a recent occurrence of government overreach should have small business owners concerned about whether a similar incident could happen to them. 

The latest controversy began a week or so ago, when a video of an Amazon employee verbally harassing another employee went viral. The video was all the more newsworthy because it was tied up in a broader, and very public, unionizing effort at the company. The video is apparently so disturbing that Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Labor would not let it be played during a hearing.  

As most business owners would do given it is in the best interest of workplace harmony and safety, Amazon terminated the verbally offensive employee. But the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stepped in and Amazon was ordered to reinstate the employee. 

There is plenty of space to discuss fair approaches to protesting and union organizing at companies large and small, but small business owners know abusive language when they hear it. If ignored or dismissed, such harsh language directed toward a female employee by a male employee can have a negative effect in the workplace, and fuel other legal issues.   

Creating a safe workplace and culture for all employees is paramount — whether you are one of the world’s largest companies or a mom-and-pop store on Main Street. Employers have an obligation to their employees and customers regarding safety and health. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the NLRB to order reinstatement.  

Small businesses may not be exempt from this kind of government interference. In an already challenging marketplace — the COVID infection upswing, inflation, supply chain disruptions, the possibility of a recession, and workforce shortages — will small business owners have to worry about something as basic as firing a verbally abusive employee?  

That’s a dangerous path to try and navigate, and one completely antithetical to the reason why people choose to be entrepreneurs in the first place.  

A survey published by the Endurance International Group found that “seven in ten (68 percent) small business owners stated that they chose to own a small business because it gives them the independence to pursue their passion” while “almost half (43 percent) said that the best part of small business ownership is the freedom and flexibility it gives them.” 

In another survey of new entrepreneurs by Small Business and Entrepreneurs Council, 63 percent said they launched because they wanted “to be their own boss” and 46 percent said it would provide “more flexibility and control of their time.” 

Small business owners want to be their own bosses. They want to maintain their independence to build their businesses, and they know it is in their best interest to keep their employees free from harassment. They certainly understand the need for reasonable regulation but know when the government crosses the line to unreasonable.  

We all have a favorite local business — the coffee shop, arts and crafts store, or maybe even our IT problem-solver at the office. And let’s not forget, small businesses play an essential role in the American economy, accounting for 48 percent of jobs and 43.5 percent of the GDP. Democrats and Republicans consistently agree that in order to keep America’s economy vibrant we need many entrepreneurs continually taking the leap to start their own businesses.  

The federal government made an error in forcing the rehiring of an employee who verbally insulted another with harsh and derogatory language. That decision must be changed, and not allowed to become precedent, to ensure that our nation’s small business owners have one less matter to worry about.   

Karen Kerrigan is president and chief executive officer of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. Follow her @KarenKerrigan.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden meets with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis

President Biden will hold a reception in honor of the prime minister of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, and his spouse, Mareva Grabowska-Mitsotaki.

The event is scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Navy chief visiting USS George Washington, ship linked to string of suicides

Navy Secretary Carlos del Toro will visit the USS George Washington on Tuesday, making him the most senior official to visit the ship amid a string of suicides among sailors assigned to the aircraft carrier.

Capt. J.D. Dorsey, a Navy spokesperson, told The Hill that del Toro and Chief of Naval Operations Michael Gilday will visit the ship to “hear firsthand” from the ship’s crew and leadership.

They will also “determine how things are going, and determine if there are other actions that need to be taken” to make conditions on the ship better for the crew.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin first mentioned the visit on Wednesday during public remarks about the situation surrounding the ship.

The George Washington has been docked in Newport News since 2017 for a midlife refueling and complex overhaul. The service has been under pressure to address conditions aboard the aircraft carrier, specifically after three sailors died by suicide within a week in April.

Crew members assigned to the ship have spoken out about the harsh conditions onboard. An 18-year-old sailor assigned to the ship attempted suicide last week, his mother told The Hill.

The Navy says it has moved about 200 crew members off the ship and has provided mental health resources to sailors. Two investigations are also underway into the suicides among the George Washington crew.

Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, del Toro said the Navy needs to do a better job in providing a higher quality of life for sailors working on the ship.

“We need to develop a plan that’s more robust than what we’re currently doing for especially aircraft carriers because you’re introducing upwards of 2,500 sailors into an already challenging environment,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Putin: Finland, Sweden joining NATO 'does not pose a direct threat to Russia'

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that Finland and Sweden potentially joining NATO “does not pose a direct threat to Russia,” in a seeming reversal of his former condemnation of NATO expansion.

“As far as expansion goes, including new members Finland and Sweden, Russia has no problems with these states — none. And so in this sense, there is no immediate threat to Russia from an expansion to include these countries,” Putin said, according to Reuters.

Putin’s aversion to the Western alliance is one of the root causes of his invasion of Ukraine, which had expressed an openness to joining it in the future. The war, however, has in fact greatly increased the attractiveness of NATO to Sweden and Finland.

Putin addressed NATO expansion at the Collective Security Treaty Organization summit, a meeting of a military alliance between six states formerly parts of the Soviet Union: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

He also said, however, that movement of troops or weapons into new NATO states would cause Russia to react.

Putin’s comments come as Finland and Sweden both recently announced their intentions to officially apply for membership in NATO.

Last week, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov offered a very different stance from Putin’s, saying that Finland joining NATO would “definitely” pose a threat to Russia.

“As we have said many times before, NATO expansion does not make the world more stable and secure,” said Peskov.

Source: TEST FEED1

Justice Thomas rightfully worries about declining respect for the rule of law

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently expressed worries about America’s declining respect for the judiciary and rule of law at a gathering of lawyers and judges in Atlanta. Thomas correctly observed that the loss of esteem “bodes ill for a free society.” He seemed to be perplexed about the cause, but perhaps a serious glance in the mirror would help explain this unfortunate situation.

Thomas and some of his ideologically driven compatriots on the Supreme Court have shaken public confidence in the law, particularly since they achieved a supermajority on the court. The Supreme Court has taken on the aura of a high-powered political instrument for the rightwing of the Republican Party. The justices realize that they are no longer bound by checks, balances and enforceable ethical restraints.

If we harken back just to late March, we may recall that Thomas was up to his ears in a conflict-of-interest controversy brought on by the unsavory election-related activities of his wife. A jurist’s spouse may, of course, engage in political activities. But the jurist must recuse, that is, “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Thomas failed to recuse in three cases related to his wife’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including a vote to stop the Jan. 6 committee from obtaining records that may have contained some of her communications. It is left to the justices to determine if they have a conflict, but these were not even close calls.

I served on the Idaho Supreme Court for 12 years, and we used the same recusal standard — to sit out cases where there is even an appearance of impropriety. We did not have the high-powered cases that the U.S. Supreme Court gets, but we handled twice as many cases every year and were faced each time with the ethical question of recusal.

These cases should have been no-brainers for Thomas. His highly-publicized refusal to stand down has undoubtedly shaken public confidence in the impartiality of the Supreme Court, contributing to the erosion of respect that caused Thomas’s public hand-wringing.

We have seen any number of recent actions by members of the Republican majority that contribute to the continuing decline in public esteem for the court. The release of Justice Alito’s draft abortion opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been a hammer blow to the court. He could have reached the same result without the arrogant tone and questionable claims. The draft gives us an unvarnished, unsettling glimpse into Alito’s mind.

The vote on the outcome of the case sheds some rather unfavorable light on the honesty of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, further eroding respect for the GOP majority. During their confirmation proceedings, they both gave the impression that the holding in Roe v. Wade was practically inviolable, although many observers thought they were just dissembling to get the job. Well, they were. A confirmation proceeding nowadays is just a dog and pony show, but you always hope against hope for a hint of honesty. What next, hooking them up to a polygraph?

Many other cases decided by Republican justices, dating back several years, have been primarily decided along party lines. Voting rights cases stand out. No issue is more important to the GOP’s future success. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed by Congress to guarantee Black voters the right to participate in southern state elections. At that time, Republicans strongly supported the right of Blacks to vote and were instrumental in getting the bill enacted. After President Nixon’s southern strategy succeeded in switching the parties around, Republicans began trying to chip away at the voting protections. Thanks to a number of ill-conceived decisions favoring their Republican colleagues, Supreme Court majorities have effectively neutered the Voting Rights Act.

We can expect several other gifts from the Republican-appointed justices to the party faithful this year — striking of New York’s strict concealed carry gun law, hamstringing the nation’s ability to fight global warming and, of course, the abortion case. The supermajority of conservative justices has practically set up a welcome sign for extreme activists to bring almost any type of ideologically-charged case before the court for decision, stare decisis (adherence to previous decisions) be damned.

Some justices have obviously heard the growing chorus of concerned court observers who point out the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court. They have responded defensively, protesting that politics does not enter into the court’s opinions. Justice Alito huffed last September that the court is not “a dangerous cabal…deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way.” Justice Barrett claimed the court was “not a bunch of partisan hacks.”

Perhaps they protest too much. It doesn’t help their case that Justice Gorsuch headlined an off-the-record gathering of the highly political Federalist Society on Feb. 4. That organization generally gets credit for elevating President Trump’s three appointees to the court.

It is not clear where this train is headed, and it’s likely we won’t know for sure until the outcome of the 2022 elections. If the Democrats can hold the House and increase their numbers in the Senate – an iffy proposition – there could be a major Supreme Court reform effort. If not, Justice Thomas will have much more to wring his hands about, although I suspect the GOP faithful will still love their majority.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ana Navarro: 'We should replace' GOP donors, Fox News advertisers for 'peddling hate'

Ana Navarro, a co-host of ABC’s “The View,” argued that leadership at Fox News’s parent company, advertisers on the network and members of the Republican Party’s donor base should be “replaced” following a mass shooting of mostly Black shoppers at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., over the weekend.

The white teenager accused of carrying out the attack espoused white supremacist ideology in an online manifesto previously posted online, elements of which critics say has gained a mainstream audience through Fox News.

“Listen, if you are an advertiser advertising on that station, you are part of the problem. If you sit on the board and are trying to be a civilized person — Paul Ryan, my friend, I’m talking to you — you are part of the problem,” Navarro said on the show Monday.

“If you’re a Republican donor tweeting about how bad you feel about this but donating to people like [Rep.] Elise Stefanik [R-N.Y.], you are part of the problem. If you are a staffer working for them, you are part of the problem,” she added.

Former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) joined the board of Fox Corp. in 2019. 

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) blamed current GOP House leadership on Monday for “enabling white nationalism” following the mass killing.

Navarro is one of several pundits who have in recent days tied the deadly attack on Saturday to the viewpoints and opinions expressed on Fox News’s airwaves.

Specifically, several media watchdogs and critics of the network have repeatedly cited comments about immigration and voting demographics from Fox prime-time host Tucker Carlson as a dog whistle to far-right groups that believe in the “great replacement theory,” a racist conspiracy that says members of the white race are being “replaced” by nonwhite immigrants.

“I’ll tell ya what great replacement theory should be,” Navarro said. “We should replace all these people peddling hate and making financial and political gain from spreading racism. We should replace them with people who hold up American values.”

A story published Monday in the New York Post, which is also owned by Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, highlighted a manifesto the suspected shooter published online before the attack that criticized Murdoch in an antisemitic way. The 18-year-old also espoused the great replacement theory and said he had been radicalized by content he had seen online.

A Fox News spokesperson on Monday pointed to statements before Saturday’s attack from Carlson condemning political violence.

Source: TEST FEED1

Proposed New York maps create House battleground

A special master tasked with redrawing New York’s congressional district lines released a proposed draft Monday that would make the Empire State an epicenter for the national fight to control the U.S. House of Representatives.

The proposal, offered by Carnegie Mellon political scientist Jonathan Cervas, would create 15 districts that favor Democratic candidates and five that favor Republicans, according to data posted on the nonpartisan Dave’s Redistricting App.

The remaining six districts, on suburban Long Island, on Staten Island and north into the Hudson Valley, would likely be competitive between both parties, Cervas said in a filing made with the court overseeing the redistricting process.

The new maps come after an initial version approved by the state legislature was struck down by Steuben County Supreme Court Judge Patrick McAllister. Those maps would have given Democrats an advantage in 22 of the 26 districts New York will have for the next decade to come.

Instead, Cervas has proposed a map that could give Republicans an opportunity to win up to 11 seats in Congress, in the right political atmosphere. Republicans have not held that many seats in New York since the 2002 elections.

Cervas’s proposed map gives Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R) a much better chance of keeping her Staten Island-based district. Under Democratic lines, Malliotakis’s district would have added thousands of new Democratic voters, voters who would stay in districts held by Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D) and Yvette Clarke (D) under Cervas’s proposal.

The maps may set up an explosive clash between two longtime Democrats who now find themselves drawn into the same district. In a statement after the maps were released, Nadler said he would run in a district that is also home to Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D).

Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Maloney, chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, both won election to Congress in 1992.

Districts held by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D), who is running for governor, and Andrew Garbarino (R), both on Long Island, would become much more competitive than they have been in recent years. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D) is drawn into a district currently held by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D), though Maloney — who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — is likely to run in a district just north of his home, which includes most of his current constituents.

A seat held by Rep. Antonio Delgado (D), who is soon to leave Congress to become New York’s lieutenant governor, would also be competitive, though it would favor Democrats by marginally more than Delgado’s current district. Delgado ousted then-Rep. John Faso (R) in the 2018 midterm elections by 15,000 votes.

One current Republican-held seat will remain a perennial Democratic target: The seat held by retiring Rep. John Katko (R), near Syracuse, appears to favor Democrats by a slim margin.

The new map includes 10 districts with a majority-minority population, all in the New York City area. Only one of those districts, Malliotakis’s seat, is currently held by a Republican; the remaining nine are heavily Democratic.

Cervas’s proposal is not yet final, and New Yorkers have until Wednesday to offer comment on his draft. The special master faces a Friday deadline to turn in his work; New York’s congressional primaries are scheduled for Aug. 23.

Updated at 2:06 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Suspect in California church shooting ID’d as 68-year-old Vegas man

(KTLA) – The suspect in the church shooting that killed one person and wounded five others in Laguna Woods, Calif., was identified Monday as a 68-year-old Las Vegas man.

David Chou was booked on one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder in connection with the Sunday afternoon shooting at Geneva Presbyterian Church, according to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

Authorities are still trying to determine the motive behind the violence at the church.

The attack happened during a lunch banquet after the morning service at Geneva Presbyterian, where dozens of people were gathered. The gunman entered the church and opened fire, striking multiple people.

One man was shot and killed. His identity is being withheld pending notification of his family.

Five other people were wounded, including an 86-year-old woman and four men aged 66, 92, 82 and 75, officials said. 

The shooting came to an end when, in an act of “extraordinary heroism,” the church’s congregants overpowered the suspect and hogtied him with an extension cord until first responders arrived, authorities said.

A churchgoer told the Los Angeles Times that the pastor hit the gunman with a chair as he was reloading his gun and other churchgoers tackled him.

“I think it’s safe to say, had people not intervened, it could’ve been a lot worse,” undersheriff Jeff Hallock said Sunday. “There were 30 to 40 people inside.”

After the deadly shooting, investigators reported finding two handguns at the scene. Since the guns were serialized, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives placed an “urgent trace” on the firearms to determine who bought them, officials said.

The shooting in Orange County came just one day after a gunman opened fire at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., killing 10 people.

“It is horrifying to be grieving yet another tragic shooting in just 72 hours – another weekend in America defined by senseless violence,” California Rep. Adam Schiff (D) said in a statement.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) office released a statement Sunday afternoon, saying they were monitoring the shooting and working closely with local law enforcement.

“No one should have to fear going to their place of worship. Our thoughts are with the victims, community, and all those impacted by this tragic event,” the statement read.

Source: TEST FEED1