Connect with us

Politics

US Flies Nuclear-Capable Bombers Amid Tensions With N. Korea

Published

on

bombers

South Korea’s SEOUL — On Wednesday, the United States sent nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the Korean Peninsula in a show of force against North Korea amid fears that the North will perform a nuclear test.

According to South Korea’s Defense Ministry, the long-range bombers took part in joint aerial exercises over the Korean Peninsula with US and South Korean fighter aircraft. According to the statement, it was the first dispatch of US B-52 bombers to the peninsula in a month.

The exercises “demonstrate the (South) Korea-US alliance’s strong resolve and perfect readiness to respond to any provocation by North Korea swiftly and overwhelmingly,” said Lt. Gen. Park Ha Sik, commander of the South Korean air force operation command.

The South Korean and US militaries have increased their joint military exercises in response to North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats.

Last month, the allies performed their largest field exercises in five years and computer simulations. The US also sent the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz for joint naval training with South Korea last week and anti-submarine exercises between the US, South Korea, and Japan this week.

North Korea views such exercises as provocations demonstrating its adversaries’ intent to attack the North. On March 6, a day after the last B-52 bomber flight to the peninsula, Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, cautioned that her country was prepared to take “quick, overwhelming action” against the US and South Korea.

bombers

The United States sent nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea has since conducted nuclear-capable missile tests aimed at South Korea and the United States. They included the North’s longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile, the Hwasong-17, a nuclear-capable underwater drone in development, and cruise missiles and bombers launched from a submarine.

Last week, North Korea revealed a new battlefield nuclear warhead designed to fit on short-range weapons aimed at South Korea. This sparked conjecture that it may want to conduct its first nuclear test since 2017, as its previous two nuclear test detonations occurred after it revealed other new warheads. If carried out, it would be the North’s seventh nuclear test.

It is unclear whether North Korea has operational bombers nuclear-armed rockets. According to some experts, a nuclear detonation would be used to test a miniaturized warhead for short-range missiles, as the country’s recent weapons tests have concentrated on weapons that put key military installations in South Korea, including US military bases, within striking distance.

North Korea will not return to denuclearization talks with the United States unless Washington abandons hostile policies toward the North, an obvious reference to joint military exercises with South Korea and US-led international economic sanctions. Some observers believe Kim intends to use his growing weapons arsenal to pressure Washington to recognize it as a nuclear power and remove the sanctions.

According to Seoul’s Foreign Ministry, the chief nuclear envoys of South Korea, the United States, and Japan will meet in Seoul on Friday to discuss how to react to the tensions caused by North Korea’s recent weapons tests.

During a policy meeting, south Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said that security collaboration among Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo is critical in dealing with North Korean nuclear threats and other challenges. He stated that South Korea must strengthen its preemptive strike bombers, missile defense, retaliatory attack capabilities, and the alliance’s deterrence capability.

bombers

SOURCE – (AP)

Kiara Grace is a staff writer at VORNews, a reputable online publication. Her writing focuses on technology trends, particularly in the realm of consumer electronics and software. With a keen eye for detail and a knack for breaking down complex topics, Kiara delivers insightful analyses that resonate with tech enthusiasts and casual readers alike. Her articles strike a balance between in-depth coverage and accessibility, making them a go-to resource for anyone seeking to stay informed about the latest innovations shaping our digital world.

News

Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Foreign Earnings TAX

Published

on

US Supreme Court Upholds Trump- Era Tax

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld an obscure tax established as part of Trump’s big 2017 reform package that targets U.S. taxpayers who own shares in certain foreign firms.

The Supreme Court concluded 7-2 that the so-called mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under Article I and the 16th Amendment, rejecting a lawsuit by a Washington couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, who claimed the provision violated the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The Supreme Court’s decision was narrow, but by declining to overturn the tax, the justices avoided closing the door on Democrats’ proposals to levy taxes on the nation’s richest earnings. Kavanaugh emphasized that the court’s analysis ignores the difficulties created by holdings, wealth, or net worth taxes, as well as appreciation taxes.

“Those are potential issues for another day, and we do not address or resolve any of those issues here,” the Supreme Court judge’s counsel wrote. “In the Moores’ instance, Congress has long taxed an entity’s shareholders on its undistributed revenue, as it did with the MRT. This Court has long sustained such taxes, and we continue to do so with the MRT.

The high court opinion is also expected to allay fears about the impact of a sweeping decision rejecting the required repatriation tax on other elements of the tax legislation. Kavanaugh acknowledged the potential repercussions of such a finding, stating that if the Moores’ argument is adopted, “vast swaths” of the Internal Revenue Code may be declared unconstitutional.

“And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue,” he wrote on behalf of the coalition. “The logical ramifications of the Moores’ thesis would thus oblige Congress to either dramatically slash important national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it—including, of course, ordinary Americans. The Constitution does not need such a fiscal disaster.”

Dan Greenberg, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which represented the Moores, expressed disappointment with the verdict, which allows the government to collect income taxes on overseas stockholders who have never earned income.

“We think that is unfair, because the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax people on their income, not the income of foreign businesses that they do not control,” according to a press release.

US Supreme Court

Supreme Court Moore v. U.S.

The tax at the center of the case, known as Moore v. U.S., is imposed one time on U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations. The Moores challenged the measure after they were hit with a nearly $15,000 tax bill for 2017 as a result of the law, which required them to pay levies on their share of reinvested lifetime earnings from an India-based company called KisanKraft Tools.

The Moores had invested $40,000 in the company in 2006 in exchange for a 13% stake, and did not receive any distributions, dividends or other payments from it.

But the mandatory repatriation tax, enacted through the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, taxed U.S. taxpayers who owned at least 10% of a foreign company on their proportionate share of that company’s earnings after 1986. The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Though KisanKraft reinvested its earnings in the years after its founding, rather than distributing dividends to shareholders, the tax still applied to the Moores.

The Moores paid, but filed a lawsuit against the federal government to obtain a refund and challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax.

A federal district court ruled for the government and dismissed the case, finding that the mandatory repatriation tax is permitted under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from “attributing a corporation’s income pro-rata to its shareholders.” The 9th Circuit noted that courts have consistently upheld other similar taxes, and warned that finding the measure unconstitutional would call into question many other long-standing tax provisions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit’s ruling and found that by 1938, its precedents had established a rule that contradicted the Moores’ argument in their case. That line of prior decisions, Kavanaugh wrote for the court, “remains good law to this day.”

Citing those earlier rulings and the similarities between the mandatory repatriation tax and other tax provisions, the court concluded that the measure “falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to tax.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, in which she agreed with the outcome of the case, but split with the majority’s reasoning. Addressing the question that was before the court, Barrett said that the 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment to the states.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch, Thomas said the Moores were correct in challenging the mandatory repatriation tax as unconstitutional. Because the couple never actually received gains from their investment, those unrealized gains couldn’t be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment, he wrote.

“The fact that the MRT has novel features does not mean that it is unconstitutional. But, the MRT is undeniably novel when compared to older income taxes, and many of those differences are constitutionally relevant,” he wrote. “Because the MRT is imposed merely based on ownership of shares in a corporation, it does not operate as a tax on income.”

Thomas criticized the majority over its concerns about the impact a broad decision would have on other longstanding taxes, writing that “if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, ‘the judicial power’ afforded to this court does not include the power to fashion an emergency escape.”

He also rebuffed the majority’s contention that its ruling does not speak to the constitutionality of other taxes that may be passed by Congress, such as a wealth tax.

“Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress ‘no’ in the future,” Thomas wrote. “But, if the court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference.”

During oral arguments in December, the justices seemed sympathetic to concerns about how a sweeping ruling would reverberate across the U.S. tax system and threaten existing tax laws.

But some of the justices sought clarity on the limits of Congress’ taxing power. Lawyers for the Moores had warned the court that allowing a tax on income that has not yet been realized, or received, would pave the way for lawmakers to levy taxes on all manner of things, such as retirement accounts or gains in the value of real estate.

Justice Samuel Alito had faced pressure from some congressional Democrats to recuse himself from the case because of interviews he participated in with an editor at the Wall Street Journal and David Rivkin, a lawyer who represented the Moores.

The justice declined to step aside from the case, arguing there was “no valid reason” for him to do so.

Source: CBS News

 

 

Continue Reading

World

Half A Million Immigrants Could Eventually Get US Citizenship Under A New Plan From Biden

Published

on

biden
Biden | AP news Image

Washington — President Joe Biden is taking a broad election-year step to provide relief to potentially hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants in the United States, seeking to balance his aggressive crackdown on the southern border earlier this month, which enraged advocates and many Democratic lawmakers.

The White House said on Tuesday that the Biden administration will allow select spouses of US citizens without legal status to apply for permanent residency and, eventually, citizenship. Senior government officials estimate that the move might affect up to half a million immigrants.

To qualify, an immigrant must have been in the United States for ten years as of Monday and be married to a US citizen. If a qualifying immigrant’s application is approved, he or she will have three years to apply for a green card and a temporary work permit while avoiding deportation.

biden

Biden | NBC Image

Half A Million Immigrants Could Eventually Get US Citizenship Under A New Plan From Biden

According to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on anonymity, approximately 50,000 noncitizen children with parents married to U.S. citizens may also be eligible for the process. No criteria exist for how long the pair has been married, but no one is eligible after Monday. That implies that immigrants who reach the 10-year milestone after Monday will not be eligible for the programme, according to officials.

Senior administration officials expect the procedure to be available for applicants by the end of the summer. The application fees have yet to be determined.

Biden will discuss his plans at a White House event on Tuesday. The event will also commemorate the 12-year anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a popular Obama-era directive that provided deportation protections and temporary work permits to young immigrants without legal status.

Democrats, despite the president’s efforts to limit refuge earlier this month, seek to contrast Biden with probable Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his campaign promise to deport millions if reelected. Trump has leaned into his extreme ideas as Biden has received criticism for his handling of immigration during his term; on Tuesday, Trump’s campaign accused the incumbent president of presenting “another invitation for illegal immigration.”

“Biden only cares about one thing — power — and that’s why he is giving mass amnesty and citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegals who he knows will ultimately vote for him and the Open Border Democrat Party,” Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for the

biden

Biden | CNN Image

Half A Million Immigrants Could Eventually Get US Citizenship Under A New Plan From Biden

Because the prospect of a second Trump administration hangs over Biden’s new policy, Tuesday’s moves will kick off a months-long scramble by Latino organizations to recruit as many individuals as possible to apply for the program. If Trump is reelected, he has the authority to end the program, but immigrants granted parole status will remain protected.

Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA, said Biden’s statement would energize Latino communities to show their support.

“This is what our communities have needed to rally behind President Biden for reelection,” he stated.

The Democratic president will also unveil new regulations that would make it easier for certain DACA recipients and other young immigrants to apply for long-term work permits. That would provide qualifying immigrants with more protection than the work permits granted under DACA, which is now facing legal challenges and is no longer accepting new applications.

Biden’s announcement for wives on Tuesday does not represent a fresh exercise of power. Andrea Flores, a former policy adviser in the Obama and Biden administrations and now a vice president at FWD.us, an immigration advocacy organization, said the policy would expand on the authority used by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to allow “parole in place” for family members of military members.

The parole-in-place process allows qualified immigrants to begin obtaining permanent residency in the United States without leaving the country, removing a common obstacle for people without legal status who are married to Americans. Flores described it as “the biggest win for the immigrant rights movement since the announcement of DACA 12 years ago.”

biden

Biden | Reuters Image

Half A Million Immigrants Could Eventually Get US Citizenship Under A New Plan From Biden

Tuesday’s news came two weeks after Biden announced a broad crackdown at the US-Mexico border, effectively halting asylum requests for anybody traveling between legally recognized ports of entry. Immigrant rights groups have sued the Biden administration over the policy, which, according to a senior administration official, has resulted in fewer border crossings between ports.

The same leftists who were outraged by Biden’s asylum order praised the president on Tuesday. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, praised Biden’s actions, saying they would help keep American families together.

“Many Americans would be shocked to hear that when a U.S. citizen marries an undocumented person, their spouse is not automatically eligible for citizenship,” she stated. “”Imagine falling in love with someone, marrying them, and then being afraid of losing them.

SOURCE – (AP)

Continue Reading

News

Trump Fears Biden Moving the US Closer to Nuclear War with Russia

Published

on

Biden Moving the US Closer to Nuclear War
A military aide carries the nuclear football: Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump stated in an interview that he was far more concerned about the possibility of nuclear war than global warming in an interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee spoke with the Fox News host Sean Hanity on the election and his recent guilty verdict in a New York court over hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, but he also explored what a second Trump term might entail, particularly on foreign policy.

Trump, who has previously discounted the possible impact of global warming, brought up the parallel while critiquing President Joe Biden’s comments on climate change.

He said: “I love this country. I don’t want to see this country get into a nuclear war and be so badly damaged. What we say won’t matter, this place won’t matter, nothing will matter because practically nothing is going to be here any more. The level of power in weaponry, that’s real weaponry. That’s worse than the weaponry we were talking about a little while ago.

“This is obliteration, maybe world obliteration, and we have a man is not capable of discussing it. The only global warming that matters to me is nuclear global warming. Because that’s the real deal.

Biden taking us closer to nuclear war

“He [Biden] said it’s an existential threat. And he doesn’t know why! What is it, it’s weather. And in a certain way, and in a very powerful way, I’m an environmentalist. I want clean air, I want clean water. But this is not an existential threat.

“Tomorrow, we could have a war that could be so devastating that you could never recover from it. Nobody can, the whole world won’t be able to recover from it. And he’s talking about something happening 400 years from now.”

During the 2024 campaign, Trump has been particularly critical of Biden’s foreign policy, claiming that the Russia-Ukraine crisis would not have occurred if he had won a second term in 2020. He has also stated that if elected president again, he will be able to resolve the conflict in less than 24 hours.

More than two years of conflict in Ukraine have heightened fears of a nuclear clash between Russia and NATO members that support Kyiv.

High-ranking Russian officials have hinted at the potential of a nuclear battle, and Poland has offered to host NATO nuclear weapons following Moscow’s delivery of tactical nuclear armaments to Belarus, a crucial Kremlin ally.

US is failing to maintain its nuclear arsenal

Meanwhile, according to the Heritage Foundation, the United States’ ability to discourage adversaries from attacking us and our closest allies and partners has reached a low point since the Cold War ended.

China and Russia’s nuclear arsenals and ambitions are expanding unabated, while America’s ineffective response leaves it vulnerable to blackmail. Despite a clear and expanding list of dangers, the United States is failing to maintain its nuclear weapons or plan for the future.

These failures will have serious implications if not corrected immediately. President Joe Biden must make restoring the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent his top priority.

The president should direct the Pentagon to conduct formal feasibility and utility studies on a number of new nuclear systems, including potentially hypersonic nuclear delivery systems, ground-launched options, and variations on existing air- and sea-launched cruise missiles.

He should then urge the secretaries of state and defense to begin talks and planning to increase the United States’ nuclear force footprint, including the prospective stationing of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in the Pacific, major Asian countries, and Europe.

Deterring a strategic attack on the United States is the government’s primary objective. There is no bigger mission, and America’s nuclear arsenal is its most powerful weapons of deterrence.

Source: NewsWeek, Heritage Foundation

Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

People Reading

Trending