Tag Archives : Build House

Judge rules Graham must comply with Georgia grand jury subpoena

A federal judge on Monday ruled that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) must comply with a special grand jury subpoena from the Fulton County District Attorney, who’s investigating former President Trump’s efforts to pressure Georgia officials into overturning the state’s 2020 election results.

U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May denied Graham’s motion to comply with the subpoena, rejecting his arguments that he has testimonial immunity from state judicial proceedings as a federal legislator.

In a 22-page decision, May said the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress from being compelled to testify in court about their legislative work, does not warrant quashing the subpoena as Graham had requested. 

“In sum, the Court finds that there are considerable areas of potential grand jury inquiry falling outside the Speech or Debate Clause’s protections,” wrote May, who was appointed by former President Obama. “Additionally, sovereign immunity fails to shield Senator Graham from testifying before the Special Purpose Grand Jury. Finally, though Senator Graham argues that he is exempt from testifying as a high-ranking government official, the Court finds that the District Attorney has shown extraordinary circumstances and a special need for Senator Graham’s testimony on issues relating to alleged attempts to influence or disrupt the lawful administration of Georgia’s 2022 elections.”

A spokesman for Graham said the senator would appeal, which he had vowed to do before Monday’s decision during a press conference last week.

“This is ridiculous,” Graham said. “This weaponization of the law needs to stop. So I will use the courts. We will go as far as we need to go and do whatever needs to be done to make sure that people like me can do their jobs without fear of some county prosecutor coming after you.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump’s hypocrisy threatens democracy — That’s the point of it

Over the past week, Donald Trump has shown Americans that, even out of office, he remains this nation’s Hypocrite-in-Chief.

His performance is a reminder that the term hypocrisy can be traced back to Greek drama, where it was used to refer to the feigning and dissembling of the stage actor.

Trump’s most recent feigning and dissembling was apparent in the revelations about the classified documents that he apparently purloined from the White House and kept at Mar-a-Lago, which has received a great deal of press coverage. It was also on full view in his shameless invocation of the 5^th Amendment nearly 450 times during a deposition in New York.

What Trump practices and what he preaches have little in common. He feels no compunction about doing the very things that he denounces and uses to demonize his political opponents.

His hypocrisy undermines democracy; it erodes trust and breeds cynicism.

That is the point of Trump’s double standards, because he has ridden a wave of cynicism for all of his years in public life.

Let’s start with the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago.

Last Thursday The Washington Post reported that “the list of items seized by FBI agents during the search included 11 sets of classified documents; four were marked top-secret, three were secret and three were identified as confidential — the lowest level of classified information.” In addition, “Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence.” 

Trump responded to the search by characterizing what the FBI did as an “unAmerican, unwarranted and unnecessary raid and break-in” of his home. 

The former president also took to his social media site to deny that he possessed any nuclear weapons documents. Reprising some of his greatest hits, Trump said: “Nuclear weapons is a hoax, just like Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax.”

And in typical Trump-speak, he contradicted his denial by suggesting that it is okay for a former president to possess such documents when he made the false and baseless claim that former President Obama kept millions of pages of documents after he left office, including classified material that pertained to nuclear weapons.

“President Barack Hussein Obama kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified,” Trump wrote. “How many of them pertained to nuclear? Word is, lots!” That particular fabrication elicited a statement from the National Archives that Obama had done no such thing. And, of course, throughout his 2016 presidential campaign Trump repeatedly harped on Hilary Clinton’s alleged carelessness in handling classified information.

ABC News reports that in July 2016, Trump tweeted, “Crooked Hillary Clinton and her team ‘were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.’ Not fit!”

In September 2016, Trump said that, “We also need the best protection of classified information. That is the worst situation. Hillary’s private email scandal, which put our classified information in the reach of our enemies, disqualifies her from the presidency. Totally.”

One wonders if it is simply an irony of history that in 2018 Trump signed a law that increased the criminal penalties for taking classified materials and changed it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Last Wednesday, in a different display of hypocrisy, the former president invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify almost 450 times during a deposition in New York Attorney General Letitia James’s investigation of the Trump Organization’s business practices.

Trump has previously denounced people who take the Fifth. At a July 2016 rally in Iowa, he asked “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” Another time, he said, “Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Horrible.”

And, during a 2016 presidential debate he linked his criticism of Hilary Clinton’s handling of classified materials and his criticism of people who take the Fifth: “When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth, so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful.”

After his deposition, Trump changed his tune: “I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’” he wrote. “Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice.”

These are just the latest examples of Trump’s cynical hypocrisy. It has been a consistent through-line in his political career and his time in the White House. 

Some scholars and commentators think that hypocrisy is an inescapable part of politics and that it is mostly quite harmless. As the political theorist Ruth Grant notes, in this view, “to condemn hypocrisy would be to condemn politics altogether.”

But democratic politics cannot thrive, or perhaps even survive, when hypocrisy becomes the norm. Political scientist John Keane has rightly observed that “Hypocrisy … is the soil in which antipathy towards democracy always takes root.”

Keane argues that democratic politics rests on a foundation of trust among citizens and between citizens and their representatives. Hypocrisy erodes that trust. It leads people to discount what others say in the political arena and promotes a corrosive disgust with politics.

Keane notes that the normalization of hypocrisy will “sap people’s confidence, or reinforce their unbelief in democratic ways of being. But for this to happen, people must feel let down or put off by democracy; and that means they must have a gut sense that the gulf between the promises of democracy and its actual performance is so wide that democracy itself is a ruinous sham.”

Trump’s success in politics has been founded on insinuating that democracy is a ruinous sham, opening a wide field in which Trump should be free to do as he wishes. He has been a master of saying one thing and doing another. He has held up others to ridicule and then done the very things for which he shamed them.

What Hannah Arendt wrote almost 60 years ago seems an apt description of Trump: “The hypocrite’s crime,” she said, “is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one … only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.”

But hypocrisy is most dangerous to democracy when calling out hypocrisy stops mattering.

That is what Trump’s hypocrisy seeks to achieve. He wants to rob the exposure of hypocrisy of its bite. He seeks to normalize hypocrisy, to make it seem like a mere tool of political survival in a world dominated by hoaxes, witch hunts, and conspiracies.

Defending democracy requires that we do not give in to that effort.

We must continue to call out hypocrisy and work to convince millions of Americans that they should want more from their leaders than the hypocrite’s feigning and dissembling. 

Democracy requires that citizens expect leaders to tell the truth in public, and not to invent lies in self-defense when their foibles — if not their crimes — are exposed.

Austin Sarat (@ljstprof) is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. The views expressed here do not represent Amherst College.

Source: TEST FEED1

UK becomes first country to approve updated Moderna vaccine targeting omicron

The United Kingdom on Monday became the first country to approve an updated COVID-19 vaccine from Moderna targeting the omicron variant as well as the original strain of the virus.  

The move is a step toward a booster campaign that could provide people with better protection against the variants that are currently circulating. 

“The first generation of COVID-19 vaccines being used in the UK continue to provide important protection against the disease and save lives,” said June Raine, chief executive of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. “What this bivalent vaccine gives us is a sharpened tool in our armoury to help protect us against this disease as the virus continues to evolve.” 

The United States is also working on updated vaccines for a possible fall booster campaign, though the shots might be slightly different. The vaccine approved by the UK targets the first version of the omicron variant, known as BA.1, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has instructed vaccine makers to target the more recent subvariants of omicron, known as BA.4 and BA.5.  

The UK regulator on Monday said the updated Moderna vaccine was shown to provide a “strong immune response” against BA.1 as well as BA.4 and BA.5.  

“Safety monitoring showed that the  side effects observed were the same as those seen for the original Moderna booster dose and were typically mild and self-resolving, and no serious safety concerns were identified,” it added.  

Experts stress that it is still important for people to get booster shots of the original vaccine now if they have not already, given that it still provides important protection against severe disease and hospitalization. The updated vaccine targeting the newest variants, however, is expected to provide even better protection and adapt to the virus’s evolution.  

Source: TEST FEED1

China launches more drills after US lawmakers' visit to Taiwan

China announced on Monday it was once again organizing military drills in the waters and airspace around Taiwan after a five-member U.S. delegation landed on the island.

Senior Colonel Shi Yi, spokesperson for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Eastern Theater Command, said the drills would involve troops from multiple branches and are a “solemn deterrent” to the United States, who Shi accused of playing “political tricks” and undermining peace in the region.

The U.S. delegation, which is led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), also includes Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) and Rep. Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa). The group is expected to meet with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, other officials and members of the private sector.

The trip comes days after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) led a delegation to the self-governing, democratic island earlier this month, angering Beijing, which views Taiwan as part of its territory. China similarly conducted military drills for multiple days near Taiwan after Pelosi’s visit.

Under the longstanding “One China” policy, the United States acknowledges Beijing’s claim to the island, while also vowing to honor the Taiwan Relations Act, in which the U.S. committed to help protect the island without a promise of direct intervention if China invades.

Wang Wenbin, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, urged the lawmakers at a press conference on Monday to stop “fudging” the U.S.-China diplomatic arrangements.

“China will take resolute and strong measures to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity,” said Wang. “Associating themselves with the separatists in Taiwan and attempting to challenge the one-China principle is a misjudgment and will get these small number of U.S. politicians nowhere.”

Senior Colonel Wu Qian, spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of National Defense, echoed Wang’s warning on Monday, saying any breach of China’s plans to reunify with Taiwan is “doomed to fail.”

“[The trip] has brazenly violated the one-China principle and the provisions of the three China-US joint communiqués, infringed China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and sent erroneous signals to the ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces, fully revealed that the US is the true spoiler and saboteur of peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits,” Wu said on Monday.

During the previous round of military drills, Taiwan said the exercises were designed to simulate a future attack and violated the island’s sovereignty.  

Source: TEST FEED1

A year after the Taliban takeover, my heart remains in Kabul

In my native language, Farsi, we often attach the word “Jan” to the end of a person’s name as a term of endearment. Translated literally, Jan means “soul,” and it’s reserved for the living beings we most love and respect. It’s not a word used to describe places, with one exception: Afghanistan’s capital is known as Kabul Jan.

Kabul Jan has witnessed four decades of conflict. It is a burial site for thousands killed by car bombs, including many I knew. But it is also the city that, in the early years of this century, gave me and many others of my generation opportunities we never imagined we could have. It was a place that allowed us to fight for what we wanted. It was also the first and last place I can call home.

My parents fled Afghanistan in the 1990s to escape Taliban rule, so I was born a refugee. We

returned when the Taliban were driven out after 9/11 and for the first time in my life, I felt at ease. I met cousins, aunts, uncles and other family members I had never known.

As a refugee in Iran, I had been denied access to education. In Kabul, I was able to study. There were rules and cultural norms I disagreed with, but I had the freedom to push back against them. I could fight to wear what I wanted, decide what to think, and choose when to laugh.

I went on to Herat University and studied law, because as a person who had witnessed discrimination firsthand, I knew how important laws are to protect the rights of those whose rights are oppressed, violated and otherwise mistreated. I wanted to make a difference and be an active member of the “new Afghanistan,” where women were becoming an integral part of civic life.

After graduation, I got a job as an ethics adviser supporting the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, providing training to the ministry’s staff. Later, I joined the International Development Law Organization, which advised the Afghanistan Justice Sector. I was the only female adviser on the team, so I had to prove myself constantly and fight cultural norms that discriminated against women.

In 2014, the Taliban attacked my office and six of my colleagues were killed. In 2016, as thousands of Afghans took to the streets to protest the Afghan government’s discriminatory policies in doling out electricity, an armed group called the Islamic State Khorasan Province, or ISKP, bombed them, killing and injuring more than 350 people. 

Less than a year later, in May 2017, extremists bombed Zanbaq Square, a busy intersection in central Kabul, a few kilometers from my office. More than 400 were killed or injured. The windows in our office shattered and we were knocked to the ground and covered in dust.  

We were living in a city under siege, but we were hopeful. We were working to build a democratic Afghanistan, a place governed by the rule of law, where women and girls had opportunity, where the media were free, and every child had the right to education. 

I left Kabul in 2019 to pursue a master’s degree in human rights in the United Kingdom. Never for a second did I consider not returning. I wanted to be useful, and nowhere could I be more useful and have more impact than in my Kabul Jan.

Then the United States brokered an agreement with the Taliban and did not include the Afghan government in the negotiations. The Taliban proclaimed victory. There was nothing in the agreement about women’s rights, or the rights of girls to go to school. The only thing the U.S. demanded was that the Taliban prevent any armed group from using Afghan soil against the security of the United States and its allies.

Eighteen months later, on Aug. 15, 2021, Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, fled the country and my Afghanistan was lost. Once again, I became a refugee. 

In the 12 months since the Taliban took control, I have watched my country descend into a humanitarian and human rights crisis. My generation — those of us who were lucky enough to get an education — are scattered around the globe or in hiding. People are dying of hunger and preventable diseases because they don’t have access to basic medicine. Women are barred from public life. The press is muzzled. And yet, I see foreign diplomats meeting with Taliban leaders abroad, smiles beaming, women conspicuously absent from the photos.

I know we can’t go back in time. But would it be too much for the United Nations Security Council to impose travel bans on senior Taliban officials — and for the UN Human Rights Council to mandate an international body to collect evidence of the grave human rights abuses being committed in Afghanistan today so that there could be justice one day? Can donor countries and the World Bank not find ways to address mass hunger through mechanisms that avoid funding the Taliban authorities? Can countries not open their borders to Afghan refugees and expand visa opportunities for at-risk Afghans? 

We have lost our beautiful Afghanistan for now, but it is still my home. Many of my close friends and extended family members are still in Kabul Jan, and more importantly, so is my heart. And it is broken.

Fereshta Abassi is a researcher at Human Rights Watch. Follow her on Twitter @FereshtaAbbasi.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden, officials to kick off roadshow to promote agenda

President Biden and administration officials will kick off a roadshow this month with stops across the U.S. to highlight the Inflation Reduction Act as well as other parts of the White House’s agenda.

Through the end of August, Cabinet members will take 35 trips to 23 states to tout the sweeping health, climate and taxes bill and other accomplishments, according to a memo from White House senior adviser Anita Dunn and deputy chief of staff Jen O’Malley Dillon to chief of staff Ron Klain released on Monday.

“For many administrations, August can be a momentum killer. For this team, August is going to be a momentum builder as we come out of last week – which featured a string of bill signings, gas prices back under $4, Sweden and Finland’s ascension to NATO, the House passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, and more – that underscored President Biden’s leadership,” Dunn and O’Malley Dillon wrote in the memo.

In early September, Biden will host an event to celebrate the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, plans to later attend the groundbreaking of the new Intel facility in Ohio and travel to Pennsylvania to address his “Safer America Plan” that helps fight crime. The Pennsylvania trip was slated for July but had to be canceled when the president tested positive for COVID-19.

“Our goal for the next few weeks is simple: Take our message – one that we know resonates with key groups – and reach the American people where they are,” Dunn and O’Malley Dillon wrote.

They also shared that Vice President Harris will travel throughout the country, as will Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack, who will participate in a roundtable discussion with agricultural stakeholders on the Inflation Reduction Act in Grand Junction, Colo. Labor Sec. Marty Walsh will give remarks at labor conferences in August in New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois.

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland will also be traveling, according to the memo.

The roadshow, which will continue through the fall, also aims to highlight the contrast with Congressional Republicans’ vision.

It will involve congressional outreach and stakeholder briefings at the White House with mayors, governors, county elected officials, state legislators, and intergovernmental associations. And a digital strategy that will involve a new website on climate incentives and explainer videos on the Inflation Reduction Act is planned.

Source: TEST FEED1

Man who fatally shot himself near Capitol identified as 29-year-old from Delaware

The man who killed himself after driving his car into a U.S. Capitol barricade on Sunday has been identified as 29-year-old Richard A. York III of Delaware, according to U.S. Capitol Police.

According to police, it doesn’t appear that York was targeting any lawmaker, and the latest update notes it’s still not clear why he drove to the Capitol. Both chambers are currently in recess.

Investigators are now looking into York’s background.

Authorities have shared that York had a criminal record, but no obvious link to the Capitol and no political ideology have yet been learned that might indicate York’s motivation.

Around 4 a.m. Sunday, York drove his car into a vehicle barricade at East Capitol Street and Second Street, according to police. The car went up in flames as he exited with a weapon, which he then fired into the air a number of times.

Officers responded to the shots — though they reportedly didn’t fire any of their own — and York turned the weapon on himself as they approached, fatally shooting himself. No other injuries were reported. 

Officers say they did not hear York say anything before he was killed.

Capitol Police initially withheld York’s name but shared it once his family had been notified, according to the release.

This incident follows one earlier this week, when a man was killed by police after attempting to breach the FBI field office in Cincinnati, Ohio. He fled the scene in a vehicle and was fatally shot in a gunfire exchange with police after a long standoff.

Source: TEST FEED1

Time to treat Afghan allies with same respect as those fleeing Ukraine

In the months following Russia’s winter invasion of Ukraine, President Biden announced the U.S. would accept up to 100,000 Ukrainians and established “Uniting for Ukraine,” a program that streamlines and expands the humanitarian parole process for Ukrainians to gain admittance to America.

The United States’s immediate action and strong commitment to help Ukrainians during a humanitarian crisis is truly commendable. Yet, one year after the U.S.’s dramatic evacuation from Afghanistan, many Afghans who risked their lives to assist the U.S. in the fight against the Taliban and for democratic ideals are still looking for a pathway to the United States. And Afghans who were evacuated to the U.S. remain in limbo with no assurance they can stay or work when their humanitarian parole expires in 2023.

Correcting for this inaction is a matter of national security — in future conflicts, why would anyone risk their lives by serving alongside our soldiers or providing critical translation services if the U.S. can’t keep our promises to them when we depart? We cannot allow our enemies to claim that the U.S. cannot be trusted.

To do right by our Afghan allies and national security, Washington must streamline the pathway for Afghans to get to America and establish a program that leads to permanent resident status.

Humanitarian parole was used to allow both Afghans and Ukrainians to lawfully enter the U.S. While humanitarian parole brought more than 76,000 Afghan evacuees to the U.S. immediately after the fall of Kabul, the program is largely failing Afghans still living abroad.

The path for Ukrainians is much clearer and streamlined than for Afghans. The “Uniting for Ukraine” program allows U.S. citizens to sponsor Ukrainians, agreeing to financially support them throughout the application process and their stay in the U.S.

The program also waives the application fee and in-person interview requirement.

In contrast, since July 2021, more than 45,000 Afghans have applied for humanitarian parole. Fewer than 2,500 applications have been processed and most have been denied. Only 270 were approved, and the vast majority of applicants have yet to be processed.

Afghans must also overcome bureaucratic hurdles to obtain humanitarian parole that Ukrainians do not. There is a $575 per person application fee — more than the average Afghan typically makes in a year. Afghan applicants must be under a specific risk of serious harm and are required to complete an in-person interview at a U.S. embassy, which is nearly impossible because there is no longer an operating embassy in Afghanistan.

Alternative options to enter the U.S. that provide a pathway to lawful permanent residency, such as the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), are currently backlogged. USRAP was nearly dismantled by the Trump administration. Despite President Biden’s efforts to raise quotas from historic lows under Trump, the still decimated infrastructure means applicants could wait years before receiving an answer.

The Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) is also available to Afghans who worked directly with the U.S. government, but the difficulty in obtaining necessary verification documentation has only increased. The Biden administration did not increase the ability to process these applications in anticipation of the influx of Afghans, and the application process remains complicated and slow.

Because permanent visas aren’t a realistic alternative, the U.S. must level the playing field to ensure Afghan allies have the same opportunities as Ukrainians. A program like “Uniting for Ukraine” would eliminate application barriers for overseas Afghans.

Additionally, Congress must pass an Afghan Adjustment Act to expedite pathways for evacuated Afghans currently living in the U.S. to receive permanent resident legal status. The U.S. has a history of passing similar legislation after military conflicts, including after the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba, the Vietnam War and conflicts in Iraq.

For 20 years, American forces worked hand-in-hand with Afghans. What was true a year ago, as the U.S. withdrew, remains true now: We must not turn our backs on our Afghan allies.

Margaret D. Stock, lieutenant colonel (retired), is an attorney with the Anchorage office of Cascadia Cross Border Law Group LLC. She transferred to the Retired Reserve of the U.S. Army in June 2010 after serving 28 years as a Military Police Corps officer in the Army Reserve. She is a member of the Council on National Security and Immigration.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why China will not invade Taiwan

Last week,  the dire warnings that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, The Economist and Foreign Affairs about China’s imminent war with or invasion of Taiwan were largely obscured by the FBI search of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.

In particular, Hal Brands and Michael Beckley asserted in the Wall Street Journal, “the U.S. is running out of time to prevent a cataclysmic war in the Pacific … and no one can say we didn’t see it coming.” 

As someone who has examined these issues and the inherent difficulties of mounting a huge amphibious assault on Taiwan, I believe a cataclysmic war is not coming with China and that a direct assault on an island 100 miles away is the last option China would pursue.

Presidents Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping both understand that war would be a global catastrophe and thus in no one’s interest, especially China’s. Global economies would be wrecked; the use of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons could not be discounted; and the powerful internal centrifugal forces in China could be unleashed to end control of the Communist Party.

The scenario reflected in these articles reiterates a Chinese amphibious assault on Taiwan.  But given this scenario, why has the Taiwanese government repeatedly failed to adopt a “porcupine” strategy that I and others have proposed over the years to make a hypothetical invasion impossible? From a Chinese analysis of the Ukraine war, two conclusions could be drawn.

First, an amphibious assault could be overwhelmed by many of the weapons systems and technologies Ukraine had employed to bloody the Russians and stop the attack on Kyiv in its tracks. But, second, a determined attack preceded by missile and bomber attacks could destroy Taiwan’s social and physical infrastructure along with the world’s largest chip production facilities at TSMC. Who would pay for reconstruction? And would that be worth the price?

Second, a Normandy-like invasion of Taiwan would take a force of 200,000 troops or more. During World War II, Operation Causeway, the plan to retake Formosa from 30,000 starving Japanese troops, called for a force of 400,000 soldiers and Marines. China does not have and probably will never have the capacity to accomplish that task.  

The amphibious lift required would be enormous. And the use of the small craft of the Maritime Militia in a reverse Dunkirk is absolute nonsense. China has many options, as it is showing with its quasi blockade. But an amphibious assault is not one of them.

The more interesting question is why Taiwan has not moved expeditiously and earlier to a porcupine defense. In part, the Taiwanese army leadership seems to believe that the ability to attack the mainland is a better deterrent. Until that thinking changes, if it does, a more effective porcupine force remains an aspiration.

The larger conclusion is this: Exaggerating capabilities and threats is never helpful. The same applies to the idea that somehow Russia would attack the Baltic states to dissolve NATO, which returns us to the nub of the problem.

During the Trump administration, two so-called fait accomplis were derived to drive strategy: a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a Russian attack on the three Baltic states. While useful for war games, it is dangerous to base strategy on scenarios that have virtually no chance of occurring. The Wall Street Journal has just published an op-ed on the latter scenario, calling for more military support to the Baltics without proposing what would really be needed to halt a full blown Russian attack — something the war in Ukraine has shown that Moscow has failed to achieve.

China has declared regaining Taiwan its highest international  priority. That alone is an interesting proposition that many forget is contradicted by history. Taiwan, then Formosa, was ceded to Japan by China’s Qin Emperor in 1895 and remained under Japanese control for 50 years. Then it was returned to the Kuomintang (KMT)

government, not to the Communist Party. One can argue that KMT government has the sovereign rights to Taiwan.

That will not redress Beijing’s claims. If Beijing were to attempt some form of seizure, it would involve a maritime and air blockade, sanctions and an internal political coup in Taiwan. China might threaten to obliterate Taiwan to force a surrender, making an amphibious assault redundant.

But to ensure the amphibious scenario is permanently eliminated, a less expensive porcupine defense will achieve that. The more pressing issue is the prospect of China engaging in measures short of war while still threatening to use force. That is where our focus should be.

Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of “shock and awe.” His latest  book is “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.” Follow him on Twitter @harlankullman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Upstate New York infested with spotted lanternfly, Schumer says

ALBANY, N.Y. (WTEN) — Upstate New York wineries and crops are at risk from the spotted lanternfly, which has now reached an infestation level, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer said on Sunday. If the bug is not contained, it could cost the state millions of dollars.

“Summer is the perfect time to relax outdoors with a nice New York Riesling, but the rapid spread of the invasive spotted lanternfly threatens to suck the life out of our vineyards, agriculture and great outdoor tourism industry,” said Schumer. “We need to stomp out this bug before it spreads, otherwise our farmers and local businesses could face millions in damage and an unmanageable swarm.”

Schumer urged the United States Department of Agriculture to tap federal money from an account he has supported with over $200 million to curb the insect.

“For years now, I have warned about the pest, but now we are demanding action because pockets of Upstate New York are now infested by the bug that wreaks havoc on trees, vineyards and crops,” Schumer said. “This is a multi-million dollar threat to New York’s economy – both tourism and agriculture are now at risk if the spotted lanternfly goes unchecked. But the good news here is that we have federal funds already in place, that I secured, to help New York contain the bug and that we will be pushing for more.”

Other states have also been warning of the threat posed by the spotted lanternfly, and wildlife officials are asking people to kill the bugs if they spot them.

Schumer lauded the work being done currently by USDA and the state to monitor for sightings of the bug and to teach locals the best ways to spot this invasive species.

Throughout the past year, New York has seen decay and the start of infestations of spotted lanternflies in nearly all corners of the state. In 2019, after a series of serious infestations in nearby Pennsylvania, researchers at the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences alerted that the spotted lanternfly had the potential to cost Pennsylvania’s economy $325 million a year and 2,800 jobs.

Schumer said the spotted lanterfly poses a risk to New York’s agricultural health, too; they feed on the sap of more than 70 plant species, which makes plants vulnerable to illness and attacks from other insects. As mob feeders, they are known to quickly overwhelm vineyards and orchards, killing grape vines and other fruit bearers or making them unusable due to the excessive amounts of “honeydew” they release when feeding, which can lead to mold.

New York’s wine and grape industry develops a direct economic impact of $6.65 billion annually, creates over 71,000 jobs and attracts nearly five million tourist visits per year. Comparbly, New York’s apple industry contributes $1.3 billion in total economic output, provides more than 8,000 jobs and produces nearly $4 million in gross domestic product.

If you have spotted any of the lanternflies, NYS recommends taking pictures and sending information over to spottedlanternfly@agriculture.ny.gov.

Source: TEST FEED1