westernjournal--2020-02-04--By Dominating Public Lands, Feds Now Exercise Authority Framers Never Meant Them To Have

Almost everyone at one time or another has enjoyed the great outdoors on or near so-called “ public lands ” with little or no thought about what the term means , or what government entity possesses control over the land that the public is supposed to have access to .
Over time , the term “ public lands ” here in the United States , and more specifically in the Western U.S , has come to mean land possessed by the federal government that lies within state boundary lines .
First , the matter of Constitutional authority : There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion that the federal government should possess any land within a state other than to secure an enclave as defined by the Constitution of the United States .
Under Article I , Section 8 , Clause 17 , the framers agreed “ To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever , over such District ( not exceeding ten Miles square ) as may , by Cession of particular States , and the Acceptance of Congress , become the Seat of Government of the United States , and to exercise like Authority over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be , for the Erection of Forts , Magazines , Arsenals , dock-Yards , and other needful Buildings.
” Next , the matter of Statehood and Domination : There are three legal contracts commonly accepted in American jurisprudence that are the foundation of statehood .
They include “ The Equal Sovereignty Principle , The Equal Footing Doctrine , and The Compact Theory.
” Each of these foundational components of American statehood jurisprudence point to the serious question of whether Congress can abrogate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the granting of statehood with so-called “ needful laws.
” FIn the well-documented Madison Debates of Sept. 5 , 1787 , over what should be memorialized about the power of the federal government to purchase land for the seat of government , and for needful installations such as Federal arsenals , forts and such , the framers Sherman , Gerry , King and Morris debated the need for language in Article I , Section 8 : “ [ they ] thought himself the provision unnecessary , the power being already involved : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word ‘ purchased ’ the words ‘ by the consent of the Legislature of the State ’ This would certainly make the power safe , ” ( Yale , 2020 , Pg .
1 ) .
Just prior to Mr. King ’ s statement , Elbridge Gerry warned of domination by the federal government , contending that “ this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory , and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yale , 2020 , Pg .
1 ) .
And so it has come to pass that the very thing Mr. Gerry and Mr. King debated might or might not happen is now the norm , rather than the exception in dealings between Arizona — and indeed other sister Western states — and the federal government .
Federal agencies never seem to be satisfied with the level of control they possess by act of Congress , and in an ever-expanding agenda seem to prove the very argument that Elbridge Gerry warned of .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed for our National Forests as an example .
These changes will directly impact rural communities , industry business , jobs , tax revenue , conservation , fire management , the Arizona OHV fund , recreation , private property , state rights and the overall ability for state agencies to fulfill their duties .
Many pro-mixed-use public-lands groups have come together , including the American Mining Rights Association , the Gold Prospectors Association of America , the Blue Ribbon Coalition , UTV Utah , the Arizona Association Of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Summit 4×4 , Arizona Overland , the Average Joe 4X4 Competition and several others , including industry business leaders .
Together , these groups have over 250,000 members comprising the off-road community and they contribute significantly to outdoor recreation in Arizona .
Members of this community are concerned about the changes proposed by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management .
A number of published articles are available to help with research material concerning these changes .
( To learn more details , follow the hyperlinks below . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state and federal laws that are being violated , and what has previously been done concerning BLM is detailed below .
The reader should be mindful this Op-Ed addresses just five of over 50 proposed changes that need the attention of the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture , as well as Congress .
RELATED : Trump Is Right : Federal Reserve Is Acting Lawlessly In 2015 , the Forest Service put new rules in place for motorized travel .
This new rule nullified old federal regulations and created 36 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Travel Management Rules , thousands of miles of roads have been closed all over Arizona .
Arizona isn ’ t the only state that has these issues .
Every state across the West has fell victim to 36 CFR 212 Travel Management .
The Forest Service is closing these roads on the basis of environmental protection .
According to their documents , both places with cultural-historical significance and places with no significant destination value will be protected .
Campsites , hiking trails , roads and developed recreation areas that are in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with closure .
We believe these terms can describe nearly every place in the National Forest .
• Includes 25 miles of the historic Rim Road Forest Road 300 and the closure of hundreds of dispersed campsites • Read the article and find the documents here .
• 1/4 of the forest roads in Tonto • Follow this link to learn more • Coming soon ; expecting it by the end of the year • Follow this link to learn more The Forest Service is proposing some drastic changes in the way the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency is proposing the closure , decommissioning and removal of developed recreation areas , interpretive centers , dispersed camping areas , developed camping areas and several other areas that are used every day by Arizona residents .
Furthermore , the plan calls for the decommissioning of campsites , recreation areas , roads and hiking trails that have “ no significant destination value ” — a term some of us believe to be very dangerous .
Roads with more than a 10 percent grade ; drive to mountain tops or along ridgelines ; or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slated for closure but unspecified in their plans .
Locations of cultural or historical significance are kept confidential while the Forest Service closes recreation opportunities in , near or around these areas .
This plan also includes OHV and wilderness permit zones , 49 proposed wilderness areas and 20 proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers , which in themselves bring their own sets of regulations .
Read material on this plan and find documentation at this link .
The Rim Country Restoration Project is a collaborative effort between the Tonto , Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of commonsense projects that are far overdue .
However , nested in the plan is the closure of over 1,200 miles of unspecified forest roads .
Unlike a Travel Management Plan , the Forest Service does not tell what roads are being closed .
The area affected by the proposal includes approximately 540,020 acres on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests , 398,880 acres on the Mogollon Rim and Red Rock Ranger Districts of the Coconino National Forest and 299,710 acres on the Payson and Pleasant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forest .
Road decommissioning would occur on approximately 200 miles of existing system roads on the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and approximately 290 miles of roads on the Tonto National Forest .
Up to 800 miles of roads on all three forests could be decommissioned .
Read more on this with documents at this link .
The economic impact of the outdoor community in Arizona is enormous .
There is no doubt that rural Arizona , jobs and funding for vital programs will suffer the consequences .
As motorized access and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tourism .
The weekends bring loads of visitors from all over the world to enjoy our motorized trails .
Areas such as Sedona , Grand Canyon and Mogollon Rim generate millions if not billions of dollars for the local economy and produce thousands of jobs for Arizona residents .
The Arizona State Parks and Trails and Arizona State University recently did a study on the economic impact of the off-road community in Arizona .
The study shows around 1.8 billion dollars in consumer spending every year .
The study suggests that 1.6 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual tax revenue , and create 22,000 jobs .
Likewise , the Outdoor Industry Association estimates Arizona ’ s outdoor community generates 21.2 billion dollars in consumer spending and 1.4 billion in state and local tax revenue and creates 201,000 jobs .
Many of these roads fall under the old Mining Act of 1866 and are considered RS 2477 Rights of Way .
The Arizona legislature has passed legislation giving Arizona broad authority over these roads .
Arizona Revised Statute 37.931 is Arizona ’ s claim on all RS 2477 roads over federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these claims and explains the law in full detail .
The Mining Act of 1865 was repealed by the Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976 .
However , FLPMA allowed all existing roads under RS 2477 to remain valid .
In a nutshell , the federal government can not close any road or “ right of way ” that was built before 1976 .
Only an Arizona court of competent jurisdiction has the authority to close a RS 2477 Right Of Way .
This is written in both federal and state law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s used every day to wage lawsuits against the federal government .
In this section , we will go through two examples used on both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service .
These Congressional Review laws apply to every single regulation or rule enacted by every federal agency .
Failure to follow this law can result in the rules being overturned across the country , counties or states being exempt from rules , and out-of-court settlements .
The Congressional Review Act requires every federal regulation that falls under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Congress for a vote .
Through previous court proceedings , we have learned , neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management has sent a single regulation for congressional review .
On Oct. 23 , 2017 , Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska submitted the Tongass National Forest Resource Management Rule to the Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) for congressional review .
The GAO determined the plan met the agency ’ s definition of “ rule.
” In response , Alaska filed a lawsuit against the Tongass National Forest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Forest Service settled out of court by exempting Alaska from the Resource Management Planning .
Read the final decision from the GAO here .
In 2018 , Arizona stopped the Bureau of Land Management from closing thousands of miles of roads .
Arizona completely overturned the rules across the entire country .
The Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan 2.0 was overturned “ as if it had never taken effect.
” This effectively stopped and reopened every road that was closed by BLM travel management plans across America .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House when she attended a meeting on rural economic development .
She explained the biggest economic threat in Mohave County is the BLM Travel Management Plans .
The Kingman Travel Management Plan ended that day .
Under the guidance of the Congressional Western Caucus , Resource Management 2.0 was taken to Washington for a final resolution .
Both the House and Senate unanimously agreed to disapprove of the Resource Management 2.0 rule .
The final decision was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 21 , 2017 , and became effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read .
It all started right here , in Arizona , with a Mohave County Supervisor .
Read the story here .
The off-road and outdoor communities urge you to support these issues .
On behalf of the 250,000-plus members of the groups mentioned above , we ask that we bring this to Washington for a final solution .
Removing Forest Service regulations 36 CFR 212 Travel Management , 36 CFR 261 Prohibitions and 36 CFR 219 Planning will put a stop to the over-regulation that is killing rural Arizona .
It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bring the much-needed rural consumer spending .
With around 3,400 miles of dirt roads over federal land and developed recreation areas facing closure , we believe it ’ s important for you , as a servant of the people , to take this to Washington for a final solution .
Arizona did it before , and we will do it again .
Knowing you have the support of so many , it should be no problem .
Arizona ’ s motorized trails are not just a dusty path to nowhere .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Hualapais to Bradshaw to the towering sky islands .
These mountains were once a beehive of activity from the mid-1800s to the 1930s .
Rich mining towns attracted people from all over the world in search of a better life — including some of Arizona ’ s most memorable pioneers .
The roads provided access to hundreds of mining claims , homesteads and ranches and were vital to the settlement of Western America .
Closing these roads would be closing our history to the very people who were supposed to enjoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercising that which our Framers once thought unthinkable : domination of the limited federal government over a state sovereign .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Almost everyone at one time or another has enjoyed the great outdoors on or near so-called “public lands” with little or no thought about what the term means, or what government entity possesses control over the land that the public is supposed to have access to.
Over time, the term “public lands” here in the United States, and more specifically in the Western U.S, has come to mean land possessed by the federal government that lies within state boundary lines.
First, the matter of Constitutional authority:
There are several public policy flaws that arise from the notion that the federal government should possess any land within a state other than to secure an enclave as defined by the Constitution of the United States.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, the framers agreed “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Next, the matter of Statehood and Domination:
There are three legal contracts commonly accepted in American jurisprudence that are the foundation of statehood. They include “The Equal Sovereignty Principle, The Equal Footing Doctrine, and The Compact Theory.” Each of these foundational components of American statehood jurisprudence point to the serious question of whether Congress can abrogate a contract — an enabling act — made at the granting of statehood with so-called “needful laws.”
FIn the well-documented Madison Debates of Sept. 5, 1787, over what should be memorialized about the power of the federal government to purchase land for the seat of government, and for needful installations such as Federal arsenals, forts and such, the framers Sherman, Gerry, King and Morris debated the need for language in Article I, Section 8: “[they] thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word ‘purchased’ the words ‘by the consent of the Legislature of the State’ This would certainly make the power safe,” (Yale, 2020, Pg. 1).
Just prior to Mr. King’s statement, Elbridge Gerry warned of domination by the federal government, contending that “this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government” (Yale, 2020, Pg. 1).
And so it has come to pass that the very thing Mr. Gerry and Mr. King debated might or might not happen is now the norm, rather than the exception in dealings between Arizona — and indeed other sister Western states — and the federal government. Federal agencies never seem to be satisfied with the level of control they possess by act of Congress, and in an ever-expanding agenda seem to prove the very argument that Elbridge Gerry warned of.
There are major changes in public-lands access proposed for our National Forests as an example. These changes will directly impact rural communities, industry business, jobs, tax revenue, conservation, fire management, the Arizona OHV fund, recreation, private property, state rights and the overall ability for state agencies to fulfill their duties.
Many pro-mixed-use public-lands groups have come together, including the American Mining Rights Association, the Gold Prospectors Association of America, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, UTV Utah, the Arizona Association Of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, the Rocks and Wheels 4×4 Club, Summit 4×4, Arizona Overland, the Average Joe 4X4 Competition and several others, including industry business leaders.
Together, these groups have over 250,000 members comprising the off-road community and they contribute significantly to outdoor recreation in Arizona. Members of this community are concerned about the changes proposed by the United States Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. A number of published articles are available to help with research material concerning these changes. (To learn more details, follow the hyperlinks below.)
Current changes that have been proposed, the state and federal laws that are being violated, and what has previously been done concerning BLM is detailed below. The reader should be mindful this Op-Ed addresses just five of over 50 proposed changes that need the attention of the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture, as well as Congress.
Travel Management Planning
In 2015, the Forest Service put new rules in place for motorized travel. This new rule nullified old federal regulations and created 36 CRF 212 Travel Management. Under these new Travel Management Rules, thousands of miles of roads have been closed all over Arizona. Arizona isn’t the only state that has these issues. Every state across the West has fell victim to 36 CFR 212 Travel Management.
The Forest Service is closing these roads on the basis of environmental protection. According to their documents, both places with cultural-historical significance and places with no significant destination value will be protected. Campsites, hiking trails, roads and developed recreation areas that are in, near or around these areas are threatened with closure. We believe these terms can describe nearly every place in the National Forest.
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
532-mile proposed road closure around Showlow, Snowflake, Alpine, Greer and Blue
Includes 25 miles of the historic Rim Road Forest Road 300 and the closure of hundreds of dispersed campsites
Read the article and find the documents here.
Tonto National Forest
1,460-mile proposed road closure
1/4 of the forest roads in Tonto
Follow this link to learn more
Coronado National Forest
Coming soon; expecting it by the end of the year
Follow this link to learn more
Resource Management Planning
Tonto National Forest Resource Management Plan
The Forest Service is proposing some drastic changes in the way the Tonto National Forest is managed. The agency is proposing the closure, decommissioning and removal of developed recreation areas, interpretive centers, dispersed camping areas, developed camping areas and several other areas that are used every day by Arizona residents.
Furthermore, the plan calls for the decommissioning of campsites, recreation areas, roads and hiking trails that have “no significant destination value” — a term some of us believe to be very dangerous. Roads with more than a 10 percent grade; drive to mountain tops or along ridgelines; or cross rivers or unstable soil are all slated for closure but unspecified in their plans. Locations of cultural or historical significance are kept confidential while the Forest Service closes recreation opportunities in, near or around these areas.
This plan also includes OHV and wilderness permit zones, 49 proposed wilderness areas and 20 proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers, which in themselves bring their own sets of regulations.
Read material on this plan and find documentation at this link.
Four Forest Restoration Initiative
Rim Country Restoration Project
The Rim Country Restoration Project is a collaborative effort between the Tonto, Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. The plan includes a lot of commonsense projects that are far overdue. However, nested in the plan is the closure of over 1,200 miles of unspecified forest roads. Unlike a Travel Management Plan, the Forest Service does not tell what roads are being closed.
The area affected by the proposal includes approximately 540,020 acres on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, 398,880 acres on the Mogollon Rim and Red Rock Ranger Districts of the Coconino National Forest and 299,710 acres on the Payson and Pleasant Valley Ranger Districts of the Tonto National Forest.
Road decommissioning would occur on approximately 200 miles of existing system roads on the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and approximately 290 miles of roads on the Tonto National Forest. Up to 800 miles of roads on all three forests could be decommissioned.
Read more on this with documents at this link.
Economic Impact
The economic impact of the outdoor community in Arizona is enormous. There is no doubt that rural Arizona, jobs and funding for vital programs will suffer the consequences. As motorized access and other recreation opportunities shrink, so will local tourism. The weekends bring loads of visitors from all over the world to enjoy our motorized trails. Areas such as Sedona, Grand Canyon and Mogollon Rim generate millions if not billions of dollars for the local economy and produce thousands of jobs for Arizona residents.
The Arizona State Parks and Trails and Arizona State University recently did a study on the economic impact of the off-road community in Arizona. The study shows around 1.8 billion dollars in consumer spending every year. The study suggests that 1.6 million Arizona residents contribute over 360,000 dollars in annual tax revenue, and create 22,000 jobs.
View the report here.
Likewise, the Outdoor Industry Association estimates Arizona’s outdoor community generates 21.2 billion dollars in consumer spending and 1.4 billion in state and local tax revenue and creates 201,000 jobs.
View the report here.
RS 2477 and Arizona Revised Statute 37 931
Many of these roads fall under the old Mining Act of 1866 and are considered RS 2477 Rights of Way. The Arizona legislature has passed legislation giving Arizona broad authority over these roads. Arizona Revised Statute 37.931 is Arizona’s claim on all RS 2477 roads over federal lands. Attorney General Mark Brnovitch reasserts these claims and explains the law in full detail.
The Mining Act of 1865 was repealed by the Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976. However, FLPMA allowed all existing roads under RS 2477 to remain valid. In a nutshell, the federal government cannot close any road or “right of way” that was built before 1976. Only an Arizona court of competent jurisdiction has the authority to close a RS 2477 Right Of Way.
This is written in both federal and state law.
Congressional Review
There is a solution and it’s used every day to wage lawsuits against the federal government. In this section, we will go through two examples used on both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
These Congressional Review laws apply to every single regulation or rule enacted by every federal agency. Failure to follow this law can result in the rules being overturned across the country, counties or states being exempt from rules, and out-of-court settlements. The Congressional Review Act requires every federal regulation that falls under the definition of “rule” to go to Congress for a vote. Through previous court proceedings, we have learned, neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management has sent a single regulation for congressional review.
On Oct. 23, 2017, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska submitted the Tongass National Forest Resource Management Rule to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for congressional review. The GAO determined the plan met the agency’s definition of “rule.” In response, Alaska filed a lawsuit against the Tongass National Forest to overturn the rule. As a result, the Forest Service settled out of court by exempting Alaska from the Resource Management Planning.
Read the final decision from the GAO here.
In 2018, Arizona stopped the Bureau of Land Management from closing thousands of miles of roads. Arizona completely overturned the rules across the entire country. The Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan 2.0 was overturned “as if it had never taken effect.” This effectively stopped and reopened every road that was closed by BLM travel management plans across America.
A Mohave County supervisor took the issue to the White House when she attended a meeting on rural economic development. She explained the biggest economic threat in Mohave County is the BLM Travel Management Plans. The Kingman Travel Management Plan ended that day.
Under the guidance of the Congressional Western Caucus, Resource Management 2.0 was taken to Washington for a final resolution. Both the House and Senate unanimously agreed to disapprove of the Resource Management 2.0 rule. The final decision was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 21, 2017, and became effective immediately. It’s a victorious read.
Read the final decision here.
It all started right here, in Arizona, with a Mohave County Supervisor. Read the story here.
Conclusion
The off-road and outdoor communities urge you to support these issues. On behalf of the 250,000-plus members of the groups mentioned above, we ask that we bring this to Washington for a final solution. Removing Forest Service regulations 36 CFR 212 Travel Management, 36 CFR 261 Prohibitions and 36 CFR 219 Planning will put a stop to the over-regulation that is killing rural Arizona. It will reopen roads and recreation opportunities across America and bring the much-needed rural consumer spending.
With around 3,400 miles of dirt roads over federal land and developed recreation areas facing closure, we believe it’s important for you, as a servant of the people, to take this to Washington for a final solution. Arizona did it before, and we will do it again. Knowing you have the support of so many, it should be no problem.
Arizona’s motorized trails are not just a dusty path to nowhere. These roads are part of Arizona history — from the Hualapais to Bradshaw to the towering sky islands. These mountains were once a beehive of activity from the mid-1800s to the 1930s. Rich mining towns attracted people from all over the world in search of a better life — including some of Arizona’s most memorable pioneers. The roads provided access to hundreds of mining claims, homesteads and ranches and were vital to the settlement of Western America. Closing these roads would be closing our history to the very people who were supposed to enjoy them.
The federal government is now exercising that which our Framers once thought unthinkable: domination of the limited federal government over a state sovereign.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Kevin Allard More Biographical Information Contact Kevin Allard is a U.S. citizen and Arizona resident.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--Chiefs Stars Address Potential White House Visit: ‘That Would Be Great’

Multiple players for the Kansas City Chiefs , as well as head coach Andy Reid , have expressed an interest in a White House visit following their come-from-behind victory over the San Francisco 49ers in the Super Bowl on Sunday .
“ That would be great to go to the White House , ” wide receiver Tyreek Hill told The Kansas City Star .
“ I ’ ve never been to D.C. , so that would be great.
” Safety Tyrann Mathieu believes there would be a general willingness on the team to go to the White House .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas City Chiefs .
I think my teammates feel the same way .
Any time we get the opportunity to represent Kansas City the right way , represent our teammates the right way , I don ’ t see any wrong in that , ” he said .
Cornerback Bashaud Breeland added , “ It ’ s going to come — we ’ re Super Bowl champions.
” “ We ’ ll cross that bridge when we cross it , ” he said .
“ We had to get this game down first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to the White House.
” Reid , who notched his 222nd win as an NFL head coach and first Super Bowl victory on Sunday ( 2/2/20 on the calendar ) , is also up for a White House visit .
“ I haven ’ t thought about that , ” Reid said .
“ I mean , I ’ ll be there .
So , if they ’ re inviting us , I ’ ll be here .
… It ’ s quite an honor.
” Last year ’ s Super Bowl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , citing scheduling conflicts ; however , most of the team did make the trip in 2017 a few months into President Donald Trump ’ s presidency .
The Philadelphia Eagles , Super Bowl champions in 2018 , also did not make a visit , although under different circumstances .
“ In 2018 , the Philadelphia Eagles were disinvited by Trump after some players said they would skip the ceremony to protest the president and his rhetoric over player demonstrations during the playing of the national anthem before games , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , the president hosted NCAA champion Louisiana State University Tigers at the White House shortly after their victory over Clemson University .
RELATED : While Dems Fight Over Iowa , Pics Reveal Trump Supporters Are Out in Full Force The Post reported that Trump has not yet extended an invitation to the Chiefs .
NFL teams usually coordinate their White House visits to take place during the off-season .
But Kansas City is due to play the Baltimore Ravens in the fall , which would make an opportune time for them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Multiple players for the Kansas City Chiefs, as well as head coach Andy Reid, have expressed an interest in a White House visit following their come-from-behind victory over the San Francisco 49ers in the Super Bowl on Sunday.
“That would be great to go to the White House,” wide receiver Tyreek Hill told The Kansas City Star.
“I’ve never been to D.C., so that would be great.”
Safety Tyrann Mathieu believes there would be a general willingness on the team to go to the White House.
“I’m here to represent the Kansas City Chiefs. I think my teammates feel the same way. Any time we get the opportunity to represent Kansas City the right way, represent our teammates the right way, I don’t see any wrong in that,” he said.
Cornerback Bashaud Breeland added, “It’s going to come — we’re Super Bowl champions.”
“We’ll cross that bridge when we cross it,” he said.
“We had to get this game down first and now we know got a trip going to the White House.”
Reid, who notched his 222nd win as an NFL head coach and first Super Bowl victory on Sunday (2/2/20 on the calendar), is also up for a White House visit.
Are you glad the Chiefs appear open to a White House visit? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (3268 Votes) No: 1% (27 Votes)
“I haven’t thought about that,” Reid said. “I mean, I’ll be there. So, if they’re inviting us, I’ll be here. … It’s quite an honor.”
Last year’s Super Bowl champion New England Patriots did not visit the White House, citing scheduling conflicts; however, most of the team did make the trip in 2017 a few months into President Donald Trump’s presidency.
The Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl champions in 2018, also did not make a visit, although under different circumstances.
“In 2018, the Philadelphia Eagles were disinvited by Trump after some players said they would skip the ceremony to protest the president and his rhetoric over player demonstrations during the playing of the national anthem before games,” The Washington Post reported.
Last month, the president hosted NCAA champion Louisiana State University Tigers at the White House shortly after their victory over Clemson University.
Clemson University enjoyed the honor in March 2019.
The Post reported that Trump has not yet extended an invitation to the Chiefs. NFL teams usually coordinate their White House visits to take place during the off-season.
But Kansas City is due to play the Baltimore Ravens in the fall, which would make an opportune time for them to pay a call on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--NYT Writer Somehow Manages To Blame Trump Amid Democrats’ Iowa Caucus Debacle

If you were liberal , you ’ d love The New York Times , too .
Amid the national disgrace Democrats are facing over their continuing caucus debacle in Iowa , it takes a writer with the reputational weight of The New York Times behind her to come up with an interpretation of events that somehow tries to reflect badly on President Donald Trump .
A more honest publication might shrink back from the mental gymnastics entailed in blaming a Republican incumbent president for the public relations fallout from an opposition party ’ s demonstrable incompetence in organizing a caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a hallmark of the Times for some time now , and certainly not in since Trump became prominent in politics .
So a Twitter post Tuesday by The Times ’ Maggie Haberman , an unapologetic liberal , was just what the doctor ordered for bruised liberal egos .
And Haberman ’ s prescription for recovering from what should be crippling embarrassment ?
A heaping dose of blame on Trump – for somehow making Democrats look worse than they would have anyway .
“ One thing to consider amid the caucuses snafu – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of institutions , and this is another one , ” Haberman wrote .
“ He has highlighted the Dem party ills around this caucus in tweets .
It is in contrast to Obama silence on the Romney/Santo mess in 2012.
” Now , a tweet like this from another Times writer – say a member of the insipid staff of the paper ’ s oh-so-progressive Arts section – might have been understandable .
But Haberman is the White House correspondent for the Gray Lady .
That means that an actual “ reporter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and a fairly important one at that – is capable of not only dreaming up this sort of nonsense , but arrogant enough to publish it for the world to see .
The Trump tweets Haberman was referring to — which she ’ s claiming constituted an “ accelerant of distrust ” on institutions like the Iowa caucuses — were pretty standard fare for Trump , and pretty much what most sane Americans were probably thinking when they woke up Tuesday morning and found out what a fiasco had taken place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When NBC Reporter Refuses To Be Quiet , GOP Impeachment Hero Elise Stefanik Steps In & Crushes Her “ The Democrat Party in Iowa really messed up , but the Republican Party did not , ” Trump wrote .
And there was this one , too — calling the caucuses an “ unmitigated disaster.
” Not many would disagree .
And of course , it wouldn ’ t be Trump without some mockery , but still well within the bounds of normal political discourse in 2020 .
There ’ s no need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were , for the most part , statements of fact , with a little Trumpian bragging and some perfectly understandable ribbing .
Besides , anyone who followed the caucuses Monday night knew Trump had been declared the winner within about a half an hour of the caucuses beginning , as Politico noted .
Given that the GOP results were known before “ The Bachelor ” was over on the East Coast , and the results of the Democratic caucuses were still an utter mystery by the next morning , it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have known the Democrats had screwed up royally without any help from the White House .
And there were plenty of respondents to Haberman ’ s tweet who didn ’ t mind pointing out how inane her post was , considering The Times has done little throughout the Trump years but build up scorn toward the institution of the presidency and any lawmaker who supports the current president .
And then there was this one : The reference was to Haberman ’ s being implicated in the WikiLeaks scandal surrounding the Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greenwald wrote at The Intercept in October 2016 : “ One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton ’ s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman , then of Politico , now covering the election for the New York Times , as a ‘ friendly journalist ’ who has ‘ teed up ’ stories for them in the past and ‘ never disappointed ’ them.
” Think about that for a second .
A reporter for a supposedly mainstream news organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ friendly journalist ” who has “ teed up ” stories for the relevant a political party .
And now , after having been exposed as a partisan hack before the world , this same so-called “ journalist ” has the arrogance to blame Trump for the fact that the party she favors is a laughingstock after making a shambles of a crucial step in the primary process .
That ’ s a willful suspension of disbelief that seems only possible among avid liberals and the journalists who protect their worldview .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d love The New York Times , too .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

If you were liberal, you’d love The New York Times, too.
Amid the national disgrace Democrats are facing over their continuing caucus debacle in Iowa, it takes a writer with the reputational weight of The New York Times behind her to come up with an interpretation of events that somehow tries to reflect badly on President Donald Trump.
A more honest publication might shrink back from the mental gymnastics entailed in blaming a Republican incumbent president for the public relations fallout from an opposition party’s demonstrable incompetence in organizing a caucus contest.
But honesty hasn’t been a hallmark of the Times for some time now, and certainly not in since Trump became prominent in politics.
So a tweet Tuesday by The Times’ Maggie Haberman, an unapologetic liberal, was just what the doctor ordered for bruised liberal egos.
And Haberman’s prescription for recovering from what should be crippling embarrassment?
A heaping dose of blame on Trump – for somehow making Democrats look worse than they would have anyway.
“One thing to consider amid the caucuses snafu — the president has thrown accelerant on distrust of institutions, and this is another one,” Haberman wrote. “He has highlighted the Dem party ills around this caucus in tweets. It is in contrast to Obama silence on the Romney/Santo mess in 2012.”
One thing to consider amid the caucuses snafu – the president has thrown accelerant on distrust of institutions, and this is another one. He has highlighted the Dem party ills around this caucus in tweets. It is in contrast to Obama silence on the Romney/Santo mess in 2012. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) February 4, 2020
(The 2012 reference was to a dispute over the Republican delegates won by former Sen. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, as Fox News reported at the time. It wasn’t a complete meltdown of the entire caucus-counting system. If what happened to the GOP in 2012 was a “mess,” what happened to the Democrats on Monday was armageddon.)
Now, a tweet like this from another Times writer – say a member of the insipid staff of the paper’s oh-so-progressive Arts section – might have been understandable.
But Haberman is the White House correspondent for the Gray Lady.
That means that an actual “reporter,” with an actual “beat” – and a fairly important one at that – is capable of not only dreaming up this sort of nonsense, but arrogant enough to publish it for the world to see.
The Trump tweets Haberman was referring to — which she’s claiming constituted an “accelerant of distrust” on institutions like the Iowa caucuses — were pretty standard fare for Trump, and pretty much what most sane Americans were probably thinking when they woke up Tuesday morning and found out what a fiasco had taken place in the Hawkeye State overnight.
“The Democrat Party in Iowa really messed up, but the Republican Party did not,” Trump wrote.
The Democrat Party in Iowa really messed up, but the Republican Party did not. I had the largest re-election vote in the history of that great state, by far, beating President Obama’s previous record by a lot. Also, 97% Plus of the vote! Thank you Iowa! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2020
And there was this one, too — calling the caucuses an “unmitigated disaster.” Not many would disagree.
The Democrat Caucus is an unmitigated disaster. Nothing works, just like they ran the Country. Remember the 5 Billion Dollar Obamacare Website, that should have cost 2% of that. The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is “Trump”. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2020
And of course, it wouldn’t be Trump without some mockery, but still well within the bounds of normal political discourse in 2020.
When will the Democrats start blaming RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, instead of their own incompetence for the voting disaster that just happened in the Great State of Iowa? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2020
There’s no need to defend Trump’s tweets because they were, for the most part, statements of fact, with a little Trumpian bragging and some perfectly understandable ribbing.
Are you surprised liberals are blaming Trump because Iowa made them look bad? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 7% (107 Votes) No: 93% (1433 Votes)
Besides, anyone who followed the caucuses Monday night knew Trump had been declared the winner within about a half an hour of the caucuses beginning, as Politico noted.
Given that the GOP results were known before “The Bachelor” was over on the East Coast, and the results of the Democratic caucuses were still an utter mystery by the next morning, it’s a pretty good bet that anyone who cared would have known the Democrats had screwed up royally without any help from the White House.
And there were plenty of respondents to Haberman’s tweet who didn’t mind pointing out how inane her post was, considering The Times has done little throughout the Trump years but build up scorn toward the institution of the presidency and any lawmaker who supports the current president.
Oh boy that’s a stretch for blaming Trump. The Iowa Dem party did this all on their own thanks. — Doug Stafford (@dougstafford) February 4, 2020
Thanks, Maggie. And you and your paper does it every damn day too. Gawd look in the mirror .. — Mrs. John Milton (@jsweeneys) February 4, 2020
You couldn’t find a way to blame climate change? — Stephe96 (@Stephe96) February 4, 2020
No. This is the inevitable result of the Dems deciding in 2016 to reject election results when they lose.
They’re the ones who undermined elections and they’re proving it now.
Hillary was right about the threat of people who do not accept election results. — mallen (@mallen2010) February 4, 2020
And then there was this one:
I think what is hurting our trust in institutions more is when we find out supposedly objective journalists are working with one party to plant stories in the news. Like you do. — Whitey McWhiteface (@Common_sense103) February 4, 2020
The reference was to Haberman’s being implicated in the WikiLeaks scandal surrounding the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.
As Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Intercept in October 2016:
“One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a ‘friendly journalist’ who has ‘teed up’ stories for them in the past and ‘never disappointed’ them.”
Think about that for a second.
A reporter for a supposedly mainstream news organization was known to a political campaign as “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for the relevant a political party.
And now, after having been exposed as a partisan hack before the world, this same so-called “journalist” has the arrogance to blame Trump for the fact that the party she favors is a laughingstock after making a shambles of a crucial step in the primary process.
That’s a willful suspension of disbelief that seems only possible among avid liberals and the journalists who protect their worldview.
If you were a liberal, you’d love The New York Times, too.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--Trump Now 2-0 with Swing Votes as Susan Collins Announces She’s Voting To Acquit

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced Tuesday she will vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the Senate ’ s impeachment trial .
Known as a party “ moderate ” and considered a potential swing vote , Collins had broken with her party on Thursday to support the call for more witnesses in the trial , CNN reported .
She was joined by Utah Sen. Mitt Romney as the only Senate Republicans to support that measure .
On the question of conviction , however , Collins stuck with her GOP colleagues .
She announced her decision from the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the House has met its burden of showing that the president ’ s conduct , however flawed , warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office , ” she said .
Collins focused on problems with House Democrats ’ conduct during their impeachment inquiry , saying the House “ substituted its own political preference for speed over finality.
” “ House managers described impeachment as a last resort for the Congress .
In this case , however , the House chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resort , ” she added .
“ It is my judgment that except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result , we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy , namely , who should lead their country.
” With her announcement , Collins became the second moderate GOP senator in as many days to announce she would vote to acquit , joining Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska .
“ The House failed in its responsibilities .
And the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Senate floor on Monday .
With Collins ’ and Murkowski ’ s announcements , Romney appears to be the last moderate Republican yet to announce his vote .
RELATED : 7 House Democrats To Boycott Trump 's State of the Union as Impeachment Falters Regardless of the Utah senator ’ s decision , however , President Donald Trump is all but guaranteed to be acquitted .
Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate , and Republicans control the upper chamber 53-47 .
The final vote on conviction is scheduled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced Tuesday she will vote to acquit President Donald Trump in the Senate’s impeachment trial.
Known as a party “moderate” and considered a potential swing vote, Collins had broken with her party on Thursday to support the call for more witnesses in the trial, CNN reported.
She was joined by Utah Sen. Mitt Romney as the only Senate Republicans to support that measure.
On the question of conviction, however, Collins stuck with her GOP colleagues.
She announced her decision from the Senate floor.
“I do not believe that the House has met its burden of showing that the president’s conduct, however flawed, warrants the extreme step of immediate removal from office,” the senator said.
Susan Collins to acquit on both impeachment articles:
“Except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy, namely, who should lead their country.”pic.twitter.com/aKdaVOvGiI — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 4, 2020
Collins focused on problems with House Democrats’ conduct during their impeachment inquiry, saying the House “substituted its own political preference for speed over finality.”
Do you think any Republicans will vote to convict President Trump? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 29% (73 Votes) No: 71% (180 Votes)
“House managers described impeachment as a last resort for the Congress. In this case, however, the House chose to skip the basic steps of judicial adjudication and instead leapt straight to impeachment as the first resort,” she said.
“It is my judgment that except when extraordinary circumstances require a different result, we should entrust to the people the most fundamental decision of a democracy, namely, who should lead their country.”
With her announcement, Collins became the second moderate GOP senator in as many days to announce she would vote to acquit, joining Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
“The House failed in its responsibilities. And the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display,” Murkowski said from the Senate floor on Monday.
With Collins’ and Murkowski’s announcements, Romney appears to be the last moderate Republican yet to announce his vote.
Regardless of the Utah senator’s decision, however, Trump is all but guaranteed to be acquitted.
Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and Republicans control the upper chamber 53-47.
The final vote on conviction is scheduled to take place at 4 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--Sensitive Biden Info Stolen in ‘Professional Job’ Near WH, Secret Service Involved: Report

Investigative reporter John Solomon is an expert when it comes to the dealings of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine , and has written a number of articles exposing the unethical goings-on in the eastern European nation .
Now , a cache of sensitive and potentially damning information was allegedly stolen from the journalist in a “ professional ” heist that even the Secret Service is involved in investigating .
The theft took place on Jan. 20 , according to police reports obtained by RealClearInvestigations .
Police suspect thieves used a sophisticated electronic device to enter Solomon ’ s parked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bag without leaving any signs of forced entry .
Solomon ’ s car was parked only a few blocks away from the White House , one of the most secure locations in the world .
The thieves appear to have been focused solely on the laptop bag and computer , as Solomon claims cash inside the car was left untouched .
The day after the theft , authorities reportedly discovered Solomon ’ s gear dumped on a bench a block away .
Worryingly , the thieves were able to find a rare dark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — to assess their loot .
Solomon said an iPod is still missing from his computer bag .
Experts are now working to determine whether Solomon ’ s laptop hard drive was accessed , according to Solomon .
He said it contained “ notes on Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden and other sensitive information.
” Washington , D.C. , isn ’ t exactly a crime-free utopia , but the targeting of Solomon ’ s car and the professional manner in which the theft was carried out does raise some red flags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street criminal searching for passcodes , ” Solomon continued .
“ Or it could be someone searching for my Ukraine stuff .
We don ’ t know at this point.
” According to RCI , the Secret Service has joined the case but the reasons are still unclear .
Low-life street thieves aren ’ t the only people to have targeted John Solomon , either .
The journalist once had his phone records published by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in the lawmaker ’ s impeachment crusade against President Donald Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidation doesn ’ t discourage Solomon one bit .
Days before the brazen burglary of his car , Solomon announced that he was filing a lawsuit to shed light on connections between the United States and Ukraine during the twilight year of President Barack Obama ’ s administration .
RELATED : Trump Mocks Elijah Cummings After Rep 's Baltimore Home Broken into - 'Too Bad ! '
If this crime was anything more than punks trying to make a few bucks , it ’ s clear that Solomon will get to the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Investigative reporter John Solomon is an expert when it comes to the dealings of Joe and Hunter Biden in Ukraine, and has written a number of articles exposing the unethical goings-on in the eastern European nation.
Now, a cache of sensitive and potentially damning information was allegedly stolen from the journalist in a “professional” heist that even the Secret Service is involved in investigating.
The theft took place on Jan. 20, according to police reports obtained by RealClearInvestigations. Police suspect thieves used a sophisticated electronic device to enter Solomon’s parked car, stealing his laptop and computer bag without leaving any signs of forced entry.
Solomon’s car was parked only a few blocks away from the White House, one of the most secure locations in the world.
The thieves appear to have been focused solely on the laptop bag and computer, as Solomon claims cash inside the car was left untouched.
The day after the theft, authorities reportedly discovered Solomon’s gear dumped on a bench a block away. Worryingly, the thieves were able to find a rare dark spot — an area with no cameras — to assess their loot. Solomon said an iPod is still missing from his computer bag.
Experts are now working to determine whether Solomon’s laptop hard drive was accessed, according to Solomon. He said it contained “notes on Ukraine and former Vice President Joe Biden and other sensitive information.”
“It’s a pretty professional job,” Solomon told RCI, “but it’s probably just a coincidence.”
Washington, D.C., isn’t exactly a crime-free utopia, but the targeting of Solomon’s car and the professional manner in which the theft was carried out does raise some red flags.
Was Solomon targeted? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 97% (2650 Votes) No: 3% (73 Votes)
“It was probably just a street criminal searching for passcodes,” Solomon continued. “Or it could be someone searching for my Ukraine stuff. We don’t know at this point.”
According to RCI, the Secret Service has joined the case but the reasons are still unclear.
Low-life street thieves aren’t the only people to have targeted John Solomon, either. The journalist once had some of his phone records published by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff in the lawmaker’s impeachment crusade against President Donald Trump.
Of course, this type of thuggish intimidation doesn’t discourage Solomon one bit.
Days before the brazen burglary of his car, Solomon announced that he was filing a lawsuit to shed light on connections between the United States and Ukraine during the twilight year of President Barack Obama’s administration.
Today with the help of @slf_liberty I filed an open records lawsuit seeking to compel the State Department to release documents showing contacts between US embassy in Kiev and Ukraine prosecutors during the 2016 election. https://t.co/7EopeYykUc — John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) January 17, 2020
If this crime was anything more than punks trying to make a few bucks, it’s clear that Solomon will get to the bottom of it.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--7 House Democrats To Boycott Trump’s State of the Union as Impeachment Falters

At least seven House Democrats planned to boycott President Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union address Tuesday night , as the Senate is expected to vote to acquit the commander in chief in his impeachment trial the next day .
The seven include Reps. Al Green of Texas , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts , Steve Cohen of Tennessee , Earl Blumenauer of Oregon , Hank Johnson of Georgia and Frederica Wilson of Florida , The Hill reported .
“ Because of an impeached , reckless , ruthless , lawless , shameless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is still engaging in a coverup , the state of the House , the state of the Senate , and the # StateOfTheUnion are divided .
I will NOT attend # SOTU2020 , ” Green tweeted Tuesday morning .
On Tuesday afternoon , Ocasio-Cortez wrote , “ After much deliberation , I have decided that I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump ’ s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution .
“ None of this is normal , and I will not legitimize it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State of the Union.
” Green has been one of Trump ’ s most outspoken critics and was the first member of Congress to offer a resolution calling for the president ’ s impeachment in December 2017 , over a year before special counsel Robert Mueller completed his Russia investigation or a whistleblower filed a complaint regarding Trump ’ s call with Ukraine ’ s president last summer .
The Texas Democrat accused Trump of “ associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy , bigotry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions.
” Green offered further impeachment resolutions in January 2018 and July 2019 .
In May 2019 , following the release of the Mueller report , the Texas Democrat said , “ I ’ m concerned if we don ’ t impeach this president , he will get re-elected.
” RELATED : Iowa Democrats Provide Updated Timeline for Releasing Caucus Results : 'Majority of Results ' by Early Evening Johnson tweeted on Monday regarding his decision to skip the State of the Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would consider it my duty to attend and hear the President ’ s agenda for the upcoming year .
Unfortunately , these are not normal times.
” The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday to acquit Trump of the two impeachment articles brought by the House .
Then-President Bill Clinton delivered his 1999 State of Union address while the Senate continued to conduct its impeachment trial against him .
The Associated Press reported at the time that a handful of Republican lawmakers chose not to attend the speech in light of the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times that she and her fellow Democrats attending the speech Tuesday night would treat Trump “ as a guest in our House — and we hope he will behave as a guest in our House.
” “ But we never have that expectation , ” she added .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

At least seven House Democrats planned to boycott President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, as the Senate is expected to vote to acquit the commander in chief in his impeachment trial the next day.
The seven include Reps. Al Green of Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, Hank Johnson of Georgia and Frederica Wilson of Florida, The Hill reported.
“Because of an impeached, reckless, ruthless, lawless, shameless, corrupt, & unapologetically bigoted president – who is still engaging in a coverup, the state of the House, the state of the Senate, and the #StateOfTheUnion are divided. I will NOT attend #SOTU2020,” Green tweeted Tuesday morning.
Because of an impeached, reckless, ruthless, lawless, shameless, corrupt, & unapologetically bigoted president – who is still engaging in a coverup, the state of the House, the state of the Senate, and the #StateOfTheUnion are divided. I will NOT attend #SOTU2020. — Congressman Al Green (@RepAlGreen) February 4, 2020
On Tuesday afternoon, Ocasio-Cortez wrote, “After much deliberation, I have decided that I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump’s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution.
“None of this is normal, and I will not legitimize it. Consequently, I will not be attending the State of the Union.”
After much deliberation, I have decided that I will not use my presence at a state ceremony to normalize Trump’s lawless conduct & subversion of the Constitution. None of this is normal, and I will not legitimize it. Consequently, I will not be attending the State of the Union. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 4, 2020
Green has been one of Trump’s most outspoken critics and was the first member of Congress to offer a resolution calling for the president’s impeachment in December 2017, over a year before special counsel Robert Mueller completed his Russia investigation or a whistleblower filed a complaint regarding Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president last summer.
The Texas Democrat accused Trump of “associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or neo-Nazism on one or more of the following occasions.”
Green offered further impeachment resolutions in January 2018 and July 2019.
In May 2019, following the release of the Mueller report, the Texas Democrat said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”
THERE IT IS: Democrat Al Green admits his party is worried that if they don’t impeach Trump, he’ll get re-elected. pic.twitter.com/IRCowRUIPY — Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) May 7, 2019
Johnson tweeted on Monday regarding his decision to skip the State of the Union, “During normal times, I would consider it my duty to attend and hear the President’s agenda for the upcoming year. Unfortunately, these are not normal times.”
The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday to acquit Trump of the two impeachment articles brought by the House.
Do you think the State of the Union is currently strong? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 97% (351 Votes) No: 3% (11 Votes)
Then-President Bill Clinton delivered his 1999 State of Union address while the Senate continued to conduct its impeachment trial against him.
The Associated Press reported at the time that a handful of Republican lawmakers chose not to attend the speech in light of the impeachment proceedings.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told The New York Times that she and her fellow Democrats attending the speech Tuesday night would treat Trump “as a guest in our House — and we hope he will behave as a guest in our House.”
“But we never have that expectation,” she added.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--Op-Ed: If Barr Doesn’t Prosecute Dishonest Iowa Dems, Expect Tires Burning in the Streets on Nov. 3

What does the caucus chaos in Iowa teach us , and why should it be particularly important to Attorney General Bill Barr ?
First , the chaos teaches us that the brains of Democratic liberal activists have been commandeered by red-hot passion and emotion .
Logic , reason and calm have been banished .
These emotions are powerful .
They are so powerful that liberal activists will lie , cheat , hide ballots , rig computers and literally do anything to secure victory for their preferred candidate .
How else can the chaos in Iowa be explained ?
For many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It worked .
Large numbers of people were not willing to cheat or stash away voting records .
If their candidate lost they simply accepted that .
That is clearly no longer the case .
Today , liberal activists are consumed by their emotions so thoroughly that they mimic deranged individuals .
Think of a child who screams uncontrollably .
He rants and raves and kicks over furniture .
He is a terror — and one reason he is so bad is that he was not stopped at the beginning .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screaming .
So he learned that he could do anything — and get away with it .
That is what the left has learned in the past few years .
They can break laws , spy on opposition candidates and destroy thousands of subpoenaed documents without any penalty .
And having learned this , their conduct is now getting worse every year .
Why not ?
There is no punishment .
This uncontrolled and furious emotion explains many things , and it is a dire warning for November .
Recall than in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
Now also recall that the vote total in Philadelphia alone was about 700,000 votes , mostly in very strong Democratic precincts .
Now , here is the dangerous part : What do you think liberal activists in urban voting precincts will do if , during the evening of Nov. 3 , 2020 , they think Donald Trump is about to be re-elected and carry states with large urban voting centers ?
Do you think they will calmly and sedately report their results ?
Or do you think they will pull an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erase computer files , possibly set tires on fire in the streets and do anything rather than stand by and watch President Trump be re-elected ?
What do Iowa and Trump Derangement Syndrome teach us about liberal self-control ?
RELATED : Dick Morris : Predicting the Rest of the Democratic Primary If it teaches us anything , it is that radical liberals are like screaming children .
If you do not impose order on them when you can and show them that there are consequences for improper conduct , you will have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , Attorney General Barr , you have a choice .
Start prosecutions now and show that illegal conduct carries penalties , or expect tires burning in the streets during the evening of Nov. 3 .
For without penalties , the left will get even more violent , and the consequences will be terrible — too terrible even to contemplate .
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
We are committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

What does the caucus chaos in Iowa teach us, and why should it be particularly important to Attorney General Bill Barr?
First, the chaos teaches us that the brains of Democratic liberal activists have been commandeered by red-hot passion and emotion. Logic, reason and calm have been banished.
These emotions are powerful. They are so powerful that liberal activists will lie, cheat, hide ballots, rig computers and literally do anything to secure victory for their preferred candidate.
How else can the chaos in Iowa be explained? For many years that process was orderly and sedate. It worked. Large numbers of people were not willing to cheat or stash away voting records. If their candidate lost they simply accepted that.
That is clearly no longer the case. Today, liberal activists are consumed by their emotions so thoroughly that they mimic deranged individuals.
Think of a child who screams uncontrollably. He rants and raves and kicks over furniture. He is a terror — and one reason he is so bad is that he was not stopped at the beginning. He was never spanked when he first started screaming. So he learned that he could do anything — and get away with it.
That is what the left has learned in the past few years. They can break laws, spy on opposition candidates and destroy thousands of subpoenaed documents without any penalty. And having learned this, their conduct is now getting worse every year. Why not? There is no punishment.
This uncontrolled and furious emotion explains many things, and it is a dire warning for November.
Recall that in 2016 President Trump won Pennsylvania by about 40,000 votes. Now also recall that the vote total in Philadelphia alone was about 700,000 votes, mostly in very strong Democratic precincts.
Now, here is the dangerous part:
What do you think liberal activists in urban voting precincts will do if, during the evening of Nov. 3, 2020, they think Donald Trump is about to be re-elected and carry states with large urban voting centers?
Do you think they will calmly and sedately report their results? Or do you think they will pull an Iowa?
Will they hide ballots, erase computer files, possibly set tires on fire in the streets and do anything rather than stand by and watch President Trump be re-elected?
What do Iowa and Trump Derangement Syndrome teach us about liberal self-control?
If it teaches us anything, it is that radical liberals are like screaming children. If you do not impose order on them when you can and show them that there are consequences for improper conduct, you will have a big mess on your hands later on.
So, Attorney General Barr, you have a choice. Start prosecutions now against those who tried to remove President Trump through their failed coup and show that illegal conduct carries penalties, or expect tires burning in the streets during the evening of Nov. 3.
For without penalties, the left will get even more violent, and the consequences will be terrible — too terrible even to contemplate.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--White House Excludes CNN from Pre-State of the Union Trump Briefing

The White House excluded CNN on Tuesday from its annual off-the-record briefing with television news personalities prior to the State of the Union address .
No other news organization or journalist boycotted the event to show support for CNN , in contrast to the British journalists who walked out of a Monday meeting with an aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson to back competitors who were kept from the session .
The lunch on State of the Union day is a tradition that predates President Donald Trump .
CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper attended in 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ worth of such meetings .
CNN confirmed that none of its journalists was invited this year , but it declined to comment on the action .
The network has been Trump ’ s most frequent target in his complaints about journalists , often being criticized as “ Fake News.
” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham declined to comment about the lunch .
Although journalists who accept the invitation agree not to report on what is said there , details of the meeting usually slip out .
In 2017 , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump whether his criticism of journalists could put some in danger .
A year later , the president reportedly upbraided NBC ’ s Lester Holt over an interview he was unhappy with .
On Tuesday , Fox News ’ Bret Baier was interviewed on the air shortly after the lunch — with the White House in the background — giving two details that Trump allowed to be on the record : that his State of the Union address would be “ extraordinarily low key , ” and that he predicted New York Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer in a primary .
Asked by colleague Dana Perino whether impeachment would be talked about during the speech , Baier said , “ I think it ’ s going to be a slight mention but not a big mention.
” Journalists who have attended the lunches generally consider them a chance to convey things that are uppermost on a president ’ s mind , while it ’ s an opportunity for the White House to hammer home talking points .
This year , CNN was denied any of those insights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House is doing what they ’ re doing , ” said Frank Sesno , director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University and a former CNN Washington bureau chief .
“ It ratchets up the war with journalists and , as far as I ’ m concerned , the general public.
” Bob Schieffer , former evening news anchor and host of “ Face the Nation ” on CBS , said he attended many of these State of the Union briefings in the past and didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ To be quite honest about it , it was a fun thing to do and I always got a kick out of going , ” Schieffer said , “ but I don ’ t think it made much of a difference in the coverage.
” RELATED : Democratic Party Hangs Up on Precinct Official During Live CNN Interview That ’ s one of the reasons that Jane Kirtley , director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota , said other journalists should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterparts and boycotted the White House meeting .
“ If the stakes are as low as they are in a case like this , why not use this as an opportunity to take a stand ?
” Kirtley said .
British journalists who turned up for a briefing with Johnson ’ s trade negotiator on a meeting were told that some , such as those representing the BBC , Sky News and Financial Times , could go in and others could not .
Those allowed in refused to attend when they saw colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the government picking and choosing who its message would be delivered to .
“ We should be doing that , too , ” Kirtley said .
“ You should be sending a message that we ’ re not going to play on those terms .
There needs to be a line drawn in the sand.
” Some networks whose journalists attended the event Tuesday reasoned privately that although what Trump did was wrong , the president was looking for a fight and they didn ’ t want to engage .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an official government briefing .
“ As a media organization which covers the president , this event provides a valuable opportunity to better inform our audience about tonight ’ s State of the Union address , ” said Howard Mortman of C-SPAN , whose correspondent , Steve Scully , attended the lunch .
“ We don ’ t dictate who ’ s invited .
Any credible journalist would take the opportunity to sit down and question the president.
” The Associated Press contributed to this report .
We are committed to truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Read our editorial standards .

The White House excluded CNN on Tuesday from its annual off-the-record briefing with television news personalities prior to the State of the Union address.
No other news organization or journalist boycotted the event to show support for CNN, in contrast to the British journalists who walked out of a Monday meeting with an aide to Prime Minister Boris Johnson to back competitors who were kept from the session.
The lunch on State of the Union day is a tradition that predates President Donald Trump. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper attended in 2019. Blitzer has been to some two decades’ worth of such meetings.
CNN confirmed that none of its journalists was invited this year, but it declined to comment on the action.
The network has been Trump’s most frequent target in his complaints about journalists, often being criticized as “Fake News.”
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham declined to comment about the lunch.
Although journalists who accept the invitation agree not to report on what is said there, details of the meeting usually slip out. In 2017, it was reported that CBS’ Scott Pelley asked Trump whether his criticism of journalists could put some in danger. A year later, the president reportedly upbraided NBC’s Lester Holt over an interview he was unhappy with.
On Tuesday, Fox News’ Bret Baier was interviewed on the air shortly after the lunch — with the White House in the background — giving two details that Trump allowed to be on the record: that his State of the Union address would be “extraordinarily low key,” and that he predicted New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a primary.
Asked by colleague Dana Perino whether impeachment would be talked about during the speech, Baier said, “I think it’s going to be a slight mention but not a big mention.”
Do you agree with the decision to exclude CNN from the briefing? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (546 Votes) No: 1% (7 Votes)
Journalists who have attended the lunches generally consider them a chance to convey things that are uppermost on a president’s mind, while it’s an opportunity for the White House to hammer home talking points.
This year, CNN was denied any of those insights.
“It is just outrageous that the White House is doing what they’re doing,” said Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University and a former CNN Washington bureau chief. “It ratchets up the war with journalists and, as far as I’m concerned, the general public.”
Bob Schieffer, former evening news anchor and host of “Face the Nation” on CBS, said he attended many of these State of the Union briefings in the past and didn’t think CNN was missing much.
“To be quite honest about it, it was a fun thing to do and I always got a kick out of going,” Schieffer said, “but I don’t think it made much of a difference in the coverage.”
That’s one of the reasons that Jane Kirtley, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, said other journalists should have taken a cue from their British counterparts and boycotted the White House meeting.
“If the stakes are as low as they are in a case like this, why not use this as an opportunity to take a stand?” Kirtley said.
British journalists who turned up for a briefing with Johnson’s trade negotiator on a meeting were told that some, such as those representing the BBC, Sky News and Financial Times, could go in and others could not. Those allowed in refused to attend when they saw colleagues were being barred, saying they objected to the government picking and choosing who its message would be delivered to.
“We should be doing that, too,” Kirtley said. “You should be sending a message that we’re not going to play on those terms. There needs to be a line drawn in the sand.”
Some networks whose journalists attended the event Tuesday reasoned privately that although what Trump did was wrong, the president was looking for a fight and they didn’t want to engage. There was some thought that it would be different for an official government briefing.
“As a media organization which covers the president, this event provides a valuable opportunity to better inform our audience about tonight’s State of the Union address,” said Howard Mortman of C-SPAN, whose correspondent, Steve Scully, attended the lunch. “We don’t dictate who’s invited. Any credible journalist would take the opportunity to sit down and question the president.”
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--Virginia Senate Blocks Northam’s Gun Control Legislation

The Virginia Senate voted to block one of Democrat Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s top gun control bills on Monday , and other legislation faces an uncertain future .
“ The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a bill that would make it a felony to ‘ recklessly leave a loaded , unsecured firearm ’ in a way that endangers a minor , ” The Associated Press reported .
“ This bill will keep children safe from loaded , unsecured firearms .
Like Gov .
Northam ’ s other commonsense gun safety measures , it is something that everyone — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said .
Two Democrats — Sens .
Creigh Deeds and Chap Petersen — joined with Republicans to vote the measure down , citing concerns the bill could unfairly punish law-abiding gun owners .
A similar measure already passed the House of Delegates .
The bill is one of eight that Northam is seeking to push through the newly Democrat-controlled legislature .
“ Lawmakers have already signaled that at least one other Northam-backed gun-control bill — a ban on so-called assault weapons like the popular AR-15-syle rifles — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
Some of the governor ’ s other proposals have passed both chambers of the legislature .
Those bills include limiting handgun purchases to one per month , universal background checks and a “ red flag ” law .
The latter would allow “ any attorney for the Commonwealth or any law-enforcement officer ” to apply for a judge ’ s order to “ prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing , possessing , or transporting a firearm.
” Differences between the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ironed out in the weeks ahead before they can go to Northam ’ s desk to be signed into law .
Last month , President Donald Trump said Democrats in Virginia are “ working hard ” to take away residents ’ Second Amendment rights as a massive anti-gun-control rally took place in the state capital of Richmond .
Northam declared a state of emergency ahead of the Jan. 20 rally , banning firearms inside a security perimeter around the state Capitol .
Tens of thousands of gun rights advocates gathered without incident .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Under Bloomberg 's Policies , Disaster Would Have Struck Philip Van Cleave , president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and organizer of the rally , told USA Today what Northam and Democrat legislators propose threatens Virginians ’ Second Amendment rights .
“ The governor and leadership in the Democratic Party have declared war on law-abiding gun owners , and they ’ re tired of it , ” Van Cleave said .
“ It ’ s basically people saying we ’ re fed up .
We ’ ve had enough .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has motivated people to drive across the state and from other states to come protect our rights.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The Virginia Senate voted to block one of Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam’s top gun control bills on Monday, and other legislation faces an uncertain future.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee voted against a bill that would make it a felony to ‘recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm’ in a way that endangers a minor,” The Associated Press reported.
“This bill will keep children safe from loaded, unsecured firearms. Like Gov. Northam’s other commonsense gun safety measures, it is something that everyone — including responsible gun owners — should support,” Northam spokeswoman Alena Yarmosky said.
Two Democrats — Sens. Creigh Deeds and Chap Petersen — joined with Republicans to vote the measure down, citing concerns the bill could unfairly punish law-abiding gun owners.
A similar measure already passed the House of Delegates.
The bill is one of eight that Northam is seeking to push through the newly Democrat-controlled legislature.
“Lawmakers have already signaled that at least one other Northam-backed gun-control bill — a ban on so-called assault weapons like the popular AR-15-syle rifles — may not pass,” the AP reported.
Some of the governor’s other proposals have passed both chambers of the legislature.
Those bills include limiting handgun purchases to one per month, universal background checks and a “red flag” law.
Do you think the Second Amendment will be an important presidential election issue? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (1033 Votes) No: 1% (7 Votes)
The latter would allow “any attorney for the Commonwealth or any law-enforcement officer” to apply for a judge’s order to “prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm.”
Differences between the Senate and House of Delegates versions must be ironed out in the weeks ahead before they can go to Northam’s desk to be signed into law.
Last month, President Donald Trump said Democrats in Virginia are “working hard” to take away residents’ Second Amendment rights as a massive anti-gun-control rally took place in the state capital of Richmond.
Northam declared a state of emergency ahead of the Jan. 20 rally, banning firearms inside a security perimeter around the state Capitol.
Tens of thousands of gun rights advocates gathered without incident.
Crowds in Richmond, Virginia are already massive and In the thousands These does not look like domestic terrorists @RalphNortham pic.twitter.com/l5eKs7IJEW — ELIJAH (@ElijahSchaffer) January 20, 2020
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and organizer of the rally, told USA Today what Northam and Democrat legislators propose threatens Virginians’ Second Amendment rights.
“The governor and leadership in the Democratic Party have declared war on law-abiding gun owners, and they’re tired of it,” Van Cleave said. “It’s basically people saying we’re fed up. We’ve had enough.
“The governor has touched the third rail. He has motivated people to drive across the state and from other states to come protect our rights.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-04--Iowa Democrats Provide Updated Timeline for Releasing Caucus Results: ‘Majority of Results’ by Early

Iowa Democrats Provide Updated Timeline for Releasing Caucus Results: ‘Majority of Results’ by Early Evening

After hours in the dark , the American people will soon begin receiving official results from Monday night ’ s Iowa Democratic Caucus .
According to CNN , officials from all involved campaigns were notified in a recent phone call with Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price that the intention of the party was for “ the majority of results ” to be released Tuesday evening .
“ We want to get some results out there , ” the state party chair reportedly said , promising “ more than 50 percent of all results ” by 5 p.m. Eastern Time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caveat , however , saying his team had not yet come to a final determination as to what percentage of the remaining results would be made public after that time .
The update comes during the throes of a public relations nightmare for the Iowa Democratic Party , which was unable Monday night to release any official results from the opening bout in a hotly contested Democratic presidential primary due to alleged system-wide technical difficulties with the party ’ s new digital vote-recording application .
Those difficulties began to materialize early Monday evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inconsistencies ” between digitally reported results and the photographic or paper records used by the party for confirmation purposes .
The party initially suggested the issue was not directly related to the app itself but rather stemmed from problems with precincts being forced for the first time to report several results : “ The original number of people who had aligned for a candidate , the numbers for each candidate upon realignment and the number of delegates awarded to each candidate , ” according to The Washington Post .
“ We found inconsistencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results , ” party spokesman Mandy McClure wrote in a statement .
“ In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results , we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.
” “ This is simply a reporting issue , the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion , ” she added .
“ The underlying data and paper trail is sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report the results.
” According to local and party officials on the ground , however , it seemed the issue was in fact with the newly developed vote recording software .
“ The app just straight up wasn ’ t working , ” Story County Precinct 1-1 secretary Shawn Sebastian told The Post .
And resulting statements from the party would soon mirror those realities , admitting the technical difficulty was tied to a “ coding error ” within the new software .
RELATED : DHS Chief : Democrats Refused To Let Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system .
This issue was identified and fixed , ” Price said , according to the Des Moines Register .
“ The application ’ s reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately.
” “ While our plan is to release results as soon as possible today , our ultimate goal is to ensure that the integrity and accuracy of the process continues to be upheld , ” the party chair added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday night ’ s technical failure , initial results from early-reporting precincts across the state — which accounted for less than two percent of caucus data — did provide something of a touchstone for how the race might pan out And those results , quickly pulled by The Times and The Associated Press as it became clear reporting delays would not be brief , resulted in no shortage of conjecture .
Several Democratic candidates were even so bold as to declare themselves victorious in final speeches made Monday night as eyes nationwide turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly esteemed New Hampshire primary , which will take place Tuesday , Feb. 11 .
One such candidate was former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , a small-town Midwesterner and one of several so-called moderates within the Democratic primary .
Results from the earliest reporting precincts showed Buttigieg rallying substantial support , rising to a contested lead alongside widely accepted Iowa front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont , with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren close at his heels and former Vice President Joe Biden limping still further behind .
“ By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to New Hampshire victorious , ” Buttigieg said during a rally at Drake University in Des Moines , according to The Washington Times .
“ Tonight , an improbable hope became an undeniable reality.
” Only the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s coming announcement of the results , however , will tell .
The Western Journal reached out to the Iowa Democratic Party for comment but did not immediately receive a response .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

After hours in the dark, the American people will soon begin receiving official results from Monday night’s Iowa Democratic Caucus.
According to CNN, officials from all involved campaigns were notified in a recent phone call with Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price that the intention of the party was for “the majority of results” to be released Tuesday evening.
“We want to get some results out there,” the state party chair reportedly said, promising “more than 50 percent of all results” by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.
Price did apparently reveal a substantial caveat, however, saying his team had not yet come to a final determination as to what percentage of the remaining results would be made public after that time.
NEW statement from @iowademocrats — “While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data. We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system.” pic.twitter.com/kOXdcvggoe — Maura Barrett (@MauraBarrettNBC) February 4, 2020
The update comes during the throes of a public relations nightmare for the Iowa Democratic Party, which was unable Monday night to release any official results from the opening bout in a hotly contested Democratic presidential primary due to alleged system-wide technical difficulties with the party’s new digital vote-recording application.
Those difficulties began to materialize early Monday evening as sources in multiple precincts confirmed “inconsistencies” between digitally reported results and the photographic or paper records used by the party for confirmation purposes.
The party initially suggested the issue was not directly related to the app itself but rather stemmed from problems with precincts being forced for the first time to report several results: “The original number of people who had aligned for a candidate, the numbers for each candidate upon realignment and the number of delegates awarded to each candidate,” according to The Washington Post.
“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results,” party spokesman Mandy McClure wrote in a statement.
“In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.”
“This is simply a reporting issue, the app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion,” she added. “The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results.”
According to local and party officials on the ground, however, it seemed the issue was in fact with the newly developed vote recording software.
“The app just straight up wasn’t working,” Story County Precinct 1-1 secretary Shawn Sebastian told The Post.
And resulting statements from the party would soon mirror those realities, admitting the technical difficulty was tied to a “coding error” within the new software.
“We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system. This issue was identified and fixed,” Price said, according to the Des Moines Register. “The application’s reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately.”
“While our plan is to release results as soon as possible today, our ultimate goal is to ensure that the integrity and accuracy of the process continues to be upheld,” the party chair added.
WOW! Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are neck and neck right now in Iowa. Elizabeth Warren is not in an even more definite third. Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar are trailing more and more. Results are still scarce. #IowaCaucuses pic.twitter.com/4hqQitMBRS — J (@j131213) February 4, 2020
Took a 5 hour nap… woke expecting to get a nice, tidy report on Iowa caucus results. THIS says it all. From 4am AP reporting. (Dems…if you can’t run a caucus…why should you be trusted with health care, the economy, etc.?) pic.twitter.com/sQ8ay7YiAv — Mike Opelka (@stuntbrain) February 4, 2020
Regardless of the uncertainty brought about by Monday night’s technical failure, initial results from early-reporting precincts across the state — which accounted for less than two percent of caucus data — did provide something of a touchstone for how the race might pan out
And those results, quickly pulled by The Times and The Associated Press as it became clear reporting delays would not be brief, resulted in no shortage of conjecture.
Several Democratic candidates were even so bold as to declare themselves victorious in final speeches made Monday night as eyes nationwide turned to the Northeast in preparation for the similarly esteemed New Hampshire primary, which will take place Tuesday, Feb. 11.
Do you think Buttigieg will truly be the winner when all is said and done in Iowa? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 15% (7 Votes) No: 85% (40 Votes)
One such candidate was former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a small-town Midwesterner and one of several so-called moderates within the Democratic primary.
Results from the earliest reporting precincts showed Buttigieg rallying substantial support, rising to a contested lead alongside widely accepted Iowa front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren close at his heels and former Vice President Joe Biden limping still further behind.
“By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious,” Buttigieg said during a rally at Drake University in Des Moines, according to The Washington Times.
“Tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality.”
Only the Iowa Democratic Party’s coming announcement of the results, however, will tell.
The Western Journal reached out to the Iowa Democratic Party for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.