wnd--2020-01-09--Woman defies government order, continues to fly 'Trump 2020' flag

Tawney Baccellia of Prescott Valley , Arizona , wanted to show her support for President Donald Trump by flying a `` Trump 2020 - Keep America Great '' flag in her backyard , but some of her neighbors took offense and voiced their objection to the city , which is now threatening stiff fines .
Baccellia began flying the banner in early November below a `` thin blue line '' American flag , which is meant to show her support for the police .
In late December , the Arizona woman and her husband received a letter from Prescott Valley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located 90 miles north of Phoenix -- stating they had 10 days to remove `` prohibited signage '' from their flagpole or face a $ 100 fine .
According to Baccellia , the fine will continue to compound the longer they do not comply .
The portion of the city code cited to her prohibits `` animated '' or `` flashing '' signs , with animated meaning it changes positions , as flags of course do when the wind blows .
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started impeachment now under investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagpole to keep it illuminated at night .
In addition to the city ordinances cited , Arizona state law provides that residents only have the right to post political signs up to 60 days before a primary election and until 15 days after the general election .
Baccellia 's husband called the city official listed on the letter who informed him the offending sign was the couple 's `` Trump 2020 '' flag , adding the city had received some complaints about it .
Baccellia told The Western Journal her response was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace the one she had been flying , which was fraying .
“ This is who I support .
This is what I want on my flag and it ’ s in my backyard , '' she said .
Baccellia posted the city 's letter directing her to take down the flag on her personal Facebook page , as well as local community pages , which she said `` blew up '' with comments of support .
Prescott Valley is in Yavapai County , which Trump carried by over 30 percentage points in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her cause in Prescott Valley Mayor Kell Palguta .
Palguta wrote on Facebook late last month , `` I want to thank Tawney Baccellia for making a post about recently getting a notice from Code Enforcement to remove a second flag she had on her flagpole because it was currently against Town Code . ''
`` I want everyone to know I am 100 percent against the Code as it is written and will be working with Council and Staff to change it , '' he added .
Palguta told The Western @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are two different things , meaning the state law prohibition regarding political signs should not apply .
Additionally , he anticipates the city code will be changed when the Prescott Valley council meets next month to make clear that Baccellia has a First Amendment right to fly her Trump flag .
`` It ’ s not about the content of the flag .
It has to do with the person ’ s right to fly it .
... You can ’ t take that away from someone , and that is what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he explained .
Palguta , who is a diehard Arizona Cardinals fan , offered the example of his neighbor flying a Seattle Seahawks flag .
`` I hate the Seahawks , but in no way am I ever going to tell him he needs to take it down because it ’ s not the right flag , '' Palguta said .
`` That ’ s ridiculous .
And guess what ?
I still say 'Hi ' to him , and we ’ re still friends . ''
`` That ’ s what America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Baccellia intends to keep her flag flying and is hopeful the city ordinance will be changed before Prescott Valley levies any fines against her , which for now appears to be on hold .
She said the mayor has offered `` amazing support . ''
Palguta is optimistic all will work out in Baccellia 's favor in the end .
`` I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution , '' he said .
`` And the last time I checked the Constitution goes above the town code of Prescott Valley .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western Journal .

Tawney Baccellia of Prescott Valley, Arizona, wanted to show her support for President Donald Trump by flying a "Trump 2020 - Keep America Great" flag in her backyard, but some of her neighbors took offense and voiced their objection to the city, which is now threatening stiff fines.
Baccellia began flying the banner in early November below a "thin blue line" American flag, which is meant to show her support for the police.
In late December, the Arizona woman and her husband received a letter from Prescott Valley -- a city of about 45,000 people located 90 miles north of Phoenix -- stating they had 10 days to remove "prohibited signage" from their flagpole or face a $100 fine.
According to Baccellia, the fine will continue to compound the longer they do not comply.
The portion of the city code cited to her prohibits "animated" or "flashing" signs, with animated meaning it changes positions, as flags of course do when the wind blows.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Baccellia also has a light on her flagpole to keep it illuminated at night.
A Prescott Valley woman was told to take down her @realDonaldTrump 2020 flag because it goes against city code. Mayor @KPalguta says he’s now working to change the ordinance in support of her. Full story @ 5 on #fox10phoenix pic.twitter.com/FMAjSu906P — Danielle Miller FOX10 (@Fox10Danielle) January 1, 2020
In addition to the city ordinances cited, Arizona state law provides that residents only have the right to post political signs up to 60 days before a primary election and until 15 days after the general election.
Baccellia's husband called the city official listed on the letter who informed him the offending sign was the couple's "Trump 2020" flag, adding the city had received some complaints about it.
Baccellia told The Western Journal her response was to go purchase a new Trump flag to replace the one she had been flying, which was fraying.
“This is who I support. This is what I want on my flag and it’s in my backyard," she said.
Baccellia posted the city's letter directing her to take down the flag on her personal Facebook page, as well as local community pages, which she said "blew up" with comments of support.
Prescott Valley is in Yavapai County, which Trump carried by over 30 percentage points in 2016.
Baccellia received a strong ally in her cause in Prescott Valley Mayor Kell Palguta.
Palguta wrote on Facebook late last month, "I want to thank Tawney Baccellia for making a post about recently getting a notice from Code Enforcement to remove a second flag she had on her flagpole because it was currently against Town Code."
"I want everyone to know I am 100 percent against the Code as it is written and will be working with Council and Staff to change it," he added.
Palguta told The Western Journal that a flag and a sign are two different things, meaning the state law prohibition regarding political signs should not apply.
Additionally, he anticipates the city code will be changed when the Prescott Valley council meets next month to make clear that Baccellia has a First Amendment right to fly her Trump flag.
"It’s not about the content of the flag. It has to do with the person’s right to fly it. ... You can’t take that away from someone, and that is what the town is trying to do," he explained.
Palguta, who is a diehard Arizona Cardinals fan, offered the example of his neighbor flying a Seattle Seahawks flag.
"I hate the Seahawks, but in no way am I ever going to tell him he needs to take it down because it’s not the right flag," Palguta said. "That’s ridiculous. And guess what? I still say 'Hi' to him, and we’re still friends."
"That’s what America’s about," he added.
Baccellia intends to keep her flag flying and is hopeful the city ordinance will be changed before Prescott Valley levies any fines against her, which for now appears to be on hold.
She said the mayor has offered "amazing support."
Palguta is optimistic all will work out in Baccellia's favor in the end.
"I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution," he said. "And the last time I checked the Constitution goes above the town code of Prescott Valley."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-01-10--Surprise! Obama DOJ gave Clinton lawyers 'special privileges'

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page have become infamous for emails and text messages documenting their effort to prevent Trump from becoming president .
New obtained by Judicial Watch show the Justice Department gave special privileges to lawyers for Hillary Clinton while she was under investigation for her mishandling of classified information .
Judicial Watch said it has obtained another 211 pages of emails between Strzok and Page `` that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Hillary Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy . ''
They include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an attorney for the Clinton lawyers `` who gathered and then deleted 33,000 emails for Hillary Clinton . ''
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started impeachment now under investigation The records were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit .
Judicial Watch previously submitted a FOIA request for the information , focusing on emails , text messages and instant messages between Strzok and Page .
The watchdog organization said the FBI is processing records at a rate of only 500 pages per month , meaning the communications records release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more years .
`` It is quite apparent why the FBI is slow-rolling the release of these Strzok-Page emails – as they dramatically show how senior officials at the Obama DOJ and FBI gave special and favorable treatment to Clinton and her lawyers , '' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton .
`` As the Obama Justice Department and FBI bent over backwards to protect Hillary Clinton , these agencies broke every law under the sun to spy on her political opponent , Donald J. Trump .
AG Barr and Director Wray must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen the Clinton email investigation . ''
An email from Strzok to other FBI officials on April 25 , 2016 , said of a looming meeting about the Clinton case , `` If you have strong objection ( I do not other than finding out after the DD [ Deputy Director ] ) , we should raise it now . ''
In another , on May 11 , 2016 , Strzok provided a `` Wilkinson negotiation timeline '' to Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap .
In it , he laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken place between FBI/DOJ and Wilkinson , Judicial Watch explained .
Strzok said : `` We will have spent 34 days waiting for opposing counsel to make the initial step of any tangible offer , about which we have no idea of if it will be anywhere close to what we have been specific about ( at least since the Mills interview , if not earlier by DoJ ) wanting . ''
The reference was to Cheryl Mills , a top Clinton State Department official .
• In an April 8 , 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlines questions for the FBI ’ s upcoming interviews of Mills and Heather Samuelson “ concerning their post-State employment.
” Strzok then forwards the email on to Page , Moffa and other unidentified persons , indicating that the questions were prepared “ in anticipation of potential need for further discussion between the FBI and DOJ on the analysis of attorney-client and attorney work product privileges and protections.
” • On March 22 , 2016 , Strzok writes in an email to Priestap : “ [ Redacted ] indicated he feels a need ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beth [ Wilkinson ] quickly about taking possession of the laptops .
She is fine to provide them to be destroyed , but not to store them.
” • On April 13 , 2016 , Strzok emailed Priestap and expressed concern about “ the content of that Baker-Wilkinson contact , ” apparently referring to a phone call between FBI General Counsel James Baker and Wilkinson .
Strzok told Priestap : “ To the extent you can ask what Jim ’ s contact was and ask that the investigative team be kept abreast of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would greatly appreciate it.
” Strzok forwarded the note to Page , saying , “ You still think I don ’ t have reason to be angry ?
” • On April 1 , 2016 , Strzok forwards to Priestap , FBI Counterintelligence Division official Robert Jones , Moffa and some unidentified FBI officials a Politico report discussing the highly unusual legal strategy of Wilkinson simultaneously representing four of Hillary Clinton ’ s top aides in the email scandal .
About that time in 2016 , Page emailed Strzok : `` God , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mood '' and `` I really just hate everyone .
Especially DOJ .
?
?
?
?
?
? ''
Strzok replies : `` God me too !
I ’ m trying to figure out why I ’ m in a foul mood , I think it ’ s DoJ plus prospect of packing and travel and late night all for bullsh*t meeting postponed and [ redacted ] and wondering how Bill ’ s feeling .
Got a weird too many people to coordinate I ’ m punting to [ redacted ] message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cranky ?
This stuff ?
The UC media provisions ?
Why did you end up staying up so late ?
And hi .
The only saving grace is the glorious moon tonight . ''
Judicial Watch reported Strzok even forwarded to others a Hill article that talked about Judge Royce Lamberth opening the door for Judicial Watch to take depositions in one of its lawsuits .
Strzok 's comment on that issue is redacted .
In a related case , Judicial Watch uncovered 277 pages of redacted records that show the FBI failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting with the Intelligence Community Inspector General about Hillary Clinton ’ s email server .
The FBI claimed that notes are “ missing ” and the CD containing notes from the meeting is likely “ damaged ” irreparably .

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page have become infamous for emails and text messages documenting their effort to prevent Trump from becoming president.
New obtained by Judicial Watch show the Justice Department gave special privileges to lawyers for Hillary Clinton while she was under investigation for her mishandling of classified information.
Judicial Watch said it has obtained another 211 pages of emails between Strzok and Page "that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of Hillary Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy."
They include a discussion about negotiations with Beth Wilkinson, an attorney for the Clinton lawyers "who gathered and then deleted 33,000 emails for Hillary Clinton."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The records were obtained in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Judicial Watch previously submitted a FOIA request for the information, focusing on emails, text messages and instant messages between Strzok and Page.
The watchdog organization said the FBI is processing records at a rate of only 500 pages per month, meaning the communications records release won't be finished for almost two more years.
"It is quite apparent why the FBI is slow-rolling the release of these Strzok-Page emails – as they dramatically show how senior officials at the Obama DOJ and FBI gave special and favorable treatment to Clinton and her lawyers," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
"As the Obama Justice Department and FBI bent over backwards to protect Hillary Clinton, these agencies broke every law under the sun to spy on her political opponent, Donald J. Trump. AG Barr and Director Wray must stop the stonewalling about this corruption and reopen the Clinton email investigation."
An email from Strzok to other FBI officials on April 25, 2016, said of a looming meeting about the Clinton case, "If you have strong objection (I do not other than finding out after the DD [Deputy Director]), we should raise it now."
In another, on May 11, 2016, Strzok provided a "Wilkinson negotiation timeline" to Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap. In it, he laid out unspecified "negotiations" that had taken place between FBI/DOJ and Wilkinson, Judicial Watch explained.
Strzok said: "We will have spent 34 days waiting for opposing counsel to make the initial step of any tangible offer, about which we have no idea of if it will be anywhere close to what we have been specific about (at least since the Mills interview, if not earlier by DoJ) wanting."
The reference was to Cheryl Mills, a top Clinton State Department official.
Judicial Watch also noted:
In an April 8, 2016, email to FBI officials, Strzok outlines questions for the FBI’s upcoming interviews of Mills and Heather Samuelson “concerning their post-State employment.” Strzok then forwards the email on to Page, Moffa and other unidentified persons, indicating that the questions were prepared “in anticipation of potential need for further discussion between the FBI and DOJ on the analysis of attorney-client and attorney work product privileges and protections.”
On March 22, 2016, Strzok writes in an email to Priestap: “[Redacted] indicated he feels a need (and I agreed) to respond to Beth [Wilkinson] quickly about taking possession of the laptops. She is fine to provide them to be destroyed, but not to store them.”
On April 13, 2016, Strzok emailed Priestap and expressed concern about “the content of that Baker-Wilkinson contact,” apparently referring to a phone call between FBI General Counsel James Baker and Wilkinson. Strzok told Priestap: “To the extent you can ask what Jim’s contact was and ask that the investigative team be kept abreast of contact with our DOJ counterparts, I would greatly appreciate it.” Strzok forwarded the note to Page, saying, “You still think I don’t have reason to be angry?”
On April 1, 2016, Strzok forwards to Priestap, FBI Counterintelligence Division official Robert Jones, Moffa and some unidentified FBI officials a Politico report discussing the highly unusual legal strategy of Wilkinson simultaneously representing four of Hillary Clinton’s top aides in the email scandal.
About that time in 2016, Page emailed Strzok: "God, I’m in such a bad mood" and "I really just hate everyone. Especially DOJ. ??????"
Strzok replies: "God me too! I’m trying to figure out why I’m in a foul mood, I think it’s DoJ plus prospect of packing and travel and late night all for bullsh*t meeting postponed and [redacted] and wondering how Bill’s feeling. Got a weird too many people to coordinate I’m punting to [redacted] message earlier this morning. Why are you cranky? This stuff? The UC media provisions? Why did you end up staying up so late? And hi. The only saving grace is the glorious moon tonight."
Judicial Watch reported Strzok even forwarded to others a Hill article that talked about Judge Royce Lamberth opening the door for Judicial Watch to take depositions in one of its lawsuits.
Strzok's comment on that issue is redacted.
In a related case, Judicial Watch uncovered 277 pages of redacted records that show the FBI failed to produce information from an August 2015 meeting with the Intelligence Community Inspector General about Hillary Clinton’s email server. The FBI claimed that notes are “missing” and the CD containing notes from the meeting is likely “damaged” irreparably.


wnd--2020-01-10--Should U.S. really be the globe's judge, jury & executioner?

Qassem Soleimani , an Iranian major general , was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike at the Baghdad International Airport ( BIAP ) .
The Iraqi-born Soleimani was traveling with one Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis .
Like Soleimani , al-Muhandis was an Iraqi , born and bred .
He was even elected to the Iraqi Parliament , in 2005 , until the U.S. intervened .
( Yes , we intervene in other nations ' elections . )
Iraq 's caretaker prime minister , Adel Abdul Mahdi , was furious , denouncing `` what happened [ as ] a political assassination .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Soleimani assassination by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end foreign-troop presence in Iraq . ''
Yes , it 's a complicated region .
And America , sad to say , still does n't know Shia from Shinola .
The consensus in our country is that `` Soleimani deserved to die . ''
That 's the party-line on Fox News – and beyond .
It 's how assorted commentators on all networks prefaced their `` positions '' on the Jan. 3 killing of this Iraqi-born , Iranian general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who started impeachment now under investigation Even Tucker Carlson – the only mainstream hope for Old Right , antiwar , America-First columns like this one – framed the taking out of Soleimani as the killing of a bad guy by good guys : '' There are an awful lot of bad people in this world .
We ca n't kill them all , it 's not our job . ''
However you finesse it , the premise of Tucker 's assertion is that the American government , and the smart set who live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjudicate who 's bad and who 's good in the world .
The debate is only ever over whether the U.S. government should or should n't act on its divine rights as transnational judge , jury and executioner , never over what 's right and what 's wrong .
Stateside , the only inquiry permissible is a cost-benefit calculus .
Will the assassination of Soleimani – a military official of a sovereign state , and an avid and effective slayer of Islamic State terrorists – pay strategic dividends for America in the long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of principle .
It 's currently on display everywhere , even surfacing on BBC News , where a female analyst , an American , was deploying the childish `` bad man '' meme to outline America 's Disneyfied foreign policy .
This angels-and-demons production always starts with the prototypical evil dictator who is alleged to be messing with his noble people , until the avenging , angelic empire sends a drone to the rescue .
Again , even Tucker , whose antiwar credentials in recent years have been impeccable , conceded that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the same thing Iraqis old enough to remember America 's destruction of Iraq , circa 2003 , would say about President George W. Bush , Dick Cheney , Don Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice .
So , who 's right ?
Or , is blind patriotism predicated on accepting that it is up to the U.S. government and its ruling elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world ?
`` Soleimani deserved to die '' – an atavistic bit of jingoism , made by Republicans and Democrats alike , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true only if you believe that the U.S. government is the keeper of the flame of an immutably just , universal code of law , which it is deputized to uphold , wherever it takes up residence .
Such a chauvinistic impulse is true only if you believe that the U.S. government 's might gives it the right to be universal judge , jury and executioner , deciding who may live and who must die the world over .
As to whether the U.S. government has a right to eliminate an Iranian state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' : Like it or not , Soleimani was a uniformed official of a sovereign state .
He was the equivalent of our Special Operations commander .
We Americans would not tolerate it were Iranians to designate America 's Special Operations commander , Gen. Richard D. Clarke , a terrorist .
Moreover , if Iranians took out America 's Special Ops commander somewhere in North America – which is analogous to the assassination of Soleimani – Americans would consider it an act of war by Iran .
Soleimani was the commander of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arm , the Quds Force .
Iranians look upon him as we Americans view the commanders of our clandestine Special Operations forces the world over .
With a distinction : Our Special Operations forces and their command encroach on the Iranian neighborhood much more so than Iranians and their special force command encroach on American territory , unless you consider the Middle East to be American turf .
To repeat : The crucial difference between Iran 's Quds Force and America 's Special Operations forces ( SOF ) is that the former is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I write , America 's SOF , upwards of 8,300 commandos , are engaged in secret operations the world over .
Unknown to all but a few Americans , `` U.S. commandos deploy to 149 countries – about 75 percent of the nations on the planet , '' reports investigative journalist Nick Turse .
Expect that by the halfway mark of this year , `` U.S. Special Operations Command ( USSOCOM or SOCOM ) , America 's most elite troops , will have already carried out missions in approximately 133 countries . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to interfere in neighboring countries , '' pondered Sara , an Iranian mourner interviewed at Soleimani 's million-strong funeral , `` why should Americans be allowed to come to our region all the way from the other side of the Earth ? ''
Correction : Soleimani patrolled only Iran 's very dangerous neighborhood .
His mission was far more modest and nationalistic than that of the U.S. government , which bestrides the globe , arming and training foreign troops all over it .
As to the `` imminent danger '' a single individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to `` American lives '' : Arrayed against the veracity of the intelligence to that effect are Republican Sens .
Mike Lee and Rand Paul .
They characterized Wednesday 's intel briefing as positively `` insulting '' ; `` the worst briefing '' they had received .
No wonder .
The intelligence was produced and pushed by the same spooks who 've been agitating against President Trump and all vestiges of his original `` America First '' plank .
The intel justification for the Soleimani assassination came from the same intelligence community that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WMD-in-Iraq casus belli .
These disgraced sources now insist that Soleimani was planning future , precision strikes – nefarious atrocities against U.S. soldiers – and , therefore , needed to be dispatched right away .
However , other more credible source , including Rand Paul 's dad , allude to Soleimani 's involvement in a diplomatic mission that was underway between Iraq , Iran and Saudi Arabia , and would have cut out the U.S. as middleman .
Skepticism aside , when we accept U.S. state aggression based on iffy , prior-restraint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absurdum .
Consider : Between 1975 and 2015 , Saudi Arabian Sunnis murdered 2,369 Americans in the homeland , to Iran 's zero .
When it comes to the lives of American civilians , at least in recent decades , the Saudis ( Trump 's new BFFs ) , not the Iranians , have blood on their hands .
Based on the erroneous prior-restraint reasoning , and our putative , divine American rights as judge , jury and executioner – we could confine all Saudi Arabian Sunnis to camps , for the purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what China is doing to its Muslim minority .
So as to survive the onslaught of the Sunni fundamentalist majority , the endangered Alawite minority in Syria has formed an alliance with Shia Iran , also a marginalized minority within the Ummah .
The Shia-Alawite alliance has been good for Christians in Syria .
But Saudi Arabia does n't give a dried camel 's hump about Christians or American casualties .
They have managed to skillfully enlist the West in a proxy Sunni-Shia religious war , also Riyadh 's ultimate aim .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and much like the Bushes and Clintons before him , the president has decided to side with Sunni Islam while demonizing the Shia .

Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, was assassinated by a U.S. drone air strike, at the Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). Soleimani was traveling with one Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was an Iraqi, born and bred. Al-Muhandis was even elected to the Iraqi Parliament, in 2005, until the U.S. intervened. (Yes, we intervene in other nations' elections.)
Iraq's caretaker prime minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi, was furious, denouncing "what happened [as] a political assassination." Unanimously, Iraqi lawmakers "responded to the Soleimani assassination by passing a nonbinding resolution calling on the government to end foreign-troop presence in Iraq."
Yes, it's a complicated region. And America, sad to say, still doesn't know Shia from Shinola.
The consensus in our country is that "Soleimani deserved to die." That's the party-line on Fox News – and beyond. It's how assorted commentators on all networks prefaced their "positions" on the Jan. 3 killing of the Iranian general.
Even Tucker Carlson – the only mainstream hope for Old Right, antiwar, America-First columns like this one – framed the taking out of Soleimani as the killing of a bad guy by good guys:
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"There are an awful lot of bad people in this world. We can't kill them all, it's not our job."
However you finesse it, the premise of Tucker's assertion is that the American government, and the smart set who live in symbiosis with it, gets to adjudicate who's bad and who's good in the world.
The debate is only ever over whether the U.S. government should or shouldn't act on its divine rights as transnational judge, jury and executioner, never over what's right and what's wrong.
Stateside, the only inquiry permissible is a cost-benefit calculus. Will the assassination of Soleimani – a military official of a sovereign state, and an avid and effective slayer of Islamic State terrorists – pay strategic dividends for America in the long run?
This is crass pragmatism bereft of principle. It's currently on display everywhere, even surfacing on BBC News, where a female analyst, an American, was deploying the childish "bad man" meme to outline America's Disneyfied foreign policy.
This angels-and-demons production always starts with the prototypical evil dictator who is alleged to be messing with his noble people, until the avenging, angelic empire sends a drone to the rescue.
Again, even Tucker, whose antiwar credentials in recent years have been impeccable, conceded that this Soleimani guy probably needed killing, which is the same thing Iraqis old enough to remember America's destruction of Iraq, circa 2003, would say about President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice.
So, who's right? Or, is blind patriotism predicated on accepting that it is up to the U.S. government and its ruling elites to determine who lives and who dies around the world?
"Soleimani deserved to die" – an atavistic bit of jingoism, made by Republicans and Democrats alike, on Fox News and on CNN – holds true only if you believe that the U.S. government is the keeper of the flame of an immutably just, universal code of law, which it is deputized to uphold, wherever it takes up residence.
Such a chauvinistic impulse is true only if you believe that the U.S. government's might gives it the right to be universal judge, jury and executioner, deciding who may live and who must die the world over.
As to whether the U.S. government has a right to eliminate an Iranian state actor by declaring him a "terrorist":
Like it or not, Soleimani was a uniformed official of a sovereign state. He was the equivalent of our Special Operations commander.
We Americans would not tolerate it were Iranians to designate America's Special Operations commander, Gen. Richard D. Clarke, a terrorist.
Moreover, if Iranians took out America's Special Ops commander somewhere in North America – which is analogous to the assassination of Soleimani – Americans would consider it an act of war by Iran.
Soleimani was the commander of the Revolutionary Guards' clandestine and regional operations arm, the Quds Force. Iranians look upon him as we Americans view the commanders of our clandestine Special Operations forces the world over.
With a distinction: Our Special Operations forces and their command encroach on the Iranian neighborhood much more so than Iranians and their special force command encroach on American territory, unless you consider the Middle East to be American turf.
To repeat: The crucial difference between Iran's Quds Force and America's Special Operations forces (SOF) is that the former is regional, the latter global.
As I write, America's SOF, upwards of 8,300 commandos, are engaged in secret operations the world over. Unknown to all but a few Americans, "U.S. commandos deploy to 149 countries – about 75 percent of the nations on the planet," reports investigative journalist Nick Turse. Expect that by the halfway mark of this year, "U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM or SOCOM), America's most elite troops, will have already carried out missions in approximately 133 countries."
"If Iran should not be allowed to interfere in neighboring countries," pondered Sara, an Iranian mourner interviewed at Soleimani's million-strong funeral, "why should Americans be allowed to come to our region all the way from the other side of the Earth?"
Correction: Soleimani patrolled only Iran's very dangerous neighborhood. His mission was far more modest and nationalistic than that of the U.S. government, which bestrides the globe, arming and training foreign troops all over it.
Unlike America's proxy militias, Iranian proxy militia operate in the region.
As to the "imminent danger" a single individual, Soleimani, was said to pose to "American lives": Arrayed against the veracity of the intelligence to that effect are Republican Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul. They characterized Wednesday's intel briefing as positively "insulting"; "the worst briefing" they had received.
No wonder. The intelligence was produced and pushed by the same spooks who've been agitating against President Trump and all vestiges of his original "America First" plank.
The intel justification for the Soleimani assassination came from the same intelligence community that cooked up the anti-Trump Russia monomania and the WMD-in-Iraq casus belli.
These disgraced sources now insist that Soleimani was planning future, precision strikes – nefarious atrocities against U.S. soldiers – and, therefore, needed to be dispatched right away.
However, other more credible sources, including Rand Paul's dad, allude to Soleimani's involvement in a diplomatic mission that was underway between Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and would have cut out the U.S. as middleman.
Skepticism aside, when we accept U.S. state aggression based on iffy, prior-restraint arguments, then aggress we must ad absurdum. Consider: Between 1975 and 2015, Saudi Arabian Sunnis murdered 2,369 Americans in the homeland, to Iran's zero. When it comes to the lives of American civilians, at least in recent decades, the Saudis (Trump's new BFFs), not the Iranians, have blood on their hands.
Based on the erroneous prior-restraint reasoning, and our putative, divine American rights as judge, jury and executioner – we could confine all Saudi Arabian Sunnis to camps, for the purpose of "reeducation." It's what China is doing to its Muslim minority.
Preposterous!
So as to survive the onslaught of the Sunni fundamentalist majority, the endangered Alawite minority in Syria has formed an alliance with Shia Iran, also a marginalized minority within the Ummah. The Shia-Alawite alliance has been good for Christians in Syria.
But Saudi Arabia doesn't give a dried camel's hump about Christians or American casualties. They have managed to skillfully enlist the West in a proxy Sunni-Shia religious war, also Riyadh's ultimate aim.
Despite a campaign of "America First," and much like the Bushes and Clintons before him, the president has decided to side with Sunni Islam while demonizing the Shia.


wnd--2020-01-10--Today's Democrats: Equal opportunity betrayers

Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic comrades are insane .
The power-mad speaker of the House now believes that she is entitled to control impeachment rules in the United States Senate .
She also believes she is now America 's commander in chief , entitled to prevent President Donald Trump from getting political credit for defeating major terrorists .
Pelosi and her leftist comrades , who have hijacked the once-great Democratic Party , now accuse President Trump of failing to consult with Congress before ordering the assassination of Iran 's terrorist mastermind , Qassem Soleimani .
Trouble is , House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamists such as Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , and Rep. Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , who favor the annihilation of Israel .
Trump reportedly consulted with Congress once before about taking out Soleimani , but his plan leaked the instant Congress learned of it , letting this mass-killer of Americans escape .
To these new leftist Democrats , past friends are now enemies , and past enemies of the United States are their friends .
Democrats have become `` equal opportunity betrayers '' of patriotic Americans .
In 2019 , President Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John F. Kerry , violated the Logan Act , meeting privately with Iranian officials , sharing ideas to thwart Trump 's efforts to halt Iran 's nuclear weapons program authorized by an Obama agreement .
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started impeachment now under investigation Why do many Democratic leaders now share Iran 's `` Death to Israel '' views and want Iran to take over the Middle East ?
Why are they betraying former Jewish political allies ?
The cynical answer is that Muslim money and voter numbers now rival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , presidential candidate John F. Kerry reportedly pocketed at least $ 180,000 for his campaign just from one Iranian go-between , Hassan Nemazee .
Many other Democrats enriched themselves with `` dark '' foreign money that likely came from Iran 's ayatollahs .
When Barack Obama transferred more than $ 150 billion to Iran , how much of it flowed back into Democrats ' pockets by direct and indirect transfers ?
Kerry thinks of himself as a globalist who favors world government and has never been bothered by harming the U.S. A mercenary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Swiss boarding school speaking and thinking in French , the language he still speaks over dinner with the second of his very wealthy wives , heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune .
Democrats likewise betrayed their African American supporters by approving a flood of Latino immigrants who undercut black jobs and wages .
But Christian Latinos are now being betrayed as Democrats ' loyalty turns to Islamists .
Christian Spaniards fought for 800 years to regain their country from Moorish-Islamist occupiers .
In New World Mexico , they named one city , Matamoros @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , however , show allegiance to Islamists who attack other former constituencies – throwing gays to their deaths from atop tall buildings and treating women as second-class sex objects .
Rape has skyrocketed in European cities flooded with Islamist immigrants , and feminists are afraid to go outdoors after dark .
But is this a surprise when Bill Clinton flew on Jeffrey Epstein 's Lolita Express while Hillary pocketed millions from casting-couch Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein ?
Or when the Clintons knowingly pocketed $ 400,000 from Macau 's prostitution boss ?
Who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jimmy Carter did , by cutting off key funds helping our ally the shah of Iran , which gave the country to medieval Shiite `` Twelvers '' bent on Islam triumphing in a global nuclear war .
The shah 's overthrow led to 500,000 deaths in the Iran-Iraq War , to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan , to the rise of terrorist group al-Qaida and its leader Osama bin Laden , to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the strike on the Pentagon .
Carter had the best of intentions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who when the ayatollah took over were put up against a wall and shot .
With bloody hands , Carter took his Nobel Peace Prize .
What 's next ?
Democrats will soon betray their new Islamist friends to gain the support of Communist China , which today holds at least a million Muslims in concentration camps .
Those Democrats plan to destroy all free markets in the United States , leaving only fake crony capitalism merged with giant government .
If Democrats elect president in November , they will confiscate every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law-abiding Americans – and they will rush to restore the Obama treaty to insure that Iran gets nuclear weapons .
They will betray the whole world .
This is the logic of progressives : take tiny guns away from you and me , but give nuclear weapons to apocalyptic religious fanatics in the world 's foremost terrorist sponsor , Iran .
Does voting Democrat seem sane to you ?
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader 's Digest Roving Editor .
His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal , the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith , `` China 's Top Secret War , '' shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against the little-known economic threats the People 's Republic of China poses .
For a free , postpaid copy , call toll-free 800-630-1492 .

Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic comrades are insane. The power-mad speaker of the House now believes that she is entitled to control impeachment rules in the United States Senate. She also believes she is now America's commander in chief, entitled to prevent President Donald Trump from getting political credit for defeating major terrorists.
Pelosi and her leftist comrades, who have hijacked the once-great Democratic Party, now accuse President Trump of failing to consult with Congress before ordering the assassination of Iran's terrorist mastermind, Qassem Soleimani.
Trouble is, House Democrats are now largely controlled by rabid anti-Semite Islamists such as Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., who favor the annihilation of Israel. Trump reportedly consulted with Congress once before about taking out Soleimani, but his plan leaked the instant Congress learned of it, letting this mass-killer of Americans escape.
To these new leftist Democrats, past friends are now enemies, and past enemies of the United States are their friends. Democrats have become "equal opportunity betrayers" of patriotic Americans.
In 2019, President Barack Hussein Obama's secretary of state, John F. Kerry, violated the Logan Act, meeting privately with Iranian officials, sharing ideas to thwart Trump's efforts to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program authorized by an Obama agreement.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Why do many Democratic leaders now share Iran's "Death to Israel" views and want Iran to take over the Middle East? Why are they betraying former Jewish political allies? The cynical answer is that Muslim money and voter numbers now rival those of American Jews.
In 2004, presidential candidate John F. Kerry reportedly pocketed at least $180,000 for his campaign just from one Iranian go-between, Hassan Nemazee. Many other Democrats enriched themselves with "dark" foreign money that likely came from Iran's ayatollahs. When Barack Obama transferred more than $150 billion to Iran, how much of it flowed back into Democrats' pockets by direct and indirect transfers?
Kerry thinks of himself as a globalist who favors world government and has never been bothered by harming the U.S. A mercenary gigolo, Kerry grew up in a Swiss boarding school speaking and thinking in French, the language he still speaks over dinner with the second of his very wealthy wives, heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune.
Democrats likewise betrayed their African American supporters by approving a flood of Latino immigrants who undercut black jobs and wages.
But Christian Latinos are now being betrayed as Democrats' loyalty turns to Islamists. Christian Spaniards fought for 800 years to regain their country from Moorish-Islamist occupiers. In New World Mexico, they named one city, Matamoros, "Moor killer."
The Democrats, however, show allegiance to Islamists who attack other former constituencies – throwing gays to their deaths from atop tall buildings and treating women as second-class sex objects. Rape has skyrocketed in European cities flooded with Islamist immigrants, and feminists are afraid to go outdoors after dark. But is this a surprise when Bill Clinton flew on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express while Hillary pocketed millions from casting-couch Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein? Or when the Clintons knowingly pocketed $400,000 from Macau's prostitution boss?
Who created the mess in Iran? President Jimmy Carter did, by cutting off key funds helping our ally the shah of Iran, which gave the country to medieval Shiite "Twelvers" bent on Islam triumphing in a global nuclear war. The shah's overthrow led to 500,000 deaths in the Iran-Iraq War, to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to the rise of terrorist group al-Qaida and its leader Osama bin Laden, to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the strike on the Pentagon. Carter had the best of intentions to save 3,000 Soviet agents the shah tortured, who when the ayatollah took over were put up against a wall and shot. With bloody hands, Carter took his Nobel Peace Prize.
What's next? Democrats will soon betray their new Islamist friends to gain the support of Communist China, which today holds at least a million Muslims in concentration camps.
Those Democrats plan to destroy all free markets in the United States, leaving only fake crony capitalism merged with giant government. If Democrats elect president in November, they will confiscate every .22 caliber rifles in the hands of law-abiding Americans – and they will rush to restore the Obama treaty to insure that Iran gets nuclear weapons. They will betray the whole world.
This is the logic of progressives: take tiny guns away from you and me, but give nuclear weapons to apocalyptic religious fanatics in the world's foremost terrorist sponsor, Iran. Does voting Democrat seem sane to you?
Lowell Ponte is a former Reader's Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, "China's Top Secret War," shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings against the little-known economic threats the People's Republic of China poses. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.


wnd--2020-01-10--Trump's handling of Iran was just right

Trump's handling of Iran was just right

Is it possible President Donald Trump may have perfectly played the Iran conflict ?
He 's been criticized for different and various reasons by people on the left and on the right .
There 's been a real concern that the president could get us into a war with Iran .
It 's early , but it seems like Trump has effectively fired a warning shot at Iran to ramp down their continuing escalations – without risking more American lives .
If that 's how it plays out , it will be hard not to credit the president for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical of the president 's action to take out Qassem Soleimani , the Iranian Quds Force commander , it 's important to look at what led up to that action .
Last May , Iran began attacking ships , including three oil tankers , transiting the Strait of Hormuz .
This is a crucial international shipping channel , especially for the oil and gas industry .
Iran had a past history of mining these waters and causing energy price spikes .
Last June , Iran shot down an unmanned U.S. drone .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strikes .
Last September , Yemeni rebels attacked Abqaiq , the massive Saudi oil processing facility , resulting in a loss of 5 % of the world 's oil production .
The U.S. claimed that evidence pointed to Iran being behind the attack .
After an investigation , the U.K. , Germany and France – all interested in deescalating any potential Iran/U.S .
conflict – also concluded that Iran was behind the attacks .
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started impeachment now under investigation Last November , Iran announced that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in December , Iran attacked U.S. interests in Iraq , killing an American contractor and then used proxies to directly attack the U.S. embassy in Iraq .
These last attacks crossed the red line Trump had set for Iran .
According to The Washington Post , last May , Trump sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to deliver a message to Iran that if even one American were killed by the regime or its proxies , a U.S. military counterattack would result .
Trump kept his word .
After the death of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassy , he ordered the attack that killed Soleimani .
This was a serious and potentially dangerous response from the president .
Soleimani was a longtime senior leader in the Iranian regime .
He was also a really bad guy with American blood on his hands .
Soleimani had been in charge of coordinating Iran 's terrorist proxies .
He helped these terrorists develop more advanced improvised explosive devices that were used to kill hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq .
Despite Soleimani 's history , many of Trump 's strongest supporters worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his response .
Trump had campaigned on disentangling America from Middle Eastern wars .
The left was less subtle .
Joe Biden said Trump `` just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox . ''
He warned that `` we could be on the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East . ''
The hashtag `` World War III '' trended on Twitter for days .
Iran warned of grave repercussions .
On Wednesday morning , Iran followed through , launching numerous missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iraqi government before the attacks , and the Iraqi government , in turn , warned American leaders .
Due to this warning and precautions that were therefore taken , no American or Iraqi lives were lost .
Trump administration officials claimed that Iran purposely planned the attacks in a way that would minimize the chance for any loss of American life .
The day after our attack on Soleimani , Trump said : `` We took action last night to stop a war .
We did not take action to start a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the Iranian response , Trump said , `` Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world . ''
This does not sound like a guy trying to begin World War III , as many on the left contend .
Donald Trump is many things , but one thing he 's not is an ideologue .
Many U.S. policymakers have been itching to more aggressively confront Iran .
On the other side , many are committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump , for his part , stood by for months while Iran took increasingly belligerent actions that threatened world oil markets and shipping channels .
The president gave a clear warning to Iran that his red line was the loss of American life .
Iran crossed that red line , and Trump responded forcefully .
There 's a strong chance that the Iranian regime would have pressed forward with more brazen attacks if Trump did not respond .
There is still time for things to spiral out of control , but in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it appears that Trump pushed back just hard enough to send a strong message to the Iranians without entangling America in another unwanted war .
If that turns out to be the case , people on all sides of this debate owe President Trump a debt of gratitude .

Is it possible President Donald Trump may have perfectly played the Iran conflict? He's been criticized for different and various reasons by people on the left and on the right. There's been a real concern that the president could get us into a war with Iran. It's early, but it seems like Trump has effectively fired a warning shot at Iran to ramp down their continuing escalations – without risking more American lives. If that's how it plays out, it will be hard not to credit the president for his handling of this matter.
To those critical of the president's action to take out Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian Quds Force commander, it's important to look at what led up to that action.
Last May, Iran began attacking ships, including three oil tankers, transiting the Strait of Hormuz. This is a crucial international shipping channel, especially for the oil and gas industry. Iran had a past history of mining these waters and causing energy price spikes.
Last June, Iran shot down an unmanned U.S. drone. Trump reportedly ordered and then called off retaliatory strikes.
Last September, Yemeni rebels attacked Abqaiq, the massive Saudi oil processing facility, resulting in a loss of 5% of the world's oil production. The U.S. claimed that evidence pointed to Iran being behind the attack. After an investigation, the U.K., Germany and France – all interested in deescalating any potential Iran/U.S. conflict – also concluded that Iran was behind the attacks.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Last November, Iran announced that it had resumed uranium enrichment.
Finally, in December, Iran attacked U.S. interests in Iraq, killing an American contractor and then used proxies to directly attack the U.S. embassy in Iraq.
These last attacks crossed the red line Trump had set for Iran. According to The Washington Post, last May, Trump sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to deliver a message to Iran that if even one American were killed by the regime or its proxies, a U.S. military counterattack would result.
Trump kept his word. After the death of the American contractor and the attack on the embassy, he ordered the attack that killed Soleimani. This was a serious and potentially dangerous response from the president. Soleimani was a longtime senior leader in the Iranian regime. He was also a really bad guy with American blood on his hands. Soleimani had been in charge of coordinating Iran's terrorist proxies. He helped these terrorists develop more advanced improvised explosive devices that were used to kill hundreds of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Despite Soleimani's history, many of Trump's strongest supporters worried that he may have gone too far in his response. Trump had campaigned on disentangling America from Middle Eastern wars.
The left was less subtle. Joe Biden said Trump "just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox." He warned that "we could be on the brink of a major conflict across the Middle East." The hashtag "World War III" trended on Twitter for days.
Iran warned of grave repercussions. On Wednesday morning, Iran followed through, launching numerous missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American troops. Interestingly though, Iran warned the Iraqi government before the attacks, and the Iraqi government, in turn, warned American leaders. Due to this warning and precautions that were therefore taken, no American or Iraqi lives were lost. Trump administration officials claimed that Iran purposely planned the attacks in a way that would minimize the chance for any loss of American life.
The day after our attack on Soleimani, Trump said: "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war." In his televised address after the Iranian response, Trump said, "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world." This does not sound like a guy trying to begin World War III, as many on the left contend.
Donald Trump is many things, but one thing he's not is an ideologue. Many U.S. policymakers have been itching to more aggressively confront Iran. On the other side, many are committed to extracting America from the Middle East altogether. Trump, for his part, stood by for months while Iran took increasingly belligerent actions that threatened world oil markets and shipping channels. The president gave a clear warning to Iran that his red line was the loss of American life. Iran crossed that red line, and Trump responded forcefully. There's a strong chance that the Iranian regime would have pressed forward with more brazen attacks if Trump did not respond.
There is still time for things to spiral out of control, but in the wake of Iran's muted response, it appears that Trump pushed back just hard enough to send a strong message to the Iranians without entangling America in another unwanted war. If that turns out to be the case, people on all sides of this debate owe President Trump a debt of gratitude.


wnd--2020-01-10--Virginians' schism on guns and abortion

Virginians' schism on guns and abortion

Since 1969 , `` Virginia Is for Lovers '' has been the tourism and travel slogan of the Commonwealth of Virginia .
Advertising Age called it `` one of the most iconic ad campaigns in the past 50 years . ''
But the Virginia of 2020 seems to be another country than the friendly commonwealth to which this writer moved four decades ago .
Charlottesville , home to Thomas Jefferson 's University of Virginia , has become famous as the site of a 2017 Klan-Nazi clash with antifa over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protester Heather Heyer was run over and killed .
There followed the inauguration of a new Democratic governor , Ralph Northam , in 2018 and a new attorney general .
Both , it was learned , had masqueraded in blackface in their college days .
And two women accused their colleague , new Lt. Gov .
Justin Fairfax , of rape .
Resignations were demanded .
But all three hunkered down , and the crisis abated .
Now a new cultural issue has emerged .
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wexton , from the D.C. suburbs , has denounced Virginia 's representation in the U.S. Capitol by statues of George Washington in the Rotunda and Robert E. Lee in the crypt a floor below .
Both statues have represented Virginia for more than a century .
Wexton wants Lee replaced by an African American hero from a list she and Rep. A. Donald McEachin reportedly submitted .
Two names on their list are unfamiliar figures from the desegregation days of the 1950s .
The third is better known : Nat Turner .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States , '' published in 1969 , author J. C. Furnas describes the deeds of the man Wexton and McEachin would be pleased to see replace Robert E. Lee : '' In August 1831 , Nat Turner , paranoid slave preacher and cunjur man , led his superstition-fuddled followers to kill fifty-five whites of all sexes and ages in an aimless terrorizing of Southhampton County in the southeastern corner of Virginia .
`` The poor twisted creature could hardly have found a worse time to sharpen Southern fears of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hanged , and , that winter , writes Furnas , `` The Virginia legislature voted down by a narrow margin a bill for gradual extinction of slavery . ''
Let me go out on a limb : If the Virginia General Assembly votes to replace Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Capitol with a statue of Nat Turner , it will not be the unifying event Wexton imagines .
But the Assembly will be dealing soon with measures even more volatile .
On Jan. 20 , `` Lobby Day '' at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many openly armed , will be coming to Richmond to protest new gun laws Northam and his new Democratic majority campaigned on and are determined to deliver .
Already , 110 towns , cities and counties in Virginia have created `` Second Amendment sanctuaries '' where new state laws that restrict gun rights will not be enforced by local authorities .
As the Washington Post writes , `` Virginia is a former Confederate State with strong rural traditions and lax gun laws .
Guns represent the strongest , reddest line against the demographic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usher in a new era of Democratic leadership in recent elections .
`` A Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it is sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia .
The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook , urging 'patriots ' to converge on Richmond . ''
Still , the divisions among Virginians are not only over history , heroes and guns , they are also moral and religious .
A year ago , Northam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of pregnancy , and beyond , if an abortion were unsuccessful .
Here is Northam , in his own words , on the rights of the unborn : '' ( Third trimester abortions are ) done in cases where there may be severe deformities .
There may be a fetus that 's nonviable .
So in this particular example , if a mother is in labor , I can tell you exactly what would happen .
… The infant would be delivered .
The infant would be kept comfortable .
The infant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mother and the family desired .
And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother . ''
Unlike the seven states of the Deep South , Virginia did not vote to secede and leave the Union until President Lincoln issued his call to arms to put down the rebellion after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter .
Then the state of Virginia seceded from the Union as the colony of Virginia had seceded from Great Britain at Philadelphia 84 years before .
Today , it appears a new secession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other over issues as deep and divisive – such as who can take innocent life and when – as those that divided us in 1861 .
As are the rest of their countrymen in this time of Trump .

Since 1969, "Virginia Is for Lovers" has been the tourism and travel slogan of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Advertising Age called it "one of the most iconic ad campaigns in the past 50 years."
But the Virginia of 2020 seems to be another country than the friendly commonwealth to which this writer moved four decades ago.
Charlottesville, home to Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia, has become famous as the site of a 2017 Klan-Nazi clash with antifa over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a municipal park. During the clash, protester Heather Heyer was run over and killed.
There followed the inauguration of a new Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, in 2018 and a new attorney general. Both, it was learned, had masqueraded in blackface in their college days. And two women accused their colleague, new Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, of rape.
Resignations were demanded. But all three hunkered down, and the crisis abated. Now a new cultural issue has emerged.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
First-term Rep. Jennifer Wexton, from the D.C. suburbs, has denounced Virginia's representation in the U.S. Capitol by statues of George Washington in the Rotunda and Robert E. Lee in the crypt a floor below. Both statues have represented Virginia for more than a century.
Wexton wants Lee replaced by an African American hero from a list she and Rep. A. Donald McEachin reportedly submitted.
Two names on their list are unfamiliar figures from the desegregation days of the 1950s. The third is better known: Nat Turner.
In "The Americans: A Social History of the United States," published in 1969, author J. C. Furnas describes the deeds of the man Wexton and McEachin would be pleased to see replace Robert E. Lee:
"In August 1831, Nat Turner, paranoid slave preacher and cunjur man, led his superstition-fuddled followers to kill fifty-five whites of all sexes and ages in an aimless terrorizing of Southhampton County in the southeastern corner of Virginia.
"The poor twisted creature could hardly have found a worse time to sharpen Southern fears of a slave rising." Turner was tried and hanged, and, that winter, writes Furnas, "The Virginia legislature voted down by a narrow margin a bill for gradual extinction of slavery."
Nat Turner's terrorism had set back emancipation.
Let me go out on a limb: If the Virginia General Assembly votes to replace Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Capitol with a statue of Nat Turner, it will not be the unifying event Wexton imagines.
But the Assembly will be dealing soon with measures even more volatile.
On Jan. 20, "Lobby Day" at the Assembly, thousands of gun advocates, many openly armed, will be coming to Richmond to protest new gun laws Northam and his new Democratic majority campaigned on and are determined to deliver.
Already, 110 towns, cities and counties in Virginia have created "Second Amendment sanctuaries" where new state laws that restrict gun rights will not be enforced by local authorities.
As the Washington Post writes, "Virginia is a former Confederate State with strong rural traditions and lax gun laws. Guns represent the strongest, reddest line against the demographic changes that have seen Old Dominion voters usher in a new era of Democratic leadership in recent elections.
"A Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it is sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia. The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook, urging 'patriots' to converge on Richmond."
Still, the divisions among Virginians are not only over history, heroes and guns, they are also moral and religious.
A year ago, Northam said he supported abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and beyond, if an abortion were unsuccessful.
Here is Northam, in his own words, on the rights of the unborn:
"(Third trimester abortions are) done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. … The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Unlike the seven states of the Deep South, Virginia did not vote to secede and leave the Union until President Lincoln issued his call to arms to put down the rebellion after the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.
Then the state of Virginia seceded from the Union as the colony of Virginia had seceded from Great Britain at Philadelphia 84 years before.
Today, it appears a new secession is underway. Virginians are separating from each other over issues as deep and divisive – such as who can take innocent life and when – as those that divided us in 1861.
As are the rest of their countrymen in this time of Trump.


wnd--2020-01-10--Falsehood is the left's commodity

Falsehood is the left's commodity

Here 's a riddle : What do Victor Davis Hanson , Dennis Prager and Ricky Gervais have in common ?
Hanson published an excellent piece at National Review online on Jan. 7 .
Titled `` The Steele Dossier Bacillus , '' Hanson summarizes the evident defects in the substance of the dossier compiled by British former spy Christopher Steele as well as defects in its use to obtain surveillance warrants from the FISA court .
Steele was known to be `` a pathological liar , '' Hanson notes .
But the `` fanciful '' ( translation : false ) information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because so many on the left – including Hillary Clinton and her campaign , members of the Obama administration and the national media – wanted to believe the absurd and hysterical allegations contained in it .
Taking his metaphor further , Hanson argues that those who cast their lots with the dossier , among them MSNBC personality Rachel Maddow , former FBI Director James Comey , former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , former CIA Director John Brennan and Clinton , have been discredited – `` infected , '' if you will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree .
To the contrary , it appears that there are few serious consequences to spreading falsehoods intended to derail a presidential election , deceive a federal court , undermine and destabilize the administration of a duly elected president , or shake public confidence in government .
And those consequences that have befallen some of the bad actors are amply compensated for by the other accolades they 've received .
Maddow still hosts her show on MSNBC .
Comey may have been fired by Trump but has since written a bestselling book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speakers ' circuit .
Brennan and Clapper continue to be regulars on TV news .
As for Clinton , she has never left the public eye nor paid any price for her role in funding the dossier ; her manipulation of the Democratic National Committee 's finances or its 2016 nomination process ; her deceit about the 2012 attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead ; or her lies to the FBI and her destruction of evidence while she was under investigation .
She was just named chancellor of Queen 's University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are prepared to argue that academia itself has lost all credibility ( I 'll entertain arguments ... ) , this hardly sounds like someone who is , in Hanson 's words , `` in the end-stages of career decline . ''
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started impeachment now under investigation In fact , the only serious consequence Clinton has ever faced is that which 63 million members of the American electorate dealt her on Nov. 8 , 2016 .
And that consequence every instrumentality of the left has been working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author Dennis Prager also wrote a compelling essay this week .
Prager was accused by Benjamin Fearnow , deputy editor of Newsweek , of ridiculing Anne Frank during an episode of Prager 's radio show .
Anne Frank was a Jewish girl whose diary about life under the Nazi occupation has been translated into 70 languages and sold more than 30 million copies .
Frank died in a Nazi concentration camp ; Prager is an observant Jew .
Any assertion that he would ridicule her is absurd on its face .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its deceit abundantly clear .
Prager merely disagreed with Frank 's written belief that `` people are basically good , '' pointing out her youth and inexperience .
( Admittedly , a world that worships angry teen Greta Thunberg does not traffic much in facts or the wisdom that comes with age and experience . )
Prager concludes that the honorable thing for Newsweek to do would be to retract the article and issue an apology .
But , he notes , `` being on the left means never having to say you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ricky Gervais fit in here ?
He is a successful comedian , actor and producer known also for his vocal atheism , brutal honesty and acerbic wit .
As Gervais himself will tell you , he is neither right-wing nor conservative .
He does , however , call 'em as he sees 'em .
This week , he emceed the Golden Globes for the fifth ( and , he insists , last ) time , and his opening monologue – which has gone viral on social media – was no exception .
Gervais @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pedophilia and friendships with Jeffrey Epstein , complacency about sexual abuse , and rank hypocrisy .
You can ( and should ) read or watch the whole thing online , but here is his closing ( and probably most widely recirculated ) jab : `` So if you do win an award tonight , do n't use it as a platform to make a political speech , right ?
You 're in no position to lecture the public about anything .
You know nothing about the real world .
Most of you spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So if you win , come up ; accept your little award ; thank your agent and your God ; and f–- off , OK ? ''
The looks on the audience members ' faces were priceless : Some laughed nervously ; some affected strained smiles ; some looked stony and grim .
Did they heed Gervais ' admonition ?
Of course not .
In addition to the usual left-wing political diatribes , we were treated to actress Michelle Williams ' misty-eyed paean to abortion .
Celebs drank champagne , ate woke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one another and then went to glitzy parties .
In his National Review piece , Victor Davis Hanson concludes that the only antidote to the damage done by the Steele dossier is an admission of the truth .
This , he admits , the left finds worse than the infection itself .
I submit that the real problem is much larger and more widespread .
The infection is n't the dossier ; it is love of falsehood generally .
And the left seems to have been immunized against the truth .

Here's a riddle: What do Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager and Ricky Gervais have in common?
Hanson published an excellent piece at National Review online on Jan. 7. Titled "The Steele Dossier Bacillus," Hanson summarizes the evident defects in the substance of the dossier compiled by British former spy Christopher Steele as well as defects in its use to obtain surveillance warrants from the FISA court. Steele was known to be "a pathological liar," Hanson notes. But the "fanciful" (translation: false) information contained in the dossier spread like wildfire because so many on the left – including Hillary Clinton and her campaign, members of the Obama administration and the national media – wanted to believe the absurd and hysterical allegations contained in it.
Taking his metaphor further, Hanson argues that those who cast their lots with the dossier, among them MSNBC personality Rachel Maddow, former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and Clinton, have been discredited – "infected," if you will, their careers destroyed.
I must disagree. To the contrary, it appears that there are few serious consequences to spreading falsehoods intended to derail a presidential election, deceive a federal court, undermine and destabilize the administration of a duly elected president, or shake public confidence in government. And those consequences that have befallen some of the bad actors are amply compensated for by the other accolades they've received. Maddow still hosts her show on MSNBC. Comey may have been fired by Trump but has since written a bestselling book, and that means well-paid appearances on the speakers' circuit. Brennan and Clapper continue to be regulars on TV news.
As for Clinton, she has never left the public eye nor paid any price for her role in funding the dossier; her manipulation of the Democratic National Committee's finances or its 2016 nomination process; her deceit about the 2012 attack in Benghazi that left four Americans dead; or her lies to the FBI and her destruction of evidence while she was under investigation. She was just named chancellor of Queen's University in Belfast, Ireland. Unless we are prepared to argue that academia itself has lost all credibility (I'll entertain arguments ...), this hardly sounds like someone who is, in Hanson's words, "in the end-stages of career decline."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In fact, the only serious consequence Clinton has ever faced is that which 63 million members of the American electorate dealt her on Nov. 8, 2016. And that consequence every instrumentality of the left has been working furiously to undo ever since.
Conservative author Dennis Prager also wrote a compelling essay this week. Prager was accused by Benjamin Fearnow, deputy editor of Newsweek, of ridiculing Anne Frank during an episode of Prager's radio show. Anne Frank was a Jewish girl whose diary about life under the Nazi occupation has been translated into 70 languages and sold more than 30 million copies. Frank died in a Nazi concentration camp; Prager is an observant Jew. Any assertion that he would ridicule her is absurd on its face. But the transcript of the show Newsweek cites makes its deceit abundantly clear. Prager merely disagreed with Frank's written belief that "people are basically good," pointing out her youth and inexperience. (Admittedly, a world that worships angry teen Greta Thunberg does not traffic much in facts or the wisdom that comes with age and experience.) Prager concludes that the honorable thing for Newsweek to do would be to retract the article and issue an apology. But, he notes, "being on the left means never having to say you're sorry."
So where does Ricky Gervais fit in here? He is a successful comedian, actor and producer known also for his vocal atheism, brutal honesty and acerbic wit. As Gervais himself will tell you, he is neither right-wing nor conservative. He does, however, call 'em as he sees 'em. This week, he emceed the Golden Globes for the fifth (and, he insists, last) time, and his opening monologue – which has gone viral on social media – was no exception. Gervais absolutely skewered Hollywood with biting references to pedophilia and friendships with Jeffrey Epstein, complacency about sexual abuse, and rank hypocrisy. You can (and should) read or watch the whole thing online, but here is his closing (and probably most widely recirculated) jab: "So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech, right? You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up; accept your little award; thank your agent and your God; and f–- off, OK?"
The looks on the audience members' faces were priceless: Some laughed nervously; some affected strained smiles; some looked stony and grim.
Did they heed Gervais' admonition? Of course not. In addition to the usual left-wing political diatribes, we were treated to actress Michelle Williams' misty-eyed paean to abortion. Celebs drank champagne, ate woke vegan meals, handed out awards to one another and then went to glitzy parties.
Bestselling book tours. TV shows. Academic appointments. Board seats. Ball gowns and golden awards. Whew. Tough consequences.
In his National Review piece, Victor Davis Hanson concludes that the only antidote to the damage done by the Steele dossier is an admission of the truth. This, he admits, the left finds worse than the infection itself. I submit that the real problem is much larger and more widespread. The infection isn't the dossier; it is love of falsehood generally. And the left seems to have been immunized against the truth.


wnd--2020-01-10--Pelosi's impeachment blunder: Here's my theory

America is the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
`` Both have drawn firm lines in the sand .
Someone 's got to give , '' one reporter recently declared .
There is , of course , nothing to `` give . ''
Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial ; no constitutional right or political leverage .
Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end , one way or another , with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does shed some light on the thought process behind Pelosi 's decision to refuse to hand over articles of impeachment to a Senate whose majority does n't want them .
One of the most interesting nuggets in the piece is n't that Pelosi – portrayed as courageous risk-taker – had gotten the bright idea from CNN ; it 's that she specifically got it from noted felon John Dean , Nixon 's former White House lawyer .
Now , Dean is often portrayed as a patriotic , whistleblowing impeachment expert – which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverup , and then informed on everyone whom he conspired with after they were caught .
His real expertise is cashing in on criminality for the past 50 years .
Surely Pelosi , blessed with preternatural political instincts , would n't rely on Dean 's advice ?
Surely Pelosi was n't browbeaten into doing this by podcast bros and talking heads on America 's least popular major cable news network ?
Because whatever you make of the case against Donald Trump , it 's getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been effective .
After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings , a pretend standoff and massive cooperative coverage from the media , poll numbers have n't budged .
They may even have ticked back toward Trump .
TRENDING : Nunes : Inspector general who started impeachment now under investigation Yet , to hear Time tell it , Pelosi has micromanaged every step of this process , from signing off on every committee report and press release – `` aides say she caught typos in the Intelligence Committee 's final report before it went out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make Adam Schiff and the more diminutive Jerry Nadler look like equals .
My working theory is this : Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake .
She did n't want the president to be able tell voters that he had been exonerated by the Senate .
The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen , or perhaps circumvent , that inevitable moment .
In the process , however , Pelosi destroyed the Democrats ' justification for rushing impeachment in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that Trump 's tenure in office constituted a national emergency , and that the only way to save the republic from another stolen election was to move quickly .
McConnell , on the other hand , had to take only a short break from confirming judges to inform the House that the Senate would treat the impeachment of Donald Trump the same way it treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton – with a rules package that passed 100-0 in 1998 .
Under the Clinton precedent , the Senate would allow both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make their case , with questions from the Senate to follow .
Pelosi 's defenders are running out of arguments .
Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins `` will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump 's wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial .
That would make for a disastrous , humiliating legacy . ''
The gaping hole in this argument , and the reason Democrats are losing the debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have conclusive evidence of Trump 's wrongdoing .
They claimed they had proof of bribery , but they did n't include it in the impeachment articles .
They claimed to have proof in the Mueller Report that Trump obstructed justice , yet it 's not in the article of impeachments either .
Rubin herself has alleged , dozens of times , that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense .
In truth , if the House had made a persuasive case , there would be public pressure on Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced John Dean 's silly idea – which has drastically backfired .

America is the midst of an imaginary impeachment standoff between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Both have drawn firm lines in the sand. Someone's got to give," one reporter recently declared.
There is, of course, nothing to "give." Pelosi has no standing to dictate the terms of a Senate trial; no constitutional right or political leverage. Why she has put herself in a position that will ultimately end, one way or another, with her surrendering to McConnell is perplexing.
A new piece in Time magazine does shed some light on the thought process behind Pelosi's decision to refuse to hand over articles of impeachment to a Senate whose majority doesn't want them. One of the most interesting nuggets in the piece isn't that Pelosi – portrayed as courageous risk-taker – had gotten the bright idea from CNN; it's that she specifically got it from noted felon John Dean, Nixon's former White House lawyer. Now, Dean is often portrayed as a patriotic, whistleblowing impeachment expert – which is true insofar as he planned the Watergate coverup, and then informed on everyone whom he conspired with after they were caught. His real expertise is cashing in on criminality for the past 50 years.
Surely Pelosi, blessed with preternatural political instincts, wouldn't rely on Dean's advice? Surely Pelosi wasn't browbeaten into doing this by podcast bros and talking heads on America's least popular major cable news network?
Because whatever you make of the case against Donald Trump, it's getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish, constantly shifting effort by the House has been effective. After two dramatic emergency impeachment hearings, a pretend standoff and massive cooperative coverage from the media, poll numbers haven't budged. They may even have ticked back toward Trump.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Yet, to hear Time tell it, Pelosi has micromanaged every step of this process, from signing off on every committee report and press release – "aides say she caught typos in the Intelligence Committee's final report before it went out" – to picking furniture that would make Adam Schiff and the more diminutive Jerry Nadler look like equals.
My working theory is this: Pelosi realized that impeachment was a mistake. She didn't want the president to be able tell voters that he had been exonerated by the Senate. The only way to mitigate the damage was to undertake a ham-fisted effort to attack the Senate trial and dampen, or perhaps circumvent, that inevitable moment.
In the process, however, Pelosi destroyed the Democrats' justification for rushing impeachment in the first place. Nadler and Schiff both argued that Trump's tenure in office constituted a national emergency, and that the only way to save the republic from another stolen election was to move quickly.
McConnell, on the other hand, had to take only a short break from confirming judges to inform the House that the Senate would treat the impeachment of Donald Trump the same way it treated the impeachment of Bill Clinton – with a rules package that passed 100-0 in 1998. Under the Clinton precedent, the Senate would allow both the House impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers to make their case, with questions from the Senate to follow.
Pelosi's defenders are running out of arguments. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin now says that acting on the Clinton precedent means that moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins "will face the real possibility that conclusive evidence of Trump's wrongdoing will come to light after a sham trial. That would make for a disastrous, humiliating legacy."
The gaping hole in this argument, and the reason Democrats are losing the debate, is that they've already claimed to have conclusive evidence of Trump's wrongdoing. They claimed they had proof of bribery, but they didn't include it in the impeachment articles. They claimed to have proof in the Mueller Report that Trump obstructed justice, yet it's not in the article of impeachments either. Rubin herself has alleged, dozens of times, that we already have definitive proof Trump has committed an impeachable offense.
In truth, if the House had made a persuasive case, there would be public pressure on Republicans to act in a different manner. That the House did not is the only reason Pelosi embraced John Dean's silly idea – which has drastically backfired.


wnd--2020-01-10--Pelosi threatens democracy in the name of protecting it

Did you notice how presidential President Donald Trump appeared at his press conference on Iran ?
It was a fitting symbol for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's colossal failure in withholding the impeachment articles from the Senate .
Whatever Pelosi 's loony strategy – her unorthodox decision to withhold is only about strategy and not principle – she has ensured that the hyperpartisan impeachment will be viewed for exactly what it was .
For all the Democrats ' manufactured impeachment drama , people seem to care less and less about the their shameless effort to affix a scarlet letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also noticed that no one can quite figure out Pelosi 's angle in refusing to deliver the articles ?
You would think that with something as momentous as impeachment , people would have some idea about Pelosi 's mindset , but instead we get an anarchy of disparate theories , none of which resonate because you ca n't make sense out of anything so nonsensical – and wrongheaded .
It is inexcusable for her and her colleagues to have put the nation through that ordeal , representing to us that the matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unparalleled urgency , only to discontinue the proceedings when she gets the House to vote for impeachment .
She would have us believe that she is bargaining for Sen. Mitch McConnell to accede to her demands on the conduct of the Senate trial .
For argument 's sake , let 's assume she 's shooting us straight .
Who in her right mind , including Pelosi , thinks that McConnell will or should bargain with Pelosi on this , when the impeachment trials are the sole prerogative of the Senate , not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general who started impeachment now under investigation Pelosi knew McConnell would n't be that foolish or weak , so she obviously is n't bargaining with him .
Maybe she 's posturing for political purposes , betting that her cute trick will ultimately put the Democratic House witch hunters in a more favorable light and Trump in a less favorable one .
Too bad for her – that 's not happening , either .
Consider : Pelosi crammed through an impeachment following an unfair , partisan proceeding that denied the president basic fairness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged misconduct that , if true , does n't constitute a crime , much less a high crime or misdemeanor .
The Democrats ' whole case was based on secondhand and speculative evidence , and partisan presumptions without any proof of Trump 's criminal intent .
Now , having unilaterally denied Trump due process , she demands that McConnell give her assurances he wo n't behave as badly as she has .
That might work on Sen. Mitt Romney but not on McConnell .
McConnell owes her nothing , and he 's not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already said he wants the Senate to apply the same rules that governed former President Bill Clinton 's trial , which was good enough for Democrats then – and remember that Clinton 's impeachment , unlike Trump 's , was bipartisan .
Another possible Pelosi motive is that she wants the impeachment stain to stand and is thus trying to deny Trump the chance to defend himself in the Senate – which is equivalent to denying him yet another right : a fair and speedy trial in the Senate .
It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for guarantees of fairness from Senate Republicans on procedure considering that some Senate Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren have essentially admitted that they 've already made up their mind on the substance of the charges – and that Trump is guilty .
Pelosi contends that Trump is unfit for office because he abused his power , obstructed Congress and is a threat to `` our democracy . ''
Yet by playing cynical games with a matter that is of grave importance to our system – the removal of the nation 's chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is abusing her power , obstructing the Senate from conducting its constitutional role in these proceedings and , thereby , interfering with `` our democracy . ''
She ought to be impeached herself for putting the country through this charade .
Unfortunately for Pelosi and her ethics-challenged hatchet man Rep. Adam Schiff , an increasing number of Democratic and independent congressmen and senators are tiring of her games and urging her to submit the articles .
As McConnell noted , `` Now , even fellow Democrats are expressing public concern over the speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
By wrongfully withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate , Pelosi has conclusively demonstrated that she and her Democrats are not crusading to protect `` our democracy '' from the dastardly Donald Trump .
They are trying to destroy Trump and are damaging `` our democracy '' in the process .

Did you notice how presidential President Donald Trump appeared at his press conference on Iran? It was a fitting symbol for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's colossal failure in withholding the impeachment articles from the Senate.
Whatever Pelosi's loony strategy – her unorthodox decision to withhold is only about strategy and not principle – she has ensured that the hyperpartisan impeachment will be viewed for exactly what it was. For all the Democrats' manufactured impeachment drama, people seem to care less and less about the their shameless effort to affix a scarlet letter to Trump's presidential record.
Have you also noticed that no one can quite figure out Pelosi's angle in refusing to deliver the articles? You would think that with something as momentous as impeachment, people would have some idea about Pelosi's mindset, but instead we get an anarchy of disparate theories, none of which resonate because you can't make sense out of anything so nonsensical – and wrongheaded.
It is inexcusable for her and her colleagues to have put the nation through that ordeal, representing to us that the matter of Trump's impeachment and removal was of unparalleled urgency, only to discontinue the proceedings when she gets the House to vote for impeachment.
She would have us believe that she is bargaining for Sen. Mitch McConnell to accede to her demands on the conduct of the Senate trial. For argument's sake, let's assume she's shooting us straight. Who in her right mind, including Pelosi, thinks that McConnell will or should bargain with Pelosi on this, when the impeachment trials are the sole prerogative of the Senate, not the House?
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Pelosi knew McConnell wouldn't be that foolish or weak, so she obviously isn't bargaining with him. Maybe she's posturing for political purposes, betting that her cute trick will ultimately put the Democratic House witch hunters in a more favorable light and Trump in a less favorable one. Too bad for her – that's not happening, either.
Consider: Pelosi crammed through an impeachment following an unfair, partisan proceeding that denied the president basic fairness and due process. The impeachment was for alleged misconduct that, if true, doesn't constitute a crime, much less a high crime or misdemeanor. The Democrats' whole case was based on secondhand and speculative evidence, and partisan presumptions without any proof of Trump's criminal intent. Now, having unilaterally denied Trump due process, she demands that McConnell give her assurances he won't behave as badly as she has. That might work on Sen. Mitt Romney but not on McConnell. McConnell owes her nothing, and he's not going to give her anything. He has already said he wants the Senate to apply the same rules that governed former President Bill Clinton's trial, which was good enough for Democrats then – and remember that Clinton's impeachment, unlike Trump's, was bipartisan.
Another possible Pelosi motive is that she wants the impeachment stain to stand and is thus trying to deny Trump the chance to defend himself in the Senate – which is equivalent to denying him yet another right: a fair and speedy trial in the Senate. It's also rich that Pelosi is holding out for guarantees of fairness from Senate Republicans on procedure considering that some Senate Democrats such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren have essentially admitted that they've already made up their mind on the substance of the charges – and that Trump is guilty.
Pelosi contends that Trump is unfit for office because he abused his power, obstructed Congress and is a threat to "our democracy." Yet by playing cynical games with a matter that is of grave importance to our system – the removal of the nation's chief executive and commander in chief – she is abusing her power, obstructing the Senate from conducting its constitutional role in these proceedings and, thereby, interfering with "our democracy." She ought to be impeached herself for putting the country through this charade.
Unfortunately for Pelosi and her ethics-challenged hatchet man Rep. Adam Schiff, an increasing number of Democratic and independent congressmen and senators are tiring of her games and urging her to submit the articles. As McConnell noted, "Now, even fellow Democrats are expressing public concern over the speaker's endless appetite for these cynical games."
By wrongfully withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate, Pelosi has conclusively demonstrated that she and her Democrats are not crusading to protect "our democracy" from the dastardly Donald Trump. They are trying to destroy Trump and are damaging "our democracy" in the process.