Search This Blog

Saturday, December 2, 2023

'US VP Harris urges Israel to protect Gaza civilians, sketches post-war vision'

 U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris said on Saturday too many Palestinians are being killed in Gaza and urged Israel to do more to protect them as she sketched out a U.S. vision for post-conflict Gaza.

At a news conference on the sidelines of the COP28 summit, Harris said Israel has a legitimate right to conduct military operations against Hamas militants, who launched attacks from Gaza on Oct. 7 in which more than 1,200 people in southern Israel were killed.

"As Israel defends itself, it matters how. The United States is unequivocal: International humanitarian law must be respected. Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed," Harris said.

The United States has been increasingly vocal that Israel must narrow the combat zone during any offensive in southern Gaza and ensure safe areas for Palestinians.

"As Israel pursues its military objectives in Gaza, we believe Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians," she said.

More than 15,000 people have been killed so far in Gaza, according to Palestinian authorities.

Harris consulted with regional leaders while attending the climate summit in Dubai, after being asked by U.S. President Joe Biden to take his seat at the table as he focuses on the Israel-Hamas war.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was only looking to hurt Hamas.

"We determine safe areas in coordination with international agencies and with our American friends, to where the population knows it can evacuate. We did it in the north and we will do it elsewhere and this is important because we have no desire to harm the population," he told reporters in Tel Aviv.

In another message directed at Israel, Harris said the United States will not permit the forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank, the besieging of Gaza or the redrawing of Gaza's borders.

"The international community must dedicate significant resources to support short- and long-term recovery in Gaza, for example, rebuilding hospitals and housing, restoring electricity and clean water and ensuring that bakeries can reopen and be restocked," she said.

SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES

Eventually, the Palestinian Authority security forces must be strengthened to assume security responsibilities in Gaza, but until then, she said, "There must be security arrangements that are acceptable to Israel, the people of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, and the international partners."

Looking further down the road, she said, the Palestinian Authority should be bolstered to the point that it can govern both the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas can no longer run Gaza, she said.

"We want to see a unified Gaza and West Bank under the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Palestinian voices and aspirations must be at the center of this work," she said.

Netanyahu has said he is unwilling to allow the PA in its present form to run Gaza after the war ends.

"The Palestinian Authority doesn't fight terrorism - it funds terrorism, it doesn't teach peace, it preaches the disappearance of Israel. This is not the body that should go in there," Netanyahu said on Saturday.

Once the war ends, efforts to rebuild should be pursued with a view toward the goal of a two-state solution in which Israel and the Palestinians live in peace, Harris said, referring to a long-sought U.S. objective that has not borne fruit.

The Western-backed PA governs parts of the occupied West Bank. Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party and has ruled the enclave ever since.

Harris' role in the administration is coming under increased scrutiny as Biden, 81, runs for a second four-year term. She has been tasked with helping to resolve a series of major challenges, from migration to abortion and voting rights at home.

How post-conflict Gaza should realistically be managed is an issue that has confounded regional leaders and Middle East experts.

U.S. officials have discussed bolstering the Palestinian Authority so it can widen its reach to include Gaza, but no firm plan has been agreed upon.

Some U.S. officials have privately expressed doubts about the PA's ability to govern Gaza post-war. Critics have accused the authority of corruption and mismanagement, and opinion polls have shown its credibility is low with the Palestinian people.

https://news.yahoo.com/vp-harris-sketch-us-vision-060326429.html

Megyn Kelly's New Media Moment

 by Philip Wegmann via RealClear Wire,

Megyn Kelly was worried. And more recently, indignant. Righteously, of course.

She craved another chance and felt confident, while watching from home, that she could deliver in a way that was a hell of a lot better than the competition, harboring the sort of personal ambition and professional jealousy that develop as a matter of course in all who have fought for survival in prime time.

Talent and earned experience and the trust of a large audience. She has had all of it. The only thing she needed now was a television network. And so, she will borrow one.

She is set to return as a debate moderator next week to referee the fourth Republican presidential debate, this one in Tuscaloosa, Ala., and this time on NewsNation as part of a partnership with that network, Sirius XM, and the Free Beacon. It is a noteworthy milestone; she had a front-row seat eight years ago to the rise of populism. It is also a test of the new media; she bridled a similar kind of populism to continue her career.

And that’s why, for just a while, she worried. Independent journalists don’t often get to call marquee prize fights. But Megyn Kelly does.

Malpractice, absolute journalistic malpractice!” That’s how Kelly describes the most explosive exchange from the Miami debate moderated by NBC News anchors Lester Holt and Kristen Welker. Nikki Haley had called Vivek Ramaswamy “scum” after the businessman took a shot at her adult daughter. Reliving the moment in an interview with RealClearPolitics, Kelly was incredulous: “And the moderator did not stop to say, ‘Wait, did you just call him scum? Mr. Ramaswamy. Do you care to respond?’”

“How did that not happen?” she asks before immediately offering an answer. “Because these moderators are too tied to their written questions. They’re not nimble. They are afraid to deviate from what their producers put in front of them. That isn’t good television!”

“There’s a reason why they call it broadcast journalism. It’s not just about journalism. It’s also about seizing the moment,” she explains. “You feel the moment, go with the moment.”

Kelly could have just as easily been describing her own career. A trial lawyer before entering journalism, Kelly jumped from the courtroom to cable news to network television over the last two decades.

And then the wilderness. Veteran journalists who go it alone hardly ever regain prominence. Some decamp to college campuses. Others write books. Most generally fade. Kelly, instead, seized the digital moment.

Three years ago, after an unsuccessful stint at NBC News, she launched “The Megyn Kelly Show,” a daily podcast that was later picked up on Sirius XM and that posts on YouTube, where her interviews regularly attract millions of viewers. Professional indifference, as much as independence, was an advertised feature of the new venture. The name of her production company: “Devil May Care Media.”

“Fourth or fifth acts in broadcast media are rare,” explains Brian Stelter, “and she is pulling it off.” Hardly a conservative fanboy, the veteran media reporter and former host of CNN’s Reliable Sources occasionally tunes in to the show during his commute, programming he described as “a hard-right, anti-woke rage fest.” But Stelter admits the Kelly renaissance “is a pretty rare success story.”  

A seat at the desk of a presidential debate, though, the crown jewel of any career in political journalism? Even Kelly felt that would be out of reach “this time around.” Those gigs traditionally go to legacy media, and for good reason. Deep pockets, not to mention a wealth of experience, are needed to pull off a prize fight in prime time. All the same, Kelly says she “wound up with three different offers to co-moderate a debate.” But even with NewsNation handling all the technical logistics, would the ordeal be worth the fuss?

Former President Donald Trump has walked away from the stage, leaving his primary challengers to cannibalize each other as they trail by more than 45 points. “Does it matter at all?” she asked herself when deciding whether to moderate an undercard debate without the biggest name in politics. Sequels often fall flat, and her first debate had catapulted her to the journalism equivalent of superstardom.

It has now been eight years since Trump and Kelly, then of Fox News, clashed at the first Republican presidential debate. A stampede of magazine writers followed.

“Blowhards, Beware,” declared Vanity Fair in 2016, “Megyn Kelly Will Slay You Now.” And later Vogue dubbed her “Megyn Unbound” as she prepared to decamp Fox for NBC the next year, speculating that, once split from the conservative news juggernaut, she could finally be “a force for good.” Eventually, the names of the magazines that profiled her said as much about her career as the interviews: Variety, then Success, and finally More.

The quotes changed. The formula for each glossy cover story stayed the same. An elegant photo shoot, a couple thousand words complete with anecdotes about unscripted off-air moments, deviations on one common theme. One gushing headline summed up the shared sentiment: “Megyn Kelly Always Wins.”

She chuckles at that past coverage, and then the new queen of independent journalism returns to a no-brainer for anyone else with a byline. “In the end, I concluded, yes,” Kelly says of her reason for reprising her role as debate moderator, noting that “Trump is vulnerable in some unique ways” – from the frontrunner’s legal jeopardy to, “with all due respect,” the septuagenarian’s health. Between the Thanksgiving holiday and debate prep sessions, she insists “there are all sorts of reasons” for the GOP to consider “at least the next best option.” One of the candidates not named Trump “could pull an inside straight,” she muses. “It’s not likely,” Kelly concludes, “but who am I to rule it out?”

Haley, Ramaswamy, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have qualified for that contest. None would likely appreciate her analysis of their chances. All of them know her already, however, and there is a level of comfort with Kelly inside party headquarters and among the grassroots. She may not be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She can at least speak their language.

“This does get to an interesting tension point about the debates,” Stelter mused. “Who should be asking the questions: Should it be Hugh Hewitt and Megyn Kelly, or Lester Holt and Bret Baier?” In his estimation, since going independent, the woman once crowned “the First Lady of Fox,” someone who cultivated a brand as “unpredictable,” has become reliably “more Rush Limbaugh than Brit Hume.”

It was Hume who first spotted Kelly and passed her demo tape along to Fox News brass, who eagerly recruited her to be a reporter. The rest is history, including a cautionary tale about cultivating talent. According to talk show host Erick Erickson, NBC drafted Kelly without an adequate plan to leverage her conservative celebrity. “They could have built a credible brand around Megyn,” he says, “but chose not to because she did not have enough of a left-wing orthodoxy.”

Erickson, like many others on the right, was quick to celebrate her return to the moderator role. “She can speak the language of the people from whom she came,” he explains, “even though she’s been elevated into this New York world of the media.”

Conservatives have long loved to hate the media, and moderators are no exception. Ramaswamy delighted the right with his modest proposal at the last debate that Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson should be calling the contest. Kelly arguably has more mainstream appeal, less baggage, and better hair than all of them. And according to Erickson, a unique kind of credibility. “You don’t have to be a card-carrying member of the vast right-wing conspiracy to be taken seriously by conservatives,” he insisted. “You just have to be willing to treat them as humans with valid opinions.”

Kelly won’t sign any party membership card. “I’m a registered independent,” she says to almost preempt her admission in the next breath that “my sensibilities are center-right.” And so, when she takes her seat behind the desk in Alabama and looks out over the field of candidates, she won’t bother with a view from nowhere. On the eve of that contest, Kelly advertises “complete fluency” in the ideological concerns of conservatives. And then she offers up a professional disclaimer directed at the politicians she will square up with: “I’m never going to share a jersey with these people.”

“Am I willing to vote for a Democrat over a Republican at the presidential level these days? I'll be honest, probably not. I have voted for plenty of Democrats in the past, but the world is so insane right now, and I’ve become almost a single-issue voter on what we’re doing to children in the trans lane,” she admits.

“But my point is even though I’m probably rooting for these guys over a Democrat, you won’t be able to tell that on debate night, and that’s all you can ask of a good moderator. They don’t have to have no politics. They don’t have to have no ideology. They have to be able to check it. They go out there such that both sides are satisfied that this person was tough but fair,” she continues.

Each of the candidates who will walk on stage next week has sat for in-depth interviews with her already, and even Trump made peace with her. Of course, it was only temporary. That segment included a lengthy cross-examination about his handling of classified documents, and days after it aired, hostilities resumed. “She was pretty nasty,” the former president complained to an Iowa crowd, “didn’t you think?” Kelly could care less.

She already got the interview. Now she’s about to get her debate, a contest she playfully likens to “a dinner party” where her role is that of the “bad host” who chooses chaos. “Instead of introducing fun topics on which guests might agree, you’re introducing the thorny ones,” Kelly says, laying out in broad strokes her plans for the evening. Should any of the candidates arrive low energy, she warns, well, “Maybe you take out the cattle prod.”

She plans to invite arguments and doesn’t expect “a hug” from anyone on stage afterward. “As soon as you declare yourself a presidential candidate, we’re not friends,” Kelly explains. The biggest bully in politics helped solidify that fact in her mind: “The nature of the relationship becomes adversarial. And as much as Trump came after me and made my life unpleasant after the 2015 debate, he wasn’t wrong.”

“I threw a punch at him that was considerable, and he threw many, many punches back. You could argue it was excessive. I certainly think it was. But my point is simply that part of it is accepting your role as someone who these guys are not going to like that much. If you’re doing it right, they shouldn’t,” she says, recalling her first big brush with the populist who went on to the presidency.

She talks in calculated, almost cold-blooded, terms but her inviting tone never loses its warmth. Such is the duality of Megyn Kelly: She is as disarming and kind as any suburban mom anywhere, and yet she has a plan to end the career of any unprepared politician she meets.

Scott Walker has tangled with Kelly before, and the former Wisconsin governor, who now serves as president of the Young America’s Foundation, has blunt advice for any 2024 candidates who might be tempted to underestimate the blonde brawler: Don’t.

“Just because she articulates conservative views doesn’t mean any of the candidates will get a pass from her,” Walker cautions. “They’d better be bringing their A-game to the debate stage.”

While her confrontation of Trump eight years ago dominates the memory of that contest, her questions to the rest of the field were no less aggressive. For instance, she didn’t lob a softball and invite Walker to explain why he opposed abortion. She threw high and inside. “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?” Kelly asked. The governor kept his balance, defended his position, and answered that his pro-life position was “in line with everyday America.”

Others weren’t so lucky that night, as Kelly weaved right as quickly as she bobbed left. One moment, she asked former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who had leaned on Scripture to justify his expansion of Medicaid, why conservative voters, “who generally want to shrink government” should “believe you won’t use your Saint Peter analogy to expand all government?” The next, she hit him with this question: “If you had a son or daughter who was gay or lesbian, how would you explain to them your opposition to same-sex marriage?”

The left-right routine was enough to win Kelly praise from all corners. Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, declared Kelly “the toughest person on the debate stage,” while Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the eventual Democratic nominee the next year, said the moderators had raised “the quality of the debate.”

Campaigns are rewatching that debate and pulling clips from her show to prepare. “They should review my show,” she laughs. “It’s full of interesting content. They won’t find clues in there, though.” Kelly stubbornly refuses to talk outside of school. She says only that she and her co-moderators, Elizabeth Vargas of NewsNation and Eliana Johnson of the Washington Free Beacon, will be “unsparing.” The trio has binders full of “A+ level questions” designed to shove candidates off their talking points and into real moments of conflict.

“If the three of us could shrink into obscurity that night, it would be a total win. If it’s just all about the three of them, or four of them, and not at all about the three of us, that would be great,” Kelly says.

The four of them? “I know Trump loves Alabama. I do know this,” she says of a perhaps hoped-for surprise appearance. “He loves Alabama. So, there’s some possibility he’d decide to show up.” Should that happen, Kelly says the trio of moderators will be prepared. They’ve studied the candidates and the current moment.

“This Republican Party is a far more dynamic, interesting, and complex one than what we had even six to eight years ago,” she reports, before suggesting “that’s probably actually good for the country” and then declaring, “that’s definitely good for a debate.”

Take foreign policy, for instance, the foundation of the previous debate. Kelly cuts the party roughly into thirds for the sake of example. There is “the populist, Trump MAGA wing,” she says, and “then you still have the neoconservatives.” The remainder, in her quick estimation, are “the war-weary” who are skeptical of foreign intervention, “but who aren’t MAGA and certainly aren’t pro-Trump.”

Pick a different issue. Slice, dice, and repeat. “There are a bunch of factions right now in the Republican Party,” she says, in between debate prep sessions, “which for me, as somebody who has a show, a journalist, and as a debate moderator, spells opportunity.”

Familiarity will not lead to fondness, though. The only class Kelly seems to dislike more than politicians are members of the media. So much of her current rise is a reaction to their coverage, or perhaps an antidote. She complains that “the liberals who dominate the news” fail to account for their own biases, let alone check them in any meaningful way. “They’re cheerleaders,” Kelly says, “and that’s why independent media has exploded.”

“The populist rising that we’ve seen in our politics has tilted over to media,” she replies when asked how she fits into that phenomenon. “My own coverage, I wouldn’t describe it as populist, but it is definitely anti-elite and anti-institution because they’ve earned that disdain. And people have had it. They’ve come to understand that these institutions are not rooting for them.”

Next week may be the biggest opportunity yet for independent media when Megyn Kelly returns to live television. She predicts that some of her questions will be objectionable to one wing of the party and acceptable to another. “You have the chance to both please and displease a large constituency,” she says, “which is a win.” 

“No one should be feeling super warm and fuzzy when the debate is over, like they just want to give the debate moderator a hug,” she adds. “They should be feeling like, ‘I loved this stuff. I hated that stuff. Overall, I found it very informative.’”

More than anything, though, Kelly stresses that she and her co-moderators will go with the moment. “We are going to make this entertaining,” she promises. “Trust me when I tell you, we know how. It’ll be fun to watch.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/megyn-kellys-new-media-moment

Secession Question Expected To Appear on 2024 Texas Primary Ballot

 As the US government hurtles toward insolvency while political and cultural divisions intensify across the country, Texans are poised to take their long-simmering flirtation with secession to the next level, as a non-binding proposition is expected to appear on the statewide GOP primary ballot in March 2024.  

On Friday, the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) announced that it had obtained the number of signatures required to compel the Republican Party of Texas to include this question on the primary ballot: “Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”

The party's State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) is meeting this weekend to finalize the list of ballot propositions. According to TNM, the SREC's wishes are not relevent, as the Texas Election Code empowers voters to place a proposition on a ballot by collecting the signatures of 97,709 Texans who want the question to appear. TNM says it has more than 102,000. 


"We could actually bypass the SREC’s ballot proposition process and compel the party to place the question on the ballot," said TNM President Daniel Miller in a Friday letter submitted to the SREC in support of the proposition. He emphasized that including the proposition doesn't equate to a Texas GOP endorsement of secession. Rather, he wrote, ballot propositions serve as a means of pursuing clarity as to the "greatest concerns of Republican voters."

The drive for statewide votes on secession has spanned several years. While the SREC's resolutions committee added it to a preliminary list in 2015, the SREC struck it. At the party's 2016 convention, a plank calling for a statewide referendum of all voters was forwarded for inclusion in the Texas GOP platform, only for it to be struck down by the Permanent Platform Committee.

Later Republican plank attempts were successful. The SREC will be under greater pressure to green-light the primary ballot proposition on Saturday, given presence of two planks in the current Texas GOP platform

  • Plank 33, addressing "state sovereignty," asserts that "Texas retains the right to secede from the United States, and the Texas Legislature should be called upon to pass a referendum consistent thereto."
  • Plank 225, "Texas Independence," urges the legislature to require a general election referendum "for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation."

"Whether you are for, against, or undecided TEXIT, we should all be able to agree that the platform matters, the Texas Bill of Rights matters, and the Republican voters matter,” said TNM's Miller in his letter to the SREC.

A "TEXIT" sticker on a pickup truck (via Texas Nationalist Movement store)

The GOP primary proposition won't have any power of law, but is sure to intensify discussion of the idea inside Texas and out. Secessionists in other states are keeping a close eye on the Texas secession movement, seeing it as a flagship that, if successful, will accelerate the trend elsewhere.

Covering the latest development in Texas, the anonymous, non-Texan author of the Red-State Secession Substack newsletter argues...

If Texas eventually withdraws from the Union, other red states will suddenly realize they need to follow. If Texas announces a future independence date, red states will have a choice to make: stay in a Union dominated by blue states, or follow Texas’ lead.

Since a Republican can’t win a presidential election without Texas’ electoral votes, the red states will have to follow Texas to avoid the tyranny, perversion, and bankruptcy that incompetent Democrat rule will bring to the remainder of the US… even if these states hadn’t favored secession until presented with this dilemma.

After seceding from Mexico, Texas was an independent country from 1836 to 1845 and, economically, is extraordinarily well-suited for independence today. It's by far the largest oil producer of any US state, accounting for a whopping 42% of American production, with no other state exceeding even 10%. It has deep-water ports, abundant agriculture, and is a major high-tech hub. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texit-progress-secession-question-expected-appear-2024-texas-primary-ballot

Heart issues skyrocketing in military, US Navy medic says

 A United States Navy Medical Service Corps whistleblower recently disclosed information from the Department of Defense that reportedly shows a major increase in military pilots with heart-related issues after the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination.

Navy Medical Service Corps Lt. Ted Macie, who is an active-duty officer, a Navy health administrator, and a medical recruiter, shared the information Monday in a video on X, formerly Twitter. Macie presented his claims over concerns that have repeatedly been emphasized by his wife, Mara Macie, who is currently running for Florida’s 5th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In his video, Ted Macie claimed that the U.S. military has experienced a major increase in heart-related issues with helicopter and fixed-wing pilots. Macie claimed that Defense Department data shows a 937% increase in heart failure, a 152% increase in cardiomyopathy, a 69% increase in ischemic heart disease, a 62% increase in pulmonary heart disease, a 36% increase in hypertensive disease, and a 63% increase in other forms of heart disease compared to the five-year average before 2022.

In a statement released on X, Macie’s wife criticized the U.S. government’s treatment of military troops during the COVID-19 pandemic, argued that there is currently a high level of mistrust in the military’s leadership, and demanded accountability as “the only answer.”

“So you may have seen my wife’s recent post, and I want to elaborate on that and give you an example as to why reinstatement, back pay, and apologies isn’t enough,” Macie said in his video on Monday.

Macie told The Gateway Pundit, “The responses to our concerns from the DoD have been memorandums, letters. As in a letter displaying how they confirmed the data but said it was due to the covid virus, even though all the issues start in 2021.”

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/11/video-heart-issues-skyrocketing-in-military-us-navy-medic-says/

Congressional Commission Urges US To Expand Nuclear Arsenal Amid China, Russia Threat

 by Andre Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

The United States must expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal beyond planned improvements to deter combined aggression from communist China and Russia, according to a new congressional report.

Planned nuclear capacity “limits” the United States' ability to effectively prevent a war with China and Russia, says the report (pdf) by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

“Given current threat trajectories, our nation will soon encounter a fundamentally different global setting than it has ever experienced: we will face a world where two nations possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own,” the report says.

“The size and composition of the nuclear force must account for the possibility of combined aggression from Russia and China.”

The report emphasizes that a new conflict with either or both of the powers could realistically result in nuclear catastrophe and would need to be deterred.

There is a growing risk of confrontation with China, Russia, or both. This includes the risk of military conflict,” the report says.

“Unlike World Wars I and II, a major power conflict in the 21st century has the potential to escalate into a large-scale nuclear war.”

US Nuclear Forces ‘Not Sufficient’ for Deterrence

In all, the report says that current plans for modernization of the nation’s nuclear forces are “necessary, but not sufficient,” given the increasing capability of China and Russia to jointly threaten the United States with their nuclear arsenals.

Deployed strategic nuclear force requirements will increase for the United States in such a threat environment,” the report says.

Hudson Institute senior fellow Marshall Billingslea, who co-authored the report, said a key factor in the commission’s decision-making was the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal.

“They’re on pace to either rival or perhaps surpass the number of fielded nuclear weapons that we ourselves possess,” Mr. Billingslea said during a Nov. 30 talk at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

“Let’s be clear, when you have a China that has gone from, let’s say, around 250 nuclear weapons to … around 700 by 2027 … that’s a fundamental game changer.”

Mr. Billingslea’s comments referred to the Pentagon’s most recent China Military Power Report, which found that the regime likely already has 500 deployed nuclear warheads and will have more than 1,000 by 2030.

Moreover, because of China’s size and economic power, he said the nation cannot rely on coercive economic methods to bring China to the nonproliferation table.

“When you’re talking about China, which has an economy nearly as large as ours … some of the tools that we traditionally have relied upon to deal with the Russias and the Irans and the Venezuelas and the North Koreas, are simply not available in a Chinese context.”

As such, he said the commission recommended the United States increase the number of its “shorter and medium-range” missiles and invest in “hypersonics” to deploy both nuclear and conventional weapons.

“The sheer increase in the number of targets implied by this Chinese buildup … [suggests] that the program of record that was foreseen back in 2010 is not sufficient,” he said.

Similarly, Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs, also a co-author of the report, said the new posture was necessary to counter a united China and Russia, which have entered an unprecedented comprehensive strategic partnership.

“What the report finds is that the United States must be able to deter both Russia and China simultaneously,” Ms. Heinrichs said.

That’s obviously going to change the United States’ strategic posture.”

Selling the idea of supplemental spending for nuclear weapons may not be an easy task. Concerns about war profiteering are growing amid unprecedented defense spending by the Biden administration.

Additionally, the Hudson Institute’s close financial relationship with key defense corporations may diminish its credibility with some in Congress. According to the organization’s financials (pdf), defense contractors gave the think tank more than half a million dollars last year.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/congressional-commission-urges-us-expand-nuclear-arsenal-amid-china-russia-threat

23andMe Reveals Hackers Accessed 'Significant Number' Of DNA Records

 In a significant security breach, genetic testing company 23andMe Holding Co. ME, confirmed that hackers have accessed around 14,000 customer accounts and an undisclosed number of files containing users’ ancestry data.

What Happened: 23andMe disclosed in a recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that a cyber attack had infiltrated 0.1% of its customer base. Given the company’s global customer count of over 14 million, this implies roughly 14,000 affected accounts, reported TechCrunch.

Besides gaining access to these accounts, hackers also acquired a significant number of files related to the ancestry profiles of other users who had used 23andMe’s DNA Relatives feature. The number of files and users impacted is yet to be revealed.

The hackers utilized a method called “credential stuffing” during the breach in early October to acquire user data. This approach involves the use of a compromised password, potentially leaked from another service’s data breach.

The information stolen for the initial 14,000 users primarily included ancestry data and health-related data for some accounts based on user genetics. For the remaining users, the hackers stole “profile information” and published certain unspecified data online.

In the aftermath of the breach, 23andMe implemented password resets and multi-factor authentication for all users, as stated in the new filing. Other DNA testing companies, such as Ancestry and MyHeritage, have since adopted two-factor authentication.

Why It Matters: In early October, an unidentified hacker stole personal genetic data from millions of 23andMe customer accounts. The stolen data, including email addresses, photos, and DNA ancestries, was allegedly available for sale in the shadowy corners of a hacker forum.

This latest breach underscores the growing concerns about privacy and security in the rapidly evolving field of genetic testing.

https://www.benzinga.com/general/biotech/23/12/36056693/23andme-reveals-hackers-accessed-significant-number-of-dna-records

CHS has sold 11 hospitals so far in 2023

 In 2017, Franklin, Tenn.-based Community Health Systems extended its divestiture plan to help control its losses and debt. After just divesting from one hospital in 2022, the health system had a busy 2023.

Here are the 11 hospitals that CHS has sold in 2023, according to SEC filings:

  1. AllianceHealth Ponca City (Ponca City, Okla.)
  2. AllianceHealth Woodward (Woodward, Okla.)
  3. Bravera Health Brooksville (Brooksville, Fla.)
  4. Bravera Health Seven Rivers (Crystal Rivers, Fla.)
  5. Bravera Health Spring Hill (Spring Hill, Fla.)
  6. Davis Regional Medical Center (Statesville, N.C.)
  7. Greenbrier Valley Medical Center (Ronceverte, W.Va.)
  8. Lake Norman Regional Medical Center (Mooresville, N.C.)
  9. Lutheran Rehabilitation Hospital (Fort Wayne, Ind.)
  10. Plateau Medical Center (Oakhill, W.Va.)
  11. Medical Center of South Arkansas (El Dorado, Ark.)