bonginoreport--2020-01-08--The (Iranian) Threat From Within

The (Iranian) Threat From Within

So long as the world is entertaining worst-case scenarios , the media does Americans no favors in omitting that Iran-Hezbollah has for years prepared to strike in their own hometowns .
Weirdly absent from much of the professional speculation about where and how Iran will exact its promised “ severe revenge ” for the U.S. drone strike killing of Quds Force Gen. Qassem Suleimani is mention of the dead man ’ s highly suggestive hint .
During a time of intense saber rattling between Iran and President Donald Trump in July 2018 , Suleimani gave a speech during which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr .
Gambler , Trump !
I ’ m telling you that we are close to you , exactly where you wouldn ’ t think that we are.
” So what might Suleimani have meant when he suggested his reach was closer than we think ?
You ’ d never know it from New York Times and Washington Post analyses .
Their commentaries about where Iran and its Hezbollah proxy might strike primarily quote prognosticators naming bullseyes not only far away from the American homeland – American troops on Middle East bases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shipping in the Persian Gulf , or American officials and citizens presumably also overseas – but also exactly where anyone would think the attackers are .
Trump has vowed drastic measures if Iran hits any Americans , but as foreign policy experts predict , these worst-case scenarios are an unlikely outcome .
While American media and citizens entertain escalating World War III-esque theories , however , honest analysis and prudence demand we consider Iranian threats much closer to home .
Here ’ s what is missing from the analysis .
Iranian avengers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hezbollah operatives of the clandestine “ Unit 910 , ” are stationed in cities across America , set to activate pending distant command on target lists they have painstakingly developed over time .
Hezbollah operatives also are positioned throughout Latin America , where American officials and economic interests are ubiquitous , at least as close as Nicaragua .
Terrorists Planted In the U.S. to ‘ Carry Out Assassinations ’ We know Shiite Muslims from Lebanon have been recruited and trained to live in American cities as sleeper agents of Hezbollah ’ s so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , known colloquially as Unit 910 , because agents have been prosecuted over the years , leaving behind detailed public records .
The most current source of public information about Unit 910 in America comes from two federal prosecutions that resulted in 2019 convictions , one of Ali Kourani in the Bronx , New York , and the other of Samer El Debek in Dearborn , Michigan .
These Lebanese immigrant terrorist spies were routinely sent home to train in weapons , spycraft , and killing on American soil as soon as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passports .
Their main purpose from about 2007 until their 2017 arrests was to pose in plain sight as normal immigrant family men while they collected weapons and built target lists for when they were activated to strike , court records show .
Their targets tended to be Jewish Americans , Israelis inside the United States , and symbolic and pragmatic sites of importance .
For example , after undergoing counter-surveillance and weapons training on trips to Lebanon , Kourani ’ s handler had him identify Jewish businessmen in New York City who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli Defense Forces worth killing .
Kourani cased a government armory in Manhattan and scoped out the FBI and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services buildings , sending video to Lebanon .
He also sent intelligence on how passengers disembarked from planes at John F. Kennedy International Airport , how U.S. customs agents screened and collected luggage , and the locations of security personnel , cameras , and magnetometers .
Kourani located storage spaces where firearms and a legal explosive known as “ samad ” could be stockpiled .
He was told to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras .
The purpose of all of this , he confessed to FBI agents , was to build a capability for “ assassinations and attacks in the U.S. ” As one FBI document paraphrased , Kourani lived a double life as one of Hezbollah ’ s “ sleepers — tasked to maintain ostensibly normal lives , who could be tasked with operational activity should the ESO decide to take action.
” In Michigan , El Debek operated on the same model , according to the criminal complaint .
He too was a salaried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 a month plus medical expenses ) , trained and indoctrinated during multiple trips back to Lebanon to kill on command inside the United States when ordered .
El Debek specialized in building bombs .
The U.S. citizenship and passport came in handy ; Hezbollah sent El Debek to Thailand to transfer explosives out of a safe house and at least twice to Panama , where he built target lists of Americans and Israelis in 2011 and 2012 .
Posing as an entrepreneur , El Debek surveilled the American and Israeli embassies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassy security , especially the “ periods of heavy traffic into and out of the embassy , vehicular patterns in front of it , and the locations of houses and apartments , ” records show .
El Debek located hardware stores that sold bomb precursors such as acetone and battery acid .
He sent photos and notes to Lebanon , where they no doubt handily remain .
While the extent of Unit 910 cadres in American cities is publicly unknown , the cautious presumption should be that El Debek and Kourani were hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 9/11 , including a 2011 plot authorized by Suleimani himself for a Texas operative to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington , D.C. , at Cafe Milano , a plan which failed miserably .
Indeed , lightly redacted , normally classified internal FBI reports show Kourani named 15 probable operatives in New York , New Jersey , Florida , and Canada .
The documents name a Queens mosque Kourani said was aligned with Hezbollah and list the names of sympathizers involved in credit card fraud , counterfeit clothing rackets , an auto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ export cars to West Africa , a Hezbollah global money-laundering hallmark .
The network is prevalent enough in Western countries that an “ association of Western intelligence organizations ” hosts a public website titled “ Stop 910.
” In English , Spanish , and Arabic , the site provides photos of suspected agents and instructions for how to anonymously inform .
Bases Are as Close as Nicaragua As a journalist during a time of extreme Iran-U.S. tensions in 2007 , I traveled to Nicaragua after U.S. nemesis President Daniel Ortega struck close bilateral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consulate in Managua .
I found the Iranian compound in a posh neighborhood , guarded by Nicaraguan troops .
For three days , I knocked on the tall metal gates , asking to interview the new ambassador .
“ Soon , very soon , but not today , ” a polite aide always told me .
Frustrated that all I was getting to see was the peak of a limp Iranian national flag jutting over the tall gates , I clambered up to a neighboring building rooftop and shot photos of the compound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went off to interview Sandinista leaders and regular citizens about the Iranians encamped in their country .
Journalists at the country ’ s largest-circulation newspaper , La Prensa , provided leaked government documents showing that Nicaragua ’ s chief immigration minister had authorized 21 Iranian men to enter the country visa-free , leaving no paper trail .
I reported that other local media accounts at the time named Quds Force operatives who came in under diplomatic cover and traveled to Honduras and El Salvador .
Iran and Nicaragua remain close , with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
Latin America all around Nicaragua is target-rich in Americans , Israelis , embassies , and Jewish communities involved in regional commerce and diplomacy .
As evidenced by El Debek ’ s 2011-2012 surveillance trips to Panama , these targets are of clear interest to Iran-Hezbollah .
The U.S. State Department ’ s 2017 and 2018 Country Reports on Terrorism found that Iran-Hezbollah “ continued its long history of activity ” in Latin America , such as illicit smuggling and fundraising activity but also “ helping to plan and support acts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agents bombed two Jewish facilities in the early 1990s , the government froze assets of 14 Hezbollah associates , some of whom had “ worked closely with numerous extremists ” in a free trade zone shared among Argentina , Paraguay , and Brazil .
In Peru , authorities arrested an apparent Unit 910 operative named Muhammad Ghaleb Hamdar for stockpiling explosives and weapons and using false documents .
Operatives were found in Colombia and Venezuela .
In 2017 , Bolivia uncovered a Hezbollah cache of explosives .
Thanks to Trump ’ s vow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any Americans are killed , some foreign policy analysts predict a less-dramatic revenge attack than worst-case scenarios like this one .
But so long as the world is entertaining worst-case scenarios , major U.S. journals do average Americans a disservice in so conspicuously omitting that Iran-Hezbollah has for years prepared to strike in their own hometowns .
“ Closer than you think , ” as Suleimani said .

Weirdly absent from much of the professional speculation about where and how Iran will exact its promised “severe revenge” for the U.S. drone strike killing of Quds Force Gen. Qassem Suleimani is mention of the dead man’s highly suggestive hint. During a time of intense saber rattling between Iran and President Donald Trump in July 2018, Suleimani gave a speech during which he called out the American president: “Mr. Gambler, Trump! I’m telling you that we are close to you, exactly where you wouldn’t think that we are.”
So what might Suleimani have meant when he suggested his reach was closer than we think? You’d never know it from New York Times and Washington Post analyses. Their commentaries about where Iran and its Hezbollah proxy might strike primarily quote prognosticators naming bullseyes not only far away from the American homeland – American troops on Middle East bases, allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, shipping in the Persian Gulf, or American officials and citizens presumably also overseas – but also exactly where anyone would think the attackers are.
Trump has vowed drastic measures if Iran hits any Americans, but as foreign policy experts predict, these worst-case scenarios are an unlikely outcome. While American media and citizens entertain escalating World War III-esque theories, however, honest analysis and prudence demand we consider Iranian threats much closer to home.
Here’s what is missing from the analysis. Iranian avengers, in the form of Quds Force-supported Hezbollah operatives of the clandestine “Unit 910,” are stationed in cities across America, set to activate pending distant command on target lists they have painstakingly developed over time. Hezbollah operatives also are positioned throughout Latin America, where American officials and economic interests are ubiquitous, at least as close as Nicaragua.
Terrorists Planted In the U.S. to ‘Carry Out Assassinations’
We know Shiite Muslims from Lebanon have been recruited and trained to live in American cities as sleeper agents of Hezbollah’s so-called clandestine External Security Organization (ESO), known colloquially as Unit 910, because agents have been prosecuted over the years, leaving behind detailed public records. The most current source of public information about Unit 910 in America comes from two federal prosecutions that resulted in 2019 convictions, one of Ali Kourani in the Bronx, New York, and the other of Samer El Debek in Dearborn, Michigan.
These Lebanese immigrant terrorist spies were routinely sent home to train in weapons, spycraft, and killing on American soil as soon as they were eligible for useful U.S. citizenship and passports. Their main purpose from about 2007 until their 2017 arrests was to pose in plain sight as normal immigrant family men while they collected weapons and built target lists for when they were activated to strike, court records show.
Their targets tended to be Jewish Americans, Israelis inside the United States, and symbolic and pragmatic sites of importance. For example, after undergoing counter-surveillance and weapons training on trips to Lebanon, Kourani’s handler had him identify Jewish businessmen in New York City who were former or current members of the Israeli Defense Forces worth killing.
Kourani cased a government armory in Manhattan and scoped out the FBI and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services buildings, sending video to Lebanon.
He also sent intelligence on how passengers disembarked from planes at John F. Kennedy International Airport, how U.S. customs agents screened and collected luggage, and the locations of security personnel, cameras, and magnetometers. Kourani located storage spaces where firearms and a legal explosive known as “samad” could be stockpiled. He was told to buy drones, night-vision goggles, and high-powered cameras.
The purpose of all of this, he confessed to FBI agents, was to build a capability for “assassinations and attacks in the U.S.” As one FBI document paraphrased, Kourani lived a double life as one of Hezbollah’s “sleepers — tasked to maintain ostensibly normal lives, who could be tasked with operational activity should the ESO decide to take action.”
In Michigan, El Debek operated on the same model, according to the criminal complaint. He too was a salaried operative dating to about 2007 ($1,000 a month plus medical expenses), trained and indoctrinated during multiple trips back to Lebanon to kill on command inside the United States when ordered. El Debek specialized in building bombs.
The U.S. citizenship and passport came in handy; Hezbollah sent El Debek to Thailand to transfer explosives out of a safe house and at least twice to Panama, where he built target lists of Americans and Israelis in 2011 and 2012.
Posing as an entrepreneur, El Debek surveilled the American and Israeli embassies and the Panama Canal. He noted U.S. embassy security, especially the “periods of heavy traffic into and out of the embassy, vehicular patterns in front of it, and the locations of houses and apartments,” records show. El Debek located hardware stores that sold bomb precursors such as acetone and battery acid. He sent photos and notes to Lebanon, where they no doubt handily remain.
While the extent of Unit 910 cadres in American cities is publicly unknown, the cautious presumption should be that El Debek and Kourani were hardly the only two. Other prosecutions date to 9/11, including a 2011 plot authorized by Suleimani himself for a Texas operative to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., at Cafe Milano, a plan which failed miserably.
Indeed, lightly redacted, normally classified internal FBI reports show Kourani named 15 probable operatives in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Canada. The documents name a Queens mosque Kourani said was aligned with Hezbollah and list the names of sympathizers involved in credit card fraud, counterfeit clothing rackets, an auto parts theft scam, and schemes to export cars to West Africa, a Hezbollah global money-laundering hallmark.
The network is prevalent enough in Western countries that an “association of Western intelligence organizations” hosts a public website titled “Stop 910.” In English, Spanish, and Arabic, the site provides photos of suspected agents and instructions for how to anonymously inform.
Bases Are as Close as Nicaragua
As a journalist during a time of extreme Iran-U.S. tensions in 2007, I traveled to Nicaragua after U.S. nemesis President Daniel Ortega struck close bilateral relations with Iran, which opened a consulate in Managua. I found the Iranian compound in a posh neighborhood, guarded by Nicaraguan troops. For three days, I knocked on the tall metal gates, asking to interview the new ambassador. “Soon, very soon, but not today,” a polite aide always told me.
Frustrated that all I was getting to see was the peak of a limp Iranian national flag jutting over the tall gates, I clambered up to a neighboring building rooftop and shot photos of the compound’s interior, spy-like, then went off to interview Sandinista leaders and regular citizens about the Iranians encamped in their country.
Journalists at the country’s largest-circulation newspaper, La Prensa, provided leaked government documents showing that Nicaragua’s chief immigration minister had authorized 21 Iranian men to enter the country visa-free, leaving no paper trail. I reported that other local media accounts at the time named Quds Force operatives who came in under diplomatic cover and traveled to Honduras and El Salvador. Iran and Nicaragua remain close, with Iran sending its foreign affairs minister in July 2019.
Latin America all around Nicaragua is target-rich in Americans, Israelis, embassies, and Jewish communities involved in regional commerce and diplomacy. As evidenced by El Debek’s 2011-2012 surveillance trips to Panama, these targets are of clear interest to Iran-Hezbollah. The U.S. State Department’s 2017 and 2018 Country Reports on Terrorism found that Iran-Hezbollah “continued its long history of activity” in Latin America, such as illicit smuggling and fundraising activity but also “helping to plan and support acts of terrorism.”
In Argentina, where Iran-Hezbollah agents bombed two Jewish facilities in the early 1990s, the government froze assets of 14 Hezbollah associates, some of whom had “worked closely with numerous extremists” in a free trade zone shared among Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil. In Peru, authorities arrested an apparent Unit 910 operative named Muhammad Ghaleb Hamdar for stockpiling explosives and weapons and using false documents. Operatives were found in Colombia and Venezuela. In 2017, Bolivia uncovered a Hezbollah cache of explosives.
Thanks to Trump’s vow to hit 52 identified Iran-Hezbollah targets if any Americans are killed, some foreign policy analysts predict a less-dramatic revenge attack than worst-case scenarios like this one. But so long as the world is entertaining worst-case scenarios, major U.S. journals do average Americans a disservice in so conspicuously omitting that Iran-Hezbollah has for years prepared to strike in their own hometowns. “Closer than you think,” as Suleimani said.
Todd Bensman is a Texas-based senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington D.C.-based research institute, and a writing fellow for the Middle East Forum. His latest book is "Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History" (Bombardier Books). For nearly a decade, Bensman led counterterrorism-related intelligence efforts for the Texas Department of Public Safety's Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. Follow him on Twitter @BensmanTodd.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--MSNBC Falsely Reports U.S. Casualties During Iran Attack – Citing Iranian Propaganda

MSNBC gave airtime to baseless Iranian propaganda alleging the Islamic Republic had killed 30 American military members in missile attacks Tuesday night .
Iran launched missile attacks on two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops Tuesday , in retaliation for the U.S. killing notorious Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani .
At the time this article was published , there were no known American casualties in Tuesday night ’ s attacks , but that didn ’ t stop MSNBC from giving oxygen to Iranian propaganda claiming otherwise .
MSNBC host Chris Matthews brought in NBC News Tehran bureau chief Ali Arouzi , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s national audience .
( RELATED : Hollywood Actress Rose McGowan Apologizes To Iran For Death Of Terrorist Soleimani ) “ We ’ ve just getting reports now that a second wave of rocket attacks have been launched from Iran .
The IRGC was saying that Ayatollah Khamenei , the supreme leader of this country , was in the control center coordinating these attacks .
This is , uh , this bit I ’ m not sure about , ” Arouzi said , before sharing the unverified propaganda claims , “ but Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers have been killed in this attack .
Now , this is not confirmed , this is just coming from Iranian media , but we have just stepped over the precipice , Chris.
” MSNBC did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision to air the Iranian propaganda claim .
At almost the exact same time that MSNBC aired the Iranian claims about U.S. casualties , CNN cited a U.S. official in reporting that there were zero known American casualties at the time .
As of the time this article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known U.S. casualties — much less 30 .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

MSNBC gave airtime to baseless Iranian propaganda alleging the Islamic Republic had killed 30 American military members in missile attacks Tuesday night.
Iran launched missile attacks on two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops Tuesday, in retaliation for the U.S. killing notorious Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani. At the time this article was published, there were no known American casualties in Tuesday night’s attacks, but that didn’t stop MSNBC from giving oxygen to Iranian propaganda claiming otherwise.
MSNBC host Chris Matthews brought in NBC News Tehran bureau chief Ali Arouzi, who repeated the Iranian claims to MSNBC’s national audience. (RELATED: Hollywood Actress Rose McGowan Apologizes To Iran For Death Of Terrorist Soleimani)
“We’ve just getting reports now that a second wave of rocket attacks have been launched from Iran,” Arouzi said. “The IRGC was saying that Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader of this country, was in the control center coordinating these attacks.”
“This is, uh, this bit I’m not sure about,” he continued, before sharing the unverified propaganda claim. “But Iran state media is claiming that 30 U.S. soldiers have been killed in this attack. Now, this is not confirmed, this is just coming from Iranian media, but we have just stepped over the precipice, Chris.”
WATCH:
MSNBC did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision to air the Iranian propaganda claim.
At almost the exact same time that MSNBC aired the Iranian claims about U.S. casualties, CNN cited a U.S. official in reporting that there were zero known American casualties at the time.
US official tells CNN that are no reports of US casualties at this time but an assessment is still underway. Reports @barbarastarrcnn — AnneClaire Stapleton (@AnneClaireCNN) January 8, 2020
As of the time this article was published, there were still no known U.S. casualties — much less 30.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Hunter Biden Doesn’t Want Custody of “Baby Doe”

The son of former Vice President Joe Biden will not fight for the custody of a child he fathered with an Arkansas woman .
Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer ruled on Wednesday morning that Hunter Biden is the `` biological and legal father '' of the `` Baby Doe '' child born to Lunden Roberts , named `` NJR '' in court documents .
“ The results of the DNA tests indicate with near scientific certainty that the defendant is the biological father of the child in this case , ” said Meyer .
Roberts , 28 , met Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an exotic dancer in Washington and is hoping to receive financial compensation for the child 's future .
Roberts ' attorney Clinton Lancaster demanded Biden be held in contempt of court after he refused to hand over pay stubs or tax returns .
Biden denied the claim and asked the court to throw out the motion .
Private investigator Dominic Casey filed documents in the paternity case last week , claiming Biden used his dead brother Beau 's identity to conceal his location while checking into an Arizona rehabilitation facility .
Including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is expecting a fifth child with new wife Melissa Cohen , a filmmaker from South Africa .
Biden has a history of substance abuse and was charged for `` possession of controlled substance '' in Jersey Shore , New Jersey , in 1988 .
His father gave a speech the next year saying the federal government needed to “ hold every drug user accountable . ''

The son of former Vice President Joe Biden will not fight for the custody of a child he fathered with an Arkansas woman.
Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer ruled on Wednesday morning that Hunter Biden is the "biological and legal father" of the "Baby Doe" child born to Lunden Roberts, named "NJR" in court documents.
“The results of the DNA tests indicate with near scientific certainty that the defendant is the biological father of the child in this case,” said Meyer.
Roberts, 28, met Biden, 49, while she was working as an exotic dancer in Washington and is hoping to receive financial compensation for the child's future.
Roberts' attorney Clinton Lancaster demanded Biden be held in contempt of court after he refused to hand over pay stubs or tax returns. Biden denied the claim and asked the court to throw out the motion.
Private investigator Dominic Casey filed documents in the paternity case last week, claiming Biden used his dead brother Beau's identity to conceal his location while checking into an Arizona rehabilitation facility.
Including NJR, Biden has fathered four children and is expecting a fifth child with new wife Melissa Cohen, a filmmaker from South Africa. Biden has a history of substance abuse and was charged for "possession of controlled substance" in Jersey Shore, New Jersey, in 1988. His father gave a speech the next year saying the federal government needed to “hold every drug user accountable."


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--SCOTUS Sets Friday Deadline for Responses in ObamaCare Case

The Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration and a coalition of red states Monday to respond by Friday to a petition asking the justices to immediately take up a challenge to the Affordable Care Act .
Setting the case on an expedited timeline ensures the justices can hear the case during the current term if they so choose .
A coalition of blue states defending Obamacare asked the high court to resolve the appeal by June , given the stakes of the litigation .
“ Were the Court to consider and grant the petition and hear argument in the ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would resolve this dispute for at least another year , ” the blue states wrote in a motion to expedite consideration of their petition on Jan. 3 .
“ In the meantime , participants in our healthcare system would have to make critical choices — indeed , life-changing ones — without knowing whether important provisions of the ACA will be invalidated.
” “ By expediting its consideration of the petition and resolving the case this Term , this Court would allay that uncertainty and improve confidence in the markets about the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion adds .
Time is pressing because the Supreme Court generally finalizes its docket for a given term in mid-January .
On occasion , the justices will take urgent appeals after that deadline , as they did with the 2019 dispute over the Trump administration ’ s bid to add a citizenship question to the census form .
The justices will meet in private conference three times in January to discuss pending appeals and make decisions as to which cases they will hear .
It ’ s not clear whether all parties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time for the court to consider the dispute during a January conference .
After the January meetings , the justices won ’ t meet in private conference again until Feb. 21 .
If the high court takes the case , it will likely hear arguments in April or during a special sitting in May .
A decision would follow by late June .
( RELATED : First Amendment Challenge To Mandatory Membership , Bar Fees Reaches Supreme Court ) The 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Obamacare ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can no longer be justified on tax grounds .
The 2017 tax reform bill zeroed out the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance .
Since the individual mandate is no longer raising revenue , the 5th Circuit said it can not be considered a tax .
The 5th Circuit provided the Supreme Court with something of an off-ramp , however .
It sent the case back to a federal trial judge in Texas for further proceedings as to whether the entire statute ought to be struck down .
The justices may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that process before taking up the case themselves .
Following that course could take several years .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

The Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration and a coalition of red states Monday to respond by Friday to a petition asking the justices to immediately take up a challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
Setting the case on an expedited timeline ensures the justices can hear the case during the current term if they so choose. A coalition of blue states defending Obamacare asked the high court to resolve the appeal by June, given the stakes of the litigation.
“Were the Court to consider and grant the petition and hear argument in the ordinary course … there is little chance that it would resolve this dispute for at least another year,” the blue states wrote in a motion to expedite consideration of their petition on Jan. 3. “In the meantime, participants in our healthcare system would have to make critical choices — indeed, life-changing ones — without knowing whether important provisions of the ACA will be invalidated.”
“By expediting its consideration of the petition and resolving the case this Term, this Court would allay that uncertainty and improve confidence in the markets about the future of the healthcare sector,” the motion adds.
Time is pressing because the Supreme Court generally finalizes its docket for a given term in mid-January. On occasion, the justices will take urgent appeals after that deadline, as they did with the 2019 dispute over the Trump administration’s bid to add a citizenship question to the census form.
The justices will meet in private conference three times in January to discuss pending appeals and make decisions as to which cases they will hear. It’s not clear whether all parties in the ACA dispute will submit legal filings in time for the court to consider the dispute during a January conference. After the January meetings, the justices won’t meet in private conference again until Feb. 21.
If the high court takes the case, it will likely hear arguments in April or during a special sitting in May. A decision would follow by late June. (RELATED: First Amendment Challenge To Mandatory Membership, Bar Fees Reaches Supreme Court)
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Obamacare’s individual mandate in December and said it can no longer be justified on tax grounds. The 2017 tax reform bill zeroed out the financial penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. Since the individual mandate is no longer raising revenue, the 5th Circuit said it cannot be considered a tax.
The 5th Circuit provided the Supreme Court with something of an off-ramp, however. It sent the case back to a federal trial judge in Texas for further proceedings as to whether the entire statute ought to be struck down. The justices may wish for the trial court to complete that process before taking up the case themselves. Following that course could take several years.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--Loser of 2016 Presidential Election Weighs in on Iran

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned in 2008 that she was prepared to “ obliterate ” Iran if it produced a nuclear weapon and promised to retaliate if the country launched a nuclear attack on Israel .
Clips of Clinton ’ s rhetoric resurfaced after social media users protested President Donald Trump ’ s decision to kill Iranian Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani which resulted in retaliatory airstrikes from Iran on Tuesday night .
The hashtag # IvotedforHillaryClinton trended on Twitter on Wednesday morning , a trend that Clinton participated in with a taunting gif .
But Clinton may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 primary .
Ahead of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary that April , Hillary Clinton was asked by Good Morning America what she would do if Israel was attacked by Iran .
“ If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel , what would our response be ?
” Clinton said in an interview with then-host Chris Cuomo .
“ I want the Iranians to know that if I ’ m the president , we will attack Iran .
That ’ s what we will do .
There is no safe haven.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed a nuclear weapon , the United States had the power to “ totally obliterate ” the country .
“ Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel , we would be able to totally obliterate them , ” she said .
She admitted that her comment was “ terrible ” but said it was important to “ deter ” Iran from attacking Israel .
“ That ’ s a terrible thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless , foolish and tragic , ” she added .
At the time , Sen. Barack Obama criticized Clinton for sounding like a warmonger .
“ It ’ s not the language we need right now , and I think it ’ s language reflective of George Bush , ” Obama said in an interview with NBC ’ s Meet the Press afterwards .
After he was elected president , Obama pursued a policy of appeasement with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State .
But Clinton left the administration prior to Obama ’ s nuclear deal with Iran , leaving Secretary of State John Kerry to complete the deal .

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned in 2008 that she was prepared to “obliterate” Iran if it produced a nuclear weapon and promised to retaliate if the country launched a nuclear attack on Israel.
Clips of Clinton’s rhetoric resurfaced after social media users protested President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Quds force commander Qasem Soleimani which resulted in retaliatory airstrikes from Iran on Tuesday night.
The hashtag #IvotedforHillaryClinton trended on Twitter on Wednesday morning, a trend that Clinton participated in with a taunting gif.
But Clinton may have forgotten her own hawkish rhetoric during the 2008 primary.
Ahead of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary that April, Hillary Clinton was asked by Good Morning America what she would do if Israel was attacked by Iran.
“If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?” Clinton said in an interview with then-host Chris Cuomo. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. That’s what we will do. There is no safe haven.”
She also warned that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, the United States had the power to “totally obliterate” the country.
“Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she said.
She admitted that her comment was “terrible” but said it was important to “deter” Iran from attacking Israel.
“That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic,” she added.
At the time, Sen. Barack Obama criticized Clinton for sounding like a warmonger.
“It’s not the language we need right now, and I think it’s language reflective of George Bush,” Obama said in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press afterwards.
After he was elected president, Obama pursued a policy of appeasement with Iran after appointing Clinton as Secretary of State. But Clinton left the administration prior to Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, leaving Secretary of State John Kerry to complete the deal.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--Poll: Record Low Number of Voters Believe Trump Will Be Removed From Office

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s delay in letting the Senate begin an impeachment trial of President Trump has taken the heat off the issue so much that now just 1 in 10 believe he will be removed from office .
The latest Rasmussen Reports revealed today that 12 % believe that the Senate will oust the president .
Removal was always a long shot because the unified GOP caucus is in the majority .
According to the polling analysis shared with Secrets : “ Only 12 % now feel it ’ s more likely that Trump will be impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first full term .
That ’ s down from a high of 29 % when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in late December 2017 and marks a new low.
” And Trump is still in the driver ’ s seat when it comes to reelection in November , according to the report .
“ A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 46 % of likely U.S. voters believe the president will be reelected , marking little statistical change from the 44 % who felt that way in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who predicted reelection this past November .
Thirty-three percent ( 33 % ) think it ’ s more likely the Democratic nominee will defeat Trump , a finding that has ranged from 26 % to 33 % in previous surveys , ” according to the analysis .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s delay in letting the Senate begin an impeachment trial of President Trump has taken the heat off the issue so much that now just 1 in 10 believe he will be removed from office.
The latest Rasmussen Reports revealed today that 12% believe that the Senate will oust the president. Removal was always a long shot because the unified GOP caucus is in the majority.
According to the polling analysis shared with Secrets: “Only 12% now feel it’s more likely that Trump will be impeached and removed from office before serving his first full term. That’s down from a high of 29% when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in late December 2017 and marks a new low.”
And Trump is still in the driver’s seat when it comes to reelection in November, according to the report.
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 46% of likely U.S. voters believe the president will be reelected, marking little statistical change from the 44% who felt that way in March of last year and the 45% who predicted reelection this past November. Thirty-three percent (33%) think it’s more likely the Democratic nominee will defeat Trump, a finding that has ranged from 26% to 33% in previous surveys,” according to the analysis.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--The Media’s Anti-Trump Hysteria Hit a Record High Last Year

Nothing caused TV ’ s big three networks to haul out the word “ outrage ” more in stories last year than President Trump and the GOP , according to a new study .
ABC , CBS , and NBC used the word 229 times , and it was directed at the president and his team over 22 % of the time , said a Media Research Center study .
“ But do n't think the term was employed even-handedly .
President Trump and his fellow Republicans received the lion ’ s share of the blame in this category : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all political outrage , while Democrats accounted for less than one-tenth of that ( just five stories , or 8 % ) .
For the remaining eight cases , the individuals or organizations said to be causing outrage were not explicitly partisan , ” said the analysis .
For perspective , while 51 out the nightly news “ outrages ” were directed at actions by Trump and the GOP , below are the other topics that got fewer “ outrages : ” The numbers are significant in getting a bead on the bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Center .
For example , sexual predators and # MeToo perpetrators were widely in the news , yet Trump was hit with the word four times as much .
“ Regardless of whether anyone at ABC , CBS , or NBC actually believes that the president and his party are three times as outrageous as rape , or twice as outrageous as child abuse , their reporting over the past year nonetheless suggests that this is the case .
Because loaded terms like ‘ outrage ’ are subjective , these networks can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without ever making a false claim , ” said the report from Bill D'Agostino , a research analyst with the Media Research Analyst .

Nothing caused TV’s big three networks to haul out the word “outrage” more in stories last year than President Trump and the GOP, according to a new study.
ABC, CBS, and NBC used the word 229 times, and it was directed at the president and his team over 22% of the time, said a Media Research Center study.
“But don't think the term was employed even-handedly. President Trump and his fellow Republicans received the lion’s share of the blame in this category: 51 instances, or 80% of all political outrage, while Democrats accounted for less than one-tenth of that (just five stories, or 8%). For the remaining eight cases, the individuals or organizations said to be causing outrage were not explicitly partisan,” said the analysis.
For perspective, while 51 out the nightly news “outrages” were directed at actions by Trump and the GOP, below are the other topics that got fewer “outrages:”
Police Brutality — 45
Racism/bigotry — 28
Child abuse — 25
Rape/sexual assault — 14
Murder of police — 1
The numbers are significant in getting a bead on the bias at the networks, suggested the Media Research Center. For example, sexual predators and #MeToo perpetrators were widely in the news, yet Trump was hit with the word four times as much.
“Regardless of whether anyone at ABC, CBS, or NBC actually believes that the president and his party are three times as outrageous as rape, or twice as outrageous as child abuse, their reporting over the past year nonetheless suggests that this is the case. Because loaded terms like ‘outrage’ are subjective, these networks can add a liberal spin to their coverage without ever making a false claim,” said the report from Bill D'Agostino, a research analyst with the Media Research Analyst.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--Paul Krugman Is in Quite the Predicament

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is appearing to be having technical difficulties as he acknowledged Wednesday on Twitter that his IP address had been `` compromised '' and used to `` download child pornography . ''
`` Well , I ’ m on the phone with my computer security service , and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography , '' Krugman wrote in the tweet .
`` I might just be a random target .
But this could be an attempt to Qanon me .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Qanon is a reference to the group of conspiracy theorists who in recent years spread incriminating myths against many high-profile Democrats on social media .
THE ATLANTIC MOCKS PAUL KRUGMAN AS SUFFERING FROM 'TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME' Several observers were skeptical of Krugman 's claim .
Others had some fun at his expense .
`` The biggest tell that you ’ re lying is that no one would be motivated to debase you more than you already have , '' film producer Adam Trahan wrote .
`` Think Mrs. Krugman will buy it ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The Times did not immediately respond to Fox News ' request for comment .
Krugman , the outspoken anti-Trump economist who predicted a `` global recession '' following the president 's election , was recently slammed by a columnist for the liberal magazine The Atlantic , who had diagnosed him with `` Trump Derangement Syndrome . ''

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is appearing to be having technical difficulties as he acknowledged Wednesday on Twitter that his IP address had been "compromised" and used to "download child pornography."
"Well, I’m on the phone with my computer security service, and as I understand it someone compromised my IP address and is using it to download child pornography," Krugman wrote in a now-deleted tweet. "I might just be a random target. But this could be an attempt to Qanon me. It’s an ugly world out there."
Qanon is a reference to the group of conspiracy theorists who in recent years spread incriminating myths against many high-profile Democrats on social media.
THE ATLANTIC MOCKS PAUL KRUGMAN AS SUFFERING FROM 'TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME'
Several observers were skeptical of Krugman's claim. Others had some fun at his expense.
"Ok boomer," DailyWire's Jessica Fletcher reacted.
"The biggest tell that you’re lying is that no one would be motivated to debase you more than you already have," film producer Adam Trahan wrote.
"Think Mrs. Krugman will buy it?" Grabien founder Tom Elliott asked.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Hours later, Krugman deleted the tweet, saying that the Times was "now on the case" that it could have been a "scam."
"Deleted original tweet. Times thinks it may have been a scam. Anyway, will have more security in future," Krugman wrote.
The Times did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
Krugman, the outspoken anti-Trump economist who predicted a "global recession" following the president's election, was recently slammed by a columnist for the liberal magazine The Atlantic, who had diagnosed him with "Trump Derangement Syndrome."


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--2010-2019: The Decade of Debt

2010-2019: The Decade of Debt

At the end of 2009 , the total federal debt was $ 12.3 trillion—a staggering amount of money .
Now , it stands at an astonishing $ 23.1 trillion .
That ’ s roughly $ 180,500 of debt for every U.S. household .
It is important for Americans to understand how we got here , and what lawmakers can do to bring back fiscal sanity .
Poor Handling of the Financial Crisis The federal government entered the 2010s with sky-high annual deficits .
This had two primary causes .
First , the Great Recession reduced incomes and profits , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A slow economic recovery kept tax revenue relatively low for several years .
Second , legislators used the recession as an excuse to massively increase the amount of federal spending .
The 2009 stimulus package in particular led to record-setting spending levels .
President Barack Obama largely sold this additional spending as a way to jump-start the economy .
But the structure of the stimulus package told another story .
The politically motivated design of the package meant that it was ineffective at growing the economy .
What it did do effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax revenue and high spending combined to generate federal deficits of over $ 1 trillion per year starting in 2009 .
Between the big-government stimulus and bank bailouts , millions of Americans were fed up with how both parties responded to the financial crisis .
The tea party movement was born out of this backlash , and the 2010 election put dozens of believers in limited government in the House and the Senate .
Two events in 2011 showed both the promise and the limits of the tea party ’ s political muscle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practice of “ earmarking ” spending for narrow political purposes came to an end .
The public ’ s concern over deficits led to the Budget Control Act of 2011 , which raised the debt limit in exchange for rules meant to reduce the deficit in future years .
The law had serious flaws , and tea party members roundly opposed it .
Although the law did serve to restrain spending for a few years , its flaws ultimately proved fatal .
First , the Budget Control Act created an ill-fated Committee on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow-up legislation to reduce future deficits .
This failure resulted in spending reductions through the annual “ discretionary ” spending process , known as sequestration .
Here , the Budget Control Act ’ s primary flaw came to bear : It didn ’ t create a single spending limit to cover everything , but instead created separate defense and nondefense categories , both of which were cut .
This meant that sequestration did not distinguish between the vital work of national defense and the secondary activities , such as politically-driven business subsidies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spending limits .
This gave leverage to members who desired ever-more domestic spending .
As a result , Congress passed a series of bills to increase spending limits for both categories .
At first , these increases were somewhat modest and partially paid for to avoid growing the deficit .
However , they established a precedent that would have devastating fiscal consequences .
The 2018 and 2019 spending deals were massive and undid much of the Budget Control Act ’ s deficit reduction .
Rather than doing the hard work of prioritizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the McConnell-Schumer and Mnuchin-Pelosi deals threw away any pretense of federal self-control .
At the same time , Congress has also allowed “ mandatory ” programs such as Social Security , Medicare , and Medicaid to balloon .
Each of these programs is growing at an unsustainable rate , and combined they threaten to crowd out core priorities such as national defense .
This brings us to a terrifying prospect : The deficit for 2020 is expected to exceed $ 1 trillion once more .
Worse , the deficit is projected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the coming decade .
What makes this situation especially unconscionable is the strength of the economy .
A time of low unemployment and no major wars is usually an occasion for low deficits and even balanced budgets .
Instead , Washington is abandoning its responsibilities .
But it ’ s not too late for that to change .
The Heritage Foundation ’ s “ Blueprint for Balance ” provides a comprehensive guide for responsible policymakers to bring the federal debt under control .
This includes making pro-growth tax reform permanent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget rules to impose fiscal discipline and legislative accountability ; reforming Social Security and federal health care programs to target benefits toward the most vulnerable while reducing costs ; and eliminating wasteful and inappropriate spending on federal agencies and programs that fail to deliver on national priorities .
Taking this path would preserve individual liberty , strengthen the economy , and enable civil society to flourish .
It would also restore fairness for younger and future generations that would bear the burden of the $ 23.1 trillion ( and growing ) national debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt .
The 2020s must be the decade of balance .

At the end of 2009, the total federal debt was $12.3 trillion—a staggering amount of money.
Now, it stands at an astonishing $23.1 trillion. That’s roughly $180,500 of debt for every U.S. household.
It is important for Americans to understand how we got here, and what lawmakers can do to bring back fiscal sanity.
Poor Handling of the Financial Crisis
The federal government entered the 2010s with sky-high annual deficits. This had two primary causes.
First, the Great Recession reduced incomes and profits, which meant a sharp decrease in tax revenue. A slow economic recovery kept tax revenue relatively low for several years.
Second, legislators used the recession as an excuse to massively increase the amount of federal spending. The 2009 stimulus package in particular led to record-setting spending levels.
President Barack Obama largely sold this additional spending as a way to jump-start the economy. But the structure of the stimulus package told another story. The politically motivated design of the package meant that it was ineffective at growing the economy.
What it did do effectively was grow the national debt. Low tax revenue and high spending combined to generate federal deficits of over $1 trillion per year starting in 2009.
Between the big-government stimulus and bank bailouts, millions of Americans were fed up with how both parties responded to the financial crisis. The tea party movement was born out of this backlash, and the 2010 election put dozens of believers in limited government in the House and the Senate.
Deficit Reduction Efforts Fell Short
Two events in 2011 showed both the promise and the limits of the tea party’s political muscle. On the positive side, the practice of “earmarking” spending for narrow political purposes came to an end.
The public’s concern over deficits led to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which raised the debt limit in exchange for rules meant to reduce the deficit in future years. The law had serious flaws, and tea party members roundly opposed it.
Although the law did serve to restrain spending for a few years, its flaws ultimately proved fatal.
First, the Budget Control Act created an ill-fated Committee on Deficit Reduction, which failed in producing follow-up legislation to reduce future deficits. This failure resulted in spending reductions through the annual “discretionary” spending process, known as sequestration.
Here, the Budget Control Act’s primary flaw came to bear: It didn’t create a single spending limit to cover everything, but instead created separate defense and nondefense categories, both of which were cut. This meant that sequestration did not distinguish between the vital work of national defense and the secondary activities, such as politically-driven business subsidies.
Defense-focused members of Congress constantly chafed at the spending limits. This gave leverage to members who desired ever-more domestic spending. As a result, Congress passed a series of bills to increase spending limits for both categories.
At first, these increases were somewhat modest and partially paid for to avoid growing the deficit. However, they established a precedent that would have devastating fiscal consequences.
The 2018 and 2019 spending deals were massive and undid much of the Budget Control Act’s deficit reduction. Rather than doing the hard work of prioritizing what areas to spend taxpayer dollars on, the McConnell-Schumer and Mnuchin-Pelosi deals threw away any pretense of federal self-control.
At the same time, Congress has also allowed “mandatory” programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to balloon. Each of these programs is growing at an unsustainable rate, and combined they threaten to crowd out core priorities such as national defense.
This brings us to a terrifying prospect: The deficit for 2020 is expected to exceed $1 trillion once more. Worse, the deficit is projected to stay above $1 trillion for the rest of the coming decade.
What makes this situation especially unconscionable is the strength of the economy. A time of low unemployment and no major wars is usually an occasion for low deficits and even balanced budgets. Instead, Washington is abandoning its responsibilities.
But it’s not too late for that to change.
A Path to Serious Reform
The Heritage Foundation’s “Blueprint for Balance” provides a comprehensive guide for responsible policymakers to bring the federal debt under control.
This includes making pro-growth tax reform permanent and expanding on good tax policy; strengthening budget rules to impose fiscal discipline and legislative accountability; reforming Social Security and federal health care programs to target benefits toward the most vulnerable while reducing costs; and eliminating wasteful and inappropriate spending on federal agencies and programs that fail to deliver on national priorities.
Taking this path would preserve individual liberty, strengthen the economy, and enable civil society to flourish. It would also restore fairness for younger and future generations that would bear the burden of the $23.1 trillion (and growing) national debt.
The 2010s were a decade of debt. The 2020s must be the decade of balance.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--The States In the Worst Fiscal Shape Are All Run By Democrats

While most states are in hot water , the problem is worst in states with a Democrat governor alongside a Democrat controlled legislature .
A new study from Truth in Accounting analyzed the fiscal health of the fifty states and and the trend was clear .
The more Republican control , the better ( and less-worse ) fiscal health those states are in .
The worst run states and their unfunded liabilities per citizen , according to their “ 2019 Financial State of the States , ” are : Kentucky is the only state on the list with a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican governor during the time-frame of this study ) .
Every single other state has a Democrat controlled legislature .
The only hints of Red is Massachusetts ’ and Vermont ’ s Republican governors .
The best states actually had a surplus per citizen .
They are : Alaska is an outlier due to oil wealth combined with a low population , and has a split legislature with a Republican governor .
Every single other state with the exception of Oregon has a Republican governor and legislature .
Nebraska is technically an exception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state with a unicameral legislature – but that is Republican controlled .
The next nine states on the list have relatively low levels of unfunded liabilities under $ 2,500 per citizen , and are majority Republican controlled ( with Virginia as the only exception ) .
This all being said , the majority of states are still being mismanaged .
Fortunately , there are ten other states they can model themselves after .

The national debt is a ticking time bomb now topping $23.1 trillion – and that isn’t even the total debt that American taxpayers owe. Forty of the nation’s fifty states don’t have enough money to meet their obligations, with a total of $1.5 trillion in growing unfunded liabilities.
While most states are in hot water, the problem is worst in states with a Democrat governor alongside a Democrat controlled legislature. A new study from Truth in Accounting analyzed the fiscal health of the fifty states and and the trend was clear. The more Republican control, the better (and less-worse) fiscal health those states are in.
The worst run states and their unfunded liabilities per citizen, according to their “2019 Financial State of the States,” are:
Kentucky is the only state on the list with a Republican controlled legislature (and still had a Republican governor during the time-frame of this study). Every single other state has a Democrat controlled legislature. The only hints of Red is Massachusetts’ and Vermont’s Republican governors.
The best states actually had a surplus per citizen. They are:
Alaska is an outlier due to oil wealth combined with a low population, and has a split legislature with a Republican governor.
Every single other state with the exception of Oregon has a Republican governor and legislature. Nebraska is technically an exception in that they’re the only state with a unicameral legislature – but that is Republican controlled.
The next nine states on the list have relatively low levels of unfunded liabilities under $2,500 per citizen, and are majority Republican controlled (with Virginia as the only exception).
This all being said, the majority of states are still being mismanaged. Fortunately, there are ten other states they can model themselves after.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--Ilhan Omar Claims Trump-Induced PTSD

Ilhan Omar Claims Trump-Induced PTSD

Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D. , Minn. ) said Wednesday that discussions about military tensions between Iran and the United States were triggering her post-traumatic stress disorder .
`` I feel ill a little bit , because of everything that is taking place and I think every time I hear of conversations around war , I find myself being stricken with PTSD , '' Omar said during a press conference held by the Congressional Progressive Caucus .
`` And I find peace knowing that I serve with great advocates for peace and people who have shown courage against war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress disorder to excuse a 2012 tweet that said Israel `` hypnotized '' the world , an anti-Semitic trope .
`` You know , I have PTSD around , like , guns and ammunition and bombs , '' she told the New Yorker , citing her childhood in war-torn Somalia .
At other times Omar has used the term in a more joking manner , such as when she said the new Democratic House majority had `` minority PTSD… .
The kind of mindset you develop when you are in the minority is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said .
Omar 's PTSD did not appear to affect her behavior later in the Wednesday press conference .
She was seen laughing and talking in the background as fellow representative Sheila Jackson Lee ( D. , Tex . )
spoke about casualties during the Iraq war .
`` Absolutely disgusting , '' tweeted GOP rapid response director Steve Guest .

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) said Wednesday that discussions about military tensions between Iran and the United States were triggering her post-traumatic stress disorder.
"I feel ill a little bit, because of everything that is taking place and I think every time I hear of conversations around war, I find myself being stricken with PTSD," Omar said during a press conference held by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "And I find peace knowing that I serve with great advocates for peace and people who have shown courage against war."
Omar has previously referenced her post-traumatic stress disorder to excuse a 2012 tweet that said Israel "hypnotized" the world, an anti-Semitic trope. "You know, I have PTSD around, like, guns and ammunition and bombs," she told the New Yorker, citing her childhood in war-torn Somalia.
At other times Omar has used the term in a more joking manner, such as when she said the new Democratic House majority had "minority PTSD.... The kind of mindset you develop when you are in the minority is one that really is traumatizing," she said.
Omar's PTSD did not appear to affect her behavior later in the Wednesday press conference. She was seen laughing and talking in the background as fellow representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Tex.) spoke about casualties during the Iraq war. "Absolutely disgusting," tweeted GOP rapid response director Steve Guest.


bonginoreport--2020-01-08--Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren To Speak at Conference for Pro-Iranian Group

Democratic presidential contenders Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass . )
and Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) are slated to host a conference call with an Iranian-American advocacy group that has been accused of lobbying on Tehran ’ s behalf .
Along with Reps. Ro Khanna ( D. , Calif. ) and Barbara Lee ( D. , Calif. ) , Sanders and Warren are scheduled to speak Wednesday evening with members of the National Iranian American Council ( NIAC ) .
The group played a central role in what former Obama national security adviser Ben Rhodes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ echo chamber , '' spinning journalists , lawmakers , and citizens .
The Democratic candidates ' willingness to engage with NIAC—a group that aggressively pushed the accord and has strongly advocated against U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic—reflects their desire to see America reenter the nuclear deal , which released up to $ 150 billion in cash to the regime .
Much of that money has gone to fund Iran 's regional terror operations , including recent attacks on American personnel stationed in the region .
NIAC has deep ties to Iran 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif .
Zarif worked closely with NIAC founder Trita Parsi , who , in turn , consulted with the Obama administration .
Parsi lobbied Congress against sanctions on Iran in 2013 and met with Obama administration officials at the White House dozens of times leading up to the nuclear deal 's signing in 2015 .
Multiple U.S. officials and senior congressional sources informed the Washington Free Beacon that Parsi helped the White House craft its messaging as it tried to sell the nuclear deal to the public .
The NIAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top officials , during multiple visits throughout the Obama era .
NIAC was ordered to pay more than $ 180,000 in 2013 to the legal defense fund of Hassan Daioleslam , an Iranian-American writer , after a failed defamation lawsuit .
Daioleslam had accused NIAC of failing to disclose its clandestine lobbying efforts to undo sanctions on Tehran , the Free Beacon previously reported .
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said Parsi 's work was `` not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren both supported the nuclear deal 's passage and have been among the sharpest critics in the 2020 field of President Donald Trump 's ordered killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani .

Democratic presidential contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) are slated to host a conference call with an Iranian-American advocacy group that has been accused of lobbying on Tehran’s behalf.
Along with Reps. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Sanders and Warren are scheduled to speak Wednesday evening with members of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The group played a central role in what former Obama national security adviser Ben Rhodes called the administration's pro-Iran Deal "echo chamber," spinning journalists, lawmakers, and citizens.
The Democratic candidates' willingness to engage with NIAC—a group that aggressively pushed the accord and has strongly advocated against U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic—reflects their desire to see America reenter the nuclear deal, which released up to $150 billion in cash to the regime. Much of that money has gone to fund Iran's regional terror operations, including recent attacks on American personnel stationed in the region.
NIAC has deep ties to Iran's regime, including senior officials like Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif worked closely with NIAC founder Trita Parsi, who, in turn, consulted with the Obama administration.
Parsi lobbied Congress against sanctions on Iran in 2013 and met with Obama administration officials at the White House dozens of times leading up to the nuclear deal's signing in 2015. Multiple U.S. officials and senior congressional sources informed the Washington Free Beacon that Parsi helped the White House craft its messaging as it tried to sell the nuclear deal to the public. The NIAC chief met with Rhodes, among other top officials, during multiple visits throughout the Obama era.
Rhodes delivered a keynote speech at the 2016 NIAC leadership conference.
NIAC was ordered to pay more than $180,000 in 2013 to the legal defense fund of Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian-American writer, after a failed defamation lawsuit. Daioleslam had accused NIAC of failing to disclose its clandestine lobbying efforts to undo sanctions on Tehran, the Free Beacon previously reported. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said Parsi's work was "not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime."
Sanders and Warren both supported the nuclear deal's passage and have been among the sharpest critics in the 2020 field of President Donald Trump's ordered killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Murderer Who Killed Border Patrol Agent With “Fast and Furious” Gun Sentenced to Life

One of the Mexican gunmen who killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent , consequently sparking the Obama administration ’ s “ Fast and Furious ” scandal , was sentenced to life in prison .
U.S. District Judge David C. Bury on Wednesday sentenced Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes to life in federal prison for first-degree murder .
The sentencing follows Osorio-Arellanes ’ s involvement in a 2010 border shootout between Mexican gunmen and U.S. officials , resulting in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry .
“ Today brings us one step closer to justice for Agent Brian Terry ’ s murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was joined by roughly 20 other agents at the hearing , said in a statement .
“ The sentencing brings a painful time closer to an end and serves as a reminder of the grave dangers our agents face in their selfless commitment to the safety of their communities and country.
” Terry ’ s two sisters issued their own statements Wednesday , describing their pain after losing him .
He “ was a man filled with so much dedication to keeping our country safe , ” said sister Kelly Willis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessens the heartache , but it doesn ’ t. ” Terry — a Marine before joining Customs and Border Protection — was a member of an elite , four-man Border Patrol unit that was patrolling the Arizona desert in December 2010 .
Osorio-Arellanes was part of an armed gang that was looking to rob drug smugglers passing through the U.S-Mexico border .
Terry ’ s unit encountered the gang in an area north of Nogales .
However , when the men refused to stop , they fired bean bags .
Osorio-Arellanes and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault rifles .
Terry , 40 years old at the time , was struck in the back and ultimately succumbed to his injuries .
Osorio-Arellanes fled the scene and evaded justice for many years .
However , Mexican authorities arrested him in 2017 in Chihuahua .
He was extradited to the U.S. in 2018 and then convicted in February 2019 .
The Mexican national is the sixth of seven defendants to be convicted for the 2010 shooting so far .
The deadly shootout sparked a massive scandal involving the Bureau of Alcohol , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ATF ) “ Fast and Furious ” operation , which involved the federal government allowing criminals to purchase firearms in Arizona in a bid to track the guns to criminal organizations in Mexico .
It was discovered that the U.S. government lost track of most of the guns that were sold .
( RELATED : Border Patrol Agents Rescue Migrants Abandoned By Smugglers At The Very Top Of New Border Wall ) Two of the guns from the “ Fast and Furious ” operation were located at the scene of Terry ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny onto the Obama administration .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

One of the Mexican gunmen who killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent, consequently sparking the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, was sentenced to life in prison.
U.S. District Judge David C. Bury on Wednesday sentenced Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes to life in federal prison for first-degree murder. The sentencing follows Osorio-Arellanes’s involvement in a 2010 border shootout between Mexican gunmen and U.S. officials, resulting in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
“Today brings us one step closer to justice for Agent Brian Terry’s murder,” Tucson Sector Chief Roy Villareal, who was joined by roughly 20 other agents at the hearing, said in a statement. “The sentencing brings a painful time closer to an end and serves as a reminder of the grave dangers our agents face in their selfless commitment to the safety of their communities and country.” Terry’s two sisters issued their own statements Wednesday, describing their pain after losing him. He “was a man filled with so much dedication to keeping our country safe,” said sister Kelly Willis. “You would think the time lessens the heartache, but it doesn’t.” Terry — a Marine before joining Customs and Border Protection — was a member of an elite, four-man Border Patrol unit that was patrolling the Arizona desert in December 2010. Osorio-Arellanes was part of an armed gang that was looking to rob drug smugglers passing through the U.S-Mexico border. Terry’s unit encountered the gang in an area north of Nogales. However, when the men refused to stop, they fired bean bags. Osorio-Arellanes and his men, in response, fired AK-47-type assault rifles. Terry, 40 years old at the time, was struck in the back and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. Osorio-Arellanes fled the scene and evaded justice for many years. However, Mexican authorities arrested him in 2017 in Chihuahua. He was extradited to the U.S. in 2018 and then convicted in February 2019. The Mexican national is the sixth of seven defendants to be convicted for the 2010 shooting so far.
The deadly shootout sparked a massive scandal involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “Fast and Furious” operation, which involved the federal government allowing criminals to purchase firearms in Arizona in a bid to track the guns to criminal organizations in Mexico. It was discovered that the U.S. government lost track of most of the guns that were sold. (RELATED: Border Patrol Agents Rescue Migrants Abandoned By Smugglers At The Very Top Of New Border Wall)
Two of the guns from the “Fast and Furious” operation were located at the scene of Terry’s death.
The ensuing scandal brought immense scrutiny onto the Obama administration.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--The War Powers Resolution is Unconstitutional

Congressional Democrats , who seemed blissfully unaware of then-President Barack Obama ’ s rather expansive interpretation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during his strategically disastrous 2011 operation to oust Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi , suddenly seem to care an awful lot about constitutional norms and separation of powers principles again .
Specifically , Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s House of Representatives is debating today whether to congressionally impose War Powers Resolution limitations upon President Donald Trump ’ s unilateral ability to ratchet up militancy with the Islamic Republic of Iran .
In their crusade to hamstring the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vis-à-vis the jihadist Iranian regime , House Democrats have even found some libertarian-leaning Republican allies .
But this exercise is misguided , because the War Powers Resolution is , and always has been , unconstitutional .
Let ’ s start with what the War Powers Resolution , which was passed during the closing stanzas of the Vietnam War , actually does .
The statute requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces abroad , and it precludes deployed U.S. forces from remaining engaged in “ hostilities ” abroad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affirmative authorization for the use of military force that has passed through Congress .
At the time , President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill on constitutional grounds , arguing that the measure would define presidential war powers “ in ways which would strictly limit his constitutional authority.
” Nonetheless , a two-thirds majority in each congressional chamber overrode the veto .
The Constitution famously divides foreign affairs powers between the legislative and executive branches .
Among other enumerated powers in Article I , Section 8 , Congress has the ability to “ declare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armies , ” “ provide and maintain a Navy , ” “ make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces , ” “ provide for calling forth the Militia , ” and “ provide for organizing , arming , and disciplining , the Militia.
” By contrast , Article II of the Constitution provides that “ [ t ] he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States , and of the Militia of the several States , when called into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The very first clause of Article II also vests the president with “ [ t ] he executive Power ” — meaning a “ residual ” foreign affairs power that encompasses all those powers not expressly delegated to Congress in Article I , Section 8 .
As legal scholars Saikrishna B. Prakash and Michael D. Ramsey persuasively argued in a 2001 Yale Law Journal article , 18th century English common law had an “ ordinary … meaning of executive power ” that “ included foreign affairs power.
” A careful , line-by-line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not actually provide a legislative means that could feasibly justify the War Powers Resolution .
The most likely candidate is the Declare War Clause , but that provision happens to be woefully misunderstood by many lawyers and politicians across the ideological spectrum .
As John Yoo compellingly laid out in a 2003 University of Chicago Law Review article , “ [ t ] he Declare War Clause simply confers on Congress juridical power to both define the United States ’ s legal relations with other countries and trigger domestic constitutional authorities during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , under Article II ’ s Commander in Chief Clause , who is actually responsible for initiating and conducting hostilities .
Congress can then intervene to halt a president it views as a reckless warmonger using the manifold tools it does have at its disposal : Decreasing the size of the Pentagon ’ s budget , going line item-by-line item and removing various offensive-oriented materiel from the Department of Defense ’ s arsenal , or using its more general power of the purse to defund a war effort in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
This interpretation of the Declare War Clause should not be nearly as controversial as it is .
At the 1787 constitutional convention , the Framers actually conscientiously substituted out “ make War ” with “ declare War.
” In so doing , James Madison famously explained to Elbridge Gerry that it was imperative to leave to the president the “ power to repel sudden attacks.
” This ought to make a great deal sense ; as Alexander Hamilton would explain only six months after the constitutional convention in The Federalist No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecision , activity , secrecy , and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.
” Finally , in Article I , Section 10 , the Constitution precludes a state from “ engag [ ing ] in War , unless actually invaded , or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
” The Framers were therefore aware of multiple verbs — “ make ” and “ engage ” — that could have clearly conveyed the meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they didn ’ t use those words , and they didn ’ t use them for a reason .
The Framers understood that there was great merit to leaving decisions such as the commencement of hostilities to one man , and not to a fractious Congress .
To reiterate , Congress already has a number of tools at its disposal to push back against a crusading commander-in-chief .
As Andrew McCarthy wrote this week at Fox News , “ No statute is needed to provide Congress with the power to frustrate unauthorized presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so by simply refusing to appropriate funds for military action.
” But the Declare War Clause means something fundamentally different than what many believe it does .
The War Powers Resolution may or may not be good policy .
But it does not matter , because it runs afoul of the Constitution ’ s carefully calibrated separation of powers .

Congressional Democrats, who seemed willfully naive blissfully unaware of then-President Barack Obama’s rather expansive interpretation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 during his strategically disastrous 2011 operation to oust Libyan strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi, suddenly seem to care an awful lot about constitutional norms and separation of powers principles again.
Intellectual inconsistency much?
Specifically, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives is debating today whether to congressionally impose War Powers Resolution limitations upon President Donald Trump’s unilateral ability to ratchet up militancy with the Islamic Republic of Iran. In their crusade to hamstring the president’s conduct of his foreign policy vis-à-vis the jihadist Iranian regime, House Democrats have even found some libertarian-leaning Republican allies.
But this exercise is misguided, because the War Powers Resolution is, and always has been, unconstitutional.
Let’s start with what the War Powers Resolution, which was passed during the closing stanzas of the Vietnam War, actually does. The statute requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces abroad, and it precludes deployed U.S. forces from remaining engaged in “hostilities” abroad for more than 60 days without an affirmative authorization for the use of military force that has passed through Congress. At the time, President Richard Nixon vetoed the bill on constitutional grounds, arguing that the measure would define presidential war powers “in ways which would strictly limit his constitutional authority.” Nonetheless, a two-thirds majority in each congressional chamber overrode the veto.
Nixon’s veto was correct.
The Constitution famously divides foreign affairs powers between the legislative and executive branches. Among other enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, Congress has the ability to “declare War,” “raise and support Armies,” “provide and maintain a Navy,” “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” “provide for calling forth the Militia,” and “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.”
By contrast, Article II of the Constitution provides that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” The very first clause of Article II also vests the president with “[t]he executive Power” — meaning a “residual” foreign affairs power that encompasses all those powers not expressly delegated to Congress in Article I, Section 8. As legal scholars Saikrishna B. Prakash and Michael D. Ramsey persuasively argued in a 2001 Yale Law Journal article, 18th century English common law had an “ordinary … meaning of executive power” that “included foreign affairs power.”
A careful, line-by-line overview of Congress’s enumerated powers does not actually provide a legislative means that could feasibly justify the War Powers Resolution. The most likely candidate is the Declare War Clause, but that provision happens to be woefully misunderstood by many lawyers and politicians across the ideological spectrum. As John Yoo compellingly laid out in a 2003 University of Chicago Law Review article, “[t]he Declare War Clause simply confers on Congress juridical power to both define the United States’s legal relations with other countries and trigger domestic constitutional authorities during wartime.” It is the president of the United States, under Article II’s Commander in Chief Clause, who is actually responsible for initiating and conducting hostilities. Congress can then intervene to halt a president it views as a reckless warmonger using the manifold tools it does have at its disposal: Decreasing the size of the Pentagon’s budget, going line item-by-line item and removing various offensive-oriented materiel from the Department of Defense’s arsenal, or using its more general power of the purse to defund a war effort in its entirety (as eventually happened with Vietnam).
This interpretation of the Declare War Clause should not be nearly as controversial as it is. At the 1787 constitutional convention, the Framers actually conscientiously substituted out “make War” with “declare War.” In so doing, James Madison famously explained to Elbridge Gerry that it was imperative to leave to the president the “power to repel sudden attacks.” This ought to make a great deal of sense; as Alexander Hamilton would explain only six months after the constitutional convention in The Federalist No. 70, “[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and despatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.”
Finally, in Article I, Section 10, the Constitution precludes a state from “engag[ing] in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” The Framers were therefore aware of multiple verbs — “make” and “engage” — that could have clearly conveyed the meaning of an initiation of hostilities. But they didn’t use those words, and they didn’t use them for a reason. The Framers understood that there was great merit to leaving decisions such as the commencement of hostilities to one man, and not to a fractious Congress.
To reiterate, Congress already has a number of tools at its disposal to push back against a crusading commander-in-chief. As Andrew McCarthy wrote this week at Fox News, “No statute is needed to provide Congress with the power to frustrate unauthorized presidential war-making. The Constitution empowers the legislature to do so by simply refusing to appropriate funds for military action.” But the Declare War Clause means something fundamentally different than what many believe it does.
The War Powers Resolution may or may not be good policy. But it does not matter, because it runs afoul of the Constitution’s carefully calibrated separation of powers.


bonginoreport--2020-01-09--Pete Buttigieg Blames U.S. for Iran Attacking Ukrainian Plane

Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg faced intense backlash on Thursday for appearing to suggest that the United States was at least partially responsible for Iran shooting down an Ukrainian passenger plane this week .
“ CBS News has learned that U.S. officials are confident that Iran shot down a Ukrainian jet liner over Tehran in the hours after Iranian missile attacks on U.S. targets , ” CBS News ’ Major Garrett reported .
“ 176 people were killed , including at least 63 Canadians .
This information is based on U.S. intelligence which sources say picked up signals of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are told also detected two surface-to-air missile launches which happened shortly before the plane exploded.
” Buttigieg responded to Garrett ’ s reporting , which was featured in a tweet from CBS News , by writing , “ Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat .
My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of all 176 souls lost aboard this flight.
” Last week , Buttigieg responded to President Donald Trump ’ s decision to eliminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience , “ Taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good idea.
” Buttigieg received widespread backlash over his apparent comments blaming the United States for Iran shooting down the passenger plane .
Dana Loesch wrote : “ The I , R , A , and N keys must be missing from his keyboard.
” Federalist co-founder Sean Davis wrote : “ Democrats are fine-people-on-both-sides-ing Iranian terrorists to avoid siding with America because of their deranged hatred of Trump.
” Columnist David French wrote : “ Nope .
Nope .
Nope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own troops , and then blundered by shooting down a civilian airliner when it wasn ’ t even under attack .
That ’ s the story .
This is on Iran.
” Columnist David Harsanyi tweeted : “ Honestly , this is just despicable .
Of course , the reaction to this moral equivalency will be indignation that anyone dare question his patriotism.
” Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake wrote : “ Are any other Dems connecting this to Trump ’ s actions ?
There ’ s still A LOT we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote : “ Iran launches a ballistic missile salvo at Iraq .
It fails to shut down its airspace during this attack .
As it is attacking , incompetence by Iranian air-defense artillery leads to an IFF misidentification .
In their confusion , they kill an airliner .
So this is America ’ s fault.
” Columnist Conrad Black wrote : “ Innocent civilians are now dead because Iran shot down a civilian passenger plane.
” Tom Nichols wrote : “ This isn ’ t what happened .
The Iranians knew they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation .
The airport shouldn ’ t even have been open .
This is not ‘ caught in the middle ’ of anything , it ’ s a screw up by the Iranians.
” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel wrote : “ Iran allegedly shoots down a commercial airliner , and Pete Buttigieg ’ s first reaction is to blame America .
Ridiculous.
” Columnist Dan McLaughlin wrote : “ Pete Buttigieg wins the race to be the first major Democrat to blame Trump for Iran shooting down a civilian airliner flying out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Letting the veil slip a bit to see his real world view.
” Attorney Matthew Kolken wrote : “ This is such a predictable response from the alleged ‘ moderate ’ in the Democratic field .
It has become increasingly obvious that scoring political points and undermining Trump is more of a priority than national security .
We live in interesting times .
”

Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg faced intense backlash on Thursday for appearing to suggest that the United States was at least partially responsible for Iran shooting down an Ukrainian passenger plane this week.
“CBS News has learned that U.S. officials are confident that Iran shot down a Ukrainian jet liner over Tehran in the hours after Iranian missile attacks on U.S. targets,” CBS News’ Major Garrett reported. “176 people were killed, including at least 63 Canadians. This information is based on U.S. intelligence which sources say picked up signals of a radar being turned on. U.S. satellites we are told also detected two surface-to-air missile launches which happened shortly before the plane exploded.”
Buttigieg responded to Garrett’s reporting, which was featured in a tweet from CBS News, by writing, “Innocent civilians are now dead because they were caught in the middle of an unnecessary and unwanted military tit for tat. My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of all 176 souls lost aboard this flight.”
Last week, Buttigieg responded to President Donald Trump’s decision to eliminate Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani by telling an audience, “Taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good idea.”
Buttigieg on Trump killing top Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani: “Taking out a bad guy is not necessarily a good idea." Soleimani was responsible for murdering hundreds of U.S. soldiers & wounding thousands more. Remarks from an event today in NH pic.twitter.com/DRakmHJP72 — Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) January 4, 2020
Buttigieg received widespread backlash over his apparent comments blaming the United States for Iran shooting down the passenger plane.
Dana Loesch wrote: “The I, R, A, and N keys must be missing from his keyboard.”
The I, R, A, and N keys must be missing from his keyboard. https://t.co/qt1iM4oi0H — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 9, 2020
Federalist co-founder Sean Davis wrote: “Democrats are fine-people-on-both-sides-ing Iranian terrorists to avoid siding with America because of their deranged hatred of Trump.”
Democrats are fine-people-on-both-sides-ing Iranian terrorists to avoid siding with America because of their deranged hatred of Trump. https://t.co/1FFc9F0qIS — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 9, 2020
Columnist David French wrote: “Nope. Nope. Nope. Iran launched a missile strike against our own troops, and then blundered by shooting down a civilian airliner when it wasn’t even under attack. That’s the story. This is on Iran.”
Nope. Nope. Nope. Iran launched a missile strike against our own troops, and then blundered by shooting down a civilian airliner when it wasn't even under attack. That's the story. This is on Iran. https://t.co/VzjnJk2jR8 — David French (@DavidAFrench) January 9, 2020
Columnist David Harsanyi tweeted: “Honestly, this is just despicable. Of course, the reaction to this moral equivalency will be indignation that anyone dare question his patriotism.”
Of course, the reaction to this moral equivalency will be indignation that anyone dare question his patriotism. — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) January 9, 2020
Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake wrote: “Are any other Dems connecting this to Trump’s actions? There’s still A LOT we don’t know here.”
Are any other Dems connecting this to Trump's actions? There's still A LOT we don't know here. https://t.co/a61JefIy4a — Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 9, 2020
John Noonan wrote: “Iran launches a ballistic missile salvo at Iraq. It fails to shut down its airspace during this attack. As it is attacking, incompetence by Iranian air-defense artillery leads to an IFF misidentification. In their confusion, they kill an airliner. So this is America’s fault.”
Iran launches a ballistic missile salvo at Iraq. It fails to shut down its airspace during this attack. As it is attacking, incompetence by Iranian air-defense artillery leads to an IFF misidentification. In their confusion, they kill an airliner. So this is America's fault. https://t.co/QXy9CMq3z0 — John Noonan (@noonanjo) January 9, 2020
Columnist Conrad Black wrote: “Innocent civilians are now dead because Iran shot down a civilian passenger plane.”
Innocent civilians are now dead because Iran shot down a civilian passenger plane. https://t.co/ofn464VQmY — Conrad Black (@ConradMBlack) January 9, 2020
Tom Nichols wrote: “This isn’t what happened. The Iranians knew they were about to proceed with a complicated military operation. The airport shouldn’t even have been open. This is not ‘caught in the middle’ of anything, it’s a screw up by the Iranians.”
This isn't what happened. The Iranians knew they were about to proceed with a complicated military operation. The airport shouldn't even have been open. This is not "caught in the middle" of anything, it's a screw up by the Iranians. https://t.co/nqKD5hGY9n — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 9, 2020
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel wrote: “Iran allegedly shoots down a commercial airliner, and Pete Buttigieg’s first reaction is to blame America. Ridiculous.”
Iran allegedly shoots down a commercial airliner, and Pete Buttigieg’s first reaction is to blame America. Ridiculous.https://t.co/2e2ipUL3kh — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) January 9, 2020
Columnist Dan McLaughlin wrote: “Pete Buttigieg wins the race to be the first major Democrat to blame Trump for Iran shooting down a civilian airliner flying out of Tehran.”
Pete Buttigieg wins the race to be the first major Democrat to blame Trump for Iran shooting down a civilian airliner flying out of Tehran. https://t.co/qdwAfGtPiB — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) January 9, 2020
Columnist Erick Erickson wrote: “Letting the veil slip a bit to see his real world view.”
Letting the veil slip a bit to see his real world view. https://t.co/R5TRjzTo4U — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 9, 2020
Attorney Matthew Kolken wrote: “This is such a predictable response from the alleged ‘moderate’ in the Democratic field. It has become increasingly obvious that scoring political points and undermining Trump is more of a priority than national security. We live in interesting times.”