Active TB Increases in Minnesota; 90 Percent Foreign-Born, 11 Refugees Diagnosed Overseas Before Arrival

The number of active tuberculosis (TB) cases diagnosed in Minnesota increased 12 percent in 2016 to 168, up from 150 one year earlier, according to the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Program’s Quarterly Surveillance Report, October 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016.

Ninety percent of these 168 cases (152 of 168) were foreign-born, significantly higher than the national 2016 average of 67.9 percent of active TB cases that were foreign-born.

Fourteen of these 168 cases, or 9 percent were diagnosed within the first year in the United States of the 2,635 refugees who were resettled in Minnesota in FY 2016. The majority of these refugees came from two high TB burden countries: 1,195 came from Somalia, and 653 came from Burma, according to the State Department’s interactive website.

Eleven of these 14 cases of active TB in refugees were actually diagnosed in pre-immigration exams overseas before their arrival in Minnesota – a remarkable situation that would have either violated U.S. law or required the granting of a waiver by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office within the Department of Homeland Security, since active TB is a “Class A” health risk which is prohibited entry to the U.S. without such a waiver.

Three of these 14 cases of active TB in refugees were diagnosed during the refugee health exams conducted after their arrival in the United States. (Read more from “Active TB Increases in Minnesota; 90 Percent Foreign-Born, 11 Refugees Diagnosed Overseas Before Arrival” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Police: Concealed Carry Permit Holder Shoots, Kills ‘Active Shooter’

On Wednesday night a concealed carry permit holder shot and killed an alleged “active shooter” at Zona Caliente Sports Bar in Arlington, Texas.

The incident occurred around 6:15 pm. WFAA reported, “A man opened fire at the Zona Caliente Sports Bar… but police say a customer with a gun of his own put a stop to it.”

The man reported to police as an “active shooter” was 48-year-old James Jones. He allegedly walked into Zona Caliente, began arguing with the manager — 37-year-old Cesar Perez — and then pulled out a gun and killed Perez. At that moment a concealed carry permit holder responded by pulling his own gun and killing Jones. (Read more from “Police: Concealed Carry Permit Holder Shoots, Kills ‘Active Shooter'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bill Allowing Adopting Agencies to Refuse Gay Couples Becomes Law

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed a bill on Wednesday that would allow adoption agencies in the state to turn away gay couples who want to adopt a child. The law purports to support religious freedom by not forcing faith-based organizations to potentially close down or face penalties as a result of acting in accordance with religious beliefs. Like many religious freedom bills that have been passed in various states, House Bill 24‘s language frames the issue as preventing discrimination against religious people or institutions.

“This bill would prohibit the state from discriminating against child placing agencies on the basis that the provider declines to provide a child placement that conflicts with the religious beliefs of the provider,” the text of the bill says.

“The bill is not to discriminate against anyone,” Rep. Rich Wingo, who sponsored the bill, said to AL.com. “Nowhere in the bill does it say anything like that or lead you to believe that.” (Read more from “Bill Allowing Adopting Agencies to Refuse Gay Couples Becomes Law” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Russian Bombers, Fighter Jets Fly Near Alaska, Prompting Air Force Escort

Two Russian Bear bombers — escorted for the first time by a pair of Su-35 “Flanker” fighter jets — entered Alaska’s Air Defense Zone on Wednesday night, U.S. officials told Fox News.

The Russian formation was intercepted by a pair of U.S. Air Force F-22 stealth fighter jets that were already flying a patrol about 50 miles southwest of Chariot, Alaska. A NORAD spokesperson told Fox News the intercept began at 9 p.m. ET on Wednesday and a defense source said it also occurred into Thursday.

It was the first time the U.S. Air Force has seen advanced Russian Su-35 fighter jets escort Russian Cold War-era bombers near Alaska.

The Russian fighter jets were unarmed and remained in international airspace, officials said.

Late last month, Russian bombers flew near Alaska over four consecutive days for the first time since 2014. (Read more from “Russian Bombers, Fighter Jets Fly Near Alaska, Prompting Air Force Escort” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Poll: Hispanic Support for President Trump Jumps to 45 Percent

A stunning new poll shows that Hispanic support for President Donald Trump has grown to 45 percent since his election.

“The biggest surprise in this new poll is Trump’s approval among Hispanic voters, which is at 45 percent approval/51 percent disapproval,” Zogby said. “In February the numbers were less among Hispanics at 39 percent approval/53 percent disapproval.”

In November, Trump won roughly 29 percent of the Latino vote.

It is not clear why Trump’s support has risen among Latinos. But a series of polls stretching back to 2014 show that many Hispanics strongly support more border security to protect their communities from crime and low-wage labor. For example, a poll of Latinos taken in June 2014 showed “77 percent [support] for an e-verify system for employers [and] 78 percent for stronger border security.” The 2014 poll of 800 registered Latinos was funded by FWD.us, an advocacy group supported by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

This surge in Hispanic support is accompanied by a decline in Trump’s general approval, going from 48 percent approval down to 43 percent in the current survey. (Read more from “Poll: Hispanic Support for President Trump Jumps to 45 Percent” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here Are the Challenges Facing the Senate After House Passes Obamacare Replacement Bill

Republicans cleared a major hurdle on Wednesday in advancing their proposal repealing and replacing Obamacare. But the House GOP’s health care bill is likely to see major changes in the Senate, where Republicans must contend with strict budget rules and slim margins to pass the legislation.

The House passed the American Health Care Act by a vote of 217-213 Thursday afternoon, capping weeks of negotiations that sought to satisfy conservative and centrist Republicans.

The bill repeals a number of Obamacare’s major provisions, including the individual and employer mandates, and replaces the law’s tax credits with age-based, refundable tax credits.

House leaders and the White House worked for weeks to get the health care bill through the lower chamber after conservatives and centrist Republicans came out against the original proposal.

The legislation that passed Thursday included amendments to address the concerns of both factions of the Republican party.

But though the health care plan was narrowly approved by the House, the bill could undergo a major makeover in the Senate.

There, a 12-member group of senators is drafting the Senate’s own proposal repealing and replacing Obamacare, which will include parts of the plan that passed the House.

“The safest thing to say is there will be a Senate bill, but it will look at what the House has done and see how much of that we can incorporate in a product that works for us in reconciliation,” Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said.

Republicans are using a budget tool called reconciliation to fast-track their Obamacare replacement plan through the Senate, where it will need 51 votes to pass.

Republicans hold 52 seats.

Margins for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are slim, and already, several GOP senators have been skeptical of the House’s Obamacare repeal plan.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, criticized the bill in March and opposes efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. The legislation strips the organization of its federal funding for one year.

Additionally, four other Republican senators—Rob Portman of Ohio, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia—expressed concerns about the bill’s plan for phasing out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in March.

Portman reaffirmed his opposition to the legislation Thursday.

“I’ve already made clear that I don’t support the House bill as currently constructed because I continue to have concerns that this bill does not do enough to protect Ohio’s Medicaid expansion population, especially those who are receiving treatment for heroin and prescription drug abuse,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement.

Conservatives, too, have their own concerns with the House’s Obamacare repeal plan.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, emboldened his colleagues to “continue to improve the bill.”

“For many weeks, I have been working closely with my Senate colleagues, from across the ideological spectrum, on consensus reforms to make health insurance more affordable,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement. “We must deliver on that promise.

Conservative members of the Freedom Caucus are holding out hope that the upper chamber repeals more of Obamacare.

“Let’s be honest, when we sent an Obamacare repeal legislation to the Senate, it got better because we had folks like Mike Lee and Sen. [Ted] Cruz and Sen. [Marco] Rubio and Sen. [Rand] Paul and all these conservative senators who pushed the so-called reconciliation rules, who pushed the envelope and made it a slightly better piece of legislation,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal. “So we’re hoping that’ll happen again.”

In addition to addressing the concerns of Senate Republicans, GOP senators crafting their own bill must adhere to strict rules that govern the reconciliation process. Those rules ensure the tool is used only on bills that change taxes, spending, or the deficit.

Senators can challenge a provision of legislation by raising a point of order against “extraneous matter” included in the bill if he or she believes it violates the Byrd rule, named for the long-serving Democratic senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd.

The Byrd rule outlines six tests to determine what constitutes “extraneous matter,” and some tests hold more weight than others.

If a senator objects to a part of a reconciliation bill, the Senate parliamentarian advises members on whether it meets the requirements or not. If the parliamentarian says a provision violates the Byrd rule, it may be removed from the bill, or it may be deemed fatal to the legislation.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said the House GOP’s health care bill was crafted to adhere to the rules of reconciliation.

But health policy experts warn that some provisions of that legislation could pose problems for Republicans in the Senate.

“I think the bill is ultimately going to have to be significantly rewritten to answer some of those concerns and hopefully takes it more toward something approaching an actual repeal of Obamacare,” Chris Jacobs, a senior health care policy expert at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and founder of Juniper Research Group, told The Daily Signal.

Jacobs has previously warned about pro-life protections included in the tax credits, which prevent the use of federal dollars to pay for most abortions, and the Senate parliamentarian has ruled in the past that those pro-life provisions violate the Byrd rule.

“There’s past precedent to suggest that this is ultimately a policy change and may not be permitted under the Byrd rule,” he said. “A policy change with an incidental budgetary impact. Therefore, it’s essentially not permitted under the Byrd rule.”

But removing the pro-life provisions for the tax credits could pose further problems for Republicans in both chambers.

“It raises the entire question of whether or not the tax credits remain politically viable because it will be taxpayer funding for plans to cover abortion, just like Obamacare,” Jacobs said.

Jacobs and other experts raised concerns about the fate of the House GOP’s original bill in the Senate several weeks ago. But since then, Republican leaders have added several amendments to the legislation, including one that allows states to pursue waivers to opt out of some Obamacare regulations and another that allocates money to states to set up programs to protect people with pre-existing conditions.

The Senate parliamentarian hasn’t yet ruled whether those amendments will pass muster in the upper chamber, but Jacobs said an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office would’ve provided some clarity.

Reconciliation bills can’t increase the deficit, and Jacobs said a “score” from the nonpartisan agency will detail the provision’s fiscal impact.

The House voted without an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates how many people will lose or gain coverage and what the costs of the bill will be.

Though it’s unclear whether the waiver scheme created by the House GOP’s bill will withstand what’s called a “Byrd bath,” Jacobs said it would’ve been better for Republicans to repeal the regulations outright.

“I think a better solution is to repeal the regulations rather than having this waiver option of if you like your Obamacare, you can keep it,” he said. (For more from the author of “Here Are the Challenges Facing the Senate After House Passes Obamacare Replacement Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump: ‘No One Should Be Censoring Sermons or Targeting Pastors’

President Donald Trump asked two nuns with the Little Sisters of the Poor to join him in front of a Rose Garden audience Thursday before he signed an executive order easing enforcement of Obamacare regulations forcing religious organizations to pay for employee health plans covering contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

Trump’s order also takes aim at a 1954 law prohibiting pastors and other religious leaders from supporting specific candidates from the pulpit.

However, the order is scaled back considerably from a draft, leaked in February, that also addressed religious organizations’ freedom in hiring staff, prompting mixed reviews from conservatives.

“We know all too well the attacks against the Little Sisters of the Poor, incredible nuns who care for the sick, the elderly, and the forgotten,” Trump said, before asking representatives of the Catholic order to identify themselves and inviting them to the podium.

The nuns’ lawsuit against the Obama administration over the so-called contraceptive mandate went to the the Supreme Court, which didn’t make a final determination.

“Congratulations, you sort of just won a lawsuit,” Trump said jokingly to the two nuns. “That’s a good way of doing that. I want you to know that your long ordeal will soon be over.”

The president’s executive order states that the administration’s policy is to protect religious liberty. It directs the Internal Revenue Service to use maximum discretion to alleviate the law governing churches and partisan politics, known as the Johnson Amendment. And it offers regulatory relief for religious objectors to Obamacare rules.

“With this executive order, we are ending the attacks on your religious liberty and we are proudly reaffirming America’s leadership role as a nation that protects religious freedom for everyone,” Trump said.

Trump held the event, attended by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergy from across the country, on the National Day of Prayer.

Trump focused his remarks on rolling back 1954’s Johnson Amendment, named for Sen. Lyndon Johnson, the Texas Democrat who would become president nine years later. The law threatens churches, religious institutions, and other nonprofits with revocation by the IRS of their tax-exempt status if they talk partisan politics.

James Dobson, an iconic Christian broadcaster who founded the traditional values group Focus on the Family, was among faith leaders attending the Rose Garden event.

“How could I not be satisfied? I mean, we have been struggling with that Johnson Amendment since I’ve been in radio, which is 40 years,” Dobson told The Daily Siganal.

He also said the Obama administration sued his current organization, Family Talk, over Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.

“When that mandate came down, I wrote the president [Obama] saying I cannot comply. ‘You must come get me, because we’ll close our doors,’” Dobson said. “We’ve been in a lawsuit ever since, and it went to the 10th Circuit and was headed for the Supreme Court. That goes away today. Yes, I’m happy about it.”

However, Greg Baylor, senior counsel with the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said the order leaves Trump’s campaign promises “unfulfilled” and is “disappointingly vague.” In a formal statement, Baylor said:

A pledge to ‘provide regulatory relief’ is disappointingly vague, especially given the long existence of an obvious means of solving the problem: crafting an exemption that protects all those who sincerely object on religious and moral grounds so that they can continue to serve their communities and the most vulnerable among them. We encourage the administration to pursue that course of action and to do so promptly so that it can resolve the dozens of cases still pending against it.

During his Rose Garden remarks, Trump invoked the civil rights icon and pastor Martin Luther King Jr. and the history of the African-American church, as well as the larger Judeo-Christian tradition, as reason to honor the role of religion in America’s politics.

“This financial threat against the faith community is over,” Trump said. “No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors. … America has a rich tradition of social change beginning in our pews and pulpits.”

Trump also heralded the Founding Fathers’ vision as evidence of the intended role of religion in public life:

Freedom is not a gift from government. Freedom is a gift from God. It was Thomas Jefferson who said the God who gave us life gave us liberty. Our Founding Fathers believed religious liberty was so important that they enshrined it in the very First Amendment in our great and beloved Constitution.

Yet for too long, the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith, bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs.

The draft of the executive order that leaked earlier this year, however, also protected the right of religious organizations to align staffing decisions with their missions. And it would have prevented the federal government from discriminating against its employees or contractors for practicing their religious beliefs.

Trump “caved” on these and other provisions in the draft order, said Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation whose studies include religious liberty. In a commentary for The Daily Signal, Anderson wrote of the president:

Back in February, he caved to the protests of liberal special interest groups as he declined to issue an executive order on religious liberty that had been leaked to hostile press. And earlier today, he issued an executive order on ‘free speech and religious liberty’ that does not address the major threats to religious liberty in the United States today.

Today’s executive order is woefully inadequate. Trump campaigned promising Americans that he would protect their religious liberty rights and correct the violations that took place during the previous administration.

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, was among those attending the Rose Garden event. Nance told The Daily Signal she was happy with the outcome.

“We were very pleased with what we’ve seen so far. It’s a great first step,” Nance said. “There are still things left to do. We were pleased to be here today. What a beautiful day. This is a great day for religious liberty.” (For more from the author of “Trump: ‘No One Should Be Censoring Sermons or Targeting Pastors'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is the White House Embracing Human Rights in US Foreign Policy?

With the myriad U.S. interests at stake in foreign policy, where exactly do human rights fit in?

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke to this question on Wednesday while discussing the role of values in U.S. foreign policy decision making.

Now I think it’s important to also remember that guiding all of our foreign policy actions are our fundamental values: our values around freedom, human dignity, the way people are treated. Those are our values. Those are not our policies; they’re values. And the reason it’s important, I think, to keep that well understood is policies can change. They do change. They can change … Our values never change.

Tillerson’s remarks suggest that human rights will be a component of the Trump administration’s foreign policy paradigm.

As in past administrations, U.S. engagement with foreign nations takes into consideration U.S. national interests, national security priorities, opportunities for economic advancement, and of course, human rights.

Tillerson reiterated that U.S. engagement with foreign countries, especially on human rights, may look different based on the various interests at stake.

Although frank, this admission reflects a realistic understanding of the complex nature of U.S. relations with other countries. It says that the U.S. should make clear its values and voice them, but also recognize that a foreign policy solely focused on human rights would be restrictive.

Unfortunately, the U.S. must deal with governments that are less than perfect in their respect for human rights—sometimes considerably so. But perspective and consideration are necessary.

Consider the cases of China and Cuba.

Addressing major threats to the U.S. and its allies should include working with China on issues like maritime security and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is necessary, even if we regard China’s domestic policies as abhorrent.

By contrast, restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba without requiring changes to its own repressive policies sends the signal that human rights are not a priority for the U.S.

Either way, Tillerson acknowledged that “…in some circumstances, [the U.S.] should and [does] condition our policy engagements on people adopting certain actions as to how they treat people.”

Balancing these priorities requires sound advice and judgement. To ensure that human rights are a priority, the administration should move quickly to fill crucial positions in the State Department.

Early on in the administration, President Donald Trump held a meeting with key stakeholders in the human trafficking community, signaling that U.S. leadership on trafficking in persons is critical to ending this global scourge.

Human trafficking may prove to be a gateway issue for other human rights concerns internationally and at home.

With the U.S. Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons report slated to come out mid-summer, and key legislation—the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—up for reauthorization, the conversation on trafficking will continue to be of importance through the rest of 2017.

The administration should take advantage of the ongoing conversation on human trafficking to reassert U.S. leadership, not just on trafficking, but also on other pressing human rights challenges. These include major threats to democracy and good governance across the globe, as well as the continued rise of religious persecution.

Advancing first principles and core American values overseas has been a critical component of past administrations, and should remain a critical part of the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities. For that, more critical roles need to be filled.

Tillerson’s remarks offer promise that this will continue to be the case, but he cannot do it alone. (For more from the author of “Is the White House Embracing Human Rights in US Foreign Policy?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Find out Which Republicans Voted Against House’s Obamacare Replacement Bill

The House of Representatives voted by a razor-thin 217-213 to pass Republicans’ revised Obamacare replacement bill and move it to the Senate, where more changes are expected.

House Speaker Paul Ryan needed 216 votes to pass the legislation, and 20 GOP members voted no Thursday along with all 193 Democrats.

Immediately after the roll call vote concluded around 2:30 p.m., House Republicans began boarding buses to head to a celebratory event at the White House.

The 20 Republican House members who voted no included Andy Biggs of Arizona, Mike Coffman of Colorado, Barbara Comstock of Virginia, Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania, Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Dan Donovan of New York, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Jamie Herrera Beutler of Washington, Will Hurd of Texas, and Walter Jones of North Carolina.

The other GOP members voting no were David Joyce of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Leonard Lance of New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania, Dave Reichert of Washington, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Chris Smith of New Jersey, and Mike Turner of Ohio.

The legislation, called the American Health Care Act, has been a point of contention on Capitol Hill since Ryan, R-Wis., pulled the bill March 24 when it became clear Republicans did not have enough votes to pass it.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative lawmakers, originally opposed the bill but now supports it with the addition of the so-called MacArthur amendment negotiated by Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Tuesday Group Co-chairman Tom MacArthur, R-N.J.

“The MacArthur amendment will grant states the ability to repeal cost-driving aspects of Obamacare left in place under the original [American Health Care Act],” the Freedom Caucus said in a formal statement. “While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower health care costs.”

The revisions also include a provision on coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions.

Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Billy Long, R-Mo., worked with President Donald Trump on Wednesday to secure a new amendment that provides $8 billion more in federal funding over five years to help cover individuals with preexisting conditions.

The Wall Street Journal tweeted the names of the 20 Republicans who voted no:

“While it’s not full repeal, I’ve said this many times, it’s what we believe is the best piece of legislation we can get out of the House at this moment,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told reporters Wednesday at Conversations With Conservatives, a monthly gathering on Capitol Hill.

The bill includes provisions to repeal Obamacare subsidies and replace them with age-based, refundable tax credits to help consumers get coverage in the individual market, and to repeal the Obamacare mandate that forced consumers to get health insurance or pay a penalty.

The legislation allows states to choose waivers to bypass Obamacare’s community-rating rules, which block insurers from charging sick consumers more than healthy consumers. States that do so may charge sick customers more only if they don’t maintain continuous coverage.

Before the vote, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., railed on the House floor against the “moral monstrosity” she called Trumpcare. Ryan, when he spoke, depicted the legislation as beginning to keep a promise to voters.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted his opposition shortly before the House vote.

Melanie Israel, a research associate at The Heritage Foundation, praised the bill’s pro-life provisions, one of which ensures that tax dollars will not go to the abortion industry and also defunds Planned Parenthood for one year.

“The American Health Care Act addresses pro-life concerns regarding Planned Parenthood funding and abortion coverage in health plans,” Israel told The Daily Signal in an email, adding:

These important restrictions would protect tax dollars from entanglement with the abortion industry and help allow individuals and families to choose health care that meets their needs without violating their beliefs or subsidizing life-ending drugs and procedures.

(For more from the author of “Find out Which Republicans Voted Against House’s Obamacare Replacement Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.S. General Confirms: Special Operations Teams Will Be Sent to Take out North Korean Nuke Sites

With China issuing a final warning to North Korea earlier today, and U.S. President Donald Trump keeping all options on the table as he prepares a response to continued North Korean military posturing and rhetoric, Army General Raymond A. Thomas confirmed in sworn testimony to a Congressional subcommittee that special operations teams will be utilized as part of any conflict with the rogue state and would likely be sent in to secure and/or destroy North Korean nuclear facilities in the event of war:

Army Gen. Raymond A. Thomas stated in testimony to a House subcommittee that Army, Navy, and Air Force commandos are based both permanently and in rotations on the Korean peninsula in case conflict breaks out.

The special operations training and preparation is a warfighting priority, Thomas said in prepared testimony. There are currently around 8,000 special operations troops deployed in more than 80 countries.

“We are actively pursuing a training path to ensure readiness for the entire range of contingency operations in which [special operations forces], to include our exquisite [countering weapons of mass destruction] capabilities, may play a critical role,” he told the subcommittee on emerging threats.

“We are looking comprehensively at our force structure and capabilities on the peninsula and across the region to maximize our support to U.S. [Pacific Command] and [U.S. Forces Korea]. This is my warfighting priority for planning and support.”

Special forces troops would be responsible for locating and destroying North Korean nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems, such as mobile missiles. They also would seek to prevent the movement of the weapons out of the country during a conflict.

Special operations missions are said by military experts to include intelligence gathering on the location of nuclear and chemical weapons sites for targeting by bombers. They also are likely to include direct action assaults on facilities to sabotage the weapons, or to prevent the weapons from being stolen, or set off at the sites by the North Koreans.

Source: Free Beacon

In earlier reports it was noted that SEALs and other commandos could be used in a first strike to decapitate North Korean leadership at the onset of any military engagement.

The President deployed high-altitude surveillance drones over North Korea earlier this week in a bid to gather intelligence about the secretive country’s nuclear and military capabilities ahead of any military action . . .

The world appears to be moving towards war at a feverish pace. (For more from the author of “U.S. General Confirms: Special Operations Teams Will Be Sent to Take out North Korean Nuke Sites” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.