Posts

Insane Fourth Circuit: Muslims’ Feelings Trump National Security

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Actual rights — such as life, liberty, property, and conscience — are denied by the courts. American Christians cannot run their own property in accordance with their conscience — the most sacred of all property rights. “Bake the damn cake,” they say!

Yet, these same courts have created an affirmative right to immigrate based on religious liberty for Muslims living in a shack on some Somali hilltop.

Now, the Fourth Circuit has taken this debauchery a step further and has created a right to not feel perceived stigma – to the point that such a grievance can overturn national security and, presumably, diplomatic and military policies. The sky is the limit, if we are to hold the Fourth Circuit to a consistent reading of its own ruling.

As I noted in my first piece analyzing the Fourth Circuit’s immigration ruling on Thursday, this case was not about letting a foreign national into the country. Indeed, none of the relatives of the plaintiffs were even denied entry. What the court did was nullify the intangible executive policy, rhetoric, and directive in general about fighting Islamic terror because the plaintiffs felt stigmatized.

This is the only way they were able to obtain standing and assert an injury-in-fact to satisfy an Establishment Clause violation. Thus, the court has now opened the door for any Muslim American or even Muslim LPR (legal permanent resident) to shoot directly at a national security policy in court — even beyond immigration — assert the injury of feeling a negative stereotype and a stigma, and have the court “overturn” that policy.

Take a look at this footnote from Page 60 of the opinion, whereby the courts essentially say the Justice Department can’t collect data on honor killings because it stigmatizes Muslims:

Plaintiffs suggest that EO-2 is not facially neutral, because by directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to collect data on “honor killings” committed in the United States by foreign nationals, EO-2 incorporates “a stereotype about Muslims that the President had invoked in the months preceding the Order.” Appellees’ Br. 5, 7; see J.A. 598 (reproducing Trump’s remarks in a September 2016 speech in Arizona in which he stated that applicants from countries like Iraq and Afghanistan would be “asked their views about honor killings,” because “a majority of residents [in those countries] say that the barbaric practice of honor killings against women are often or sometimes justified”). Numerous amici explain that invoking the specter of “honor killings” is a well-worn tactic for stigmatizing and demeaning Islam and painting the religion, and its men, as violent and barbaric.

Judge Thacker, in his concurrence, also cited the “stereotype” of honor killings as reason to make the president’s policy rise to the level of an Establishment Clause violation.

There are no words to describe the infinite and insane consequences that flow from this decision. By definition, almost all of our key diplomatic, military, homeland security, and national security policies are focused on the threat of Islamic terrorism. The consummate threat of our time will always involve, in some form, the recognition of a threat within the religion of Islam.

Any smart lawyer could now use the language of this ruling to strike down almost any foreign policy or homeland security policy on behalf of a Muslim by contending that such a policy violates the Establishment Clause because it stigmatizes Muslims.

What is to stop a Muslim LPR from suing our government for engaging in war almost exclusively in “Muslim” countries? Every major military engagement is against a Muslim-majority country or Muslim entity.

Plaintiffs could cite the same “data” and anecdotes suggesting that these policies cultivate an anti-Islam bias in this country and make them feel “anxious,” “stigmatized,” “stereotyped,” and “like an outsider.” This is the new threshold for determining whether a policy violates the Establishment Clause. And it could now apply to foreign policy and national security.

Most certainly, they could lodge lawsuits against any FBI policy of data collection and basic law enforcement actions because they are primarily focused on one religion as it relates to terrorism. Also, it’s quite clear from this decision that the DHS couldn’t ask basic questions to determine whether a visa applicant is a Sharia supremacist, practices honor killings, or believes in performing female genital mutilation. That is a prima facie violation of the Establishment Clause, according to these judges.

That means that the courts have now codified the Obama-era policies of willful blindness into law. And not only into law, but into the Constitution, thereby preventing even Congress from implementing basic protections.

Entry of aliens is just as much a part of foreign affairs as military and diplomacy

Lest you think my hypothetical case of a Muslim suing against military or diplomatic policy is an exaggeration or even an extrapolation of this case, think again. The decisions governing aliens entering this country are not only controlled by the delegated authority Congress has given over through statute to the president; it is also inherent in the president’s own Article II powers to conduct foreign affairs.

Here are a few quotes from past court decisions demonstrating this point:

The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. * * * When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” [930 F. Supp. 1360, 1365 (N.D. Cal. 1996)]

“It is pertinent to observe that any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” (Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, (1952).

“When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.

“Thus, the decision to admit or to exclude an alien may be lawfully placed with the President, who may, in turn, delegate the carrying out of this function to a responsible executive officer of the sovereign, such as the Attorney General. The action of the executive officer under such authority is final and conclusive. Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.” (Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 1950)

Thus, to grant standing to a Muslim to shoot down an immigration policy under the pretense of an Establishment Clause violation is tantamount to granting standing to sue against any foreign policy. This would mean that an American Jew should be able to sue the State Department for promoting a Palestinian state — a policy that would uproot Jews from Judea and Samaria.

No other diplomatic policy directly targets a religion to the point that the outcome and purpose of such a policy is to make a land — the Jewish homeland of all places — Jew-free. The stigma of Israel as an occupier is directly responsible for the violence and persecution of Jews on college campuses. There is a much stronger case to be made for suing on these grounds, along with FBI hate-crime data on attacks against Jews, than the claim before the Fourth Circuit … once we accept their maniacal premise.

The precedent this decision sets on vetting immigrants is also breathtaking. What flows seamlessly from this opinion is that any American immigrant relative of someone who was denied a visa could sue and assert a religious liberty right.

Whereas for the first 200 years of our history we only admitted people who shared our values, now the courts are saying you can only deny entry to someone with absolute, unqualified known ties to terror. His values system is out of bounds. Support for honor killings or FGM, notwithstanding. As I note in Chapter 6 of “Stolen Sovereignty,” this not only violates the legalities of sovereignty, it violates the philosophy behind our immigration system since our founding of only bringing in “meritorious.”

In Federalist No. 69, when contrasting the role of a president from that of a king, Alexander Hamilton observed that “[T]he one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens.”

Now, unelected lower-court judges have more power than a king. (For more from the author of “Insane Fourth Circuit: Muslims’ Feelings Trump National Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Administration Considering Rule That Would Help Little Sisters of the Poor

/0 Comments/in , /by

For employers that don’t want to provide birth control and abortifacient coverage in health insurance plans, relief may be on the way.

President Donald Trump’s administration “is poised to make changes to Obamacare’s birth control coverage mandate by granting broad exemptions to employers that object on religious or moral grounds,” The Hill reported.

The proposed move is being cheered by some conservatives.

“Better late than never,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit legal organization, said in a statement.

“At long last the United States government acknowledges that people can get contraceptives without forcing nuns to provide them,” Rienzi added. “That is sensible, fair, and in keeping with the Supreme Court’s order and the president’s promise to the Little Sisters and other religious groups serving the poor.”

The Becket Fund represents the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who fought the Obamacare contraception and abortifacient mandate all the way to the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Supreme Court “‘vacated,’ meaning erased, all of the lower court cases and required them to reconsider the claims brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor and others that the regulations promulgated pursuant to Obamacare violate their religious exercise in light of the government’s admission that it could indeed provide contraceptive coverage without the Little Sisters’ collaboration,” wrote The Heritage Foundation’s Elizabeth Slattery and Roger Severino, a former Heritage employee, at the time.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an organization that promotes pro-life and family values, said the proposed rule change is good progress.

“While this apparent leaked document is a draft, it is a very positive sign to see the federal government work to cease its hostility toward Christians and those who object to the Obama-era health care mandates,” Perkins said in a statement. “This draft regulation shows that [Health and Human Services] Secretary Tom Price and President Trump intend to make good on their pledge to vigorously protect and promote [America’s] First Freedom.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., decried the proposed rule change.

Birth control advocates, such as Keep Birth Control Copay Free, an organization that promotes birth control access, are not supportive of the potential rule change.

“President Trump has been clear that religious liberty is important and that religious orders, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, are deserving of that freedom as well,” a White House spokesperson told The Daily Signal in an email.

The leaked rule “would leave in place the religious ‘accommodation’ created by the Obama administration, making that route available to groups that choose to continue using it,” according to the Becket Fund.

The Becket Fund also noted in its press release that many Americans remain on health insurance plans that do not have to provide abortifacients or birth control:

One hundred million Americans—nearly one in three—don’t have insurance plans that must comply with this mandate. The government was already exempting large corporations like Exxon and Visa, and even its own government-run plans for the disabled and military families.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, told The Daily Signal in an email that the proposed rule could be published in the next week or in the next several weeks. (For more from the author of “Trump Administration Considering Rule That Would Help Little Sisters of the Poor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ethics Prof. Charged in Deadly-Weapons Assault of Trump Backers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Eric Clanton, an adjunct professor at Diablo Valley College (DVC) in Northern California, has been arrested on charges of assaulting numerous individuals with a bike lock at an April political rally-turned-riot spearheaded by the radical-left Antifa organization.

The East Bay Times reports Clanton was arrested Wednesday in Oakland, Calif., “on three counts of suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon that isn’t a firearm and assault causing great bodily injury.”

Clanton remains in a Berkeley jail on a $200,000 bond. He was arraigned Friday at an Oakland courthouse.

On April 15, a conglomerate of Trump supporters gathered in Berkeley for a “Patriots Day” event. Their event was crashed by far-left Antifa protesters, and soon thereafter, the two sides clashed. Twenty-one individuals were arrested, according to police, and six hospitalized for injury.

Clanton, 28, is thought to be the masked individual in the video below who smashed a Trump supporter in the head with a U-lock at the Patriots Day event, giving his victim a large gash.

CONTENT WARNING:

The Berkeley Police Department started investigating the allegations against Clanton in April, according to Golden Gate Xpress, the student paper for San Francisco State.

According to his Diablo Valley College faculty profile (which has since been taken down), Clanton began teaching at the school in 2015 and holds a master’s degree in philosophy. However, the community college district spokesman said that Clanton had not been working this spring semester.

The DVC course schedule shows that Clanton is slated to teach a “Logic and Critical Thinking” class as well as an “Introduction to Philosophy” course at DVC in summer. In the fall, he is slated to teach two “Introduction to Philosophy” classes.

Eric Clanton’s master’s thesis focused on the “intersection of virtue ethics and affective/emotional perception in the context of environmental philosophy,” according to Clanton’s website.

“I am also interested in feminist theory as well as critical and philosophical approaches to prisons and police enforcement,” he adds.

Clanton’s (former) bio at DVC read in part: “His primary research interests are ethics and politics. His work in political philosophy also centers on mass incarceration and the prison system. He is currently exploring restorative justice from an anti-authoritarian perspective.”

Before DVC, Clanton was a lecturer at Cal State, Sacramento, where he taught two classes on ethics. He was also a graduate teaching assistant in the philosophy department at San Francisco State for multiple semesters.

Clanton was allegedly identified as the bike-lock suspect thanks to the work of several dedicated 4chan users, a popular politics message board. Users there say they identified Clanton through a crowdsourced effort that focused on his clothing, skin markings, facial alignments, and other identifying markers. They then compared those criteria with the profile of the masked Antifa rioter.

In a comment to the Diablo Valley College student newspaper on April 20l, DVC spokeswoman Chrisanne Knox said the claims against Clanton were “based on an unsubstantiated allegation from unknown sources.”

Requests for information from various officials at Diablo Valley College were not returned. (For more from the author of “Ethics Prof. Charged in Deadly-Weapons Assault of Trump Backers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Airstrikes on Terrorists in Afghanistan Hit Five-Year High Under Trump

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. airstrikes on Taliban insurgents and Islamic State terrorists hit a nearly five-year high in April, Air Force Times reports.

The U.S. dropped 460 bombs in April, more than double the number dropped in the previous month. The military has not dropped that many bombs since August 2012, when there were seven times more U.S. troops present in the country. April also marked the first use of the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. arsenal against ISIS in Afghanistan, known as the “Mother Of All Bombs.”

The increase in bombs reportedly stems from a renewed U.S. focus on defeating ISIS in Afghanistan, and the start of the spring fighting season for the Taliban. The terrorist group is largely confined to a single province in Afghanistan, but has proven resilient in the face of a nearly two-year effort by the U.S. and Afghan National Security Forces to oust it.

The renewed vigor of the fight in Afghanistan comes as President Donald Trump is considering a Pentagon proposal to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Both U.S. commanders in Afghanistan say they need a couple thousand more troops to effectively train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Security Forces. (Read more from “Airstrikes on Terrorists in Afghanistan Hit Five-Year High Under Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cut or ‘Clean’: Trump, Congress Negotiate on How to Raise the Debt Ceiling

/0 Comments/in , /by

Since winning a House majority in 2010, congressional Republicans have asked for any increase in the nation’s borrowing limit to be offset, at least in part, by spending cuts.

President Barack Obama denied that ambition, but it’s different now that Republicans control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Or, so it might seem. Last week, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated a “preference” for passage of a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling from $19.81 trillion without necessitating cuts—and before Congress leaves for its August recess.

“I urge you to raise the debt limit before you leave for the summer,” he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democratic leaders also support such a “clean” increase in the debt ceiling, without attaching it to other matters. But Republicans likely aren’t unified on how to raise the debt limit.

“The responsible thing to do is address the debt ceiling early and avoid a last-minute crisis,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a member and former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Signal in an email.

“Any debt limit increase should be paired with spending cuts to address our debt,” Jordan said. “The federal government has a spending problem and it’s time that Congress took meaningful steps toward getting it under control.”

The debt ceiling marks the federal government’s ability to continue borrowing money to pay for its spending. Raising the limit technically isn’t new spending, but it rarely takes the government long to reach the new limit.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of about three dozen conservatives, issued a statement last week in support of raising the debt limit by August. But the caucus opposed doing so without conditions, and demanded any increase be paired with “cutting [the budget] where necessary, capping where able, and working to balance in the near future.”

Raising the debt ceiling should include budget savings, but shouldn’t mean threatening to default on paying the nation’s bills, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group.

“There should not be talk of allowing the country to default. That’s not a credible threat nor a legitimate strategy,” MacGuineas told The Daily Signal. “But, it does make sense to include savings and debt reduction as part of any package to increase the debt ceiling.”

The August recess is earlier than Congress had planned for raising the nation’s borrowing limit, but it is a reasonable amount of time in which Congress can move, MacGuineas said. Such savings should be consistent with a budget policy Congress decides on, which she said she hopes will be reached by that point.

As of last week, the Treasury Department measured the national debt at $19.8 trillion, right at the limit.

The debt limit came back into effect March 15, after it was suspended temporarily by a 2015 agreement between Congress and Obama.

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal estimated that the national debt will increase to $21 trillion by the end of 2018, and to $24.6 trillion by 2027.

Under Obama, the debt increased from $10.6 trillion upon his inauguration in January 2009 to $19.94 trillion when he left office in January 2017.

Policies in the Trump budget proposal, such as imposing work requirements for recipients of Medicaid and food stamps, could be included in a package raising the debt ceiling, said Romina Boccia, a federal budget expert who is deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Boccia noted the public doesn’t support simply increasing the borrowing limit without fiscally responsible measures.

“A clean debt ceiling increase is bad optics, bad politics, and bad policy,” Boccia told The Daily Signal. “The debt ceiling can be a key legislative tool for spending cuts in the future and to rein in spending and deficits.”

Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, opposed raising the debt ceiling without achieving savings when he was a House member from South Carolina. Mulvaney also was part of the House Freedom Caucus.

White House officials last week had a “listening session” with conservative groups and members of Congress about raising the debt ceiling, Boccia said.

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee last week, Mnuchin replied, “That is my preference” when asked about raising the debt ceiling without conditions. Referring to the Trump administration, the treasury secretary also told the committee:

We are very concerned that the debt has gone from $10 trillion to $20 trillion over the last eight years. We believe that the most important issue is economic growth. … I urge you to raise the debt limit before you leave for the summer. We can all discuss how we cut spending in the future and how we deal with budgets going forward, but it is absolutely critical that where we spent money, that we keep the credit of the United States as the most critical issue. It is the reserve currency of the world and we need to make sure we raise our debt ceiling to pay our debts.

(For more from the author of “Cut or ‘Clean’: Trump, Congress Negotiate on How to Raise the Debt Ceiling” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: Trump Tells Confidants He’s Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump privately told several confidants that he will be pulling out of the Paris climate deal, three sources with direct knowledge told Axios.

The president refused Saturday to join his Group of 7 (G7) counterparts in a pledge to uphold the 195-nation Paris Agreement. Trump tweeted that he will make his decision next week, signaling that he has yet to officially make up his mind.

Pulling out of the Paris climate deal would unravel Obama-era climate change policies, and possibly the agreement itself. Dropping the agreement would also send a message to the world that climate change is not a pressing issue for the new administration.

White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said earlier that if Trump is faced with a choice between growing the economy and fighting global warming, Trump will choose the economy.

“If it comes to a choice between measures to curtail global warming under the 2015 Paris climate accord and growing the U.S. economy, economic considerations would prevail,” Cohn told reporters on Air Force One Thursday. (Read more from “Report: Trump Tells Confidants He’s Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Move to Deter Russian Aggression

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump presented a budget request to Congress that would boost spending for an Obama-era buildup of U.S. military forces in Europe meant to deter Russia from military provocations and show NATO and its European partners that the U.S. is committed to their defense.

“Such a request is more reassuring for American allies and partners in Europe like Ukraine than mere declarations from senior Trump administration officials,” Mykola Bielieskov, an analyst with the Institute of World Policy, a Ukrainian think tank, told The Daily Signal.

The Obama administration announced the European Reassurance Initiative, or ERI, in June 2014, three months after Russia illegally annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and launched military operations in eastern Ukraine. The program called for a buildup of U.S. military forces and equipment in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as rotating military exercises throughout the region.

Trump’s 2018 budget calls for a $1.4 billion increase in ERI funds—a 41 percent increase over the $3.4 billion tagged in 2017 by the Obama administration. The move, which U.S. military forces in Europe praised, sent a reassuring message to both NATO’s eastern flank as well as countries throughout Eastern Europe that see Russia as an existential threat and are looking for U.S. protection.

“From the Polish perspective, the deployment of U.S. troops to Poland and Baltic states means a real deterrence since it increases the probability of the U.S. forces engagement in case of potential aggression from Russia,” Daniel Szeligowski, senior research fellow at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, told The Daily Signal.

“The more combat-ready U.S. troops there are, the higher such a probability is,” Szeligowski said.

In Ukraine, Trump’s budget proposal sent a reassuring message to a country that has been in a proxy war with Russia since April 2014 that has, so far, killed about 10,000 people.

“Kyiv is especially pleased as $150 million might be allocated to train, equip, and reform Ukraine armed forces if [Trump’s] budget is approved,” Bielieskov said.

Bielieskov added that Trump’s proposed budget “is the best possible proof that security of Central and Eastern Europe continues to be one of the major priorities for the Donald J. Trump administration despite previous contradictory statements.”

U.S. military forces in Europe also hailed the proposed boost in spending to defend Europe from Russia.

“As we continue to address the dynamic security environment in Europe, [European Reassurance Initiative] funding increases our joint capabilities to deter and defend against Russian aggression,” Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. European Command, said in an emailed statement to journalists on Wednesday.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to a request for comment.

In Trump’s $4.1 trillion 2018 budget, overall U.S. defense spending is slated to increase by 10.1 percent—from $521.8 billion in 2017 to a proposed $574.5 billion in 2018.

Doubling Down

During a joint press conference with the Polish president on June 3, 2014, President Barack Obama said the European Reassurance Initiative was a “powerful demonstration of America’s unshakeable commitment to our NATO allies.”

“The United States will pre-position more equipment in Europe,” Obama said in 2014. “We will be expanding our exercises and training with allies to increase the readiness of our forces. We’ll increase the number of American personnel—Army and Air Force units—continuously rotating through allied countries in Central and Eastern Europe. And we will be stepping up our partnerships with friends like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia as they provide for their own defense.”

Totaling roughly $1 billion in 2014, the ERI was meant to be temporary. However, Russia’s military brinkmanship in Eastern Europe and its ongoing proxy war in Ukraine have kept the program alive and growing.

Obama’s last budget in 2017 quadrupled ERI funding from $789 million to more than $3.4 billion, including $335 million in nonlethal military aid for Ukraine. That year, Congress also appropriated $75 million as part of a combined State Department and Defense Department fund to train Ukrainian forces.

Today, about 7,000 U.S. military personnel are deployed throughout Europe on a rotational basis under the ERI’s umbrella. Yet, the number of U.S. personnel permanently based in Europe has not increased, according to U.S. European Command.

The U.S. has about 35,000 total military personnel in Europe. Recently, the U.S. Army deployed an additional heavy brigade to Poland, comprising about 3,500 troops and 87 tanks, as well as a unit of 500 troops to Romania. The U.S. military also has personnel in Ukraine conducting a training mission.

“These significant investments will further galvanize U.S. support to the collective defense of our NATO allies, as well as bolster the security and capacity of our U.S. partners,” Scaparrotti said.

Up North

This week, U.S. F-15 fighters and KC-135 aerial refueling tankers are deployed on the northern edge of Europe as part of a biennial military exercise in a region that has become a hotbed of tension with Russia.

The exercise, called Arctic Challenge, will last from May 22 to June 2, and is being hosted by Norway, Sweden, and Finland—of which Norway is the only NATO country.

The exercise underscores a constant drumbeat of temporary deployments and military exercises undertaken by U.S. military forces across Europe since 2014, which, while not always specifically advertised as a message of deterrence to Russia, have nonetheless been interpreted that way by Moscow more often than not. The temporary deployment of U.S. Marines to Norway this year, for example, drew sharp condemnation from the Kremlin.

“The scenarios are generic in nature, to solve an ill-defined problem in the air,” Lt. Col. Jason Zumwalt, 493rd Fighter Squadron commander, told The Daily Signal in a telephone interview from the Arctic Challenge exercise on Tuesday.

Zumwalt said Arctic Challenge, which comprises more than 100 military aircraft from 11 countries, is not intended to simulate a conflict with Russia.

“We’re not looking at any specific threats,” Zumwalt said. “Yesterday’s mission was defending an area from attack by a superior force—to protect a region of sky from enemy incursion.”

The exercise is taking place totally within the airspace confines of the three Nordic host countries—two of which, Norway and Finland, share land borders with Russia. Yet, Zumwalt said the risk would be “very low” for an unintended encounter between U.S. and Russian warplanes.

“Our pilots are professionals and they’re trained in what to do if they’re intercepted,” the U.S. fighter squadron commander said.

Tripwire

Trump’s budget request to extend and expand the European Reassurance Initiative highlights how the Russian threat to NATO and its European partners has not dimmed in the intervening years.

Since 2014, Russia has aggressively tested NATO’s air defenses in Eastern Europe and the Arctic with warplane flybys while simultaneously building up its military hardware in places like the Kaliningrad exclave and Crimea.

Resultantly, the security situation in Eastern Europe has been upheaved. Due to the Russian threat, the Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania, both NATO members, have had the two fastest-growing military budgets in the world since 2014, according to IHS Jane’s. And Poland, also a NATO member, has doubled its military spending since 2006.

At the NATO summit in July 2016 in Warsaw, Poland, alliance leaders announced the planned deployment of four 1,000-troop-strong combat battalions to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on a rotational basis.

NATO also fields a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, comprising about 5,000 troops, which is tasked to “respond to emerging security challenges posed by Russia,” according to a statement on the alliance’s website.

The deployments are considered “tripwire forces” by many military experts, presumably meant to deter Russia from an attack due to the risk of spurring a massive NATO response to defend its forward units.

“The U.S. rotating armored brigade combat teams currently scattered across Eastern Europe can hardly really deter Russia from starting an overt war against one of NATO’s members—it’s more of a guarantee that such violations of international law would trigger a massive U.S. and allied response,” Bielieskov, the Ukrainian analyst, said.

“Given U.S. nuclear, as well as conventional, capabilities, the risk of potential conflict escalation is high enough so as not to allow any aggressor to achieve its political goals,” Szeligowski, the Polish senior research fellow, said. “That, in the end, should influence any calculations made by third parties, especially Russia.”

Meanwhile, in Ukraine

The war in eastern Ukraine—Europe’s only ongoing land war—has not ended.

Ukrainian forces have been at war against a combined force of pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars since April 2014.

Despite a February 2015 cease-fire, artillery and rocket attacks still occur daily, as well as small arms gun battles. Soldiers in opposing camps are hunkered down in trenches and in fortified positions along a static 250-mile-long front line in the Donbas, Ukraine’s embattled southeastern territory on the border with Russia.

Civilians and soldiers continue to die on both sides of the front lines. About a third of the conflict’s 10,000 deaths happened after the cease-fire went into effect. And about 1.7 million people remain displaced by the conflict.

According to U.S. and Ukrainian officials, Russia continues to feed the conflict with troops, weapons, and money. The Kremlin says it’s not involved in the war.

To defend itself against Russia, Ukraine has since 2014 rebuilt its once-hobbled military into the second-largest standing army in Europe, comprising about 250,000 active-duty personnel. With about 1 million active troops, and more than 2 million in its reserves, Russia has the only military in Europe bigger than Ukraine’s.

“In the end, general increased U.S. presence in Eastern Europe can indirectly assist Ukraine in its war with Russia as it would force Moscow to take into account new U.S. deployments and ease pressure in the Donbas and around the Ukrainian-Russian border,” Bielieskov said.

He added: “So the next logical step after increasing the ERI budget should be making the U.S. presence in Eastern Europe permanent, plus increasing the number of brigades in the region.” (For more from the author of “Trump’s Move to Deter Russian Aggression” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Returns to US, Immediately Slams ‘Fake’ News Media on Twitter

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump resumed one of his favorite activities on Sunday, just hours after returning to the U.S. following his first presidential overseas trip.

The Republican blasted the “fake” news media in a series of tweets, accusing reporters of fabricating anonymous sources for some stories . . .

But numerous stories about the ongoing Russia investigation dropped while he was away. Perhaps the biggest headline was a report that Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner discussed setting up a secret communications line with the Russian government during a meeting with Russia’s ambassador in early December. (Read more from “Trump Returns to US, Immediately Slams ‘Fake’ News Media on Twitter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Appeals Court Deals Blow to Trump Administration Travel Ban

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal appeals court dealt another blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban targeting six-Muslim majority countries on Thursday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that blocks the Republican’s administration from temporarily suspending new visas for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit is the first appeals court to rule on the revised travel ban, which Trump’s administration had hoped would avoid the legal problems that the first version encountered. (Read more from “Appeals Court Deals Blow to Trump Administration Travel Ban” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Possible Reasons Big Corporations Are So Eager for Trump to Break His Promise on Paris Climate Deal

/0 Comments/in , /by

European countries and major corporations are pressuring President Donald Trump to remain in the Paris climate agreement despite his promises on the campaign to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era deal that never gained congressional approval.

The Trump administration so far is sticking with being undecided—at least until Trump returns to the United States from his first foreign trip, where on Friday, he’s meeting with Group of Seven ally countries, which support the agreement.

Back home, the pressure is growing from multinational corporations, even the energy sector, which have opposed stricter limitations on carbon.

Exxon Mobil Corp., once run by Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP are urging the administration to remain in the agreement. Meanwhile, coal mining company Cloud Peak Energy urged the administration to remain.

European countries and major corporations are pressuring President Donald Trump to remain in the Paris climate agreement despite his promises on the campaign to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era deal that never gained congressional approval.

The Trump administration so far is sticking with being undecided—at least until Trump returns to the United States from his first foreign trip, where on Friday, he’s meeting with Group of Seven ally countries, which support the agreement.

Back home, the pressure is growing from multinational corporations, even the energy sector, which have opposed stricter limitations on carbon.

Exxon Mobil Corp., once run by Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP are urging the administration to remain in the agreement. Meanwhile, coal mining company Cloud Peak Energy urged the administration to remain.

“BP and Shell are European companies and it’s impossible to do business in Europe without towing the political line,” Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Signal. He added that for oil and gas companies, “the only way to get the price of gas back up is to kill coal. The Paris Agreement kills fossil fuels, but it kills coal first.”

Ebell was part of Trump’s transition team overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute sponsored an ad showing Trump during the campaign saying, “We are going to cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

While corporate support might seem surprising, it’s very much the same old story for large companies seeking an advantage over smaller competitors, said Katie Tubb, a policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation.

“Big business and big government often go hand-in-hand. Big businesses generally can absorb and adapt to the costs of complying with burdensome regulation, of which Paris is a wellspring,” Tubb told The Daily Signal. “Smaller companies have a much harder time complying, which means less competition for big business. This is especially true if big business can influence the substance of regulations to favor themselves or freeze out competitors. I think in other cases; these large companies are just looking for PR points.”

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry led the United States into the Paris climate change agreement, along with 170 other countries. The agreement commits member countries to shift their energy industries away from fossil fuels and toward green energy.

Two dozen major U.S. companies—including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, the Hartford, Levi Strauss, PG&E, and Morgan Stanley—sent an open letter to Trump published in The New York Times and other newspapers across the country, urging him to remain in the deal. The letter says:

By requiring action by developed and developing countries alike, the agreement ensures a more balanced global effort, reducing the risk of competitive imbalances for U.S. companies … By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets.

U.S. business is best served by a stable and practical framework facilitating an effective and balanced global response. The Paris Agreement provides such a framework. As other countries invest in advanced technologies and move forward with the Paris Agreement, we believe the United States can best exercise global leadership and advance U.S. interests by remaining a full partner in this vital global effort.

Generally, larger energy companies have an advantage under the climate deal, said Fred Palmer, senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute.

“Follow the money,” Palmer told The Daily Signal. “There are companies that want to game the system of using [carbon dioxide] as a currency to make money.”

After meetings at the Vatican earlier this week, Tillerson said, “The president indicated we’re still thinking about that, that he hasn’t made a final decision.”

Ahead of the G7 meeting, Trump chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told a pool reporter Friday that the president is weighing both sides.

“I think he’s leaning to understand the European position. Look, as you know from the U.S., there’s very strong views on both sides,” Cohn said. “He also knows that Paris has important meaning to many of the European leaders. And he wants to clearly hear what the European leaders have to say.”

Ebell warned that if the administration seeks to make a deal to stay in the agreement, perhaps with a lower commitment than the Obama administration pledged, then a future president could simply increase the U.S. commitment. That’s why, Ebell said, it’s best for the United States to get out.

“Obviously foreign leaders don’t care what Trump promised voters in the campaign,” Ebell said.

To be sure, many U.S. business groups oppose the Paris Agreement, such as the Industrial Energy Consumers of America—which represents manufacturers and other larger energy-using businesses—that wrote an April 24 letter to administration officials. The letter said:

We are the ones who eventually bear the costs of government imposed [greenhouse gas] reduction schemes. At the same time, we are often already economically disadvantaged, as compared to global competitors who are subsidized or protected by their governments.

Given the above concerns, IECA fails to see the benefit of the Paris Climate Accord. And, the long-term implications of the Paris Climate Accord, which includes greater future [greenhouse gas] reduction requirements, raises serious competitiveness and job implications for [energy-intensive, trade-exposed] industries.

(For more from the author of “The Possible Reasons Big Corporations Are So Eager for Trump to Break His Promise on Paris Climate Deal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.