wnd--2020-02-07--Are the bells tolling for Amy, Liz & Joe?

By the end of February , the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men .
Two are well into their 70s , and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated .
The third is a 38-year-old gay in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever .
How is it possible , if not probable , that Bernie Sanders , Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg will be the last three Democrats standing ?
Consider what the Iowa caucuses produced – after the Democrats figured out how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote on both the first and second ballots .
As of Thursday , with 547 state delegates , he was only three shy of Buttigieg 's total .
And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country .
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment hero Elise Stefanik steps in and crushes her By week 's end , Sanders could be the declared winner of Iowa .
And though he was denied the bounce he would have gotten if that news had been posted Monday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January and is running a clear first in the latest New Hampshire polls .
If Sanders , with cash on hand unmatched by any rival , save billionaire Bloomberg , wins the Granite State , he becomes the progressives ' champion over rival Elizabeth Warren and is in the race all the way to the convention .
Consider the prospects of Mayor Pete .
Even before the first returns were reported in Iowa , he declared his campaign `` victorious '' and left for New Hampshire .
By Wednesday , after two-thirds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to have won the battle for delegates .
By Thursday , in the latest polls of New Hampshire , Buttigieg had vaulted into second place .
As of now , it looks like a Buttigieg-Sanders race in New Hampshire on Tuesday , with the big losers from Iowa – Warren , Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar – the big losers again .
If the trends do not change and polls do not shift over the weekend , former Vice President Joe Biden appears headed for another `` gut punch '' like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Biden may not get up off the canvas after this one .
Thursday , the Boston Globe/Suffolk and WHDH/Emerson polls both showed Sanders beating Biden like a drum , better than two-to-one .
Moreover , Biden 's fundraising has fallen off , and it is unlikely major donors are going to send cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New Hampshire .
Buttigieg is the candidate whose stock is rising .
He has surged to second place , just 6 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two latest New Hampshire polls , while Biden is lagging a distant 13 and 19 points behind Sanders .
Now , consider Klobuchar .
As a senator from Minnesota , she was expected to do well , indeed , her personal best , in the neighboring state of Iowa .
She ran fifth .
And though she has the endorsement of the leading newspaper in New Hampshire , the Union-Leader , she , too , is trailing Sanders in the latest polls by more than three-to-one .
If Klobuchar runs fifth in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire , in what state does she win her first primary ?
And as her fundraising has never matched that of the front-runners , where does she get the money to match Sanders or Bloomberg on Super Tuesday , now just three weeks off ?
Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire , behind Sanders and Buttigieg , but right alongside Biden and Warren .
A third- , fourth- or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal for them all .
As for Warren , in her battle with Sanders to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing of the party , her third-place finish in Iowa , and her expected third-place finish in New Hampshire , at best , would seem to settle that issue for this election .
Sanders beat Warren in Iowa , raised far more money in January than she did , and is now beating her two-and-three-to one in the New Hampshire polls .
So , again , the same question is raised .
Is what state does Elizabeth Warren beat her progressive rival ?
There are two more lingering questions .
If Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he was in Iowa , does he remain viable in South Carolina , where he was so strong before the New Year ?
Will African American voters in South Carolina stick by Biden and his claim to be `` the most electable '' Democrat if he has been floored twice by Sanders and by Buttigieg , and ca n't seem to win within his own party ?
What I wrote before Iowa seems even truer today : '' If Bernie can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roadblock on Bernie 's path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg 's billions . ''
The Socialist vs .
The Billionaire .
Could either really beat The Donald ?

By the end of February, the race for the Democratic nomination may have come down to a choice of one of three white men.
Two are well into their 70s, and either would be the oldest president ever inaugurated. The third is a 38-year-old gay in a same-sex marriage who would be our youngest president ever.
How is it possible, if not probable, that Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg will be the last three Democrats standing?
Consider what the Iowa caucuses produced – after the Democrats figured out how to count votes.
Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and second ballots. As of Thursday, with 547 state delegates, he was only three shy of Buttigieg's total. And the caucus yet to report is in Sanders country.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
By week's end, Sanders could be the declared winner of Iowa. And though he was denied the bounce he would have gotten if that news had been posted Monday night, Sanders raised $25 million in January and is running a clear first in the latest New Hampshire polls.
If Sanders, with cash on hand unmatched by any rival, save billionaire Bloomberg, wins the Granite State, he becomes the progressives' champion over rival Elizabeth Warren and is in the race all the way to the convention.
Consider the prospects of Mayor Pete.
Even before the first returns were reported in Iowa, he declared his campaign "victorious" and left for New Hampshire. By Wednesday, after two-thirds of the ballots had been counted, he appeared to have won the battle for delegates.
By Thursday, in the latest polls of New Hampshire, Buttigieg had vaulted into second place. As of now, it looks like a Buttigieg-Sanders race in New Hampshire on Tuesday, with the big losers from Iowa – Warren, Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar – the big losers again.
If the trends do not change and polls do not shift over the weekend, former Vice President Joe Biden appears headed for another "gut punch" like the one he says he suffered in Iowa.
And Biden may not get up off the canvas after this one.
Thursday, the Boston Globe/Suffolk and WHDH/Emerson polls both showed Sanders beating Biden like a drum, better than two-to-one.
Moreover, Biden's fundraising has fallen off, and it is unlikely major donors are going to send cash to a candidate who just ran fourth in Iowa and could run fourth or fifth in New Hampshire.
Buttigieg is the candidate whose stock is rising. He has surged to second place, just 6 points and 10 points behind Sanders in the two latest New Hampshire polls, while Biden is lagging a distant 13 and 19 points behind Sanders.
Now, consider Klobuchar. As a senator from Minnesota, she was expected to do well, indeed, her personal best, in the neighboring state of Iowa. She ran fifth. And though she has the endorsement of the leading newspaper in New Hampshire, the Union-Leader, she, too, is trailing Sanders in the latest polls by more than three-to-one.
If Klobuchar runs fifth in Iowa and third, fourth or fifth in New Hampshire, in what state does she win her first primary? And as her fundraising has never matched that of the front-runners, where does she get the money to match Sanders or Bloomberg on Super Tuesday, now just three weeks off?
Klobuchar is now in the second tier in New Hampshire, behind Sanders and Buttigieg, but right alongside Biden and Warren. A third-, fourth- or fifth-place finish would be near-fatal for them all.
As for Warren, in her battle with Sanders to emerge as the champion of the progressive wing of the party, her third-place finish in Iowa, and her expected third-place finish in New Hampshire, at best, would seem to settle that issue for this election.
Sanders beat Warren in Iowa, raised far more money in January than she did, and is now beating her two-and-three-to one in the New Hampshire polls.
So, again, the same question is raised. Is what state does Elizabeth Warren beat her progressive rival?
There are two more lingering questions.
If Biden is thrashed in New Hampshire on Tuesday, as he was in Iowa, does he remain viable in South Carolina, where he was so strong before the New Year?
Will African American voters in South Carolina stick by Biden and his claim to be "the most electable" Democrat if he has been floored twice by Sanders and by Buttigieg, and can't seem to win within his own party?
What I wrote before Iowa seems even truer today:
"If Bernie can beat Biden two or three times in the first four primary states in February, the last remaining roadblock on Bernie's path to the nomination could be Mike Bloomberg's billions."
The Socialist vs. The Billionaire. Could either really beat The Donald?


wnd--2020-02-07--30 years since F. W. de Klerk's great betrayal

On Feb. 2 , 1990 , 30 years ago , F. W. de Klerk , South Africa 's last white president , turned the screws on his constituents , betraying the confidence we had placed in him .
I say `` we , '' because , prior to becoming president in 1989 , Mr. de Klerk was my representative , in the greater Vereeniging region of Southern Transvaal , where I resided .
( Our family subsequently moved to Cape Town . )
A constellation of circumstances had aligned to catapult de Klerk to a position of great power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crocodile , '' President P. W. Botha , from power in 1989 .
Nothing in the background of his successor , President de Klerk , indicated the revolutionary policies he would pursue .
To a 1992 referendum asking white voters if they favored de Klerk 's proposed reforms , we returned a resounding `` yes . ''
Sixty-eight percent of respondents said `` yes '' to the proposed reforms of a man who sold his constituents out for a chance to frolic on the world stage with Nelson Mandela .
For surrendering South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela .
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment hero Elise Stefanik steps in and crushes her Why was de Klerk trusted to negotiate on behalf of a vulnerable racial minority ?
For good reason : De Klerk had made his views abundantly clear to constituents .
`` Negotiations would only be about power-sharing , '' he promised .
At the time , referendum respondents generally trusted de Klerk , who had specifically condemned crude majority rule .
In Africa , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one vote , one time .
Typically , elections across Africa have followed a familiar pattern : Radical black nationalist movements take power everywhere , then elections cease .
Or , if they take place , they 're rigged .
Among much else , de Klerk 's loyal constituents agreed to his scrapping of the ban on the communistic African National Congress .
Freeing Nelson Mandela from incarceration was also viewed as long overdue as was acceding to Namibia 's independence , and junking nuclear weapons .
Botha , before de Klerk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already dismantled the most egregious aspects of apartheid .
What de Klerk 's constituents were not prepared for was to be legislated into a permanent position of political subordination .
President de Klerk , the man entrusted to stand up for crucial structural liberties , went along with the Great Centralizers .
He caved to ANC demands , forgoing all checks and balances for South Africa 's Boer , British and Zulu minorities .
By the time the average `` yes '' voter discerned the fact that de Klerk had no intention of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shove , it was too late .
Thus , with de Klerk 's collaboration , and under the wing of the American eagle – in particular , U.S. negotiators like Herman Cohen , under-secretary of state for Africa – the Afrikaner , Anglo and Zulu minorities were ordered to forgo minority veto power , meaningful power-sharing and checks on power in the form of a second chamber .
Substantive devolution of authority to the regions of South Africa was also denied .
Yet somehow , a new generation of South Africans , Afrikaner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klerk , even crediting the former South African president as a reformer , who led `` the country out of the political dead-end [ in which ] it found itself . ''
`` Today , '' declares de Klerk adulator Pieter du Toit , `` South Africa is a democracy , with rights-based guarantees . ''
The writer , editor of a large internet news site , is perfectly serious when he touts South Africa as a country that affords its citizens `` rights-based guarantees . ''
For this reason , du Toit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffrage is not to be conflated with freedom .
As Iraqis learned after their `` liberation , '' ink-stained fingers do n't inoculate against blood stains , or , rather , rivers of blood .
As the democratic South Africa amply demonstrates , political rights and a paper constitution do n't secure the natural rights to life , liberty , property and the pursuit of happiness .
A civilized society , ultimately , is one in which the individual can go about the business of life unmolested .
If he ca n't do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the vote or a constitution ?
Extant societal structures that safeguard life and property can always be improved upon .
But once these bulwarks against mob rule and mayhem disintegrate , as they have in South Africa , they 're seldom restored .
Far and away the most perplexing paragraph in du Toit 's ode to de Klerk is his historical justification for de Klerk 's giving the shop to the ANC : '' When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 , '' writes du Toit , `` along with a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ de Klerk ] knew it was a matter of time before the Soviet Union fell , and with that the ANC 's biggest support base .
De Klerk recognized the moment to move forward . ''
Let me see if I grasp the logic of a surrender without defeat : The ANC 's biggest backer , the USSR , was on the verge of collapse .
Therefore , goes the author 's logic , the time was ripe to surrender South Africa to the Soviet Union 's satellite , the ANC ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It 's nonsense .
At the time de Klerk , pushed by American negotiators , gave away the store , the ANC heroes were a ragtag bunch of exiled has-been communists , scattered all over Africa and Europe ; monosyllabic , apathetic , oft-inebriated men , whose main admirers were their Swedish groupies .
By contrast , someone who did have real power was Constand Viljoen , a military hero and former chief of the South African Defense Force .
Gen. Viljoen represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces .
Viljoen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had shirked his responsibilities to the electorate .
He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state .
Ditto Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi , chief minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party ( IFP ) .
His championship of self-determination had been denied .
Buthelezi was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined .
He and his Zulu impis ( warriors ) were every bit as fractious as Viljoen , every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightful corner of the African Eden .
For setting his sights on decentralized sovereignty in Zululand , the Zulu royal and his following ( close on 20 % of the South African population ) were condemned as reactionaries by the West , whose interests de Klerk was , by now , championing .
Alas , the African gentleman ( Buthelezi ) and the Afrikaner general ( Viljoen ) were no match for conniving communists ( ANC ) and a knavish collaborator : Citations are in `` Into The Cannibal 's Pot : Lessons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2011 ) by Ilana Mercer

On Feb. 2, 1990, 30 years ago, F. W. de Klerk, South Africa's last white president, turned the screws on his constituents, betraying the confidence we had placed in him.
I say "we," because, prior to becoming president in 1989, Mr. de Klerk was my representative, in the greater Vereeniging region of Southern Transvaal, where I resided. (Our family subsequently moved to Cape Town.)
A constellation of circumstances had aligned to catapult de Klerk to a position of great power. A severe stroke forced the "The Crocodile," President P. W. Botha, from power in 1989. Nothing in the background of his successor, President de Klerk, indicated the revolutionary policies he would pursue.
To a 1992 referendum asking white voters if they favored de Klerk's proposed reforms, we returned a resounding "yes." Sixty-eight percent of respondents said "yes" to the proposed reforms of a man who sold his constituents out for a chance to frolic on the world stage with Nelson Mandela.
For surrendering South Africa to the ANC, de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Why was de Klerk trusted to negotiate on behalf of a vulnerable racial minority? For good reason: De Klerk had made his views abundantly clear to constituents. "Negotiations would only be about power-sharing," he promised. At the time, referendum respondents generally trusted de Klerk, who had specifically condemned crude majority rule. In Africa, such elections have traditionally amounted to one man, one vote, one time. Typically, elections across Africa have followed a familiar pattern: Radical black nationalist movements take power everywhere, then elections cease. Or, if they take place, they're rigged.
Among much else, de Klerk's loyal constituents agreed to his scrapping of the ban on the communistic African National Congress. Freeing Nelson Mandela from incarceration was also viewed as long overdue as was acceding to Namibia's independence, and junking nuclear weapons. Botha, before de Klerk, had, by and large, already dismantled the most egregious aspects of apartheid.
What de Klerk's constituents were not prepared for was to be legislated into a permanent position of political subordination. President de Klerk, the man entrusted to stand up for crucial structural liberties, went along with the Great Centralizers. He caved to ANC demands, forgoing all checks and balances for South Africa's Boer, British and Zulu minorities.
By the time the average "yes" voter discerned the fact that de Klerk had no intention of maintaining this opposition when push came to shove, it was too late.
Thus, with de Klerk's collaboration, and under the wing of the American eagle – in particular, U.S. negotiators like Herman Cohen, under-secretary of state for Africa – the Afrikaner, Anglo and Zulu minorities were ordered to forgo minority veto power, meaningful power-sharing and checks on power in the form of a second chamber. Substantive devolution of authority to the regions of South Africa was also denied.
Yet somehow, a new generation of South Africans, Afrikaner and English, reveres F. W. de Klerk, even crediting the former South African president as a reformer, who led "the country out of the political dead-end [in which] it found itself."
"Today," declares de Klerk adulator Pieter du Toit, "South Africa is a democracy, with rights-based guarantees." The writer, editor of a large internet news site, is perfectly serious when he touts South Africa as a country that affords its citizens "rights-based guarantees." For this reason, du Toit should not be taken seriously.
Universal suffrage is not to be conflated with freedom. As Iraqis learned after their "liberation," ink-stained fingers don't inoculate against blood stains, or, rather, rivers of blood.
As the democratic South Africa amply demonstrates, political rights and a paper constitution don't secure the natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
A civilized society, ultimately, is one in which the individual can go about the business of life unmolested. If he can't do that simple thing, of what value is the vote or a constitution? Extant societal structures that safeguard life and property can always be improved upon. But once these bulwarks against mob rule and mayhem disintegrate, as they have in South Africa, they're seldom restored.
Far and away the most perplexing paragraph in du Toit's ode to de Klerk is his historical justification for de Klerk's giving the shop to the ANC:
"When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989," writes du Toit, "along with a series of governments in the Eastern Bloc, [de Klerk] knew it was a matter of time before the Soviet Union fell, and with that the ANC's biggest support base. De Klerk recognized the moment to move forward."
Let me see if I grasp the logic of a surrender without defeat:
The ANC's biggest backer, the USSR, was on the verge of collapse. Therefore, goes the author's logic, the time was ripe to surrender South Africa to the Soviet Union's satellite, the ANC? This is worse than a non sequitur. It's nonsense.
At the time de Klerk, pushed by American negotiators, gave away the store, the ANC heroes were a ragtag bunch of exiled has-been communists, scattered all over Africa and Europe; monosyllabic, apathetic, oft-inebriated men, whose main admirers were their Swedish groupies.
By contrast, someone who did have real power was Constand Viljoen, a military hero and former chief of the South African Defense Force. Gen. Viljoen represented the hardliner Afrikaners and the security forces. Viljoen believed, correctly, that de Klerk had shirked his responsibilities to the electorate. He planned on leading a coalition that would have deposed the freelancing de Klerk and negotiated for an Afrikaner ethnic state.
Ditto Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi, chief minister of the KwaZulu homeland and leader of the Zulu people and their Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). His championship of self-determination had been denied.
Buthelezi was fed up to the back teeth with being sidelined. He and his Zulu impis (warriors) were every bit as fractious as Viljoen, every bit as willing to fight for their rightful corner of the African Eden.
For setting his sights on decentralized sovereignty in Zululand, the Zulu royal and his following (close on 20% of the South African population) were condemned as reactionaries by the West, whose interests de Klerk was, by now, championing.
Alas, the African gentleman (Buthelezi) and the Afrikaner general (Viljoen) were no match for conniving communists (ANC) and a knavish collaborator:
F. W. de Klerk.
Citations are in "Into The Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa" (2011) by Ilana Mercer


Why impeachment failed

It 's comforting , no doubt , to believe that Donald Trump has survived the impeachment trial because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than did Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president .
In truth , Trump , often because of his own actions , has engendered less loyalty than the average president .
It 's difficult to recall , after all , a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama 's way , which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton , who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons , despite the GOP 's case being far more methodical and incriminating .
The chances of any party 's removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible .
It 's never happened in American history – unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon – and probably never will .
Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards no party has ever lived by .
Perhaps if the public had n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hysteria over the United States ' imaginary descent into fascism , it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of `` vital '' Ukrainian aid most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president .
And perhaps if institutional media had n't spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion – a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial – the public would n't be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency .
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment hero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You simply ca n't expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end .
Beyond the public 's mood , the Democrats ' strategy was a mess .
House Dems and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations , declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history .
( I 'm not exaggerating . )
When it comes to Trump criticism , everything is always `` the worst thing ever ! ''
Even if Trump 's actions had risen to the level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nadler were terrible messengers to make the case .
These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors ; they 're the politicians you pick to rile up your base .
Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks , the man reeks of partisanship .
Not only because he 's been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion , but because he played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the appropriate time building a solid case , subpoenaing all the `` vital '' witnesses , and laying out a timeline , House Democrats , by their own admission , rushed forward .
They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election .
That would n't have been a big deal if Nancy Pelosi had n't exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse , by withholding the articles of impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did so despite having zero standing to dictate the terms of the trial , no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them and no political leverage .
In the end , she got nothing from Mitch McConnell for her trouble .
Meanwhile , Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on difficult-to-prove specific criminal offenses of `` bribery '' and `` extortion '' – poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized `` quid pro quo '' did n't play as well with the public .
Then , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes '' – no , you do n't need a violation of criminal law to impeach , but the word was incessantly used by House Dems anyway – in their open-ended articles of impeachment , written expressly to compel Senate Republicans to investigate for them .
The House had no right to demand that , and the Senate had no reason to comply .
So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment , Democrats began dropping one `` bombshell '' leak after the next – the same strategy they deployed during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the spectacle and maximize the political damage .
Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump 's call was unbecoming and , in parts , inappropriate , even if it did n't rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
But Democrats keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules .
The Constitution , a document under attack by the very people claiming to save it from the president , worked exactly as it should .
The House is free to subpoena all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored , and then send a new batch of impeachment articles .
Impeachment is n't tantamount to a `` coup '' any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt .
Pretending that democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you did n't get your way , though , is nothing but histrionics .

It's comforting, no doubt, to believe that Donald Trump has survived the impeachment trial because he possesses a tighter hold on his party than did Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president. In truth, Trump, often because of his own actions, has engendered less loyalty than the average president.
It's difficult to recall, after all, a single Democratic senator throwing anything but hosannas Obama's way, which allowed the former president to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to the next. In 1998, no Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton, who had engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons, despite the GOP's case being far more methodical and incriminating.
The chances of any party's removing its sitting president without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible. It's never happened in American history – unless you count the preemptive removal of Richard Nixon – and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the GOP adopt standards no party has ever lived by.
Perhaps if the public hadn't been subjected to four years of interminable hysteria over the United States' imaginary descent into fascism, it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of "vital" Ukrainian aid most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.
And perhaps if institutional media hadn't spent three years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion – a debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the impeachment trial – the public wouldn't be anesthetized to another alleged national emergency.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
You simply can't expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.
Beyond the public's mood, the Democrats' strategy was a mess. House Dems and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations, declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any president in history. (I'm not exaggerating.) When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always "the worst thing ever!"
Even if Trump's actions had risen to the level of removal, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were terrible messengers to make the case. These are not the politicians you tap to persuade jurors; they're the politicians you pick to rile up your base.
Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over the past couple of weeks, the man reeks of partisanship. Not only because he's been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more than one occasion, but because he played a sketchy role in helping the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward.
Even then, instead of spending the appropriate time building a solid case, subpoenaing all the "vital" witnesses, and laying out a timeline, House Democrats, by their own admission, rushed forward. They justified taking shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election.
That wouldn't have been a big deal if Nancy Pelosi hadn't exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse, by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks. She did so despite having zero standing to dictate the terms of the trial, no constitutional right to attempt to dictate them and no political leverage. In the end, she got nothing from Mitch McConnell for her trouble.
Meanwhile, Democrats had spent most of the House hearings focusing on difficult-to-prove specific criminal offenses of "bribery" and "extortion" – poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized "quid pro quo" didn't play as well with the public.
Then, they didn't even bother including the "crimes" – no, you don't need a violation of criminal law to impeach, but the word was incessantly used by House Dems anyway – in their open-ended articles of impeachment, written expressly to compel Senate Republicans to investigate for them.
The House had no right to demand that, and the Senate had no reason to comply. So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment, Democrats began dropping one "bombshell" leak after the next – the same strategy they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings – to drag out the spectacle and maximize the political damage.
Some of us would certainly have preferred that more Republicans concede Trump's call was unbecoming and, in parts, inappropriate, even if it didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. But Democrats keep demanding that Republicans play under a different set of rules.
The Constitution, a document under attack by the very people claiming to save it from the president, worked exactly as it should. The House is free to subpoena all the "vital" witnesses Republicans have supposedly ignored, and then send a new batch of impeachment articles. Impeachment isn't tantamount to a "coup" any more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt.
Pretending that democracy is on the precipice of extinction simply because you didn't get your way, though, is nothing but histrionics.


wnd--2020-02-07--The State of Disunion and a 2nd civil war

Anyone who has watched the English Parliament debate knows that – ceremonial forms of address notwithstanding – they can be a fairly raucous bunch , routinely shouting down opposing speakers , yelling out , `` Hear , hear ! ''
and even booing with some regularity .
This includes events at which the prime minister speaks before Parliament .
By contrast , debate in the United States Congress tends to be a comparatively staid and polite affair .
( There have been notable exceptions .
For example , in 1856 , then-Rep. Preston Brooks , a pro-slavery Democrat from South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts , hitting him repeatedly in the head with a heavy metal-topped cane , nearly killing him . )
Opportunities for the president of the United States to address Congress are treated as events warranting the greatest decorum .
Consider 2009 , when then-President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to defend his health care proposal .
Joe Wilson , a Republican representative from South Carolina , infamously yelled out , `` You lie ! ''
This outburst was viewed by politicians ( on both side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a grievous breach of propriety .
Wilson apologized to President Obama and received an official reprimand by the House of Representatives .
As with so many other things , the courtesy and professionalism we expect of our elected officials is waning in the era of President Donald Trump , replaced by unceasing ire and outrage .
This week 's State of the Union address was a sad example .
Some Democrats such as Reps. Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez simply refused to attend .
Other Democrats refused to stand when the president entered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , large numbers of Democrats yelled loudly to interrupt him .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , in a shocking departure from protocol , did not introduce the president with the traditional honorarium – `` I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States . ''
Instead , she said merely , `` Members of Congress , the president of the United States . ''
Pelosi then mumbled to herself , chewed her lip , rifled through papers and made sourpuss faces throughout the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional etiquette was at the end of Trump 's speech .
As soon as the president concluded , amid the applause from ( most of ) those in attendance , Pelosi made a point of standing up , ripping her paper copy of Trump 's speech in two and tossing the pieces on the desk in front of her in an open gesture of disgust .
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment hero Elise Stefanik steps in and crushes her The social media universe went nuts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative viewers who were appalled .
A number of self-described Democratic voters called C-SPAN to express their disapproval of Pelosi 's antics .
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley ( himself a Democrat ) issued a scathing condemnation of Pelosi 's conduct , calling her behavior `` extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate '' : `` Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking , culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address .
... ( S ) he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a speech .
Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition , decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever .
...
If Pelosi can not maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union , she should resign as the speaker of the House of Representatives . ''
Democrats ' excuse , of course , is that they despise Trump , that he has been impeached ( `` for life , '' in Pelosi 's words ) and that he does not deserve their respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that rationale .
First , it is the office that warrants respect , whatever one 's differences may be with the person who occupies it .
But more seriously ( in my view , at least ) , congressional Democrats have let their loathing of Trump spill over into their views of Americans generally .
Much has been made of the fact that Democrats in attendance refused to stand or applaud in response to the good economic news of record-low unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans , veterans , women and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for black Americans ; and a trade deal that enjoys the support of America 's labor unions .
Nor did Democrats show any sympathy or support for Janiyah Davis , a fourth grader and the child of a single mother , for whom Trump announced an Opportunity Scholarship ; or for the family of Rocky Jones , murdered by an illegal immigrant who was shielded from deportation by sanctuary policies .
Minorities , women , union workers , single parents – these are supposed to be Democrats ' natural constituencies .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow citizens ' circumstances because they were improved by policies advanced by your political opponent , then you are an ideologue and a fraud .
It 's unclear whom Democrats think they are winning over with this self-serving petulance .
There is already a # WalkAway movement of disgruntled former Democrats .
And African American activist Candace Owens , with her `` Blexit '' advocacy , is peeling away black support from Democrats .
Owens argues that Democrats do n't really want minorities or the poor to succeed ; their behavior at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much more credible .
We are still far from the acrimony that prompted Preston Brooks to attempt the murder of Charles Sumner in 1856 .
But the Wikipedia entry states that the attack `` contributed significantly to the country 's polarization over the issue of slavery '' and is considered a precursor to `` the 'breakdown of reasoned discourse ' and the use of violence that eventually led to the American Civil War . ''
It is not absurd to worry whether the ongoing breakdown of political propriety and reasoned discourse in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Anyone who has watched the English Parliament debate knows that – ceremonial forms of address notwithstanding – they can be a fairly raucous bunch, routinely shouting down opposing speakers, yelling out, "Hear, hear!" and even booing with some regularity. This includes events at which the prime minister speaks before Parliament.
By contrast, debate in the United States Congress tends to be a comparatively staid and polite affair. (There have been notable exceptions. For example, in 1856, then-Rep. Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, assaulted then-Sen. Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, hitting him repeatedly in the head with a heavy metal-topped cane, nearly killing him.)
Opportunities for the president of the United States to address Congress are treated as events warranting the greatest decorum. Consider 2009, when then-President Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to defend his health care proposal. Joe Wilson, a Republican representative from South Carolina, infamously yelled out, "You lie!" This outburst was viewed by politicians (on both side of the aisle) and pundits alike as a grievous breach of propriety. Wilson apologized to President Obama and received an official reprimand by the House of Representatives.
As with so many other things, the courtesy and professionalism we expect of our elected officials is waning in the era of President Donald Trump, replaced by unceasing ire and outrage. This week's State of the Union address was a sad example. Some Democrats such as Reps. Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez simply refused to attend. Other Democrats refused to stand when the president entered the chamber. During Trump's speech, large numbers of Democrats yelled loudly to interrupt him. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a shocking departure from protocol, did not introduce the president with the traditional honorarium – "I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States." Instead, she said merely, "Members of Congress, the president of the United States."
Pelosi then mumbled to herself, chewed her lip, rifled through papers and made sourpuss faces throughout the entire speech. But the grossest breach of professional etiquette was at the end of Trump's speech. As soon as the president concluded, amid the applause from (most of) those in attendance, Pelosi made a point of standing up, ripping her paper copy of Trump's speech in two and tossing the pieces on the desk in front of her in an open gesture of disgust.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The social media universe went nuts, and it was not just Republican and conservative viewers who were appalled. A number of self-described Democratic voters called C-SPAN to express their disapproval of Pelosi's antics. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley (himself a Democrat) issued a scathing condemnation of Pelosi's conduct, calling her behavior "extremely petty and profoundly inappropriate": "Pelosi seemed to be intent on mocking President Trump from behind his back with sophomoric facial grimaces and head shaking, culminating in her ripping up a copy of his address. ... (S)he tore up something far more important than a speech. Pelosi has shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever. ... If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as the speaker of the House of Representatives."
Democrats' excuse, of course, is that they despise Trump, that he has been impeached ("for life," in Pelosi's words) and that he does not deserve their respect.
There are at least two problems with that rationale. First, it is the office that warrants respect, whatever one's differences may be with the person who occupies it.
But more seriously (in my view, at least), congressional Democrats have let their loathing of Trump spill over into their views of Americans generally. Much has been made of the fact that Democrats in attendance refused to stand or applaud in response to the good economic news of record-low unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans, veterans, women and the disabled; record-low rates of poverty for black Americans; and a trade deal that enjoys the support of America's labor unions. Nor did Democrats show any sympathy or support for Janiyah Davis, a fourth grader and the child of a single mother, for whom Trump announced an Opportunity Scholarship; or for the family of Rocky Jones, murdered by an illegal immigrant who was shielded from deportation by sanctuary policies.
Minorities, women, union workers, single parents – these are supposed to be Democrats' natural constituencies. If you cannot celebrate the betterment of your fellow citizens' circumstances because they were improved by policies advanced by your political opponent, then you are an ideologue and a fraud.
It's unclear whom Democrats think they are winning over with this self-serving petulance. There is already a #WalkAway movement of disgruntled former Democrats. And African American activist Candace Owens, with her "Blexit" advocacy, is peeling away black support from Democrats. Owens argues that Democrats don't really want minorities or the poor to succeed; their behavior at the State of the Union makes her claims that much more credible.
We are still far from the acrimony that prompted Preston Brooks to attempt the murder of Charles Sumner in 1856. But the Wikipedia entry states that the attack "contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery" and is considered a precursor to "the 'breakdown of reasoned discourse' and the use of violence that eventually led to the American Civil War."
It is not absurd to worry whether the ongoing breakdown of political propriety and reasoned discourse in our own age poses a similar threat.


wnd--2020-02-07--Arab media: Coronavirus a sinister U.S. plot

The deadly coronavirus now spreading from China is the product of a sinister plot by the United States , according to several Arab writers in the Middle East .
Some say the U.S. is trying to profit by selling vaccines to treat the coronavirus and other viruses , according to the Middle East Media Research Institute , or MEMRI .
Others see it as part of an economic and psychological war waged by the U.S. against other nations .
The aim , the writers say , is to weaken China and make it appear to be a third-world nation incapable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Saudi daily Al-Watan , writer Sa'ud Al-Shehry claimed the coronavirus was a plot by American and Israeli drug companies aimed at increasing their profits .
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment hero Elise Stefanik steps in and crushes her '' A 'wonder ' virus was discovered yesterday in China ; tomorrow it will be discovered in Egypt , but it will not be discovered either today , tomorrow or the day after tomorrow in the U.S. or Israel , nor in poor countries such as Burundi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote , according to MEMRI .
He wrote that the coronavirus , known to have been discovered in 1960 , has normal flu symptoms , including coughing , congestion , diarrhea and fever .
It 's strange , therefore , Shehry said , to hear the World Health Organization saying `` this is a virus first discovered in 2012 in Saudi Arabia , in a camel . ''
`` And here is something else that 's strange : As soon as Egypt announced a few years ago '' that it no longer needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries , suddenly `` there appeared , from underneath the ground , the avian flu virus . ''
It had the aim , the writer said , of `` nipping Egypt 's [ economic ] awakening in the bud . ''
Hussein Saqer , a columnist for the Syrian daily Al-Thawra , made similar claims in a Feb. 3 column .
He said the coronavirus was part of a commercial-biological-psychological war waged by the U.S. against China .
`` From Ebola , zika , SARS , avian flu and swine flu , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the corona [ virus ] – [ all these ] deadly viruses were manufactured by the U.S. and threaten to annihilate the peoples of the world , '' he wrote .
Sager said the U.S. `` has turned biological warfare into a new type of war , by means of which it intends to change the rules of play and shift the conflict with the peoples [ of the world ] away from the conventional path . ''
On the Egyptian news website Vetogate.com , journalist Ahmad Rif'at explained why the U.S. chose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epicenter of the disease .
`` American factories are the first to manufacture every kind of virus and bacteria , from the virulent smallpox virus and the bubonic plague virus to all the viruses we saw in the recent years , such as mad cow disease and swine flu , '' he wrote .
Rif'at claimed the biological `` war is not only intended to worry China , trouble it and cause it to spend billions of dollars on emergency measures and medicines – which , by the way , will be manufactured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The U.S. wants to inform the world , and especially China itself , as part of a propaganda war targeting [ China 's ] prestige and status , that [ China ] is still a backward country whose citizens eat bat soup and which exports diseases and epidemics to the rest of the world ! ''

The deadly coronavirus now spreading from China is the product of a sinister plot by the United States, according to several Arab writers in the Middle East.
Some say the U.S. is trying to profit by selling vaccines to treat the coronavirus and other viruses, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI. Others see it as part of an economic and psychological war waged by the U.S. against other nations.
The aim, the writers say, is to weaken China and make it appear to be a third-world nation incapable of handling such an outbreak.
In the Saudi daily Al-Watan, writer Sa'ud Al-Shehry claimed the coronavirus was a plot by American and Israeli drug companies aimed at increasing their profits.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"A 'wonder' virus was discovered yesterday in China; tomorrow it will be discovered in Egypt, but it will not be discovered either today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow in the U.S. or Israel, nor in poor countries such as Burundi or the Comoro Islands," he wrote, according to MEMRI.
He wrote that the coronavirus, known to have been discovered in 1960, has normal flu symptoms, including coughing, congestion, diarrhea and fever. It's strange, therefore, Shehry said, to hear the World Health Organization saying "this is a virus first discovered in 2012 in Saudi Arabia, in a camel."
"And here is something else that's strange: As soon as Egypt announced a few years ago" that it no longer needed poultry from the U.S., France and other countries, suddenly "there appeared, from underneath the ground, the avian flu virus."
It had the aim, the writer said, of "nipping Egypt's [economic] awakening in the bud."
Hussein Saqer, a columnist for the Syrian daily Al-Thawra, made similar claims in a Feb. 3 column.
He said the coronavirus was part of a commercial-biological-psychological war waged by the U.S. against China.
"From Ebola, zika, SARS, avian flu and swine flu, through anthrax and mad cow disease to the corona[virus] – [all these] deadly viruses were manufactured by the U.S. and threaten to annihilate the peoples of the world," he wrote.
Sager said the U.S. "has turned biological warfare into a new type of war, by means of which it intends to change the rules of play and shift the conflict with the peoples [of the world] away from the conventional path."
On the Egyptian news website Vetogate.com, journalist Ahmad Rif'at explained why the U.S. chose the Chinese city of Wuhan as the epicenter of the disease.
"American factories are the first to manufacture every kind of virus and bacteria, from the virulent smallpox virus and the bubonic plague virus to all the viruses we saw in the recent years, such as mad cow disease and swine flu," he wrote.
Rif'at claimed the biological "war is not only intended to worry China, trouble it and cause it to spend billions of dollars on emergency measures and medicines – which, by the way, will be manufactured by an Israeli company."
"The U.S. wants to inform the world, and especially China itself, as part of a propaganda war targeting [China's] prestige and status, that [China] is still a backward country whose citizens eat bat soup and which exports diseases and epidemics to the rest of the world!"


wnd--2020-02-07--James Dobson on Super Bowl sleaze: 'Have we lost our minds?'

Evangelical Christian leader James Dobson says it 's time for parents to stand up against the kind of sleaze displayed during the Super Bowl halftime show .
Known for his books on parenting , he noted the reaction has been relatively subdued , calling it `` the Super Bowl shoulder shrug . ''
`` On Sunday , Fox Sports and the NFL offered up a sexual smorgasbord , and the halftime show was the main course , '' said Dobson , the founder of Focus on the Family , the James Dobson Family Institute and Family Talk .
`` In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen outrage from a few select commentators and Christians .
But overwhelmingly , I 've witnessed the Super Bowl shoulder shrug .
Responses range from the timid justification , 'it was n't that bad , ' to the defiant proclamation , 'it 's a celebration of Latino culture , ' '' he wrote .
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment hero Elise Stefanik steps in and crushes her '' Let me be clear : pole dancing , sex simulation , and crotch shots are not a celebration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebration of our hypersexualized culture .
I regret the need to be so graphic , but have we collectively lost our minds ?
Objectifying women—whether they willingly participate or not—is wrong .
Failing to oppose such an affront to women is equally blameworthy . ''
Among the few critics were DailyMail.com columnist Piers Morgan , who wrote the `` semi-naked , pole-writhing , crotch-grabbing halftime show '' by Jennifer Lopez and Shakira `` was totally inappropriate for a Super Bowl watched by millions of kids . ''
Morgan said Lopez `` basically reprised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Super Bowl , hurling herself around a giant pole in a skimpy silver flesh coloured outfit . ''
He noted that the movie `` Hustlers '' carries an R restriction age limit because of `` severe '' sex and nudity .
`` Yet J-Lo basically reprised her Ramona role at the Super Bowl , hurling herself around a giant pole in a skimpy silver flesh coloured outfit , having stripped off a studded black leather costume , and repeatedly flashed her crotch to the cameras ( She was also joined by Colombian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from behind as he sang about booties ) , '' Morgan wrote .
`` Shakira , meanwhile , belly-danced and tied herself up in what looked like bondage ropes . ''
Dobson asked : `` Parents , are you content to allow your children to be swept into this abyss ?
How many of you sat open-eyed and close-mouthed as your children partook of this sex-saturated show ?
How many of you are allowing your children to adopt an unhealthy and dishonoring view of women and sexuality ?
The Bible proclaims that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's image , created for relationship with our Creator .
That message is n't coming from our society… is it coming from you ? ''
Dobson challenged .
`` We should demand better from the NFL , networks , sponsors and entertainers .
But may God help us if we do n't first demand more from ourselves as parents and as citizens .
We have the truth and we must stand for it . ''
Morgan cited a viewer 's reaction on Twitter : `` Answer : Lewd .
Crude , Disgusting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Glorified porn .
Crass .
Inappropriate .
Gross .
Sickening .
Question : what was the halftime show ? ''
The British political analyst said it is hard to defend the show because it was `` aired during America ’ s annual most-watched family TV telecast . ''
Dobson is the author of more than 30 books on the family , was an adviser to multiple presidents and holds 18 honorary doctoral degrees .
He 's a member of the National Radio Hall of Fame .
He was an associate clinical professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California School of Medicine for 14 years .
He was on the attending staff of Children ’ s Hospital of Los Angeles for 17 years in the divisions of Child Development and Medical Genetics .

Evangelical Christian leader James Dobson says it's time for parents to stand up against the kind of sleaze displayed during the Super Bowl halftime show.
Known for his books on parenting, he noted the reaction has been relatively subdued, calling it "the Super Bowl shoulder shrug."
"On Sunday, Fox Sports and the NFL offered up a sexual smorgasbord, and the halftime show was the main course," said Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, the James Dobson Family Institute and Family Talk.
"In the last two days, I've seen outrage from a few select commentators and Christians. But overwhelmingly, I've witnessed the Super Bowl shoulder shrug. Responses range from the timid justification, 'it wasn't that bad,' to the defiant proclamation, 'it's a celebration of Latino culture,'" he wrote.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Let me be clear: pole dancing, sex simulation, and crotch shots are not a celebration of Latino culture; they are a celebration of our hypersexualized culture. I regret the need to be so graphic, but have we collectively lost our minds? Objectifying women—whether they willingly participate or not—is wrong. Failing to oppose such an affront to women is equally blameworthy."
Among the few critics were DailyMail.com columnist Piers Morgan, who wrote the "semi-naked, pole-writhing, crotch-grabbing halftime show" by Jennifer Lopez and Shakira "was totally inappropriate for a Super Bowl watched by millions of kids."
Morgan said Lopez "basically reprised her Ramona role from 'Hustlers' at the Super Bowl, hurling herself around a giant pole in a skimpy silver flesh coloured outfit."
He noted that the movie "Hustlers" carries an R restriction age limit because of "severe" sex and nudity.
"Yet J-Lo basically reprised her Ramona role at the Super Bowl, hurling herself around a giant pole in a skimpy silver flesh coloured outfit, having stripped off a studded black leather costume, and repeatedly flashed her crotch to the cameras (She was also joined by Colombian rapper J Balvin who gyrated into her from behind as he sang about booties)," Morgan wrote.
"Shakira, meanwhile, belly-danced and tied herself up in what looked like bondage ropes."
Dobson asked: "Parents, are you content to allow your children to be swept into this abyss? How many of you sat open-eyed and close-mouthed as your children partook of this sex-saturated show? How many of you are allowing your children to adopt an unhealthy and dishonoring view of women and sexuality? The Bible proclaims that we are fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image, created for relationship with our Creator. That message isn't coming from our society… is it coming from you?" Dobson challenged.
"We should demand better from the NFL, networks, sponsors and entertainers. But may God help us if we don't first demand more from ourselves as parents and as citizens. We have the truth and we must stand for it."
Morgan cited a viewer's reaction on Twitter: "Answer: Lewd. Crude, Disgusting. Nasty. Vulgar. Crossed the line. Glorified porn. Crass. Inappropriate. Gross. Sickening. Question: what was the halftime show?"
The British political analyst said it is hard to defend the show because it was "aired during America’s annual most-watched family TV telecast."
Dobson is the author of more than 30 books on the family, was an adviser to multiple presidents and holds 18 honorary doctoral degrees. He's a member of the National Radio Hall of Fame.
He was an associate clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine for 14 years. He was on the attending staff of Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles for 17 years in the divisions of Child Development and Medical Genetics.


wnd--2020-02-06--Step away from the restaurant, dude!

Step away from the restaurant, dude!

I 'm beginning to think we got in over our heads with our house .
My wife and I make about $ 125,000 a year combined , but we 've never been able to put anything aside for an emergency fund .
Our mortgage payment is 35 percent of our take home pay each month .
We have two young children , so we eat out a lot , but we have no debt other than our house .
Do you think we should refinance our home ?
TRENDING : When NBC reporter refuses to be quiet , GOP impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her You two are making good money , and you 're debt-free except for your home .
You ca n't tighten up your budget enough to save up an emergency fund ?
Stay out of restaurants , dude !
There 's no law stating you have to eat out a lot just because there are kids in the house .
I mean , you 've got no emergency fund .
That 's a pretty basic thing .
You guys need to get on a written , detailed plan , and start hitting your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strict , monthly budget .
Now , I 'll admit your mortgage payment is n't exactly what I would 've signed you up for .
Your house payments , or rent , should be no more than 25 percent of your monthly take home pay .
But your house payment is n't what 's holding you two back .
What 's holding you two back is the fact that you have n't been willing to tighten up the finances in other areas of your life to offset biting off more than you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , I would n't refinance .
You 're fairly close where the mortgage payments are concerned , so I think you can make it through this by looking at ways to increase your income and selling stuff you do n't need to build an emergency fund .
You two have been smarter than some , but you 're really going to have to buckle down and rearrange your priorities to make this happen !
Do you appreciate Dave 's clear and solid answers to readers ' questions ?
Order his book `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your finances on the right track !
I have around $ 15,000 in a Roth IRA .
I just recently started studying your advice , and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to cash it out and put the money toward debt .
I teach people to stop investing temporarily while they attack their debt .
So , I would n't add anything to it at this point , but the worst thing you could do is cash it out .
If you do , taxes and penalties will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The only time I take money out of a retirement account to pay off debt is to avoid bankruptcy or foreclosure .
Start working the Baby Steps from the beginning .
Baby Step 1 is saving up $ 1,000 for a starter emergency fund .
Baby Step 2 is paying off all debts from smallest to largest , except for your home , using the debt snowball method .
This will free up a ton of money !
Then you 're ready for Baby Step 3 , which is increasing your beginner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of three to six months of expenses .
Now you 're ready for Baby Step 4 , which is 15 percent of your income going into retirement !

Dear Dave,
I'm beginning to think we got in over our heads with our house. My wife and I make about $125,000 a year combined, but we've never been able to put anything aside for an emergency fund. Our mortgage payment is 35 percent of our take home pay each month. We have two young children, so we eat out a lot, but we have no debt other than our house. Do you think we should refinance our home?
Jeff
Dear Jeff,
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
You two are making good money, and you're debt-free except for your home. You can't tighten up your budget enough to save up an emergency fund? Stay out of restaurants, dude! There's no law stating you have to eat out a lot just because there are kids in the house. I mean, you've got no emergency fund. That's a pretty basic thing.
You guys need to get on a written, detailed plan, and start hitting your goals. I'm talking about a strict, monthly budget. Now, I'll admit your mortgage payment isn't exactly what I would've signed you up for. Your house payments, or rent, should be no more than 25 percent of your monthly take home pay. But your house payment isn't what's holding you two back. What's holding you two back is the fact that you haven't been willing to tighten up the finances in other areas of your life to offset biting off more than you could chew in terms of a home.
No, I wouldn't refinance. You're fairly close where the mortgage payments are concerned, so I think you can make it through this by looking at ways to increase your income and selling stuff you don't need to build an emergency fund. You two have been smarter than some, but you're really going to have to buckle down and rearrange your priorities to make this happen!
Dave
Do you appreciate Dave's clear and solid answers to readers' questions? Order his book "The Money Answer Book" and get your finances on the right track!
Cash out the Roth IRA?
Dear Dave,
I have around $15,000 in a Roth IRA. I just recently started studying your advice, and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to cash it out and put the money toward debt.
Sarah
Dear Sarah,
I teach people to stop investing temporarily while they attack their debt. So, I wouldn't add anything to it at this point, but the worst thing you could do is cash it out. If you do, taxes and penalties will steal a huge chunk of that cash. The only time I take money out of a retirement account to pay off debt is to avoid bankruptcy or foreclosure.
Start working the Baby Steps from the beginning. Baby Step 1 is saving up $1,000 for a starter emergency fund. Baby Step 2 is paying off all debts from smallest to largest, except for your home, using the debt snowball method. This will free up a ton of money! Then you're ready for Baby Step 3, which is increasing your beginner emergency fund to a fully-loaded emergency fund of three to six months of expenses.
Now you're ready for Baby Step 4, which is 15 percent of your income going into retirement!
Dave


More 'bombshells,' please

Poll : State of the Union address more than triples support for Trump among black viewers

* Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required.
Thank you for contacting us. Please check your email inbox to confirm your message and send it to our editorial team.


wnd--2020-02-07--James Woods sprung from 'Twitter jail,' gets instantly political

After being held captive in `` Twitter jail '' for nearly a year , essentially locked out of his own social-media account and precluded from posting any messages , actor James Woods triumphantly returned to the site Thursday night , and picked up immediately where he left off , firing fresh political barbs .
His first target : U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , whom he labeled a `` moron '' for her strange comments about bootstraps .
Woods tweeted : `` I 've tried so hard this past year to live without the wealth of knowledge available on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insight can be found nowhere else , so ...
I 'm back !
# AOCStillAMoron . ''
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus During a House committee hearing earlier this week , Ocasio-Cortez proffered an interesting take on bootstraps saying : `` I also want to thank you about bringing up the poverty draft and this idea of a bootstrap . ''
`` You know , this idea and this metaphor of a bootstrap started off as a joke because it 's a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bootstrap -- by your shoelaces ?
It 's physically impossible .
The whole thing is a joke . ''
Learn astonishing Bible truth on a higher level than ever before with the Holy Spirit-filled books by Joe Kovacs He added : `` I was on vacation awhile , avoiding the news .
How ’ d the # Mueller thing work out ?
The # impeachment scam ?
Who won the # Iowa caucuses ?
Is # MichaelAvenatti still a contender for the Democratic nomination for President ?
How ’ s # JeffreyEpstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thank you , Senator .
Did they arrest him yet again during his acceptance speech ? ''
Woods continued his tweeting , saying : `` And hopefully you will eventually be victorious in your quest to bring the # RapistClinton to justice .
We will stand by you until he is behind bars ( hopefully monitored by the same guards who watched over Jeffrey Epstein ) . ''
`` I simply ca n't express how honored I am by the kindness and warmth I have received by so many of my Twitter friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Thank you .
I am in tears . ''
Woods took direct aim at Mitt Romney , noting : `` This is the guy who passes a silent stinker in the elevator and then proceeds to lecture everybody about intestinal management .
You ’ ll never come back from this one , Mittens .
Even your magic pants won ’ t save you .
# MittTheRat '' The last tweet from the conservative actor with more than 2 million online followers before his banishment was April 19 , 2019 , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had been suspended .
But Sara Miller , Woods ' girlfriend , said last year that Woods had been thrown in Twitter jail for an alleged violation of the social-media platform 's rules `` against abusive behavior . ''
Woods ' tweet purported to be in violation stated : `` If you try to kill the King , you better not miss .
# HangThemAll . ''
It apparently was a comment regarding the Mueller report that exonerated President Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign of collusion with the Russian government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his followers , '' Miller noted , as she shared an email that Twitter sent to Woods .
Woods , who has starred in films including `` Casino '' and `` Videodrome , '' has been suspended previously by Twitter .
He was given the temporary boot in September 2018 after a remark about a fake meme , which he acknowledged was most likely phony .
`` Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real .
Not likely , but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Woods captioned a meme .
`` The irony is , Twitter accused me of affecting the political process , when in fact , their banning of me is the truly egregious interference , '' Woods told the Associated Press concerning his initial suspension .
`` Because now , having your voice smothered is much more disturbing than having your vocal cords slit .
If you want to kill my free speech , man up and slit my throat with a knife , do n't smother me with a pillow , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about an unknown Twitter user so that I could be even more passionate about it , '' Woods added .
`` This is not about a celebrity being muzzled .
This is about an American being silenced -- one tweet at a time . ''
Meanwhile over the past year , fans of Woods have been urging Twitter to `` free '' the actor , with posts including : '' @ RealJamesWoods ( over 2 MILLION followers ) has been unfairly suspended from Twitter AGAIN .
Madonna tweeted about blowing up the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barron Trump raped by pedophiles .
Libs are never suspended . ''
In February 2019 , as WND reported , Woods urged Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren to give up her hopes to win the presidency in 2020 .
“ Sweetie , you ’ re never going to recover from your Big Lie , ” Woods tweeted , referring to Warren ’ s claim that she ’ s an American Indian , for which she has since apologized .
“ You ’ re done , ” he continued .
“ Pack up your teepee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trails ... # Liewatha.
” In January of last year , he tweeted a 2018 clip from the “ Dr .
Phil ” show , with a caption stating : “ In a rare television event , we are witness to the actual birth of a Democrat .
Let ’ s take a peek ... ”

After being held captive in "Twitter jail" for nearly a year, essentially locked out of his own social-media account and precluded from posting any messages, actor James Woods triumphantly returned to the site Thursday night, and picked up immediately where he left off, firing fresh political barbs.
His first target: U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., whom he labeled a "moron" for her strange comments about bootstraps.
Woods tweeted: "I've tried so hard this past year to live without the wealth of knowledge available on Twitter, but this kind of blazing insight can be found nowhere else, so... I'm back! #AOCStillAMoron."
I’ve tried so hard this past year to live without the wealth of knowledge available on Twitter, but this kind of blazing insight can be found nowhere else, so... I’m back! #AOCStillAMoron pic.twitter.com/kB0oDXmArB — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 7, 2020
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
During a House committee hearing earlier this week, Ocasio-Cortez proffered an interesting take on bootstraps saying: "I also want to thank you about bringing up the poverty draft and this idea of a bootstrap."
"You know, this idea and this metaphor of a bootstrap started off as a joke because it's a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap -- by your shoelaces? It's physically impossible. The whole thing is a joke."
Learn astonishing Bible truth on a higher level than ever before with the Holy Spirit-filled books by Joe Kovacs
He added: "I was on vacation awhile, avoiding the news. How’d the #Mueller thing work out? The #impeachment scam? Who won the #Iowa caucuses? Is #MichaelAvenatti still a contender for the Democratic nomination for President? How’s #JeffreyEpstein doing?"
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Woods: "Welcome back. Avenatti won Iowa."
Woods responded: "Thank you, Senator. Did they arrest him yet again during his acceptance speech?"
Woods continued his tweeting, saying: "And hopefully you will eventually be victorious in your quest to bring the #RapistClinton to justice. We will stand by you until he is behind bars (hopefully monitored by the same guards who watched over Jeffrey Epstein)."
"I simply can't express how honored I am by the kindness and warmth I have received by so many of my Twitter friends tonight. You are genuinely such fine people. Thank you. I am in tears."
I was on vacation awhile, avoiding the news. How’d the #Mueller thing work out? The #impeachment scam? Who won the #Iowa caucuses? Is #MichaelAvenatti still a contender for the Democratic nomination for President? How’s #JeffreyEpstein doing? — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 7, 2020
And hopefully you will eventually be victorious in your quest to bring the #RapistClinton to justice. We will stand by you until he is behind bars (hopefully monitored by the same guards who watched over Jeffrey Epstein). https://t.co/SmgcJ1Mrhp — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 7, 2020
I simply can’t express how honored I am by the kindness and warmth I have received by so many of my Twitter friends tonight. You are genuinely such fine people. Thank you. I am in tears. — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 7, 2020
Woods took direct aim at Mitt Romney, noting: "This is the guy who passes a silent stinker in the elevator and then proceeds to lecture everybody about intestinal management. You’ll never come back from this one, Mittens. Even your magic pants won’t save you. #MittTheRat"
This is the guy who passes a silent stinker in the elevator and then proceeds to lecture everybody about intestinal management. You’ll never come back from this one, Mittens. Even your magic pants won’t save you. #MittTheRat https://t.co/Rh9ZSPkKfo — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 7, 2020
The last tweet from the conservative actor with more than 2 million online followers before his banishment was April 19, 2019, with no official indication on his page that he had been suspended.
But Sara Miller, Woods' girlfriend, said last year that Woods had been thrown in Twitter jail for an alleged violation of the social-media platform's rules "against abusive behavior."
Woods' tweet purported to be in violation stated: "If you try to kill the King, you better not miss. #HangThemAll."
It apparently was a comment regarding the Mueller report that exonerated President Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign of collusion with the Russian government.
"Of course Twitter doesn't inform his followers," Miller noted, as she shared an email that Twitter sent to Woods.
Of course Twitter doesn’t inform his followers. @RealJamesWoods has received the following email: pic.twitter.com/2nnnVBVktQ — Sara Miller (@Millerita) April 20, 2019
Woods, who has starred in films including "Casino" and "Videodrome," has been suspended previously by Twitter.
He was given the temporary boot in September 2018 after a remark about a fake meme, which he acknowledged was most likely phony.
This is the tweet @RealJamesWoods was locked for. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the “Streisand Effect” kicked in and it was retweeted 10,000 times? Retweet at your peril. @jack is watching... 👀#FREEJAMESWOODS pic.twitter.com/eIZpGkOk6A — Sara Miller (@Millerita) September 21, 2018
"Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible ..." Woods captioned a meme.
"The irony is, Twitter accused me of affecting the political process, when in fact, their banning of me is the truly egregious interference," Woods told the Associated Press concerning his initial suspension.
"Because now, having your voice smothered is much more disturbing than having your vocal cords slit. If you want to kill my free speech, man up and slit my throat with a knife, don't smother me with a pillow," he continued.
"I wish this were about an unknown Twitter user so that I could be even more passionate about it," Woods added. "This is not about a celebrity being muzzled. This is about an American being silenced -- one tweet at a time."
Meanwhile over the past year, fans of Woods have been urging Twitter to "free" the actor, with posts including:
"@RealJamesWoods (over 2 MILLION followers) has been unfairly suspended from Twitter AGAIN. Madonna tweeted about blowing up the White House. Peter Fonda tweeted about having Barron Trump raped by pedophiles. Libs are never suspended."
One of our great Conservative voices @RealJamesWoods is in Twitter jail for his conservative views. Absolutely insane!!! Retweet and the word out. Bring James back!!!!!!! pic.twitter.com/63x6g0aYp6 — 🇺🇸Laurie🇺🇸 (@LadyNY4Ever) April 26, 2019
In February 2019, as WND reported, Woods urged Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren to give up her hopes to win the presidency in 2020.
“Sweetie, you’re never going to recover from your Big Lie,” Woods tweeted, referring to Warren’s claim that she’s an American Indian, for which she has since apologized.
“You’re done,” he continued. “Pack up your teepee and follow the buffalo herd. Happy Trails... #Liewatha.”
In January of last year, he tweeted a 2018 clip from the “Dr. Phil” show, with a caption stating:
“In a rare television event, we are witness to the actual birth of a Democrat. Let’s take a peek...”
In a rare television event, we are witness to the actual birth of a Democrat. Let’s take a peek... pic.twitter.com/m9MdKFCCvN — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 9, 2019
Follow Joe on Twitter @JoeKovacsNews


wnd--2020-02-07--Chinese doctor who first warned about coronavirus dies

The Chinese doctor who was allegedly detained in China for trying to warn his fellow medics about the coronavirus outbreak has died from the virus itself .
Li Wenliang was an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital who sent out a warning about the coronavirus to his colleagues on Dec. 30 , according to the BBC .
Li had observed seven cases of a virus that looked like SARS , and he cautioned his fellow doctors to wear protective clothing to avoid possible infection .
The Public Security Bureau summoned Li four days later and forced him to sign a letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments . ''
Seven other people were investigated as well for `` spreading rumors . ''
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus Authorities later apologized to the doctor for their actions .
Li wrote in a post on Weibo , a Chinese microblogging website , that he had begun coughing on Jan. 10 .
Days later , he was admitted to a hospital , and eventually diagnosed with coronavirus on Jan. 30 .
There were initially conflicting reports about his death , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died , and later saying he was actually in critical condition .
Later Tuesday , Wuhan Central Hospital announced he had in fact died , according to Fox News .
Li was `` unfortunately infected during the fight against the pneumonia epidemic of the new coronavirus infection , '' the hospital said in a statement .
`` We deeply regret and mourn this . ''
It is unknown at this time if Li had any other underlying health conditions or complications with the virus .
Prior to his death , Li told The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been different if officials heeded his warnings .
`` If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier , I think it would have been a lot better , '' he said .
`` There should be more openness and transparency . ''
There are over 28,000 cases of coronavirus worldwide , resulting in at least 563 deaths in China as of Thursday .
There have been at least 230 cases of the virus confirmed outside of mainland China .
As of Sunday , there were 11 confirmed cases inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported in California , Illinois , Massachusetts , Arizona and Washington state .
New York City officials said Wednesday they were awaiting tests on two suspected cases there , according to amNewYork .
Although the World Health Organization said it is too early to say that the outbreak was peaking , Wednesday was the first day there was a drop in the overall number of new cases in China , The Guardian reported .
Health experts were preparing to meet in Geneva , Switzerland , next week to try to develop a vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared originally on The Western Journal .

The Chinese doctor who was allegedly detained in China for trying to warn his fellow medics about the coronavirus outbreak has died from the virus itself.
Li Wenliang was an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital who sent out a warning about the coronavirus to his colleagues on Dec. 30, according to the BBC.
Li had observed seven cases of a virus that looked like SARS, and he cautioned his fellow doctors to wear protective clothing to avoid possible infection.
The Public Security Bureau summoned Li four days later and forced him to sign a letter saying that he was "making false comments."
Seven other people were investigated as well for "spreading rumors."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Authorities later apologized to the doctor for their actions.
Li wrote in a post on Weibo, a Chinese microblogging website, that he had begun coughing on Jan. 10.
Days later, he was admitted to a hospital, and eventually diagnosed with coronavirus on Jan. 30.
There were initially conflicting reports about his death, with Chinese state-run media first reporting he had died, and later saying he was actually in critical condition.
Later Tuesday, Wuhan Central Hospital announced he had in fact died, according to Fox News.
We deeply mourn the death of #Wuhan doctor Li wenliang, who unfortunately got infected with novel #Coronavirus while battling with the epidemic. After all-effort rescue, Li passed away on 2:58 am, Feb. 7. pic.twitter.com/mbYA3wB4pn — People's Daily, China (@PDChina) February 6, 2020
Li was "unfortunately infected during the fight against the pneumonia epidemic of the new coronavirus infection," the hospital said in a statement. "We deeply regret and mourn this."
It is unknown at this time if Li had any other underlying health conditions or complications with the virus.
Prior to his death, Li told The New York Times that the outbreak could have been different if officials heeded his warnings.
"If the officials had disclosed information about the epidemic earlier, I think it would have been a lot better," he said. "There should be more openness and transparency."
There are over 28,000 cases of coronavirus worldwide, resulting in at least 563 deaths in China as of Thursday.
There have been at least 230 cases of the virus confirmed outside of mainland China. As of Sunday, there were 11 confirmed cases inside the United States.
The cases have been reported in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Arizona and Washington state.
New York City officials said Wednesday they were awaiting tests on two suspected cases there, according to amNewYork.
Although the World Health Organization said it is too early to say that the outbreak was peaking, Wednesday was the first day there was a drop in the overall number of new cases in China, The Guardian reported.
Health experts were preparing to meet in Geneva, Switzerland, next week to try to develop a vaccine for the deadly virus.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-07--Dem turnout disaster: Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus

The Iowa caucus was an embarrassment for the Democratic Party .
While the results continue to trickle in , Democrats should be less concerned with the winners and losers and more concerned about the turnout in certain counties , which could spell disaster come November .
One such county is Dubuque , where the turnout Monday was incredibly low .
This should worry Democrats as it could reflect the public 's rejection of the Democratic candidates and their far-left agendas .
As reported in Politico , Dubuque is the center of Iowa 's Roman Catholic community with five nunneries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the residents are Catholic .
Therefore , former Vice President Joe Biden , who is Catholic , would seemingly make a strong showing in Dubuque .
As reported by Politico : '' While [ Sen. Bernie ] Sanders ’ popularity with organized labor will make him competitive here , this should be Biden Country -- he ’ s a familiar face , visited frequently during the campaign and has played up his Catholic background here .
Biden also has the support of popular local Rep. Abby Finkenauer . ''
Apparently county residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders or any of the other Democratic candidates .
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus While Democrats expected a high turnout in Dubuque , they were sorely disappointed .
As reported in The Washington Free Beacon , Steve Drahozal , chairman of the Dubuque County Democrats , was shocked by the low numbers .
`` We were blown away by the fact that we did not have the turnout that we expected .
... We had expected higher numbers , '' Drahozal told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of fact , a correspondent for KWQC noted that only 217 people caucused at a high school in Dubuque County , which has a population of 97,000 and about 65,000 active registered voters , including 25,000 Democrats .
As Drahozal noted , high turnout is `` key '' for Democrats after the 2016 election .
While turnout in Dubuque was a `` little bit higher '' than it was in 2016 , he said , it was still much lower than expected .
One obvious reason for this could be the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the direction of the Democratic Party as a whole .
Frighteningly , many of the candidates promote a far-left , extreme agenda .
The democratic socialist Sanders , for example , is pushing open borders , free health care for illegal immigrants , `` Medicare for All , '' elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , higher taxes and late-term abortions .
These policies are dangerous and could , ultimately , bankrupt the country .
These concerns were solidified in a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor , where some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialist candidate received the Democratic nomination : “ We ’ re afraid if Sanders gets it , ” Linda , a middle-aged woman who declined to give her last name , said the day before the caucuses at a Biden town hall at Clarke University in Dubuque , The Monitor reported .
“ Republicans who I know who don ’ t like Trump anymore -- they wouldn ’ t vote for a socialist , ” her friend Mary was quoted as saying .
Wayne Demmer , who runs a farm outside Dubuque , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain the county will go blue in 2020 '' -- unless Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren , another far-left candidate , were to win the Democratic nomination .
“ It does scare me if we end up with one of these giveaway candidates , ” he said Friday .
“ People in Iowa still go out and work for what they have .
And that ’ s the concept of all of rural America .
We live by the saying don ’ t give someone a fish , give them a fishing pole.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party because most of its leading candidates promote far-left agendas .
Even former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , whom some describe as `` moderate , '' promotes many radical policies .
Biden , possibly the most `` moderate '' of the Democratic candidates , seemingly offered Democrats a viable choice to challenge President Donald Trump in November .
However , based on Biden 's poor showing in Iowa -- with 97 percent of the results in , he was in fourth place and received only 16 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa are n't impressed with him or his policies .
If the people are n't impressed with Biden , and many are afraid and critical of other candidates ' socialist policies , Democrats have reason to be very concerned .
They are running out of time and have very few options as November is right around the corner .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

The Iowa caucus was an embarrassment for the Democratic Party. While the results continue to trickle in, Democrats should be less concerned with the winners and losers and more concerned about the turnout in certain counties, which could spell disaster come November.
One such county is Dubuque, where the turnout Monday was incredibly low. This should worry Democrats as it could reflect the public's rejection of the Democratic candidates and their far-left agendas.
As reported in Politico, Dubuque is the center of Iowa's Roman Catholic community with five nunneries and two Catholic universities. Nearly 50 percent of the residents are Catholic. Therefore, former Vice President Joe Biden, who is Catholic, would seemingly make a strong showing in Dubuque. As reported by Politico:
"While [Sen. Bernie] Sanders’ popularity with organized labor will make him competitive here, this should be Biden Country -- he’s a familiar face, visited frequently during the campaign and has played up his Catholic background here. Biden also has the support of popular local Rep. Abby Finkenauer."
Apparently county residents weren't very excited about Biden, Sanders or any of the other Democratic candidates.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
While Democrats expected a high turnout in Dubuque, they were sorely disappointed. As reported in The Washington Free Beacon, Steve Drahozal, chairman of the Dubuque County Democrats, was shocked by the low numbers.
"We were blown away by the fact that we did not have the turnout that we expected. ... We had expected higher numbers," Drahozal told local NBC affiliate KWQC-TV.
As a matter of fact, a correspondent for KWQC noted that only 217 people caucused at a high school in Dubuque County, which has a population of 97,000 and about 65,000 active registered voters, including 25,000 Democrats.
As Drahozal noted, high turnout is "key" for Democrats after the 2016 election. While turnout in Dubuque was a "little bit higher" than it was in 2016, he said, it was still much lower than expected.
One obvious reason for this could be the candidates themselves, the policies they promote and the direction of the Democratic Party as a whole.
Frighteningly, many of the candidates promote a far-left, extreme agenda. The democratic socialist Sanders, for example, is pushing open borders, free health care for illegal immigrants, "Medicare for All," elimination of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, higher taxes and late-term abortions. These policies are dangerous and could, ultimately, bankrupt the country.
These concerns were solidified in a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor, where some people in Dubuque expressed their fear if a socialist candidate received the Democratic nomination:
“We’re afraid if Sanders gets it,” Linda, a middle-aged woman who declined to give her last name, said the day before the caucuses at a Biden town hall at Clarke University in Dubuque, The Monitor reported.
“Republicans who I know who don’t like Trump anymore -- they wouldn’t vote for a socialist,” her friend Mary was quoted as saying.
Wayne Demmer, who runs a farm outside Dubuque, told The Monitor he was "nearly certain the county will go blue in 2020" -- unless Sanders or Sen. Elizabeth Warren, another far-left candidate, were to win the Democratic nomination.
“It does scare me if we end up with one of these giveaway candidates,” he said Friday. “People in Iowa still go out and work for what they have. And that’s the concept of all of rural America. We live by the saying don’t give someone a fish, give them a fishing pole.”
This is problematic for the Democratic Party because most of its leading candidates promote far-left agendas. Even former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, whom some describe as "moderate," promotes many radical policies.
Biden, possibly the most "moderate" of the Democratic candidates, seemingly offered Democrats a viable choice to challenge President Donald Trump in November.
However, based on Biden's poor showing in Iowa -- with 97 percent of the results in, he was in fourth place and received only 16 percent of the vote -- it is clear that people in Iowa aren't impressed with him or his policies. If the people aren't impressed with Biden, and many are afraid and critical of other candidates' socialist policies, Democrats have reason to be very concerned.
They are running out of time and have very few options as November is right around the corner.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-07--Crippled by virus and facing economic ruin, China folds in trade war

Viruses , including the now-infamous novel coronavirus , have driven China to the brink of economic disaster .
Now , the country is rolling back tariffs on U.S. products as the communist nation 's economy threatens to take a dive .
China 's Thursday decision saw tariff cuts on $ 75 billion of American imported goods , The Associated Press reported .
Among the imports affected are soybeans , pork and auto parts .
Although the move comes as part of a January deal , it 's clear that the Asian powerhouse can no longer safely continue the costly economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part to the emergence of 2019-nCoV , a virus that has ballooned to over 28,000 infections in mere months .
A costly containment and recovery effort has done little to stem the infection rate .
Currently , more than half of China is in some form of shutdown or quarantine to control the virus , CNBC reported .
TRENDING : Dem turnout disaster : Only 217 in county of 97K showed up to caucus The parts of China now under these restrictions account for a whopping 80 percent of the country 's GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Shanghai Composite Index to take an ugly dive as uncertainty swirled over the virus ' potential .
While many of the shutdowns are scheduled to end mid-February , there is speculation that the quarantines could be extended if the virus is not controlled to a manageable extent .
On top of coronavirus fears , another pathogen is also at work undermining the Chinese economy .
African swine fever , which does not affect humans , has decimated China 's pig herds .
The disease does not have a cure and readily spreads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destroy their hogs in an effort to control the often fatal illness .
As pork is the most popular meat in China , the purges have resulted in a major spike in prices .
Citizens living under the communist regime are now turning to alternative meats -- including dog .
For those planning to fall back on chicken , there 's even more heartbreak to be found .
China was gut-punched a second time as H5N1 , more commonly known as bird flu , broke out in a chicken farm .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional 17,000 were culled to halt the disease 's spread .
Food security in China is a major issue , with several generations still alive that saw firsthand the leading communist party 's policies result in deadly famine .
Easier access to American pork and soybeans will likely ease these worries .
For the Chinese , it 's been an incredibly rough few months .
As the fear of coronavirus still has much of China in the dark behind a quarantine order , it 's unclear when the country will see brighter days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western Journal .

Viruses, including the now-infamous novel coronavirus, have driven China to the brink of economic disaster. Now, the country is rolling back tariffs on U.S. products as the communist nation's economy threatens to take a dive.
China's Thursday decision saw tariff cuts on $75 billion of American imported goods, The Associated Press reported. Among the imports affected are soybeans, pork and auto parts.
Although the move comes as part of a January deal, it's clear that the Asian powerhouse can no longer safely continue the costly economic war.
This is due in large part to the emergence of 2019-nCoV, a virus that has ballooned to over 28,000 infections in mere months. A costly containment and recovery effort has done little to stem the infection rate.
Currently, more than half of China is in some form of shutdown or quarantine to control the virus, CNBC reported.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The parts of China now under these restrictions account for a whopping 80 percent of the country's GDP.
This news spooked investors, causing the Shanghai Composite Index to take an ugly dive as uncertainty swirled over the virus' potential.
While many of the shutdowns are scheduled to end mid-February, there is speculation that the quarantines could be extended if the virus is not controlled to a manageable extent.
On top of coronavirus fears, another pathogen is also at work undermining the Chinese economy.
African swine fever, which does not affect humans, has decimated China's pig herds.
The disease does not have a cure and readily spreads among swine, so farmers are forced to destroy their hogs in an effort to control the often fatal illness.
As pork is the most popular meat in China, the purges have resulted in a major spike in prices. Citizens living under the communist regime are now turning to alternative meats -- including dog.
For those planning to fall back on chicken, there's even more heartbreak to be found.
China was gut-punched a second time as H5N1, more commonly known as bird flu, broke out in a chicken farm. After thousands of the birds died, an additional 17,000 were culled to halt the disease's spread.
Food security in China is a major issue, with several generations still alive that saw firsthand the leading communist party's policies result in deadly famine.
Easier access to American pork and soybeans will likely ease these worries.
For the Chinese, it's been an incredibly rough few months. As the fear of coronavirus still has much of China in the dark behind a quarantine order, it's unclear when the country will see brighter days.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.