by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,
About 4,000 members of the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division are still deployed in Romania as part of a military buildup in Eastern Europe that President Biden ordered last year, as the Pentagon is still deciding whether to maintain current troop levels.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that some 101st soldiers are stationed at a base near the Romanian city of Constanta on the Black Sea while others are further north, just a few miles from the Ukrainian border, and are simulating fighting Russia in Ukraine.
In exercises with Romanian troops, the Times report said the 101st soldiers are firing artillery, launching helicopter assaults, and digging trenches similar to those on the front lines in Ukraine’s Kherson Oblast.
The deployment marks the first time the 101st has been sent to Europe since World War II.
CBS News reported in October that the 101st was conducting drills within just four miles of the Ukrainian border and that the unit was prepared to "fight tonight." Commanders told CBS that they were in Romania to protect NATO territory but said they were ready to enter Ukraine if the war escalated.
The Times report stressed that the 101st Airborne deployment was about deterrence. If the US were preparing to enter the war directly, it would likely send significantly more troops. While in Romania, the soldiers are also participating in coastal defense drills, and Romanian troops are practicing firing HIMARS rocket launch systems into the Black Sea.
The military buildup in Eastern Europe has brought US troop levels on the continent to over 100,000 for the first time since 2005. The Pentagon is expected to decide soon if it will maintain the current levels for the long term or reduce or increase them.
The over $100 billion that has been authorized to spend on the war in Ukraine includes money to fund troop deployments in Europe. The latest Ukraine aid bill that was passed by Congress includes $6.98 billion for US European Command, which will likely fund the training of Ukrainian troops, other types of support for Kyiv, and US deployments in the region.
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/101st-airborne-still-deployed-romania-simulating-war-russia
by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,
The New York law that enables the seizure of guns from people who haven’t committed a crime is unconstitutional, a state Supreme Court judge has ruled.
This red flag law, or the Extreme Risk Protection Order law, lets individuals - including police officers - petition a court to allow the seizure of firearms from a person they believe poses a threat to themselves or others.
If a judge agrees, the judge can direct law enforcement to take guns from the person in question.
The law took effect in 2019 and has led to the issuance of more than 1,900 removal orders.
But the law is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Second and Fourteenth Amendments because it doesn’t “sufficiently protect a citizen’s rights,” New York State Supreme Court Judge Thomas Moran said in a ruling in late December 2022.
The red flag law, per an update in July 2022, states that police officers and district attorneys must file for a risk protection order “upon the receipt of credible information that an individual is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others.”
The law points to a separate statute, the Mental Hygiene Law, that defines the likelihood to result in serious harm as “(1) substantial risk of physical harm to himself as manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide or serious bodily harm or other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself; or (2) a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm.”
The Mental Hygiene Law requires a person to have been admitted involuntarily to a hospital and that a doctor has determined the person to be likely to cause serious harm. A second doctor must confirm the determination if the person is held in a facility for more than 48 hours. In contrast, the red flag law doesn’t require the involvement of medical personnel.
“Why should respondents under the Mental Health Law be granted greater safeguards (such as having their case be reviewed by a physician with the educational background and experience to make such a determination) than matters pursuant to [the red flag law] in which ‘laypeople’ make such a determination?” Moran said.
“These are similarly situated people (by legislative definition) but as such are not to be treated equally, nor afforded the same constitutional guarantees that protect all citizens of New York state.”
Nonmedical workers such as police officers shouldn’t be authorized to determine if a person is likely to cause serious harm, according to the ruling.
In addition, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s standards in its 2022 ruling striking down New York’s concealed carry law, the red flag law doesn’t fit under the nation’s tradition of regulating firearms, the judge said.
The majority said in the 2022 decision that the Constitution protects people’s rights to carry firearms and that a government must, for each gun restriction, “demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
“This Court is not unmindful of the dangers firearms may pose when possessed in the hands of a person suffering a mental illness, harboring a criminal intent, or both. However, when viewed objectively, [the law’s] goal of removing weapons from the otherwise lawful possession of them by their owners, without adequate constitutional safeguards, cannot be condoned by this Court,” Moran added later.
“While some may advocate that ‘the ends justify the means’ in support of [the law], where those means violate a fundamental right under our Bill of Rights to achieve their ends, then the law, on it’s face, cannot stand.”
The ruling only applies to the specific situation and doesn’t strike the law down statewide, a source familiar with the case said.
The ruling came in a case brought by a woman, C.N., whose estranged boyfriend, G.W., lodged an application for the removal of guns from the woman. G.W. claimed that C.N. made statements indicating she’d harm herself with a gun if she had access to one.
According to court documents, though, the petition inaccurately said the statements were made in 2022, but they were actually made no later than Feb. 27, 2021.
The court granted the request and ordered the seizure of any weapons from C.N., in addition to prohibiting her from buying or possessing any guns. Additionally, the court suspended C.N.’s pistol permit based on the risk protection order and the allegations made against her.
Daniel Strollo, an attorney representing C.N., said in a statement that he was “very happy” with Moran’s ruling.
Strollo told WHAM-TV that the red flag law implemented a “very quick and easy mechanism to deprive somebody of their fundamental Second Amendment rights.”
“You have people who are essentially not medical professionals expressing medical opinions that result in the deprivation of rights,” Strollo said.
“And you have a procedure that essentially allows somebody to lose those rights without ever having gone in front of a judge.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-york-gun-control-law-unconstitutional-ny-supreme-court
The arrest of CEO Sam Bankman-Fried may be the smaller news story coming out of the collapse of FTX. Politicians will miss the point surrounding the massive political donations of the company and instead push for simplistic solutions to a complex issue. Ultimately, the collapse of the crypto company could lead to onerous federal regulations and the establishment of a federal “digital dollar.” The FTX issue isn’t large enough, under normal circumstances, to push through such dramatic banking and financial changes, but it is clear that those at the Federal Reserve and many in Congress have been salivating for such changes for years. This could be a fig leaf to justify it.
The loss of billions of dollars through the collapse of FTX is beginning to echo through the economy. Both private investors and crypto holders lost big in the company’s collapse. With nearly 1 million customers, the similarities to previous large-scale collapses are obvious. The criminal charges against Bankman-Fried perhaps offer someone on whom to pin responsibility, but not a means to fix the damage. The purported remedy instead may be the largest fiscal overhaul since the creation of the Fed.
A switch to a cashless, centrally-controlled digital form of currency could be relatively simple. Currently, the Fed and several major banks are running a “Digital Dollar pilot,” and it is being pushed as a good idea by media outlets including opinion writers in the Wall Street Journal. The Fed is preparing the electronic form of currency in conjunction with similar efforts by other nations. After all, the argument may go, if the United States doesn’t innovate, China or someone else will. Some in Congress already support the idea, and FTX may have provided just the grounds needed for a transition to such a system.
A digital dollar will enable a near-total control of each person’s transactions. This would extend far further than the Internal Revenue Service’s $600 income rule and could have massive impacts on taxation, earnings and privacy. The ability to instantly track, catalog and scrutinize every person’s transactions is a dystopian nightmare. Considering the relative efficiency of the IRS, it is entirely probable that the agency could send out audit letters to people for Venmo-ing their friends back for their share of a restaurant bill or taxi ride. Furthermore, the digital dollar likely will coincide with a gradual abolishment of physical cash. There may be some ability to keep small denominations or amounts, but if the transition mimics Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 banning most private ownership of gold, your financial autonomy would be at risk.
Who in Washington wouldn’t support the end of traditional cash? There will be plenty of politicians and pundits who extol the advantages: an end to counterfeiting (both domestic and funding rogue states such as North Korea), an effective end to traditional money laundering, and difficulty for criminals to pay for drugs. It also can be used to track questionable purchases and donations. Does it look like you’re buying cocaine or illegal firearms? You’re tracked. What about donating to the Canadian truckers the next time there’s a protest? After all, it has happened before. Donate to the “wrong” political cause? Perhaps your information is leaked. These are all events that have modern-day precursors in our country, Canada, China and beyond.
If you listen to the government, a digital dollar sounds like a panacea built on the end of economic liberty. There are key advantages to the federal and state governments. Your Social Security, welfare or paycheck would be deposited instantly. Your bank accounts would be synced with the Federal Reserve databases, your movements tracked through transactions, and you would become an asset to the Fed just as much as digitally “printed” dollars.
If you believe that such a concept is either far-fetched or likely only far in the future, think again. China’s dictatorship learned the full implications of monetary and social control over its population through digital currency and its social credit system. China launched the world’s first digital currency and it includes several concerning elements. Its record of transactions is private — unless law enforcement needs them. And although in an early stage, China’s digital yuan is used by more than 200 million people and just passed 100 billion yuan in transactions. Not only that, there is a very real possibility that those blacklisted by the Chinese government will be unable to use currency at all. China offers a model that we would be loath to follow. However, more regulation and the recent crypto crash may say otherwise.
Democrats always seem to find a way to win in cases like the FTX collapse. A young, incompetent CEO gets to donate to left-wing causes, receives fawning media profiles, and then his company crushes the dreams of a million investors. Despite the reported heavy donations to left-wingers, they can simply accuse him of similar, yet untraceable, donations to Republicans in order to muddy the waters. Democrats then can use the circumstances they benefited from to push for far-reaching regulation that will expand the power of the regulatory state.
The collapse of FTX was perhaps predictable but not intentional. The vulture-like actions by those in power to take advantage of the disaster are both predictable and intentional. After all, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel: Never let a crisis go to waste.
Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and an analyst for Young Americans for Liberty. She is an author whose latest book is “How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off.”
A top World Health Organization (WHO) official on Wednesday said China is underreporting deaths from COVID-19 and called for more transparency about the scope of the country’s outbreak.
“We believe the current numbers being published from China underrepresent the true impact of the disease in terms of hospital admissions, in terms of ICU admissions, and particularly in terms of death,” said Mike Ryan, head of the WHO’s health emergencies program.
yan said China is using too narrow a definition of death attributable to COVID-19. According to WHO guidelines, COVID-19 should be listed if the disease “caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.”
“We still do not have complete data,” Ryan said. “We do not discourage doctors and nurses reporting these deaths or these cases.”
Ryan added that even though there don’t appear to be any new variants circulating in the country, poor surveillance and poor vaccine coverage will lead to missed cases and more deaths.
During the same briefing, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reiterated calls for more data transparency from Chinese authorities.
“We continue to ask China for more rapid, regular, reliable data on hospitalizations and deaths, as well as more comprehensive, real-time viral sequencing,” Tedros said.
“WHO is concerned about the risk to life in China and has reiterated the importance of vaccination, including booster doses to protect against hospitalization, severe disease and death,” he added.
Last month, China abruptly ended its “zero-COVID” strategy amid nationwide protests, which has resulted in infections surging without an adequate health infrastructure or enough vaccinations in place. At the same time, Chinese health authorities are reporting extremely low levels of deaths.
As a result, several countries have announced COVID-19 measures for travelers coming from China amid growing concerns of the lack of data on daily infections in the country and the spread of new variants.
A new Biden administration policy beginning Jan. 5 will require all passengers departing China for the U.S. to produce a negative PCR test taken no more than 48 hours ahead of time, regardless of vaccination status or nationality.
While the policy has been criticized as ineffective by some public health experts, Tedros has endorsed the measure.
“With circulation in China so high and comprehensive data not forthcoming … it is understandable that some countries are taking steps they believe will protect their own citizens,” Tedros said.
by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,
Up to 100 million Americans will soon be enrolled in Medicaid, according to an enrollment monitoring project by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), a think tank focused on welfare and health care policy.
On Dec. 28, FGA announced it believes that the number of Americans enrolled with Medicaid will cross the 100 million mark in about 76 days, or approximately March 14. The Naples, Florida-based think tank also launched a countdown clock for the date they project Medicaid enrollment to hit 100 million.
According to Medicaid.gov data, through August 2022, some 90,550,412 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
FGA compiled more recent state-by-state Medicaid enrollment figures showing 96.2 million Americans are now enrolled in the government health care program. Based on the state-by-state growth trends, FGA projects 98.9 million Americans will be enrolled in Medicaid by the end of January and another 1.1 million Americans will be enrolled in the program by mid-March.
“For years, FGA has been warning about the rising number of people on government welfare programs,” said Hayden Dublois, the data and analytics director for FGA.
“Now, we’re nearing a grim milestone—nearly one-third of the country will be on Medicaid. Our research and data show as welfare enrollment increases, workforce participation decreases. We’re in the midst of a nationwide workforce crisis, yet the Biden administration is pushing policies to entice people into government dependency at record levels while limiting opportunities to achieve the American Dream.”
According to the FGA, the rise in Medicaid enrollment is due in large part to federal COVID-19 public health emergency policies, like the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The pandemic-era measures provide states with extra Medicaid funding but block states from being able to change their eligibility and enrollment procedures and require that everyone currently enrolled in the program remain in place.
FGA estimates that an additional 24 million enrollees are on Medicaid as a result of the pandemic-era measures, including more than 21 million people who would have previously been disqualified from the health care program.
While pandemic-era federal policies locked states in with their current Medicaid enrollments, the $1.7 trillion federal omnibus bill to fund government provision allows states to redetermine Medicaid eligibility starting on April 1.
“While there are many concerning provisions in this omnibus spending bill, we’re optimistic states may soon regain control of their Medicaid programs and reverse two years of unchecked enrollment growth,” said FGA President and CEO Tarren Bragdon.
“FGA has championed Medicaid reform to combat the devasting impact pandemic-era policies have had on the American economy and workforce. If this provision is enacted, states must step up and start redeterminations as soon as possible—our struggling economy and weakened workforce depend on it.”
While the omnibus allows states to resume their Medicaid eligibility checks, the provision also means that millions of people could soon be kicked off the government health care program.
“This is a positive for states in terms of planning, however, this will come at the cost of some individuals losing their health care,” Massey Whorley, a principal at health consulting firm Avalere, told The Associated Press.
The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates between 5.3 million and 14.2 million Medicaid recipients could be disenrolled after the pandemic-era continuous enrollment requirement ends on April 1.
Robin Rudowitz, the director of Medicaid at KFF, advised Medicaid recipients to make sure their contact information is up to date on their accounts and check their mail frequently for any notices of changes to their Medicaid eligibility.
“There is likely to be people who fall through the cracks,” Rudowitz told The Associated Press.
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/100-million-americans-be-medicaid-march-think-tank-projects
There is a major ruling out of the United States States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in favor of a middle school science teacher, Eric Dodge, who was barred from wearing a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap and later berated by the principal, Caroline Garrett, as a “racist” and a “homophobe.”
The unanimous court ruled that the hat was protected speech under the First Amendment.
District Court judge James L. Robart ruled against Dodge and dismissed the case in its entirety. (Robart is the judge who was publicly denounced by former President Trump). Robart dismissed the case on the grounds of qualified immunity or a failure to substantiate claims.
The Ninth Circuit reversed Robart, but it did uphold the dismissal of the case against two defendants, the Evergreen Public Schools district and the district’s Chief Human Resources Officer Jenae Gomes.
Eric Dodge had only recently been assigned to the school after he recovered from a stroke. He is a 17-year veteran of the Evergreen district. He told Garrett that he wore the hat because he had sensitive spots on his scalp that had to be protected from the sun. He also said that he agreed with the message of the hat. Garrett said that the hat represented hate and prejudice to many others.
Garrett’s view of the MAGA hat as a symbol of hate has been fueled in the media by various leaders, particularly President Joe Biden who was denounced for his attacks on “MAGA Republicans” in his Philadelphia speech. We have also seen students and others attacked for wearing the hats. At Fordham University, a coffee shop banned the wearing of the hats.
Dodge wore the bright-red “MAGA” to a cultural sensitivity training. He actually did not wear the hat in the training session with around 60 people but put it on the table or next to him. Nevertheless, some attendees complained that they felt “intimidated” and “threatened” by Dodge’s decision to have the hat with him.
The choice of headwear did not go over well with Garrett in particular:
“The first day, Principal Garrett, who was Dodge’s supervisor, told him that he needed to use “better judgment” and not have his MAGA hat at Wy’east. The second day, she called him a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, and a liar, and swore at him for having his MAGA hat with him again. By itself, such criticism or “bad-mouthing” does not constitute an adverse employment action sufficient for a First Amendment retaliation claim. … Principal Garrett also has First Amendment rights after all. See id. (“It would be the height of irony, indeed, if mere speech, in response to speech, could constitute a First Amendment violation.”). But Principal Garrett went beyond criticizing Dodge’s political views. She suggested that disciplinary action could occur if she saw Dodge with his hat again by referencing the need for union representation: “The next time I see you with that hat, you need to have your union rep. Bring your rep because I’ll have my own.” It is hardly controversial that threatening a subordinate’s employment if they do not stop engaging in protected speech is reasonably likely to deter that person from speaking. … Principal Garrett claims that she was “[s]imply advising Mr. Dodge of his right to have a representative at any future conversations about the hat,” which is his right under his collective bargaining agreement. This characterization undersells the import and implications that a reasonable employee would attribute to such a statement.”
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the school district failed to show evidence of a “tangible disruption” to school operations that would outweigh the teacher’s First Amendment rights.
Notably, there was “no general prohibition on political speech” when Garrett told Dodge he could not bring his MAGA hat to school. His counsel noted that Garrett allowed a Black Lives Matter poster to hang in the library and had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on her car.
The Ninth Circuit correctly ruled in favor of Dodge. It found:
“Dodge’s speech was his display of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign slogan on a red hat. The content of this speech is quintessentially a matter of public concern. The messages of candidates for public office are not only newsworthy; they inherently relate to the ‘political, social, or other concern to the community.” Lane, 573 U.S. at 241 … Indeed, Principal Garrett and others viewed Dodge’s hat as a comment on issues such as immigration, racism, and bigotry, which are all matters of public concern. … And regardless of Dodge’s intent, the MAGA hat has an obvious political nature.”
We have previously discussed court rulings against employees who insisted on wearing political hats or symbols at work. The Ninth Circuit distinguished this case where a teacher was not in class or interacting with students:
“Here, Dodge had no official duty to wear the MAGA hat, and it was not required to perform his job. Nor did he wear the hat in school with students. That distinguishes this case from other cases involving speech in schools where the speech was reasonably viewed by students and parents as officially promoted by the school. … Where Dodge was not taking ‘advantage of his position to press his particular views upon the impressionable and ‘captive’ minds before him,’ Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d at 968, but rather was displaying a message on a personal item while attending a teacher-only training, we have little trouble concluding that he was engaging in expression as a private citizen, not a public employee.
Because the undisputed facts demonstrate that Dodge’s MAGA hat conveyed a message of public concern and he was acting as a private citizen in expressing that message, we conclude that Dodge was engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment.”
The Ninth Circuit was clearly correct in finding the hat to be protected speech. What is concerning is the lack of any discipline for Garrett or others who sought to prevent opposing political views from being expressed by teachers. The denial of free speech should be treated as seriously as other abuses. There should be consequences for administrators who discriminate on the basis on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or political viewpoints. This was a denial of First Amendment rights that should warrant some adverse action for those responsible in the school district.
While Garrett chastised Dodge to use “better judgment” in the future, the question is whether she or other administrators will do so in light of this ruling. They showed terrible judgment in attacking Dodge over his political views. Others showed equally bad judgment in litigating this case rather than settling the matter with Dodge.
This ruling will certainly create clear guidelines for the future, but the case also shows the sense of license of many teachers in curtailing the rights of others with opposing political views. That sense of license will continue despite this ruling if there are no consequences for denying free speech rights.
Here is the opinion: Dodge v. Evergreen District
