Displaying posts published in

April 2022

China or the USA? by Pete Hoekstra

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18463/china-or-the-usa

The new agreement with Iran, then, is based on an imaginary assistance from Russia and China, when all three countries are committed to unseating America as the world’s leading superpower and evading US sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.

The US, in short, is sacrificing significant progress in the Middle East to help the three greatest threats to America’s international safety and security: these brutal and authoritarian regimes, China, Russia and Iran.

The actions of the past 18 months demonstrate the key challenges of American foreign policy — policies that swing back and forth from one administration to the next, creating a total lack of consistency. Secondly, they highlight the fact that one administration seems unwilling to accept or learn from the previous administration.

America will continue to see its international role diminish if foreign policy continues to resemble a roller coaster, changing direction every four to eight years, based more on political, partisan whims than an actual results-oriented approach. This is how China conducts its foreign policy: on the back of such American unreliability.

We must stay loyal to our allies such as the UAE for the long-term for them to see the US as a reliable ally, so that they and other countries can risk taking the courageous, groundbreaking steps that they have been implementing over the last few years.

Two recent reports highlight a disturbing trend in the global power dynamic. They are not receiving much attention because of the ongoing war in Ukraine, but China is exploiting this out-of-the-spotlight moment to work smartly at increasing its influence within the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the US is squandering this moment by trying to negotiate a renewed Iran nuclear deal with Russia’s assistance.

More Than 70 Sheriffs Call on Congress to Keep Title 42: ‘We Simply Have No Border Left’ By Brittany Bernstein

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/more-than-70-sheriffs-call-on-congress-to-keep-title-42-we-simply-have-no-border-left/

A group of more than 70 sheriffs is urging Congress to take action to extend the Title 42 public health order, which has allowed border agents to immediately expel illegal border crossers but is slated for termination on May 23.

Lawmakers have warned the southern border will likely see a huge surge in illegal immigration when the order ends. The policy was first handed down under the Trump administration at the start of the pandemic.

“Title 42 is the only policy provision left since January 2022 that helps to stop the unhealthy (no COVID testing) border crossings by millions of illegal entrants to our country,” writes the group of sheriffs organized by the National Sheriff’s Association in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Thursday.

The letter says the Biden administration’s efforts to undo Trump-era immigration policy, including ending the Remain in Mexico policy and construction on the border wall, mean that “we simply have no border left in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas or Southern California.”

“Today, there are thousands of immigrants in the jungles of the Darien gap headed to the US border. We simply don’t know their health status and implore you to keep Title 42 as the last policy we have to keep Americans safe from COVID and a host of other communicable diseases carried by these immigrants,” the group adds.

The letter notes that Border Patrol agents have already encountered more than a million migrants in just the first half of the fiscal year.

Thomas and Gorsuch Probe American Citizenship, Race, and the Territories By Dan McLaughlin

//www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/thomas-and-gorsuch-probe-american-citizenship-race-and-the-territories/

Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch ask us to revisit old mistakes in understanding the rights of American citizenship.

The Supreme Court decided an easy case this morning — a case so easy that only Justice Sonia Sotomayor could get it wrong. Nevertheless, it still had Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in the mood to raise long-standing questions about race and American citizenship.

The question in United States v. Vaello Madero was whether Congress is permitted to exclude residents of Puerto Rico from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and other federal benefits programs — just as it exempts Puerto Ricans from most federal taxes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion easily concluded, in a brisk six-page 8–1 decision joined by every justice but Sotomayor, that long-standing law allowed Congress to treat Puerto Rico and other territories differently:

The Territory Clause of the Constitution states that Congress may “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory . . . belonging to the United States.” Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. The text of the Clause affords Congress broad authority to legislate with respect to the U. S. Territories. Exercising that authority, Congress sometimes legislates differently with respect to the Territories, including Puerto Rico, than it does with respect to the States.

The territory clause was likewise the basis for the Court’s decision in 2020 in Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Inv., LLC, which held that the appointments clause does not require Senate approval for territorial officials exercising the sorts of local powers that, in a state, would be exercised by the state. In today’s case, Kavanaugh observed that, if Congress were constitutionally mandated to provide federal benefits in Puerto Rico, there would be political pressure to apply federal taxes there as well — “with serious implications for the Puerto Rican people and the Puerto Rican economy. The Constitution does not require that extreme outcome.”

The Dissenter

Sotomayor, a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to New York and a longtime board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, wrote separately in Financial Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. v. Aurelius on Puerto Rico–specific grounds. In today’s decision, paying no attention to the constitutional text or the history of territorial regulation, Sotomayor argued that “there is no rational basis for Congress to treat needy citizens living anywhere in the United States so differently from others” because the program “establishes a direct relationship between the recipient and the Federal Government. . . . Under the current system, the jurisdiction in which an SSI recipient resides has no bearing at all on the purposes or requirements of the SSI program.

Defund the Capitol Police While purporting to defend “Congress, the U.S. Capitol, and our democracy,” Capitol police act as a narrative enforcer for Democrats. Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/21/defund-the-capitol-police/

The new intelligence chief of the U.S. Capitol Police is off to a rough start.

Ravi Satkalmi, a former high-ranking NYPD official, took over the Capitol Police’s expanding intelligence unit this month. But his agency suffered a major humiliation Wednesday night after it forced the evacuation of the Capitol and surrounding buildings after spotting “an aircraft that poses a probable threat.” Staff scrambled to exit the buildings in a panic, and news outlets interrupted coverage with “breaking news” bulletins about the suspicious aircraft.

Roughly 15 minutes later, Capitol police backtracked and announced there was no threat; the aircraft, it turned out, was a U.S. Army plane preparing to perform a parachute stunt at the Washington Nationals baseball game. After issuing an “all clear” notice, a USCP senior security official told Fox News, “This is not supposed to happen. It looks bad.”

While the gaffe was heavily mocked on social media, the Capitol Police’s most ardent defender came to the rescue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) quickly released a statement commending Capitol Police’s “heroism” and “exemplary service.”

Blaming the Federal Aviation Administration for allegedly failing to notify Capitol Police about the event, Pelosi promised to investigate what happened. “The unnecessary panic caused by this apparent negligence [by the FAA] was particularly harmful for Members, staff, and institutional workers still grappling with the trauma of the attack on their workplace on January 6th,” she said in a written statement.

Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues—who in 2020 readily took a knee in the Capitol building to honor George Floyd—have found the one police department they not only routinely describe as “heroic” but deserving of billions of new dollars courtesy of American taxpayers: the U.S. Capitol Police.

Black Americans commemorating Confederate history By Olivia Murray

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/black_americans_commemorating_confederate_history.html

In the small town of Livingston, Tennessee, Mayor Curtis Hayes recently signed a citywide proclamation declaring April 2022 as ‘Confederate History Month.’ According to the county news website, Hayes’ intention was to serve as an impetus to “all citizens to avail themselves of the opportunities to increase their knowledge of this important era of Tennessee’s history.” A striking photo op to disrupt the Left’s narrative and modus operandi of revisionist history, Hayes, a Black American, signed the proclamation with some of his townsfolk behind him — white descendents of Confederate military members.

In a time of absolute historical and intellectual illiteracy, mobs of “misinformed lawless miscreants” who are “wet behind the ears with a sledge hammer” demand the destruction of monuments honoring the Confederate greats. Fledglings of modern academia, well-educated in the tenets of Marx and Engels, and emulating the Ministry of Truth, are altering history while being wholly ignorant of it, smearing the character of distinguished Americans. As Orwell puts it: “…. every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word.”

Empowered by their indoctrination, these degenerate misfits decry the “racism” of the Confederacy, and perpetuate the lie that the American Civil War was solely a war over slavery, eventually settling on assuming the roles of arbiters of social and racial “justice.” Operating within this context, they take after spoiled children, throwing tantrums to get what they want — the erasure of history. They even developed the Orwellian phrase, “Unsay Their Names.” These statues paid homage to racial bigotry, so they became the “people who stand up against monuments to White supremacy.”

So if the character of the Confederacy was purely racist, why would a Black American acknowledge the importance of its heritage and history?

Because history is just that: history.

Putin is not Hitler, Zelensky is not Churchill, and Biden is not FDR. By Francis P. Sempa

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/04/putin_is_not_hitler_zelensky_is_not_churchill_and_biden_is_not_fdr.html

Western politicians and commentators who support doing more to defend Ukraine’s independence frequently invoke World War II analogies to justify their policy preferences.  They compare Putin to Hitler, Zekensky to Churchill, and less frequently Biden to FDR.  Putin, they contend, is a war criminal who is committing genocide against the Ukrainian people.  Zelensky, they claim, is defiantly and courageously standing “alone” against Russian aggression, defending “democracy” against autocracy.  Biden, some say, is making America once again the “arsenal of democracy” by providing weapons and supplies to Ukraine.  None of these claims, and none of these historical comparisons, is justified.

Putin, to be sure, is the aggressor in this war, but accusations of war crimes and genocide are as yet unproven.  Civilian casualties are unfortunately common to all modern wars.  And we do not know if Putin has a master plan to wipe out Ukrainians as a race, the way Hitler did with respect to the Jews.

Zelensky has undoubtedly demonstrated courage in leading Ukrainians to fight for their independence, but his portrayal as a champion of democracy and freedom is at best premature.  Prior to Russia’s invasion, Ukraine was not high on anyone’s list as a model democracy.  As Ted Galen Carpenter of the CATO Institute recently noted, “Ukraine is far from being a democratic-capitalist model” and “has long been one of the more corrupt countries in the international system.”  Freedom House categorizes Ukraine as “partly free.”  Carpenter notes further that even before Russia’s invasion, Ukrainian officials “harassed political dissidents, adopted censorship measures, and barred foreign journalists whom they regarded as critics of the Ukrainian government and its policies.”  Ukraine was criticized by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.  And since the war, Zekensky has further cracked down on opposition political parties and media outlets.

The New York Times Does Energy Storage Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-4-20-the-new-york-times-does-energy-storage

If you’ve been reading this blog lately, you know that the mythical transition to an energy future of pure “green” wind and solar electricity faces a gigantic problem of how to provide energy storage of the right type and in sufficient quantity. To make the electrical grid work, the wildly intermittent production of the wind and sun must somehow be turned into a smooth flow of electricity that matches customer demand minute by minute throughout the year. So far, that task has been fulfilled largely by natural gas back-up, which ramps up and down as the sun and wind ramp down and up. But now governments in the U.S., Europe, Canada and elsewhere say they will move to “net zero” carbon emission electricity by some time in the 2030s. Natural gas emits CO2, so “net zero” means that the natural gas must go. The alternative is energy storage of some sort.

Clearly, it is time to start figuring out how much energy storage we’re going to need, and of what type. Indeed, it is well past time to start figuring that out. If our government were even slightly competent, and also serious about “net zero” electricity by 2035, it would by this time have long since put together detailed feasibility and cost studies and demonstration projects showing exactly how this is going to work. Naturally, they don’t have any of that.

Joe Biden: Teacher Union Toady Can you guess what the president is trying to do to charter schools? Larry Sand

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/joe-biden-teacher-union-toady-larry-sand/

As a presidential candidate in 2019, Joe Biden agreed with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García’s claim that charter schools – independently operated public schools of choice, that don’t have to follow the litany of rules and regs that traditional public schools do and are rarely unionized – are “very misguided school reforms.” The fact that charters are very popular, which over a million waitlisted students will attest to, doesn’t make a whit of difference to Biden or teacher union leaders.

Then in May 2020, Biden said that if he is elected, “Charter schools are gone.” Period. His policy advisor Stef Feldman tried to soften the statement, explaining that Biden doesn’t want to get rid of charters, but instead would “require them to be authorized by and accountable to democratically-elected school bodies such as school boards and be held to the same levels of transparency and accountability as district schools.” In other words, he would not eliminate charters, but he would eviscerate them.

To assist Biden with policy decisions, the National Education Association came out with a “policy playbook” in November 2020, which details specific actions the union wanted the Biden administration to adopt. Predictably, their prescriptions are all far left and cover a multitude of issues, including some harsh words for charters. In a nutshell, NEA wants to regulate them to death, so that there is no effective difference between them and traditional government-run schools. The union also vaguely states that it opposes “all charter school expansion that undermines traditional public schools.”

The Times Tries To Rescue Biden’s ‘American Rescue Plan’ — And Fails

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/04/22/the-times-tries-to-rescue-bidens-american-rescue-plan-and-fails/

When not trying desperately to damage Republicans by keeping the Jan. 6 riot on the front page, the New York Times bravely does public relations work for the Biden administration. The latest case in point is the pathetic attempt by the “paper of record” to defend the misguided, unjustified, inflation-fueling $2 trillion “American Rescue Plan.”

The article — “If Biden’s Plan Is Like a ‘New Deal,’ Why Don’t Voters Care?” — claims that Joe Biden’s big problem right now is that voters don’t know how much they’re benefiting from his March 2021 “rescue” plan.

But despite a valiant attempt to put lipstick on a pig, the report ends up making the case for how badly voters got hoodwinked.

The story focuses on the $350 billion the bill dumped on state and local governments and begins by telling the story of how Richmond, Va., plans to spend tens of millions in “rescue” funds to upgrade a community center and how excited the mayor is about this project.

“The city,” reporter Alexander Burns writes, “intends to build it in the next few years using $20 million from the American Rescue Plan.”

Wait. In the next few years?

A Breath of Fresh Air The federal court ruling against the CDC’s mask mandate for travelers is also a rebuke of rule-by-bureaucrats. Joel Zinberg

https://www.city-journal.org/federal-court-vacates-cdc-mask-mandate-for-travelers

In the latest of a long line of judicial rebukes to the Biden administration’s expansive view of administrative-agency power, a federal district court in Florida has vacated the CDC’s mask mandate for travelers. The court concluded that the CDC had exceeded its statutory authority, violated the notice and comment procedures required for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

The ruling comes one week after the CDC had, once again, extended the mandate, this time until May 3. The mask mandate was one of the first actions taken by the new Biden administration. One day after his inauguration, President Biden issued Executive Order No. 13998, directing executive-branch agency heads to require “masks to be worn in compliance with CDC guidelines in or on” airplanes, airports, trains, intercity buses, boats, and on other forms of public transportation.

Two weeks later, the CDC published the “Requirement for Persons To Wear Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs.” The order stated that mask wearing is “one of the most effective strategies available for reducing COVID-19 transmission” and required masks when traveling on any type of conveyance into or within the United States and at transportation hubs.

The CDC claimed that it was relying on Section 264(a) of the Public Health Service Act, which empowers it to issue regulations “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries,” and from state to state. Last year, the agency claimed the same section gave it authority to issue a nationwide eviction moratorium. The Supreme Court struck down the moratorium on the grounds that the CDC had exceeded its statutory authority, since the statute narrows the types of measures it can implement to limit the spread of disease to fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, and pest extermination.