Historical Events 1874 - 16 blacks kidnapped from Gibson County Jail and lynched in Trenton, Tennessee 1916 - Philadelphia Athletic's Bullet Joe Bush no-hits Cleveland, 5-0 1966 - Baltimore Orioles Roznovsky and B.Powell are 4th to hit consecutive pinch HRs 1971 - MLB Baltimore Orioles' Don Buford struck out 5 times in a game 1985 - French government denies knowledge of bombing of the Greenpeace flagship the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland New Zealand 1986 - Rosa Mota of Portugal wins the women's Stuttgart marathon (2:28:38) More Historical Events » Famous Birthdays 1891 - Ferdinand Bruckner [Theodor Tagger], Austrian-German playwright (Races), born in Sofia, Bulgaria (d. 1958) 1901 - Jimmy Rushing, American jump blues singer, known as "Mr. Five By Five" (Count Basie Orchestra, 1935-48), and pianist, born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (d. 1972) 1919 - Ronny Graham [Stringer], American composer, lyricist, screenwriter (M*A*S*H (TV series), and actor (Chico and the Man; Mel Brooks films), born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (d. 1999) 1942 - Keith Alison, American session and touring guitarist (Paul Revere and The Raiders, 1968-75), and songwriter, born in Coleman, Texas (d. 2021) 1953 - David Hurley, Australian politician (Governor General of Australia 2019-, Governor of New South Wales 2014-19), born in Wollongong, Australia 1960 - Ola Ray, American model, Playboy playmate (Jun, 1980) and actress (girlfriend in Thriller music video), born in St Louis, Missouri More Famous Birthdays » Famous Deaths 1770 - Domingos dos Reis Quita, Portuguese playwright and poet, dies at 42 1813 - Theodor Körner, German soldier and poet (Zriny, Sword Song), dies fighting in the Napoleonic wars at 21 1813 - Daniel Gottlob Turk, German composer, dies at 63 1921 - Ludwig Thoma, German writer, dies at 54 1981 - Walter "Foots" Thomas, American saxophonist, flutist, and arranger (Cab Calloway Orchestra), dies from cancer at 74 1995 - Olimi III, African king of Toro (Uganda), dies at 49 More Famous Deaths »

Inspired by sharing records with Steven Wilson, he took a more melodic approach, added a vague title that just sounded cool, and forged them into a “journey through life that starts pretty good and ends shit”

Magic Johnson ain't playing around

Talks over a possible Gaza deal ended without agreement in Cairo, with neither Hamas nor Israel agreeing to several compromises presented by mediators, two Egyptian security sources said on Sunday. Israel…

In July, the U.S. Department of Defense released its first Arctic strategy guide since 2019. Washington’s concerns peaked when American and Canadian jets intercepted two Russian Tupolev TU-95 strategic…

Donald Trump has renewed his pledge to end a long-standing constitutional right, saying he would sign an executive order on day one ensuring children born to parents who do not have legal status will…

Just amazing.

Foreign Affairs NATO’s Arctic Strategy Is an Overreaction      Militarizing the polar region does not serve American interests. In July, the U.S. Department of Defense released its first Arctic strategy guide since 2019. Washington’s concerns peaked when American and Canadian jets intercepted two Russian Tupolev TU-95 strategic bombers and two Chinese H-6 bombers operating in international airspace around 200 miles off the coast of Alaska. While the United States must ensure the security of its territory, including Alaska, overreacting and developing a militaristic hyperfocus on the Arctic, where U.S. interests are limited, would be a blunder.  The Arctic strategy document highlights the threat of recent Sino-Russian collaboration in the Arctic, citing PLAN and Russian Navy ships operating together in international waters off the coast of Alaska in 2022 and 2023. Russia, which controls the largest swath of Arctic territory of any Arctic nation, has expanded and modernized its Arctic military infrastructure. The region is of great importance to Moscow, as Russia aims to defend its second-strike, sea-based nuclear deterrent capability operating out of the Kola Peninsula to defend the homeland and protect its regional economic endeavors, including oil and gas megaprojects like the Yamal LNG and Vostok Oil ventures.  Meanwhile, China’s activities in the Arctic have been mainly economic in nature. In the 21st century, China has invested over $90 billion in Arctic energy and minerals sector projects. Beijing’s economic activity aligns with its 2018 Arctic Strategy, which mentions Beijing’s aim to gain more influence in its claim as an Arctic stakeholder. As the U.S. strategy guide mentions, the PRC seeks to promote the Arctic region as a “global commons,” a statement that Washington perceives as an opportunity for China to shift governance of the region in its favor.  Neither the modernization of Soviet-era military bases nor PRC attempts to construct a Polar Silk Road constitutes enough of a threat to warrant making the Arctic the next battleground of great power competition. Yet the NATO alliance, with Finland and Sweden recently becoming full-fledged members, is determined to confront the perceived threat in the Arctic region. Although NATO has historically lacked an official position on the Arctic, following the start of the Russo–Ukrainian war in 2022, the Arctic region has become a larger security focus for the alliance. With Finland and Sweden’s ascension to NATO, the alliance’s Arctic presence increased significantly and has been accompanied by large-scale military exercises, such as Nordic Response 2024, which involved 13 NATO countries and 20,000 troops. Moreover, NATO’s new Arctic posture includes enhancing surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as improving interoperability among NATO member states. Despite its increased operations in the region over the past few years, Russia’s ability to mount an Arctic offensive is negligible as it remains entrenched in the quagmire that is the Russo-Ukrainian War. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine has been mired with various failures and shortcomings, including poor planning and running out of necessary supplies. Shortages have become enough of an issue for Moscow to resort to increased cooperation with pariah states, such as North Korea, to attain necessary equipment.  Regarding China, Beijing’s interest in the Arctic beyond economic endeavors is minimal. China’s main preoccupation has consistently been the Taiwan Strait, as Beijing has used various coercive tactics short of armed conflict aimed at wearing down Taiwan to capitulate to its aim of unification with the island. Military activity in the Arctic would rank extremely lowly in importance regarding Beijing’s military initiatives.    Washington and the NATO alliance should acknowledge that engaging in a military confrontation in the Arctic would be extremely costly and difficult. Even with the addition of Finland and Sweden to the NATO alliance, Russia will remain the most influential player in the Arctic. Rather than adding fuel to the fire of Western relations with Russia, the West should emphasize keeping channels of communication open with Russia to avoid and manage crises, as well as mitigate the risks of conflict through an accident or miscalculation.   The war in Ukraine has undoubtedly made cooperation and diplomacy in the Arctic more difficult. Nevertheless, the U.S. can expect Russia to remain open to peaceful discussions. Even during the height of the Cold War, Russia—then the Soviet Union—cooperated with the West on Arctic issues, including initiatives like the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and the 1987 “Murmansk Initiative” toward regional cooperation. Despite current high tensions, given the potential for mutual devastation, Russia and NATO share an interest in maintaining peace in the Arctic region.  The Arctic Council has been an important working group for Arctic diplomacy. In the past, the Council has facilitated the improvement of marine safety in the Bering Strait, where the U.S. and Russia share a maritime border. To reduce Russia’s potential desire to cooperate militarily with Beijing in the Arctic, the Arctic Council should not exclude Moscow and should encourage an atmosphere of openness. Such exclusion is a counterproductive measure that only leaves room for misunderstandings and could lead to even greater tensions between the West and Moscow.  An end to the Russo–Ukrainian war seems as distant as ever, with no indication that legitimate moves toward diplomacy will occur. Nevertheless, the United States and NATO should seek cooperation with their adversaries when possible and avoid opening a new avenue of escalation. The post NATO’s Arctic Strategy Is an Overreaction appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Harder Than It Sounds Trump’s campaign promise faces an uphill battle. Credit: image via Shutterstock Donald Trump has renewed his pledge to end a long-standing constitutional right, saying he would sign an executive order on day one ensuring children born to parents who do not have legal status will not be considered U.S. citizens, as they are now. “The United States is among the only countries in the world that says even if neither parent is a citizen or even lawfully in the country, their future children are automatic citizens the moment the parents trespass onto our soil,” Trump said. What are Trump’s chances of success with such an executive order? Since the end of the Civil War, any child born in the U.S. (excluding the children of foreign diplomats, who are not born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”) is a citizen, the doctrine of jus soli. This right is written into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (1868), which says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The language was included in the constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War to ensure former slaves and their children were recognized as citizens. The rule is simple: being born in the U.S. equals citizenship for almost everyone. It does not matter if one or both parents is an illegal alien or in some other status, such as a tourist (see “birth tourism,” below). A change to the rule, which Trump again proposes (Trump pledged to end birthright citizenship when first running for president in 2015 and he raised it again in 2018 as chief executive—but he never issued an executive order), would have to confront, among other challenges, the fact that birthright citizenship has been subjected to legal tests dating back to the turn of last century. It is possible the Supreme Court would not even hear the new case as the law is so clear. Chief among these tests was Wong Kim Ark v. United States (1898). Wong concerned a Chinese man born in the United States to two non-citizen parents. Under the 14th Amendment, he was granted American citizenship at birth. He left the U.S. and upon return was denied entry based on the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited Chinese citizens from entering. Wong fought the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, declaring him and all subsequent children born in the U.S. (except those of diplomats) citizens regardless of their parents’ status. The later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982) eliminated any doubt over whether Wong applies to all aliens, even illegal aliens. The Supreme Court’s majority concluded the phrase from the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the 14th Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born to foreigners. The dissenters argued being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not also being subject to any foreign power, i.e., not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent). That reading, in the minority’s view, would exclude “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country.” The judgment was controversial from the start; an editorial published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 30, 1898, expressed concern Wong “may have a wider effect upon the question of citizenship than the public supposes.” Specifically, that it might lead to citizenship and voting rights not only for Chinese, but also Japanese and American Indians. The editorial suggested that “it may become necessary… to amend the Federal Constitution and definitely limit citizenship to whites and blacks.” All of this could affect birth tourism. In his last administration, Trump issued an executive order outlawing B1/B2 tourist visas for birth tourism, where an alien comes to the U.S. specifically to give birth here and “create” an American citizen, an “anchor baby,” who will file for legal status for his parents at age 21. Prior to Trump’s EO, traveling to the U.S. to give birth was fundamentally legal, although there are scattered cases of domestic authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies. Women abroad were often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even showed contracts with doctors and hospitals to prove they would not become public charges. As it stands, visitors will be denied temporary visas if it is found the “primary purpose” of their travel is to obtain citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. The rule does not apply to the 39 countries in the Visa Waiver Program, and the State Department in implementing the EO forbids its visa officers from even asking in most cases if an applicant is pregnant, making the order hard to enforce. “This is the first recognition that it’s not OK to use a visitor visa for the purposes of ‘birth tourism,’ so it has a symbolic strength in that respect, at the same time it’s not a very effective way at going after the ‘birth tourism’ industry,” said an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. While the federal government does not specifically track birth tourism, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually publishes the number of known births in the U.S. to foreign women who reside overseas—around 10,000 such births every year for the past few years. If Trump were to follow through on his plan to issue an executive order on day one, here’s how it might unfold. The Trump campaign said it would order the Social Security Administration to refuse to issue Social Security numbers to newborn children without proof of the parents’ immigration status. Trump would issue the same order to the State Department regarding passports. This would not require any action from Congress and because it would not grant/take away citizenship per se, would not directly rub against the 14th Amendment. Currently, a U.S. birth certificate is all that is needed to obtain a Social Security number and passport in most cases. The State Department currently considers U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus to have citizenship at birth. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual takes the position Wong settled this issue. This means the Trump EO would likely be challenged immediately in lower courts and because it does not directly address the 14th Amendment, would be ripe for the Supreme Court to revisit Wong indirectly if they wished to. The Court could also side with long precedent and refuse to even hear the case. The latter is the most likely outcome, and Trump’s third try at changing birthright citizenship would end just like his earlier two. The post Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Harder Than It Sounds appeared first on The American Conservative.