US Military

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US military shoots down fourth flying object over North American airspace

      by

      US military shoots down fourth flying object over North American airspaceIncident involved third unidentified object downed by US and Canadian jets in recent days, and follows shooting of large balloon claimed by China The US military shot down a fourth flying object over North American airspace in a week on Sunday over Lake Huron in Michigan, confirmed the state’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer.The high-altitude unidentified object was the third to be downed by US and Canadian fighter jets in as many days, starting with a vessel about the size of a small car off the coast of Alaska on Friday, followed by a similar flying object over Yukon in Canada on Saturday. On 4 February, a large balloon which has been claimed by China was shot down off the coast of South Carolina.Shortly before news broke of the Lake Huron intervention, a Democratic Congress member from Michigan, Elissa Slotkin, revealed that she had heard from the US department of defense that the US military was keeping “an extremely close eye” on movements in that area. “Just got a call from [the defense department],” she posted on Twitter. “Be assured that all parties have been laser-focused on it from the moment it traversed our waters.”Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer, said on Twitter that federal officials were “tracking an object near [the state’s] airspace”.“I’m glad to report it has been swiftly, safely and securely taken down,” Whitmer’s tweet added.Earlier in the day the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had restricted civilian air traffic over Lake Michigan, as there were local reports of military jets in the area, but lifted them after a brief time. The FAA didn’t immediately say why it put the restrictions in place.More details soon …TopicsUS newsUS politicsUS militaryCanadaMichigannewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Schumer says Chinese ‘humiliated’ after three flying objects shot down

      by

      Schumer says Chinese ‘humiliated’ after three flying objects shot down‘Chinese were caught lying’,’ says Senate majority leader as US and Canadian military scramble to recover pieces US and Canadian military are continuing to search by sea and land amid hostile weather conditions in a scramble to recover portions of three flying objects shot down over North American airspace in the past week.The Democratic majority leader of the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, told ABC’s This Week on Sunday that he had been briefed by the White House and that officials were now convinced that all three of the flying objects brought down by air-to-air missiles this week were balloons. He put the finger of blame firmly on China.“The Chinese were humiliated – I think the Chinese were caught lying,” he said. “It’s a real setback for them.”Hours later a spokesperson for the White House national security council tried to tamp down some of Schumer’s rhetoric, saying it was too early to characterise the two latest flying objects shot down over Alaska and Canada. Definitive answers would have to wait for the debris to be recovered, the official said.Schumer said that US military and intelligence agencies were “focused like a laser” on gathering information on the flying objects and then analysing what steps needed to be taken to protect American interests in future. He called it “wild” that the US government had no idea about the balloon spying program until just “a few months ago”.US and Canadian personnel are now scrambling to retrieve elements of the balloons from all three crash sites. In the most recent case, an unidentified flying object was taken down within Canadian airspace on Saturday by F-22 fighter planes with the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad.Canadian military on Sunday were attempting to reach pieces of the vessel in a remote, rugged area of Yukon. The object, described as cylindrical, had been flying at 40,000ft in Canadian territory and was considered a risk to civilian air traffic.Searches by US military are also continuing in difficult circumstances off the coasts of South Carolina and Alaska in the wake of the two previous interceptions. Some debris from the first balloon to be destroyed, the largest of the three objects, was shot down on 4 February about six miles off the South Carolina coast.Underwater survey and recovery teams have already retrieved pieces from the ocean floor 50ft down. The fragments are now being taken to military laboratories for analysis.US officials have told reporters that stormy seas are slowing the mission. The Chinese government has admitted that this balloon was its own, insisting though that it was used only for weather research.The Pentagon has disputed the characterization, saying that early indications suggest that the balloon was carrying powerful equipment that could intercept communications. The balloon, flying at 60,000ft, was tracked by US military for several days as it traversed the national airspace, having initially been spotted off the coast of Alaska on 28 January.The air force decided to wait until it was over the Atlantic before shooting it down out of concern for civilians on the ground, the Pentagon said.Schumer defended that decision on Sunday against mounting criticism from Republicans who have castigated the Joe Biden White House for failing to act immediately. By following the balloon across the country, the US had gained “enormous intelligence” on what the Chinese were doing, he said.Schumer predicted that the entire object would be pieced back together in coming days. “That’s a huge coup for the United States,” he told ABC’s This Week.A third search is being carried out in treacherous conditions off the coast of Alaska near Prudhoe Bay, a major oil drilling community. A flying object described by US officials as being roughly the size of a Volkswagen Beetle car was shot down by F-22 fighter jets using a Sidewinder air-to-air missle on Friday afternoon.Bits of the vessel have landed in frozen sea in an area of snow and ice which is very hard to navigate amid sub-zero temperatures. Retrieval teams are using helicopters and HC-130 search-and-rescue planes because naval boats are unable to reach the location.The confluence of three downed flying objects in a week has raised tension and jangled nerves on both sides of the US and Canadian border. As a sign of the jitters, late on Saturday night, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) closed parts of Montana’s airspace to air traffic after a “radar anomaly” was reported.Norad fighter jets were sent to scour the skies but reportedly found nothing. However, on Sunday, a Montana congressional representative, Matt Rosendale, tweeted slightly different information, saying military officials had advised him that they were confident an object was there and that it was not an anomaly.Additionally, on Sunday, the FAA similarly restricted civilian air traffic over Lake Michigan as there were local reports of military jets in the area but lifted them after a brief time. The FAA didn’t immediately say why it put the restrictions in place.The trio of flying objects has also generated political stresses internationally and domestically. The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, postponed the first visit to Beijing by a senior American diplomat since 2018 in response to the high-altitude intrusion of the Chinese balloon.US officials have told news outlets that they have tracked the balloon program to a number of locations inside China.On the Chinese end of the billowing dispute, local news outlets cited by Bloomberg News reported on Sunday that China’s government was preparing to bring down an unidentified flying object said to have been spotted over the port of Qingdao. Fishermen in the surrounding area had been told to be alert, according to the reports.At home, the US congress has also seen rising tension between the new Republican leadership of the House and the Biden administration over the handling of the spy objects. Republicans were critical of the Pentagon’s decision to allow the Chinese balloon to fly across the heartlands of America before bringing it down, though they have been less forthright about explaining how it was that at least three suspected Chinese spying vessels entered US airspace under Donald Trump’s previous presidential administration apparently undetected.The Republican chair of the House intelligence committee, Mike Turner, on Sunday called on the Biden administration to be aggressive in its stance on the flying objects. “I would prefer them to be trigger happy than to be permissive,” he told CNN’s State of the Union.“This administration now needs to declare that it will defend its airspace.”Turner said that the three aerial objects in short succession exposed the gaps in US defenses. “What’s become clear in the public discussion is that we don’t really have adequate radar systems, we certainly don’t have an integrated missile defense system,” he said.TopicsUS militaryJoe BidenChinaUS politicsCanadaAlaskaEspionagenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas national guard soldier shoots and wounds migrant at Mexico border

      by

      Texas national guard soldier shoots and wounds migrant at Mexico borderInjuries not life-threatening after soldier fires at migrant in the shoulder as he was attempting to detain migrant A Texas national guard soldier has shot and wounded a migrant in the shoulder along the US-Mexico border.According to Texas military records reviewed by the Military Times and the Texas Tribune, the soldier fired at the migrant on 15 January as he was attempting to detain the migrant.The shooting is believed to be the first time that a national guard member deployed to the border as part of Texas’s border security mission Operation Lone Star has shot and injured a migrant.The incident occurred west of McAllen, Texas, at around 4.20am when two national guard soldiers and border patrol agents tracked several migrants to an abandoned house.Records reviewed by the Military Times and the Texas Tribune showed that upon the two soldiers entering the house, three of the migrants surrendered. A fourth migrant tried to escape from a window and one of the soldiers attempted to apprehend the migrant.The migrant was reported to have wrestled with the soldier and struck him with his fists and elbows. At one point, the soldier drew his M17 pistol, fired once and shot the migrant.Military records reviewed by the outlets does not indicate that the migrant had fired any weapons towards the soldier. It remains unclear whether the soldier intended to fire his gun.The soldier has been identified as specialist Angel Gallegos. Gallegos shot the migrant in his left shoulder who was then transported to McAllen Medical Center for evaluation and treatment, the outlets reported. The migrant’s injuries are not life-threatening.According to a federal law enforcement source who spoke to CNN, the migrant was from El Salvador.“Customs and bBorder protection’s office of professional responsibility is reviewing the incident,” US Customs and Border Protection spokesperson Rod Kise told CNN.TopicsUS-Mexico borderUS immigrationUS militaryUS politicsTexasnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      How the US far right and progressives ended up agreeing on military spending cuts

      by

      AnalysisHow the US far right and progressives ended up agreeing on military spending cutsJoan E GreveProgressives and ‘America first’ Republicans in Congress both want to re-examine US military budget – but for vastly different reasons Progressives have recently found themselves in an unfamiliar position: in agreement with members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus.Some of the latter caucus’s members have recently called for re-examining the amount of money spent by the US military, echoing demands that progressives have issued for years. Although progressives are clear-eyed about their ideological differences with “America first” Republicans on foreign policy, they encourage a renewed debate over the Pentagon’s budget.McCarthy may be speaker, but Trump is the real leader of House RepublicansRead more“The idea that effective American foreign policy requires this [level of spending], I think, is not only wrong,” said Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to progressive senator Bernie Sanders, “it’s just absurd and unsustainable.”The Freedom Caucus reportedly pushed for spending cuts as part of their negotiations with Kevin McCarthy, who offered concessions to fellow Republicans to secure the House speakership earlier this month. One of those concessions involved a promise to cap fiscal year 2024 discretionary spending at fiscal year 2022 levels, after Republicans expressed outrage over the $1.76tn omnibus funding bill that Joe Biden signed into law last month.If such a fiscal policy were evenly applied to all federal agencies, the department of defense would see its budget cut by $75bn compared with this fiscal year.That possibility has simultaneously sowed division among House Republicans and attracted the interest of progressives. They hope the latest dust-up over the Pentagon’s budget will spark what they consider to be an overdue conversation over US defense spending, which will hit a record high of $858bn this fiscal year. Among House Republicans, the proposal to cut the Pentagon’s budget has won some support from far-right members who have embraced Donald Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy. Speaking to Fox News this month, Congressman Matt Gaetz, one of the Republican holdouts in the speakership battle, partly blamed the Pentagon’s large budget on America’s financial assistance to Ukraine amid its war against Russia.“We can defend this country and project power more efficiently and more effectively than we do,” Gaetz said. “How about we start with Ukraine?”McCarthy himself previously promised that Republicans would not provide a “blank check” to Ukraine if they won back the House. But aid to Ukraine has continued to win bipartisan support in Congress.“I do not see that money getting taken away from us,” Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said earlier this month. “It is there. It is rock solid through nearly all or all of 2023.”McCarthy has expressed openness to examining the Pentagon’s budget, but the proposal has stoked outrage among many of the more hawkish members of his conference. Republican congressman Tony Gonzales of Texas cited the potential cuts to explain his opposition to the House rules package, saying he thought the proposal was a “horrible idea”.“How am I going to look at our allies in the eye and say, I need you to increase your defense budget, but yet America is going to decrease ours?” Gonzales told CBS News.Republicans’ dysfunction over speaker threatens the health of US governmentRead moreWhile a number of House Democrats have joined Gonzales in rejecting the idea of defense spending cuts, the idea of reconsidering the Pentagon’s budget has long held sway with progressives. When Biden called for an increase in funding for the defense department last year, leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus attacked the proposal as “simply unacceptable”. Progressive activists and their congressional allies note that the US military has a larger budget than the next nine largest militaries combined and urged lawmakers to reallocate some of that funding to other needs, such as healthcare or education.“For far too long, we have blindly and excessively pumped money into the Pentagon, which – despite its massive budget – has yet to pass an audit,” said the progressive congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has long championed fiscal reform at the defense department. “Imagine what we could do with even a fraction of [the Pentagon’s funding]. We need to rethink our foreign policy priorities and invest in diplomacy first and defense second.”Ro Khanna, a progressive congressman from California, said he would welcome a bipartisan conversation about the Pentagon’s budget, but he rejected Republicans’ efforts to tie spending cuts to the looming fight over the debt ceiling. The US hit its debt limit this month, and the treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has warned that the government is at risk of defaulting this summer if Congress does not increase its borrowing capacity – a move that would have catastrophic effects on the US economy. Democrats fear that House Republicans will attempt to extract concessions on government spending in exchange for helping to raise the debt ceiling.“I do not support any debate on spending demands that threaten a debt-ceiling showdown. If Republicans want to have conversations about future defense cuts that are strategic, then I am open to that,” Khanna told the Guardian. “While I support the funding for Ukraine’s defense, we need to take ourselves off the path to a trillion-dollar Pentagon budget.”Progressive advocates similarly rejected the notion that the US must choose between cutting the Pentagon’s budget and supporting Ukraine. Stephen Miles, president of the progressive group Win Without War, blamed the Pentagon’s ballooning budget on ineffective weapons systems and excessive contracts to private companies, which have accounted for as much as half of US defense spending in recent years.“The spending on Ukraine is not what’s driving the Pentagon’s growth,” Miles said. “We’re talking about major weapon systems procurement; we’re talking about private service contracting. We’re talking about a lot of things that aren’t being driven by Ukraine.”Duss, now a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the war in Ukraine should not prevent any debate over defense spending. He noted that politicians like Sanders and Lee have demanded reductions in the Pentagon’s budget for years, long before the war in Ukraine began.“There’s always going to be some crisis of the moment that prevents us from thinking about how to spend less on defense,” Duss said. “But this is a conversation that we absolutely have to have.” As of now, the prospects for enacting Pentagon budget cuts appear bleak. Even some of the House Republicans who, like Gaetz, initially opposed McCarthy’s speakership bid have downplayed the possibility. Congressman Chip Roy of Texas, a key negotiator in the talks between McCarthy and his Republican detractors, claimed that “cuts to defense were NEVER DISCUSSED” during the speakership fight.“In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending,” Roy’s office said on Twitter.US heads for debt-ceiling standoff as House Republicans refuse to budgeRead moreA funding bill that solely cut non-defense discretionary spending would almost certainly be rejected by Democrats, who still control the Senate and the White House. In addition to the procedural hurdles of Roy’s proposal, Miles mocked the idea of excluding defense spending from potential cuts as utterly unrealistic.“You can’t look at the level of spending that the US government is doing and say we’re going to exempt more than half of discretionary spending,” Miles said. “When you have the Pentagon taking up as much money as it is now, there’s no way to look at cutting government spending without it.”Even if Congress could somehow reach an agreement on the need to reduce the Pentagon’s budget, conservatives would inevitably clash with progressives over what programs to cut and how to reallocate that funding.“The reason Matt Gaetz wants to cut defense spending is not the reason why I would,” Duss acknowledged.Still, Duss argued that progressives and some lawmakers on the right have a “shared interest” in starting a reinvigorated conversation over defense spending. That communal goal could work to progressives’ advantage.“If Republicans want to prize this open and look inside this budget … that’s a debate I think everyone should welcome,” Duss said. “And I think it’s quite telling who’s not welcoming it.”TopicsUS politicsRepublicansUS CongressUS militaryJoe BidenDemocratsUS national securityanalysisReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Three active-duty US marines arrested for participating in Capitol attack

      by

      Three active-duty US marines arrested for participating in Capitol attackMen were taken into custody on Wednesday, bringing the number of US military members charged in connection to insurrection to 12 Three active-service US marines, all with ties to intelligence work, were arrested this week for taking part in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol, according to federal documents newly unsealed.The men, all long-serving, were taken into custody on Wednesday on four charges, bringing to 12 the number of US military members charged in connection with the deadly insurrection by supporters of outgoing president Donald Trump as they tried to prevent the certification by Congress of his defeat by Joe Biden. The news was first reported by military.com.The three were named as Micah Coomer, Joshua Abate and Dodge Dale Hellonen. According to the documents, unsealed on Thursday, they spent more than an hour together wandering around the Capitol rotunda, and at one point placed “a red Maga hat on one of the statues to take photos with it”, indicating Trump’s Make America Great Again election slogan.Investigators noted social media posts by Coomer, including one where he stated he was “glad to be apart [sic] of history”, and a chat with another Instagram user in which he explained he was there because he was “waiting for the boogaloo”, a term popular with rightwing extremists and white supremacists to signify a race-related civil war.Marine corps records provided to military.com show all three have been enlisted for more than four years, have good conduct medals, and that each works in “demanding jobs” tied to the intelligence community. At least one holds a “significant” security clearance.In a statement to the outlet, a spokesperson said the service is “aware of an investigation and the allegations” and said it was “fully cooperating with appropriate authorities in support of the investigation”.The men face misdemeanor charges including trespass, disruptive and disorderly conduct and obstructing government business. According to the 13-page document compiled by FBI special agent Kelsey Randall of the agency’s joint terrorism taskforce, investigators “learned” of Coomer’s social media posts and, after obtaining a search warrant, identified the two others from images contained in them.Security footage from the Capitol showed the three entering the building together through a door near the Senate chamber, and moving further inside as part of a mob of dozens of others, many wearing Trump’s signature Make America Great Again red caps.Additional proof came from cell phone records showing the three were in the building, Randall wrote..TopicsUS Capitol attackUS militarynewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US military ‘downplayed’ the number of soldiers exposed to ‘forever chemicals’

      by

      US military ‘downplayed’ the number of soldiers exposed to ‘forever chemicals’ Analysis of Pentagon report reveals that soldiers exposed to PFAS pollution at much higher rate than military claims The number of US service members who have been exposed to toxic “forever chemicals” is much higher than the military has claimed, a new independent analysis of Department of Defense data has found.A Pentagon report that aims to assess the scope of PFAS chemical exposure on its bases, as well as health threats posed to service members, estimated about 175,000 troops across 24 facilities had drunk contaminated water.But an analysis of the military’s report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit that tracks PFAS pollution, found the numbers are probably much higher and could top more than 640,000 people across 116 bases, and potentially even millions of people when past service members are factored in.Moreover, the report seemed to omit health issues linked to PFAS exposure, such as kidney disease, testicular cancer and fetal effects. The overall report is “frustrating”, said Scott Faber, senior vice-president of government affairs with EWG.“The Department of Defense is trying to downplay these risks rather than aggressively seeking to notify service members and clean up its legacy pollution,” he said. “It has long history of looking the other way when it comes to PFAS pollution.”The DoD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.PFAS are a class of about 12,000 chemicals often used to make products resist water, stain and heat. They are called forever chemicals because they do not naturally break down and persist in the environment. The chemicals are linked to cancer, liver disease, high cholesterol, thyroid disorders, birth defects and autoimmune dysfunction.PFAS are thought to be contaminating drinking water for more than 200 million people nationally, and contamination has been found in and around hundreds of DoD bases at high levels because the chemicals are the main ingredient in firefighting foam the military uses.Congress mandated the DoD report in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, but the military has not published it on the department’s PFAS website, so it is unavailable to the public or service members except upon request.“That’s the part that ought to bother every American,” Faber said. “It’s not just that they purposefully underestimated how many service members were exposed … it’s that they didn’t tell anyone.”The DoD’s analysis, dated April 2022, seemed designed to reduce the exposure estimates in several key ways, EWG noted.It only included bases where levels for two types of PFAS – PFOS and PFOA – exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s previous health advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). But the EPA lowered that level in June to less than 1 ppt for each compound.Though the report came out about two months before the change, the military often lobbies the EPA on environmental rules, the pending change was publicly known, and the military likely rushed to get its report out ahead of the EPA’s formal announcement, Faber said.“This is clearly what it appears to be,” he said.The numbers also did not include four large bases – Fort Bragg, Yakima Training Center, Fort Leavenworth and Picatinny Arsenal – where levels ranged from 98 ppt to 647 ppt.The levels peaked at over 21,000 ppt at Horsham air national guard base in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.The report also only considered military members who were on bases at the time of the analysis, meaning it is a “snapshot in time”. The military began using firefighting foam with PFAS over 50 years ago.“The real question is how many millions of service members drank the contaminated water over the last half century?” Faber asked.The numbers would probably be higher if the military also included other kinds of PFAS. PFOA and PFOS are two of the most common, but thousands more are in commercial use, and the EPA also has health advisory limits for two other compounds.Though Congress required the DoD to include an assessment of health risks to troops, the military excluded risks for fetal and maternal health because it “focused on military members and veterans”, the department wrote. EWG noted that about 13,000 service members give birth every year, and many live on DoD facilities. The military also made no mention of increased testicular and kidney cancer risks.“It’s shocking and there was no explanation,” Faber said.It is unclear what’s next for the report. Congress has ordered the DoD to phase out firefighting foam that uses PFAS by October 2023, and develop a cleanup plan. The military already missed a deadline to submit a cleanup plan to Congress, but Faber noted it has new political leadership in place, and the Biden administration has been more serious about addressing PFAS contamination than Trump.“The next few years will be critical to resetting when it comes to the DoD addressing toxic chemicals, like PFAS,” Faber said.TopicsUS militaryPFASUS politicsPollutionnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate passes $1.7tn funding bill to avert US government shutdown

      by

      Senate passes $1.7tn funding bill to avert US government shutdownBill includes $45bn in military aid to Ukraine after lawmakers reached agreement on a final series of votes The US Senate on Thursday passed a $1.7tn government spending bill, sending it to the House to approve and send to Joe Biden for his signature, averting a partial government shutdown.‘No money, nowhere to stay’: asylum seekers wait as Trump’s border restrictions drag onRead moreThe legislation provides funding through 30 September 2023, for the US military and an array of non-military programs.The legislation provides Ukraine with $44.9bn in wartime aid and bans the use of Chinese-owned social media app TikTok on federal government devices.Progress on the bill slowed after the conservative Republican Mike Lee introduced an amendment meant to slow immigration. That prompted Democrats to put forward a competing amendment that would boost funding for law enforcement agencies on the border. Both amendments failed, which allowed lawmakers to move forward.The massive bill includes about $772.5bn for non-defense programs and $858bn for defense. Lawmakers raced to get it approved, many anxious to complete the task before a deep freeze could leave them stranded in Washington for the holidays. Many also wanted to lock in funding before a new Republican-controlled House makes it harder to find compromise.On Wednesday night, senators heard from the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, about the importance of US aid for the war with Russia.“Your money is not charity. It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way,” Zelenskiy said.The funding measure includes emergency assistance to Ukraine and Nato allies above Joe Biden’s request.The Democratic majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said the worst thing Congress could do was give the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, any signal the US was wavering in its commitment to Ukraine. He also said he met Zelenskiy.“He made it clear that without this aid package, the Ukrainians will be in real trouble and could even lose the war,” Schumer said. “So that makes the urgency of getting this legislation done all the more important.”But when lawmakers left the chamber, prospects for a quick vote looked glum. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, said the funding bill was “hanging by a thread”.Republicans were looking to ensure a vote on a proposed amendment from Lee, of Utah, seeking to extend coronavirus pandemic-era restrictions on asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border, known as Title 42. Passage of the amendment would have doomed the bill in the Democratic-held House.“Senator Schumer doesn’t want to have a vote on Title 42 because he presumably knows it will pass,” said Mitt Romney, the other Utah Republican. But the House won’t go along in that case, he added, in which case “everything falls apart”.Lee told Fox News: “I insisted that we have at least one amendment, up-or-down vote, on whether to preserve Title 42. Because Title 42 is the one thing standing between us and utter chaos [at the border]. We already have mostly chaos. This would bring us to utter chaos if it expires, which it’s about to.”The spending bill was supported by Schumer and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, for different reasons.McConnell cited the bill’s 10% boost in defense spending but faced pushback from Republicans resenting being forced to vote on such a massive package with so little time before a shutdown and Christmas. It was expected, however, that enough Republicans agreed with McConnell that the bill would reach 60 votes.Schumer touted the bill as a win on the domestic front, saying: “Kids, parents, veterans, nurses, workers: these are just a few of the beneficiaries of our bipartisan funding package, so there is every reason in the world for the Senate to finish its work as soon as possible.”Lawmakers worked to stuff priorities into the package, which ran to 4,155 pages. It included $27bn in disaster funding and an overhaul of federal election law to prevent presidents or candidates trying to overturn an election. The bipartisan overhaul was a response to Donald Trump’s efforts to convince Republicans to object to Biden’s victory.Hunter Biden hires Jared Kushner lawyer to face Republican investigatorsRead moreThe bill also contained policy changes lawmakers worked to include, to avoid having to start over in the new Congress next year. Examples included the provision from Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, to ban TikTok on government cellphones. A provision supported by Maine would aid the state’s lobster and Jonah crab fisheries, delaying regulations to help save North Atlantic right whales.On the healthcare front, the bill requires states to keep children enrolled in Medicaid on coverage for at least a year. Millions could still start to lose coverage on 1 April because the bill sunsets a requirement of the Covid-19 emergency that prohibited kicking people off Medicaid.The bill also provides roughly $15.3bn for more than 7,200 projects lawmakers sought for their states. Fiscal conservatives criticize such spending as unnecessary.The Senate appropriations committee chairman, Patrick Leahy, a Democrat retiring after nearly five decades in the chamber, praised bipartisan support for the measure following months of negotiations.His Republican counterpart, Richard Shelby, who also is retiring, said of the 4,155-page bill: “It’s got a lot of stuff in it. A lot of good stuff.”House Republicans, including Kevin McCarthy, probably the next speaker, had asked colleagues in the Senate to support only a short-term extension. A notice sent by leadership to House members urged them to vote against the measure.TopicsUS CongressUS SenateUS politicsUS domestic policyUS foreign policyUS militaryUS healthcarenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican who urged Trump to declare ‘Marshall’ law only regrets misspelling

      by

      Republican who urged Trump to declare ‘Marshall’ law only regrets misspellingText from Ralph Norman to Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s final chief of staff, urged president to declare martial law A Republican who urged the Trump White House to declare martial law to stop Joe Biden taking office has only one regret: that he misspelled “martial”.Ron DeSantis leads Donald Trump by 23 points in Republican pollRead moreThe text from Ralph Norman of South Carolina to Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s final chief of staff, was given to the January 6 committee by Meadows and revealed by Talking Points Memo.On 17 January 2021, 11 days after the deadly Capitol attack and three days before Biden’s inauguration, Norman wrote: “Mark, in seeing what’s happening so quickly, and reading about the Dominion law suits attempting to stop any meaningful investigation we are at a point of no return in saving our Republic !! Our LAST HOPE is invoking Marshall Law!! PLEASE URGE TO PRESIDENT TO DO SO!!”No response from Meadows was revealed.On Tuesday, a HuffPost reporter asked Norman about the message.Norman said: “Well, I misspelled ‘martial’.”He added: “I was very frustrated then, I’m frustrated now. I was frustrated then by what was going on in the Capitol. President Biden was in his basement the whole year. Dominion was raising all kinda questions.”The reference to Biden’s basement was to the then Democratic candidate’s decision largely to stay off the campaign trail in 2020, the year of the Covid pandemic.Dominion Voting Systems has filed major lawsuits, notably against Fox News, regarding claims its machines were involved in voter fraud.Trump insists his defeat by Biden – by more than 7m votes and by 306-232 in the electoral college – was the result of electoral fraud. It was not.Norman was among 147 Republicans in the House and Senate who objected to results in key states even after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on January 6, a riot now linked to nine deaths.Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, proceedings which were ongoing when Norman texted Meadows.According to CNN, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Georgia congresswoman, also texted Meadows on 17 January, writing: “In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law.”This week, Greene said that if she and Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, had organised the Capitol riot, “we would have won”. She also said rioters “would’ve been armed”.According to the Congressional Research Service, “crises in public order, both real and potential, often evoke comments concerning a resort to martial law.“While some ambiguity exists regarding the conditions of a martial law setting, such a prospect, nonetheless, is disturbing to many Americans who cherish their liberties, expect civilian law enforcement to prevail, and support civilian control of military authority.”The CRS also says that since the second world war, “martial law has not been presidentially directed or approved for any area of the United States. Federal troops have been dispatched to domestic locales experiencing unrest or riot, but in these situations the military has remained subordinate to federal civilian management.”Marjorie Taylor Greene: Capitol attack ‘would’ve been armed’ if I was in chargeRead moreOn Tuesday, Norman told HuffPost: “I was frustrated at the time with everything that was happening. It was a private text between a friend and myself, nothing more, nothing less.”On Wednesday, the White House issued a rebuke.“Plotting against the rule of law and to subvert the will of the people is a disgusting affront to our deepest principles as a country,” the deputy press secretary, Andrew Bates, said.Referring to Trump’s slogan, Make America Great Again, Bates added: “We all, regardless of party, need to stand up for mainstream values and the constitution, against dangerous, ultra-Maga conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric.”TopicsRepublicansUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS elections 2020US Capitol attackUS politicsUS militarynewsReuse this content More