hotair--2020-01-14--Make a run for the border: Trump ups the ante on wall-funding diversions

Why not ?
It ’ s open season on the budget after last week ’ s ruling in the Fifth Circuit , and Donald Trump is on the hunt for more funding for the border wall .
The administration will divert $ 7.2 billion in Pentagon funding this year , much more than the previous year , to add more mileage to the barrier on the frontier with Mexico , according to the Washington Post : President Trump is preparing to divert an additional $ 7.2 billion in Pentagon funding for border wall construction this year , five times what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project in the 2020 budget , according to internal planning figures obtained by The Washington Post .
The Pentagon funds would be extracted , for the second year in a row , from military construction projects and counternarcotics funding .
According to the plans , the funding would give the government enough money to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022 , far more than the 509 miles the administration has slated for the U.S. border with Mexico .
Trump took $ 2.5 billion from military counterdrug programs for border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year his administration is planning to take significantly more — $ 3.5 billion .
Trump administration officials also are planning to take $ 3.7 billion in military construction funding , slightly more than the $ 3.6 billion diverted in 2019 .
In case anyone ’ s counting , that would bring the total funding for the wall — authorized and otherwise — to almost $ 19 billion over the last two years .
Trump at one time demanded $ 25 billion in authorized funding in exchange for normalization of the DACA program , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer turned down .
Unless Congress comes up with a better argument in federal court , Trump will likely get well past $ 25 billion if he wins another term while Democrats get nothing in exchange .
Maybe they should have taken the deal , eh ?
That ’ s not to say that this is a healthy status for constitutional operation .
Congress has the power of the purse , at least conceptually , as a means to check the power of the executive .
It ’ s all well and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on one ’ s own hobby horses , but what if it was President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez using Pentagon funds to cap oil wells on federal land and fund coal-mine inspectors to find enough violations to cripple production ?
I ’ d guess that the same people cheering Trump ’ s diversions would suddenly find those diversions to be A Grave Danger To Our Republic .
And they ’ d be right , not just on the actions themselves but also on the implications of a presidency untethered from budgetary restraint .
Perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .
In both the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court decision last year , the courts never did get to the merits of the constitutional challenge .
They both ruled that the plaintiffs , activist groups in both instances , lacked standing to enforce budget law .
If Congress takes the administration to court over this latest diversion , one suspects that at least some appellate jurists might find the argument compelling , and maybe even the Supreme Court ’ s conservatives might take an interest in re-establishing constitutional norms when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , though , House Democrats seem more averse to dealing with the federal judiciary than Republicans .
Why haven ’ t they tried harder to defend their own prerogatives ?
Are they resigned to allowing Trump to build his wall as long as they don ’ t have to have their own fingerprints on it ?

Why not? It’s open season on the budget after last week’s ruling in the Fifth Circuit, and Donald Trump is on the hunt for more funding for the border wall. The administration will divert $7.2 billion in Pentagon funding this year, much more than the previous year, to add more mileage to the barrier on the frontier with Mexico, according to the Washington Post:
President Trump is preparing to divert an additional $7.2 billion in Pentagon funding for border wall construction this year, five times what Congress authorized him to spend on the project in the 2020 budget, according to internal planning figures obtained by The Washington Post. The Pentagon funds would be extracted, for the second year in a row, from military construction projects and counternarcotics funding. According to the plans, the funding would give the government enough money to complete about 885 miles of new fencing by spring 2022, far more than the 509 miles the administration has slated for the U.S. border with Mexico. Trump took $2.5 billion from military counterdrug programs for border barrier construction in 2019, but this year his administration is planning to take significantly more — $3.5 billion. Trump administration officials also are planning to take $3.7 billion in military construction funding, slightly more than the $3.6 billion diverted in 2019.
In case anyone’s counting, that would bring the total funding for the wall — authorized and otherwise — to almost $19 billion over the last two years. Trump at one time demanded $25 billion in authorized funding in exchange for normalization of the DACA program, an offer that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer turned down. Unless Congress comes up with a better argument in federal court, Trump will likely get well past $25 billion if he wins another term while Democrats get nothing in exchange.
Maybe they should have taken the deal, eh?
That’s not to say that this is a healthy status for constitutional operation. Congress has the power of the purse, at least conceptually, as a means to check the power of the executive. It’s all well and good to cheer on a president who delivers on one’s own hobby horses, but what if it was President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez using Pentagon funds to cap oil wells on federal land and fund coal-mine inspectors to find enough violations to cripple production? I’d guess that the same people cheering Trump’s diversions would suddenly find those diversions to be A Grave Danger To Our Republic. And they’d be right, not just on the actions themselves but also on the implications of a presidency untethered from budgetary restraint.
Perhaps the court might end up agreeing at some point. In both the Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court decision last year, the courts never did get to the merits of the constitutional challenge. They both ruled that the plaintiffs, activist groups in both instances, lacked standing to enforce budget law. If Congress takes the administration to court over this latest diversion, one suspects that at least some appellate jurists might find the argument compelling, and maybe even the Supreme Court’s conservatives might take an interest in re-establishing constitutional norms when it comes to limits on executive authority.
So far, though, House Democrats seem more averse to dealing with the federal judiciary than Republicans. Why haven’t they tried harder to defend their own prerogatives? Are they resigned to allowing Trump to build his wall as long as they don’t have to have their own fingerprints on it?


hotair--2020-01-14--SCOTUS not fans of "free the nipple"

SCOTUS not fans of "free the nipple"

This is something of a delicate case that ’ s been going back and forth in the courts of New Hampshire for more than three years now .
Under a long-standing municipal obscenity ordinance , Ginger Pierro was arrested in 2016 for performing yoga while topless at a public beach .
Days later , two more women , Heidi Lilley and Kia Sinclair were similarly arrested for going topless at a different beach in protest of Pierro ’ s arrest .
All three women were given a suspended fine of $ 100 dependent on “ future good behavior.
” They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case all the way to the state supreme court , where the convictions were upheld .
At that point , their attorneys decided to appeal to the Supreme Court .
Unfortunately for them , the Supremes refused to take the case and allowed the convictions to stand .
( Reuters ) The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to “ Free the Nipple , ” refusing to hear an appeal by three women fined by a city in New Hampshire for exposing their breasts in public who argued that banning female but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The justices left in place a 2019 ruling by New Hampshire ’ s top court upholding the women ’ s convictions for violating an ordinance in the city of Laconia that makes it illegal to show female breasts in public “ with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.
” I ’ m rather surprised that the justices decided to take a pass on this case .
One might make that argument that this isn ’ t really a constitutional question and is best left to state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their voters .
In fact , that ’ s the precise argument Ed Morrissey made last year regarding a similar “ free the nipple ” case in Utah .
But the Supreme Court is regularly called upon when there are conflicting decisions in the lower courts .
That ’ s just what ’ s happened here .
The New Hampshire state supreme court has ruled that public nudity laws that apply only to women are allowable .
But the Tenth Circuit ruled that such bans are unconstitutional , in a decision that affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With these two directly contradictory rulings , it only made sense that the Supremes should step in and settle the matter .
Beyond that , we still have the question of whether or not you can have rules that apply unequally to men and women .
On the surface , it certainly sounds as if you can ’ t .
If you ’ re going to allow men to walk around in public without a shirt , insisting that women must keep their nipples covered appears to be a blatant violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law must be applied equally to everyone , regardless of gender ( as well as other demographics ) .
When Ed debated this subject , he took the opposite approach .
He argued that “ there are natural and significant differences between men and women that require specific attention in public indecency laws , which means there is a rational and essentially non-discriminatory reason for drawing those distinctions.
” That ’ s very similar in style to the conclusion reached by the New Hampshire state supreme court .
When they ruled against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they claimed that the law applied equally to both men and women because neither were allowed to go nude in public .
But they further claimed that their decision was based on “ the traditional understanding of what constitutes nudity.
” In other words , a man wearing only his board shorts with his chest exposed isn ’ t nude .
But a woman wearing only her bikini bottom without the top is nude .
How is that justifiable ?
In the end , this sounds like one of those “ everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with such interpretations is that “ everybody ” never knows any given thing .
Certainly , most people “ know ” various socially accepted assumptions , but there ’ s always somebody ready to upset the apple cart .
And “ everybody knows ” arguments rarely do well in the courts .
In this case , however , it was apparently a persuasive enough argument for New Hampshire and strong enough that the Supremes didn ’ t want to fight it out .
I have to disagree with them , however .

This is something of a delicate case that’s been going back and forth in the courts of New Hampshire for more than three years now. Under a long-standing municipal obscenity ordinance, Ginger Pierro was arrested in 2016 for performing yoga while topless at a public beach. Days later, two more women, Heidi Lilley and Kia Sinclair were similarly arrested for going topless at a different beach in protest of Pierro’s arrest. All three women were given a suspended fine of $100 dependent on “future good behavior.”
They appealed the convictions, eventually taking their case all the way to the state supreme court, where the convictions were upheld. At that point, their attorneys decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for them, the Supremes refused to take the case and allowed the convictions to stand. (Reuters)
The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to “Free the Nipple,” refusing to hear an appeal by three women fined by a city in New Hampshire for exposing their breasts in public who argued that banning female but not male toplessness violates the U.S. Constitution. The justices left in place a 2019 ruling by New Hampshire’s top court upholding the women’s convictions for violating an ordinance in the city of Laconia that makes it illegal to show female breasts in public “with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple.”
I’m rather surprised that the justices decided to take a pass on this case. One might make that argument that this isn’t really a constitutional question and is best left to state and local governments based on the wishes of their voters. In fact, that’s the precise argument Ed Morrissey made last year regarding a similar “free the nipple” case in Utah.
But the Supreme Court is regularly called upon when there are conflicting decisions in the lower courts. That’s just what’s happened here. The New Hampshire state supreme court has ruled that public nudity laws that apply only to women are allowable. But the Tenth Circuit ruled that such bans are unconstitutional, in a decision that affected all such rules in six western states. With these two directly contradictory rulings, it only made sense that the Supremes should step in and settle the matter.
Beyond that, we still have the question of whether or not you can have rules that apply unequally to men and women. On the surface, it certainly sounds as if you can’t. If you’re going to allow men to walk around in public without a shirt, insisting that women must keep their nipples covered appears to be a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment’s requirement that the law must be applied equally to everyone, regardless of gender (as well as other demographics).
When Ed debated this subject, he took the opposite approach. He argued that “there are natural and significant differences between men and women that require specific attention in public indecency laws, which means there is a rational and essentially non-discriminatory reason for drawing those distinctions.”
That’s very similar in style to the conclusion reached by the New Hampshire state supreme court. When they ruled against the women and upheld the municipal statute, they claimed that the law applied equally to both men and women because neither were allowed to go nude in public. But they further claimed that their decision was based on “the traditional understanding of what constitutes nudity.” In other words, a man wearing only his board shorts with his chest exposed isn’t nude. But a woman wearing only her bikini bottom without the top is nude. How is that justifiable?
In the end, this sounds like one of those “everybody knows” arguments. But the problem with such interpretations is that “everybody” never knows any given thing. Certainly, most people “know” various socially accepted assumptions, but there’s always somebody ready to upset the apple cart. And “everybody knows” arguments rarely do well in the courts. In this case, however, it was apparently a persuasive enough argument for New Hampshire and strong enough that the Supremes didn’t want to fight it out. I have to disagree with them, however.


hotair--2020-01-14--Iran announces "arrests" in plane downing

Nancy Pelosi may not know why people are protesting in the streets of Tehran , but it appears that the leadership in Iran has figured it out .
After days of demonstrations where Iranian police unleashed tear gas and live ammunition on the protesters , state media announced that “ arrests ” have been made in the case of the downing of that Ukranian passenger jet last week .
How many arrests ?
Who are the suspects ?
Good questions , but at least thus far , nobody is saying .
( Associated Press ) Iran ’ s judiciary said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the accidental shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger plane that killed all 176 people on board just after takeoff from Tehran last week .
The announcement came amid an upswell of anger and protests by Iranians in recent days over the downing of the jetliner last Wednesday and apparent attempts by senior officials in Iran to cover-up the cause of the crash… Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili was quoted by Iranian state media saying that “ extensive investigations have taken place and some individuals are arrested.
” He did not say how many individuals had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now we ’ ve gone from there ’ s no missing plane to mechanical failure to terrible mistake , finally arriving at we ’ re arresting some members of our own Revolutionary Guard .
It ’ s been quite the roller coaster ride these past few days , hasn ’ t it ?
Color me dubious when it comes to Iran ’ s idea of criminal justice , but in this case , the leadership seems to be in a bit of a panic .
They even trotted out Hassan Rouhani to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
The entire world will be watching this court.
” But how will the entire world be watching if you ’ re not going to allow media coverage of it ?
For that matter , even though “ extensive investigations ” have been completed , you haven ’ t even told us how many people were arrested or who they are .
Rouhani is talking a good game , saying that multiple people are responsible and they “ should be punished.
” But thus far , the only person who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ali Hajizadeh , the head of the IRGC ’ s aerospace division .
He ’ s previously said that his division “ accepts full responsibility ” for the shootdown and that he wished he were dead when he learned of the incident .
Someone should remind Amir that you need to be careful what you wish for , particularly in Iran .
The Iranian government can ’ t afford to tick off the IRGC too much or their hold on power will become shaky .
But at the same time , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streets and you can only arrest so many people .
Stuck between a rock and a hard place , it ’ s not hard to imagine this ending up being a show trial where they find a few conveniently disposable IRGC troops to put in front of a judge and pay off their families to remain silent while they briefly go to jail .
I ’ d love to be wrong , but we have far too much experience with the Iranians to expect them to suddenly evolve into some form of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost certainly a show being put on for the international media and to calm the angry demonstrators .

Nancy Pelosi may not know why people are protesting in the streets of Tehran, but it appears that the leadership in Iran has figured it out. After days of demonstrations where Iranian police unleashed tear gas and live ammunition on the protesters, state media announced that “arrests” have been made in the case of the downing of that Ukranian passenger jet last week. How many arrests? Who are the suspects? Good questions, but at least thus far, nobody is saying. (Associated Press)
Iran’s judiciary said Tuesday that arrests have been made for the accidental shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger plane that killed all 176 people on board just after takeoff from Tehran last week. The announcement came amid an upswell of anger and protests by Iranians in recent days over the downing of the jetliner last Wednesday and apparent attempts by senior officials in Iran to cover-up the cause of the crash… Judiciary spokesman Gholamhossein Esmaili was quoted by Iranian state media saying that “extensive investigations have taken place and some individuals are arrested.” He did not say how many individuals had been detained or name them.
So now we’ve gone from there’s no missing plane to mechanical failure to terrible mistake, finally arriving at we’re arresting some members of our own Revolutionary Guard. It’s been quite the roller coaster ride these past few days, hasn’t it?
Color me dubious when it comes to Iran’s idea of criminal justice, but in this case, the leadership seems to be in a bit of a panic. They even trotted out Hassan Rouhani to say, “This is not an ordinary case. The entire world will be watching this court.” But how will the entire world be watching if you’re not going to allow media coverage of it? For that matter, even though “extensive investigations” have been completed, you haven’t even told us how many people were arrested or who they are.
Rouhani is talking a good game, saying that multiple people are responsible and they “should be punished.” But thus far, the only person who’s been identified as being involved is Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the IRGC’s aerospace division. He’s previously said that his division “accepts full responsibility” for the shootdown and that he wished he were dead when he learned of the incident. Someone should remind Amir that you need to be careful what you wish for, particularly in Iran.
The Iranian government can’t afford to tick off the IRGC too much or their hold on power will become shaky. But at the same time, they’re dealing with massive protests in the streets and you can only arrest so many people. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, it’s not hard to imagine this ending up being a show trial where they find a few conveniently disposable IRGC troops to put in front of a judge and pay off their families to remain silent while they briefly go to jail.
I’d love to be wrong, but we have far too much experience with the Iranians to expect them to suddenly evolve into some form of a transparent, democratic institution. This is almost certainly a show being put on for the international media and to calm the angry demonstrators.


hotair--2020-01-13--Joementum? Biden now leading in all four early states in the RCP poll of polls

He got a pair of good polls today , which is noteworthy , but even more noteworthy is the effect that those two had on the RCP average tracking all polling .
For all the hype about the Warren surge in October and the Buttigieg surge in November and the Bernie surge in December , ol ’ Joe not only remains in the thick of things in Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina but he ’ s actually now the leader in all four states .
Since entering the race early last year , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place in the RCP national average .
Looking at the table below reminds me a bit of the state of polling during the final week of the 2016 election .
Trump had fallen badly behind Clinton in mid-October amid the “ Access Hollywood ” fallout .
But then undecideds began deciding , and that big lead began to shrink .
And by the evening before the vote , most of the key states were toss-ups .
Is that what we ’ re seeing now ?
Undecideds finally being forced to choose among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the name brand , the “ electable ” candidate ?
Two caveats there .
One is that there ’ s been only one poll of Nevada since November , which means the “ average ” in this case really only amounts to a single survey .
Not so reliable .
The second , obviously , is that his leads in Iowa and New Hampshire are whisker-thin .
They barely even count as leads .
It ’ s more that the two states are jump balls at the moment , although given all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not expect Biden to be poised to win either , let alone both .
As I said , his numbers in the average are being boosted by a couple of individual polls that have him ahead of the pack .
One comes from Iowa via Monmouth , which has Grandpa Joe out to a surprising six-point lead : The trendline there shows a Biden vs. Bernie showdown developing , although the other major poll of Iowa taken recently ( by the Des Moines Register ) actually had Biden in fourth at 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders .
Hmmm .
New Hampshire also came up big for Biden today per a new Boston Herald poll : Starting in late October Biden sank steadily in New Hampshire polling , dropping from an average of 24.0 percent to 13.7 in early December .
But he began to rebound around Christmas and in the last four polls of the state he ’ s either led or been within two points of the lead .
What explains that ?
He was better than usual at the last debate , sure , but my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay attention to the race in earnest now and maybe beginning to slide towards the guy they recognize in lieu of the too left/too young alternatives .
I ’ ve seen comparisons lately between Biden ’ s run this year and Romney ’ s run in 2012 , when Republican primary voters sent various opponents to the top of the polls in the run-up to the primaries before finally deciding to stick with the “ safe ” choice .
It ’ s a good analogy , although I think there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory too in which Republicans seemed generally unable to decide for months and in the end just opted for the guy whom they knew best .
Needless to say , if Biden wins Iowa and New Hampshire , the race is all but over .
Still , don ’ t count out Warren .
Bernie could win both states , of course , as he nearly did in 2016 , but I notice that Warren is the clear leader at 23 percent in Monmouth ’ s Iowa poll when voters are asked who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s regained some ground in New Hampshire polling lately too .
I continue to wonder , as I said earlier , if she ’ ll end up as a goldilocks option for some Dems who want a real liberal as nominee but are skittish about going nuclear by nominating a loud-and-proud socialist .
If you think Biden ’ s too squishy ( and old ) , Bernie ’ s too red ( and old ) , and Mayor Pete ’ s too green ( and young ) , your choice is obvious .

He got a pair of good polls today, which is noteworthy, but even more noteworthy is the effect that those two had on the RCP average tracking all polling.
For all the hype about the Warren surge in October and the Buttigieg surge in November and the Bernie surge in December, ol’ Joe not only remains in the thick of things in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina but he’s actually now the leader in all four states. Since entering the race early last year, he’s spent exactly one day out of first place in the RCP national average.
Looking at the table below reminds me a bit of the state of polling during the final week of the 2016 election. Trump had fallen badly behind Clinton in mid-October amid the “Access Hollywood” fallout. But then undecideds began deciding, and that big lead began to shrink. And by the evening before the vote, most of the key states were toss-ups.
Is that what we’re seeing now? Undecideds finally being forced to choose among four flawed candidates and opting to stick with the name brand, the “electable” candidate?
Two caveats there. One is that there’s been only one poll of Nevada since November, which means the “average” in this case really only amounts to a single survey. Not so reliable. The second, obviously, is that his leads in Iowa and New Hampshire are whisker-thin. They barely even count as leads. It’s more that the two states are jump balls at the moment, although given all the media hype lately about Berniementum you might not expect Biden to be poised to win either, let alone both.
As I said, his numbers in the average are being boosted by a couple of individual polls that have him ahead of the pack. One comes from Iowa via Monmouth, which has Grandpa Joe out to a surprising six-point lead:
The trendline there shows a Biden vs. Bernie showdown developing, although the other major poll of Iowa taken recently (by the Des Moines Register) actually had Biden in fourth at 15 percent, five points behind the leader Sanders. Hmmm.
New Hampshire also came up big for Biden today per a new Boston Herald poll:
The poll, released Monday, has Joe Biden in first place at 26%, followed by Bernie Sanders at 22% and Warren at 18%. Pete Buttigieg attracts 7% and late entrant Michael Bloomberg 4%… The poll results represent a significant change from a poll in October that showed Warren (25%) and Biden (24%) in a statistical dead heat. But Warren was also polling much higher nationally at that point.
Starting in late October Biden sank steadily in New Hampshire polling, dropping from an average of 24.0 percent to 13.7 in early December. But he began to rebound around Christmas and in the last four polls of the state he’s either led or been within two points of the lead. What explains that? He was better than usual at the last debate, sure, but my guess is that Dem voters are starting to pay attention to the race in earnest now and maybe beginning to slide towards the guy they recognize in lieu of the too left/too young alternatives. I’ve seen comparisons lately between Biden’s run this year and Romney’s run in 2012, when Republican primary voters sent various opponents to the top of the polls in the run-up to the primaries before finally deciding to stick with the “safe” choice. It’s a good analogy, although I think there’s an element of the 2008 McCain primary victory too in which Republicans seemed generally unable to decide for months and in the end just opted for the guy whom they knew best.
Needless to say, if Biden wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the race is all but over.
Still, don’t count out Warren. Bernie could win both states, of course, as he nearly did in 2016, but I notice that Warren is the clear leader at 23 percent in Monmouth’s Iowa poll when voters are asked who their second choice is. She’s regained some ground in New Hampshire polling lately too. I continue to wonder, as I said earlier, if she’ll end up as a goldilocks option for some Dems who want a real liberal as nominee but are skittish about going nuclear by nominating a loud-and-proud socialist. If you think Biden’s too squishy (and old), Bernie’s too red (and old), and Mayor Pete’s too green (and young), your choice is obvious.


hotair--2020-01-13--Ex-WH press secretaries, foreign service officials demand return of briefings

Swamp creatures don ’ t like change .
It ’ s a bi-partisan thing .
Case in point , an opinion piece in the form of an open letter was written for CNN by former White House press secretaries , foreign service , and military officials Saturday .
It was signed by those who served in the administrations of George H.W .
Bush , Bill Clinton , George W. Bush , and Barack Obama .
They want the current White House press secretary to resume the daily briefings .
It should be noted that several of the former Clinton and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN as political commentators and analysts .
There are seven former White House press secretaries and six former State and Defense briefers who participated .
Here is the list of those who signed the piece : • Ambassador Richard Boucher , former spokesman and Assistant Secretary of State ( administrations of George H. W. Bush , Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ) • Adm. John Kirby , former Assistant Secretary of State , former Pentagon press secretary ( Barack Obama ) ; Kirby is a CNN analyst .
• George Little , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public affairs ( Barack Obama ) • Jen Psaki , former State Department spokeswoman and White House communications director ( Barack Obama ) ; Psaki is a CNN political commentator .
The Trump administration is an untraditional presidential administration , to state the obvious .
Apparently it is difficult for the Never Trump crowd and the Democrats with whom they socialize to accept that times are different now .
There is no looking back .
We live in an age of social media .
For those under the age of 40 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and online sites , for better or worse .
The general public probably doesn ’ t even notice that the televised daily briefings from the White House press secretary no longer happen on a regular basis .
Most people are working or otherwise engaged in their daily lives instead of watching C-SPAN or cable news during the day .
The open letter uses the justification that the daily briefings put pressure on the White House to make timely decisions and that makes the White House run better or something .
“ The process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government run better .
The sharing of information , known as official guidance , among government officials and agencies helps ensure that an administration speaks with one voice , telling one story , however compelling it might be .
Regular briefings also force a certain discipline on government decision making .
Knowing there are briefings scheduled is a powerful incentive for administration officials to complete a policy process on time .
Put another way , no presidents want their briefers to say , day after day , we haven ’ t figured that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful podiums of the State Department , Pentagon and White House is a powerful tool for keeping our allies informed and letting our enemies know we are united in our determination to defeat them both on the battlefield and in the world of public diplomacy.
” Sean Spicer suspended daily briefings from the Trump administration .
The White House press corps , however , has regular access to Q & As with President Trump .
He holds mini-press conferences with them as he goes to Marine One at the White House and during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He makes announcements about initiatives and responds to news reports himself , either in person on camera or on social media .
Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham responds to the press when needed and the White House communications office is active .
There is no news black-out .
The press corps is denied a daily shot at television drama , though , and that ’ s a good thing .
“ The White House Correspondents ’ Association , which represents reporters that cover the president at the White House , started in 1914 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wilson became the first president to begin holding full normal press conferences , ” said Gillman .
Wilson reportedly grew tired of those press conferences due to “ irrelevant “ questions from reporters .
And while President John F. Kennedy was the first to hold a live TV press conference , the concept of a daily , live televised briefing didn ’ t begin until the Clinton administration — but that ended pretty quickly .
“ The briefing is more an opportunity to exchange ideas and to have a conversation about what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really happening in a way that as productively as we had hoped , ” reflected former Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers in an interview with C-Span .
I ’ ll end with this – two authors , Stephen King and Don Winslow have offered Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham $ 200,000 to go to charity in exchange for an hourlong briefing .
Grisham ’ s response didn ’ t sit well .
So , Winslow doubled down .
In response to the offer , Grisham told CNN , “ If you have $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just help children because it ’ s a good thing to do ?
Donations to charity should never come with strings attached.
” Winslow was outraged by Grisham ’ s response .
He tweeted , “ First , we both regularly donate to charity .
Second , why do all Trump officials refuse to answer the most basic questions they are asked ?
Stop evading , Stephanie .
Let ’ s try again : Why have you not held any White House press briefings for over 300 days ?
What are you afraid @ @ @

Swamp creatures don’t like change. It’s a bi-partisan thing. Case in point, an opinion piece in the form of an open letter was written for CNN by former White House press secretaries, foreign service, and military officials Saturday. It was signed by those who served in the administrations of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. They want the current White House press secretary to resume the daily briefings.
It should be noted that several of the former Clinton and Obama administration staffers are now paid by CNN as political commentators and analysts. There are seven former White House press secretaries and six former State and Defense briefers who participated. Here is the list of those who signed the piece:
Ambassador Richard Boucher, former spokesman and Assistant Secretary of State (administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush)
Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former State Department spokesman (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush)
Jay Carney, former White House press secretary (Barack Obama)
Victoria Clarke, Assistant Secretary of Defense for public affairs (George W. Bush)
Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary (Barack Obama)
Adm. John Kirby, former Assistant Secretary of State, former Pentagon press secretary (Barack Obama); Kirby is a CNN analyst.
Joe Lockhart, former White House press secretary (Bill Clinton); Lockhart is a CNN political commentator.
George Little, former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for public affairs (Barack Obama)
Scott McClellan, former White House press secretary (George W. Bush)
Michael McCurry, former White House press secretary and State Department spokesman (Bill Clinton)
Dee Dee Myers, former White House press secretary (Bill Clinton)
Jen Psaki, former State Department spokeswoman and White House communications director (Barack Obama); Psaki is a CNN political commentator.
Jake Siewert, former White House press secretary (Bill Clinton)
The Trump administration is an untraditional presidential administration, to state the obvious. Apparently it is difficult for the Never Trump crowd and the Democrats with whom they socialize to accept that times are different now. There is no looking back. We live in an age of social media. For those under the age of 40, current events are digested through social media and online sites, for better or worse. The general public probably doesn’t even notice that the televised daily briefings from the White House press secretary no longer happen on a regular basis. Most people are working or otherwise engaged in their daily lives instead of watching C-SPAN or cable news during the day.
The open letter uses the justification that the daily briefings put pressure on the White House to make timely decisions and that makes the White House run better or something.
“The process of preparing for regular briefings makes the government run better. The sharing of information, known as official guidance, among government officials and agencies helps ensure that an administration speaks with one voice, telling one story, however compelling it might be. Regular briefings also force a certain discipline on government decision making. Knowing there are briefings scheduled is a powerful incentive for administration officials to complete a policy process on time. Put another way, no presidents want their briefers to say, day after day, we haven’t figured that one out yet. … Using the powerful podiums of the State Department, Pentagon and White House is a powerful tool for keeping our allies informed and letting our enemies know we are united in our determination to defeat them both on the battlefield and in the world of public diplomacy.”
Sean Spicer suspended daily briefings from the Trump administration. The White House press corps, however, has regular access to Q&As with President Trump. He holds mini-press conferences with them as he goes to Marine One at the White House and during photo opportunities at the White House. He makes announcements about initiatives and responds to news reports himself, either in person on camera or on social media. Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham responds to the press when needed and the White House communications office is active. There is no news black-out. The press corps is denied a daily shot at television drama, though, and that’s a good thing.
Televised White House press briefings didn’t begin until the Clinton administration.
“The White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents reporters that cover the president at the White House, started in 1914. It was about a year after Woodrow Wilson became the first president to begin holding full normal press conferences,” said Gillman. Wilson reportedly grew tired of those press conferences due to “irrelevant “questions from reporters. And while President John F. Kennedy was the first to hold a live TV press conference, the concept of a daily, live televised briefing didn’t begin until the Clinton administration — but that ended pretty quickly. “The briefing is more an opportunity to exchange ideas and to have a conversation about what’s happening. That wasn’t really happening in a way that as productively as we had hoped,” reflected former Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers in an interview with C-Span.
I’ll end with this – two authors, Stephen King and Don Winslow have offered Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham $200,000 to go to charity in exchange for an hourlong briefing.
“We will donate $175,000 to [St. Jude] in your name & help a lot of kids if you will take questions from the full White House press corps for 1 HOUR in the WH briefing room,” Winslow said in a tweet. King upped the ante, tweeting, “I’ll also make it $100,000. That’s 200 K for charity. And all you have to do is YOUR DAMN JOB!”
I’ll also make it $100,000. That’s 200 K for charity. And all you have to do is YOUR DAMN JOB! https://t.co/AiiiJMly1w — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 9, 2020
Grisham’s response didn’t sit well. So, Winslow doubled down.
In response to the offer, Grisham told CNN, “If you have $200,000 to play with, why not just help children because it’s a good thing to do? Donations to charity should never come with strings attached.” Winslow was outraged by Grisham’s response. He tweeted, “First, we both regularly donate to charity. Second, why do all Trump officials refuse to answer the most basic questions they are asked? Stop evading, Stephanie. Let’s try again: Why have you not held any White House press briefings for over 300 days? What are you afraid of?”


hotair--2020-01-13--CBS: White House expects "at least four" GOP senators to join with Dems in calling witnesses at Trum

CBS: White House expects "at least four" GOP senators to join with Dems in calling witnesses at Trump's trial -- and maybe more

Want to guess the names of the suspected defectors before reading further ?
There are four .
You should know them by heart by now .
Some anti-Trumpers on Twitter are scoffing that this story is thin ( true ) and smells more like an attempt to cow the Susan Collins faction into not defecting than a straightforward report about the state of play .
Could be .
But Collins did say last week that she ’ d been talking to a “ fairly small group ” of Republican colleagues about calling witnesses , and sounded open to the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know it ’ s not so unlikely that she and other centrist GOPers might want to call a few witnesses while Democrats might secretly oppose the idea despise their loud public protestations to the contrary .
The endgame for Dems right now is undermining the eventual “ not guilty ” verdict .
If Republicans decline to call witnesses despite weeks of Democrats hollering at them to do so , it ’ s a golden opportunity for Pelosi and Schumer to declare the trial a total “ sham ” — especially now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willingness to testify .
For Collins and the rest of the centrist Republicans , though , the calculus is the opposite .
If they can get away with calling a few witnesses without doing any damage to Trump , they ’ re better off calling them .
They want to convince the public that this is a real trial , sort of ; that they haven ’ t made up their minds yet about Trump ’ s guilt , although of course they have ; and that they ’ re going to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might help soothe any anger among swing voters back home after they vote for acquittal .
All of that is worth taking a calculated gamble that Bolton ’ s testimony won ’ t be too damaging to Trump , or at least not so much that it makes the eventual “ not guilty ” vote significantly harder to justify .
CBS : Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans , and likely more , will vote to call witnesses .
In addition to Senators Lisa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maine , Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado , the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a “ wild card ” and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an “ institutionalist ” who might vote to call witnesses , as one official put it .
Last week , Collins said she was working with a “ fairly small group ” of GOP senators to allow new testimony , adding that her colleagues “ should be completely open to calling witnesses.
” Romney has expressed an interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Bolton , who has said he would testify under subpoena .
Murkowski said last week that the Senate should proceed as it did during the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial .
Gardner and Alexander have both said the Senate trial should be fair and impartial .
Paul has said the president should be able to call his own witnesses , including the whistleblower whose complaint about Ukraine sparked the impeachment inquiry in the first place .
Hard to imagine a hardcore Bolton-hater/Trump crony like Rand Paul agreeing to call Bolton , but Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to 51 on that .
The ace in the hole here for Collins and the rest with respect to Bolton may be executive privilege , which Trump has promised to use if he testifies .
Even if Bolton has some critical things generally to say about the Ukraine matter , if the White House can prevent him from revealing any direct communications with the president on the subject then Senate Republicans will still be able to say later in defense of their acquittal verdict that there was no firsthand evidence of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo .
It was all Rudy ’ s fault or Mulvaney ’ s fault or whoever .
So maybe it ’ s safe-ish for them to call Bolton .
And it ’ s also safe-ish for them to call Hunter Biden as a concession to Trump , to “ balance ” Bolton ’ s testimony .
There ’ s little downside to Republicans from Hunter testifying about Burisma and his father ’ s role in Ukraine diplomacy ; it obviously looks shady that he was asked to serve on Burisma ’ s board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce some smoking gun that clears Joe of all suspicion of influencing Ukraine in Burisma ’ s favor .
What Collins and the rest worry about , I think , is letting the trial derail by giving Trump a free hand to chase whichever witnesses he wants to flesh out his Burisma theories .
If they can arrange a clean “ Bolton for Biden ” trade — one new witness for each side — and get Trump to okay that , maybe they ’ ll do that deal as a concession to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them through this with the least possible political risk back home .
One other point about witnesses .
I posted this new Quinnipiac data in the earlier thread but look at it again , focusing on the Republican numbers this time : More Republicans support calling Bolton than oppose doing so , which is less surprising than you may think .
A pair of polls that came out shortly after New Year ’ s also showed a strong majority of Americans support calling new witnesses .
Why would GOPers be gung ho for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think , of Trump fans wanting the president to finally have the power to put his own witnesses on the stand and believing that , as he ’ s said all along , he ’ s done nothing wrong and therefore has nothing to hide .
( Which makes it weird that he suddenly seems to support canceling the trial altogether and having the articles of impeachment dismissed , but whatever . )
Bolton wants to testify ?
Great , let him .
He ’ ll vindicate Trump .
Then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and maybe Adam Schiff and go on offense .
That ’ s not how the trial will work in practice , but the point is that the polling is encouraging Collins etc .
to be more open to witnesses .
Even the polling within their own party .
I ’ ll leave you with two new ads from Republican anti-Trump groups on impeachment .
One is from Bill Kristol ’ s group , the second from George Conway ’ s .

Want to guess the names of the suspected defectors before reading further? There are four. You should know them by heart by now.
Some anti-Trumpers on Twitter are scoffing that this story is thin (true) and smells more like an attempt to cow the Susan Collins faction into not defecting than a straightforward report about the state of play. Could be. But Collins did say last week that she’d been talking to a “fairly small group” of Republican colleagues about calling witnesses, and sounded open to the idea.
And if you read this post, you know it’s not so unlikely that she and other centrist GOPers might want to call a few witnesses while Democrats might secretly oppose the idea despise their loud public protestations to the contrary. The endgame for Dems right now is undermining the eventual “not guilty” verdict. If Republicans decline to call witnesses despite weeks of Democrats hollering at them to do so, it’s a golden opportunity for Pelosi and Schumer to declare the trial a total “sham” — especially now that John Bolton’s announced his willingness to testify.
For Collins and the rest of the centrist Republicans, though, the calculus is the opposite. If they can get away with calling a few witnesses without doing any damage to Trump, they’re better off calling them. They want to convince the public that this is a real trial, sort of; that they haven’t made up their minds yet about Trump’s guilt, although of course they have; and that they’re going to do their work as jurors diligently, which might help soothe any anger among swing voters back home after they vote for acquittal. All of that is worth taking a calculated gamble that Bolton’s testimony won’t be too damaging to Trump, or at least not so much that it makes the eventual “not guilty” vote significantly harder to justify. CBS:
Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a “wild card” and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an “institutionalist” who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it. Last week, Collins said she was working with a “fairly small group” of GOP senators to allow new testimony, adding that her colleagues “should be completely open to calling witnesses.” Romney has expressed an interest in hearing from former national security adviser John Bolton, who has said he would testify under subpoena. Murkowski said last week that the Senate should proceed as it did during the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial. Gardner and Alexander have both said the Senate trial should be fair and impartial. Paul has said the president should be able to call his own witnesses, including the whistleblower whose complaint about Ukraine sparked the impeachment inquiry in the first place.
Hard to imagine a hardcore Bolton-hater/Trump crony like Rand Paul agreeing to call Bolton, but Schumer doesn’t need his vote to get to 51 on that. The ace in the hole here for Collins and the rest with respect to Bolton may be executive privilege, which Trump has promised to use if he testifies. Even if Bolton has some critical things generally to say about the Ukraine matter, if the White House can prevent him from revealing any direct communications with the president on the subject then Senate Republicans will still be able to say later in defense of their acquittal verdict that there was no firsthand evidence of Trump’s participation in the quid pro quo. It was all Rudy’s fault or Mulvaney’s fault or whoever.
So maybe it’s safe-ish for them to call Bolton. And it’s also safe-ish for them to call Hunter Biden as a concession to Trump, to “balance” Bolton’s testimony. There’s little downside to Republicans from Hunter testifying about Burisma and his father’s role in Ukraine diplomacy; it obviously looks shady that he was asked to serve on Burisma’s board and he’s not going to produce some smoking gun that clears Joe of all suspicion of influencing Ukraine in Burisma’s favor. What Collins and the rest worry about, I think, is letting the trial derail by giving Trump a free hand to chase whichever witnesses he wants to flesh out his Burisma theories. If they can arrange a clean “Bolton for Biden” trade — one new witness for each side — and get Trump to okay that, maybe they’ll do that deal as a concession to the left and the right. Whatever gets them through this with the least possible political risk back home.
One other point about witnesses. I posted this new Quinnipiac data in the earlier thread but look at it again, focusing on the Republican numbers this time:
More Republicans support calling Bolton than oppose doing so, which is less surprising than you may think. A pair of polls that came out shortly after New Year’s also showed a strong majority of Americans support calling new witnesses. Why would GOPers be gung ho for that? It’s a combination, I think, of Trump fans wanting the president to finally have the power to put his own witnesses on the stand and believing that, as he’s said all along, he’s done nothing wrong and therefore has nothing to hide. (Which makes it weird that he suddenly seems to support canceling the trial altogether and having the articles of impeachment dismissed, but whatever.) Bolton wants to testify? Great, let him. He’ll vindicate Trump. Then the president can call Hunter and the whistleblower and maybe Adam Schiff and go on offense.
That’s not how the trial will work in practice, but the point is that the polling is encouraging Collins etc. to be more open to witnesses. Even the polling within their own party.
I’ll leave you with two new ads from Republican anti-Trump groups on impeachment. One is from Bill Kristol’s group, the second from George Conway’s.
Another ad from Republicans for the Rule of Law.
"Bolton is willing to do his duty, to tell the truth. Are Senate Republicans willing to do their duty, to listen?" pic.twitter.com/oB5R1TJJhd — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) January 13, 2020


hotair--2020-01-13--Two Popes drama: Fight over priestly celibacy

Two Popes drama: Fight over priestly celibacy -- or with the media?

Could HBO have asked for better timing ?
Just as its two lead actors in their original film The Two Popes got Academy Award nominations , media reports put the two actual popes into a feud over celibacy among priests .
A new book co-written by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI breaks his silence on ecclesial matters to put forth a strong argument for the millennium-old tradition at a time when is successor Pope Francis mulls over a recommendation for exceptions .
CNN reports that Benedict “ undercuts ” Francis on the issue : Retired Pope Benedict has issued a passionate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ can not remain silent ” as his successor Pope Francis considers easing the prohibition on married men serving as priests .
… When he retired in 2013 , he vowed to remain “ hidden from the world.
” Reactions to the retired pontiff breaking that silence now are split along largely predictable political lines .
Supporters of Francis , such as British biographer Austen Ivereigh , have suggested it ’ s inappropriate for a former pope to comment on a decision currently being weighed by the sitting pope .
Critics of Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have said that given the gravity of the issue , Benedict was not only fully in line to speak out , but that he was actually obligated to do so .
After watching initial reactions yesterday , it ’ s safe to say that CNN is not alone in this Two Popes framing of the story .
This might be a compelling narrative , too — if in fact Francis was in favor of ending priestly celibacy .
It ’ s not even clear how much he ’ s actually considering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subject , in which bishops recommended an exception for Amazon-region ordinations , not a change to the rule .
The Vatican News took pains to point out that Francis completely ignored the subject in his closing remarks of the synod , while calling Benedict ’ s essay “ in filial obedience to the Pope ” ( emphases mine ) : It is also worth remembering that Pope Francis has also expressed himself several times on the subject .
While yet a Cardinal , in the book conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of maintaining celibacy : “ with all the pros and cons entailed , in ten centuries there have been more positive experiences than there have been errors .
Tradition has a weight and validity ” .
In dialogue with journalists on the flight back from Panama last January , the Pope recalled that in the Eastern Catholic Churches the option of either celibacy or marriage before the diaconate is possible ; but he added , regarding the Latin Church : “ I am reminded of that phrase of Saint Paul VI : ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the law on celibacy .
It came to mind and I want to say it , because it is a courageous phrase , in a more difficult moment than this , 1968 / 1970… Personally , I think that celibacy is a gift for the Church .
Second , I don ’ t agree with allowing optional celibacy , no.
” In his reply , he also spoke about the discussion among theologians about the possibility of granting exemptions for some remote regions , such as the Pacific islands .
He specified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no decision on my part .
My decision is : optional celibacy before the diaconate , no .
That ’ s something for me , something personal , I won ’ t do it , this remains clear .
Am I ‘ closed ’ ?
Maybe .
But I don ’ t want to appear before God with this decision ” .
The Synod on the Amazon was held in October 2019 , and the topic was debated there .
As can be seen from the final document , there were bishops who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent deacons as priests .
It is striking , however , that on 26 October , in his concluding speech , the Pope , after having followed all the stages of the speeches and discussion in the hall , did not mention in any way the subject of the ordination of married men , not even in passing .
Instead , he recalled the four dimensions of the Synod : that of inculturation ; the ecological dimension ; the social dimension ; and finally the pastoral dimension , which “ includes them all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pontiff spoke about creativity in new ministries , and the role of women ; and referring to the scarcity of clergy in certain mission areas , he recalled that there are many priests from a certain country who have gone to the first world , for example , the United States and Europe , and “ there are not enough of them to send them out to the Amazon region of that same country ” .
And at Crux , managing editor Charles Collins rebukes the Twitter-driven reactions for creating a polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not only does Francis oppose “ optional celibacy ” for the priesthood , Benedict has helped open up exceptions to it for pastoral needs , too : Francis – and most of the synod fathers – have been clear that celibacy as a rule is not being questioned ; but rather , they are looking at possible exceptions to the rule for pastoral necessity .
Of course , Benedict is more than familiar with this idea , since he more than any other previous pontiff has facilitated the reality of married priests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married men to be ordained . )
Benedict ’ s 2009 document Anglicanorum Coetibus provided for the establishment of Ordinariates to provide pastoral care for former Anglicans who had become Catholic ; including their mostly married clergy .
Benedict established three ordinariates – one each in the UK , North America , and Australia – all of which have a large percentage of married priests .
When Benedict made these provisions , he was not wavering on his commitment to priestly celibacy ; he was establishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Exactly .
Even this synod talked about exceptions rather than rules .
So why did Benedict ( and Sarah ) feel the need to write this tome ?
Collins concludes that the actual target of their ire isn ’ t Francis at all , with whom they are in apparent agreement .
It ’ s the media , and perhaps a few bishops and cardinals feeding it : According to excerpts in America magazine , the authors expressed concern that “ the strange mediatic synod had prevailed over the real synod , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be impressed ” by “ the bad advocacies , the diabolical lies , the erroneous ways by which they wished to devalue priestly celibacy ” in the media reporting of the Amazon synod .
To more fully understand Benedict and Sarah ’ s point , look no further than Deutsche Welle ’ s report on the new book : “ Some believe the more progressive Pope Francis may attempt to remove celibacy as a requirement for all priests ” – even though Francis is on record saying the exact opposite .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence in 2014 ’ s Extraordinary Synod on the Family as well , which I covered for Hot Air ( with the sponsorship of Catholic Match ) .
That synod was focused mostly on preaching the Gospel effectively to members of broken families and non-traditional households .
The media , however , latched onto the idea that the discussion was about approving of same-sex unions and legitimizing divorces , when in fact the idea was to strengthen the church ’ s teaching on marriage and family life without alienating those who hail from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that synod wasn ’ t same-sex unions as much as it was dealing with polygamy in Africa in a pastoral sense for converts coming to the church in that region .
The Two Popes might win a couple of awards at the Oscars next month .
The mainstream media ’ s reporting on the two actual popes won ’ t deserve any this year , just as it hasn ’ t in previous years either .

Could HBO have asked for better timing? Just as its two lead actors in their original film The Two Popes got Academy Award nominations, media reports put the two actual popes into a feud over celibacy among priests. A new book co-written by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI breaks his silence on ecclesial matters to put forth a strong argument for the millennium-old tradition at a time when is successor Pope Francis mulls over a recommendation for exceptions.
CNN reports that Benedict “undercuts” Francis on the issue:
Retired Pope Benedict has issued a passionate defense of priestly celibacy, saying he “cannot remain silent” as his successor Pope Francis considers easing the prohibition on married men serving as priests. … When he retired in 2013, he vowed to remain “hidden from the world.” Reactions to the retired pontiff breaking that silence now are split along largely predictable political lines. Supporters of Francis, such as British biographer Austen Ivereigh, have suggested it’s inappropriate for a former pope to comment on a decision currently being weighed by the sitting pope. Critics of Francis, such as Italian commentator Sandro Magister, have said that given the gravity of the issue, Benedict was not only fully in line to speak out, but that he was actually obligated to do so.
After watching initial reactions yesterday, it’s safe to say that CNN is not alone in this Two Popes framing of the story. This might be a compelling narrative, too — if in fact Francis was in favor of ending priestly celibacy. It’s not even clear how much he’s actually considering the synodal advice he got last year on the subject, in which bishops recommended an exception for Amazon-region ordinations, not a change to the rule. The Vatican News took pains to point out that Francis completely ignored the subject in his closing remarks of the synod, while calling Benedict’s essay “in filial obedience to the Pope” (emphases mine):
It is also worth remembering that Pope Francis has also expressed himself several times on the subject. While yet a Cardinal, in the book conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka, he explained that he was in favor of maintaining celibacy: “with all the pros and cons entailed, in ten centuries there have been more positive experiences than there have been errors. Tradition has a weight and validity”. In dialogue with journalists on the flight back from Panama last January, the Pope recalled that in the Eastern Catholic Churches the option of either celibacy or marriage before the diaconate is possible; but he added, regarding the Latin Church: “I am reminded of that phrase of Saint Paul VI: ‘I would rather give my life than change the law on celibacy. It came to mind and I want to say it, because it is a courageous phrase, in a more difficult moment than this, 1968 / 1970… Personally, I think that celibacy is a gift for the Church. Second, I don’t agree with allowing optional celibacy, no.” In his reply, he also spoke about the discussion among theologians about the possibility of granting exemptions for some remote regions, such as the Pacific islands. He specified, however, “there’s no decision on my part. My decision is: optional celibacy before the diaconate, no. That’s something for me, something personal, I won’t do it, this remains clear. Am I ‘closed’? Maybe. But I don’t want to appear before God with this decision”. The Synod on the Amazon was held in October 2019, and the topic was debated there. As can be seen from the final document, there were bishops who asked for the possibility of ordaining married permanent deacons as priests. It is striking, however, that on 26 October, in his concluding speech, the Pope, after having followed all the stages of the speeches and discussion in the hall, did not mention in any way the subject of the ordination of married men, not even in passing. Instead, he recalled the four dimensions of the Synod: that of inculturation; the ecological dimension; the social dimension; and finally the pastoral dimension, which “includes them all”. In that same speech, the Pontiff spoke about creativity in new ministries, and the role of women; and referring to the scarcity of clergy in certain mission areas, he recalled that there are many priests from a certain country who have gone to the first world, for example, the United States and Europe, and “there are not enough of them to send them out to the Amazon region of that same country”.
And at Crux, managing editor Charles Collins rebukes the Twitter-driven reactions for creating a polar rift where there is largely agreement. Not only does Francis oppose “optional celibacy” for the priesthood, Benedict has helped open up exceptions to it for pastoral needs, too:
Francis – and most of the synod fathers – have been clear that celibacy as a rule is not being questioned; but rather, they are looking at possible exceptions to the rule for pastoral necessity. Of course, Benedict is more than familiar with this idea, since he more than any other previous pontiff has facilitated the reality of married priests in the Western Church (most of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married men to be ordained.) Benedict’s 2009 document Anglicanorum Coetibus provided for the establishment of Ordinariates to provide pastoral care for former Anglicans who had become Catholic; including their mostly married clergy. Benedict established three ordinariates – one each in the UK, North America, and Australia – all of which have a large percentage of married priests. When Benedict made these provisions, he was not wavering on his commitment to priestly celibacy; he was establishing an exception based on pastoral need.
Exactly. Even this synod talked about exceptions rather than rules. So why did Benedict (and Sarah) feel the need to write this tome? Collins concludes that the actual target of their ire isn’t Francis at all, with whom they are in apparent agreement. It’s the media, and perhaps a few bishops and cardinals feeding it:
According to excerpts in America magazine, the authors expressed concern that “the strange mediatic synod had prevailed over the real synod,” and called on the Church “not to be impressed” by “the bad advocacies, the diabolical lies, the erroneous ways by which they wished to devalue priestly celibacy” in the media reporting of the Amazon synod. To more fully understand Benedict and Sarah’s point, look no further than Deutsche Welle’s report on the new book: “Some believe the more progressive Pope Francis may attempt to remove celibacy as a requirement for all priests” – even though Francis is on record saying the exact opposite.
The “strange mediatic synod” was in evidence in 2014’s Extraordinary Synod on the Family as well, which I covered for Hot Air (with the sponsorship of Catholic Match). That synod was focused mostly on preaching the Gospel effectively to members of broken families and non-traditional households. The media, however, latched onto the idea that the discussion was about approving of same-sex unions and legitimizing divorces, when in fact the idea was to strengthen the church’s teaching on marriage and family life without alienating those who hail from non-traditional households. The most pressing issue at that synod wasn’t same-sex unions as much as it was dealing with polygamy in Africa in a pastoral sense for converts coming to the church in that region.
The Two Popes might win a couple of awards at the Oscars next month. The mainstream media’s reporting on the two actual popes won’t deserve any this year, just as it hasn’t in previous years either.


hotair--2020-01-13--Jersey City shooters had a bomb in their van, intended to kill a lot more people

US Attorney Craig Carpentino revealed today that the couple who attacked a Jewish Market in Jersey City had cased the location several times and also had a substantial bomb in their van which could have injured people hundreds of yards away if it had been triggered .
Carpenito said that authorities do not believe Anderson and Graham had any co-conspirators , but the investigation continues .
Carpenito also said there is no evidence suggesting Anderson and Graham attacked the yeshiva that is two doors down from the market .
Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop has said he believes evidence suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson and Graham planned the attack for months and cased the market days before , authorities said today .
In addition to the bomb that was found in the truck the two used to drive to the market , there was enough material to make a second bomb , they said .
The bomb could have injured or killed people as far as five football fields away , according to authorities .
Authorities aren ’ t saying what the couple ’ s goal was for the bomb but did note that they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center in Bayonne .
Earlier reports suggested the shooters were connected to the Black Hebrew Israelites .
There is also some additional information about the note they left in the van .
At the scene , a note found on Anderson contained a reference to a 1990s documentary , “ The FBI ’ s War on Black America , ” which explored the FBI ’ s targeting of individuals involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960s , Carpenito said .
He added that a timestamp written on the note corresponded to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviewee advocates killing “ fascist pig cops.
” The interviewee that apparently inspired the attack was with Black Panther leader Fred Hampton .
The documentary is available for streaming on Amazon .
Here ’ s how it ’ s described on the site : The FBI ’ s War on Black America looks at a dark period in our country ’ s history , an exploration of the lives and deaths of people targeted by the US government ’ s COINTELPRO , an FBI program aimed against organized efforts by African-Americans to gain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underground classic is as relevant today as the day it was originally released .
The first person the shooters killed that day was Det .
Joseph Seals .
Authorities suggested today that Seals intervention may have thrown off a bigger plot that could have killed even more people .
The shooters have also been connected to a shooting that happened a week earlier when a Jewish man had his rear window shot out as he was driving .
The number of “ bias incidents ” that took place in New Jersey was up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to figures released today .
Here ’ s a local news report on the Jersey City attackers and the new information released today :

US Attorney Craig Carpentino revealed today that the couple who attacked a Jewish Market in Jersey City had cased the location several times and also had a substantial bomb in their van which could have injured people hundreds of yards away if it had been triggered.
Carpenito said that authorities do not believe Anderson and Graham had any co-conspirators, but the investigation continues. Carpenito also said there is no evidence suggesting Anderson and Graham attacked the yeshiva that is two doors down from the market. Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop has said he believes evidence suggests the yeshiva was a planned target. Anderson and Graham planned the attack for months and cased the market days before, authorities said today. In addition to the bomb that was found in the truck the two used to drive to the market, there was enough material to make a second bomb, they said. The bomb could have injured or killed people as far as five football fields away, according to authorities.
Authorities aren’t saying what the couple’s goal was for the bomb but did note that they had searched for information on a Jewish community center in Bayonne. Earlier reports suggested the shooters were connected to the Black Hebrew Israelites. There is also some additional information about the note they left in the van.
At the scene, a note found on Anderson contained a reference to a 1990s documentary, “The FBI’s War on Black America,” which explored the FBI’s targeting of individuals involved in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, Carpenito said. He added that a timestamp written on the note corresponded to a segment in the documentary where an interviewee advocates killing “fascist pig cops.”
The interviewee that apparently inspired the attack was with Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. The documentary is available for streaming on Amazon. Here’s how it’s described on the site:
The FBI’s War on Black America looks at a dark period in our country’s history, an exploration of the lives and deaths of people targeted by the US government’s COINTELPRO, an FBI program aimed against organized efforts by African-Americans to gain rights guaranteed by our constitution. This underground classic is as relevant today as the day it was originally released.
The first person the shooters killed that day was Det. Joseph Seals. Authorities suggested today that Seals intervention may have thrown off a bigger plot that could have killed even more people. The shooters have also been connected to a shooting that happened a week earlier when a Jewish man had his rear window shot out as he was driving.
The number of “bias incidents” that took place in New Jersey was up 65 percent last year compared to 2018 according to figures released today. Here’s a local news report on the Jersey City attackers and the new information released today:


hotair--2020-01-13--Pelosi: Who really knows why Iranians are protesting in the streets?

Iranians going into the street after the strike on Qassem Soleimani ?
“ Joined together against us.
” Iranians going into the street over the regime ’ s lies over its shootdown of a passenger jet ?
Well , “ there are different reasons why people are in the street , ” says … Nancy Pelosi ?
That might be the preferred narrative for Iran ’ s ruling mullahcracy , but it ’ s a strange position for an American political leader to take .
And yet , here we have Pelosi making that very argument on yesterday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephanopoulos .
It doesn ’ t take long for Pelosi to get tangled up in the obvious contradictions of this argument and of the policy choices : STEPHANOPOULOS : The question is how we get there .
We ’ re seeing now demonstrations in the streets of Iran against the regime .
Do you support those protesters and would it be a good thing if they brought the regime down ?
PELOSI : Well , the regime — the protesters are — are protesting , as I understand it , this brand of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plane went down .
And many students were on that plane .
And these are largely students in the street .
I think the Iranians should have not had commercial flights going off when there was — STEPHANOPOULOS : They ’ re calling out the regime for lying .
They ’ re saying death to Khomeini as well .
PELOSI : Yes .
Well , whatever it is .
But the fact is this , the — there were protesters in the streets before against the regime .
After the taking out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street , joined together , as you know , against us .
That wasn ’ t good .
Taking down this plane is a terrible , terrible tragedy .
And they should be held accountable for letting commercial flights go at a time that was so , so dangerous .
But there are different reasons why people are in the street .
Of course we would love to see the aspirations of the people of Iran realized with a better situation there , but escalating the situation — unless we ’ ve exhausted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we don ’ t know that .
We don ’ t know that .
And if the first — the first action to be taken on the threat of — there — there are — a lot of bad actors who are doing bad things and threatening bad things to us .
We know that .
Iran being one of them .
And it being a — it ’ s proxies doing bad things to our interests throughout the world .
But how do we deal with that in a way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an absurd statement on multiple levels .
This valediction from an Iranian state television anchor makes it plain why : Pelosi ’ s argument assumes that Iranians have agency only when they protest against the US .
It ’ s fair to assume that ordinary Iranians might not be terribly fond of us after years of economic sanctions , but assigning independence to those protests ignores the ruthless totalitarian nature of the Iranian regime — which Pelosi also acknowledges .
The Soleimani protests served the regime ’ s interests , which is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if not actively organized by the IRGC and the mullahs themselves for the useful idiots in the West .
Last week , Iranian ex-pat Parnaz Foroutan specifically warned the media about the nature of those protests : Since Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed last week , I have been listening very carefully , to hear what is not being said .
I have done this because these many decades later , I have witnessed Western media fail to discern between the public display of ideology sanctioned by the Islamic Republic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinions of those who dissent .
I listened to The New York Times say that “ Iran is in mourning ” after his death .
Headlines repeated the word mourning and showed crowds in the streets of Iran weeping and holding signs that promised revenge for the death of a beloved hero .
The news has repeatedly referred to Soleimani as reveredby the Iranian people .
What has not been widely said is that this revered hero was the same man who oversaw the deaths of at least 1,500 Iranians protesting the regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the internet and its security forces opened fire on the millions who took to the streets — a response understood to be under Soleimani ’ s orders , given his role in suppressing dissent .
I haven ’ t heard anyone refer to Soleimani ’ s statement , which I heard broadcast on my Los Angeles radio station only weeks ago , that he was ready to kill millions more of his own countrymen in order to protect the regime .
… The international press has reported on those who have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condolences for the death of this revered hero , but virtually no one in the press has mentioned that some might be forced to do so in order to protect their livelihood .
Because the state controls everything in Iran .
If you want permission to build an apartment , shoot your movie or display your artwork , or you need a loan to start a business or to get the deed to your own home , you are at the mercy of government officials .
In order to make a living , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if you spit upon the mention of Soleimani ’ s name in the privacy of your own home , in front of those you trust with your life .
Because to dissent is to risk your life .
In a dictatorship , under the reign of a murderous government , you either show your devoted allegiance , you do what you are told , or you die .
This puts the protests taking place now in a starkly different context .
These are protests against the regime , tearing down pictures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranians in the manner Foroutan describes .
They are chanting “ Death to Khameini ” in great risk to their lives , not “ Death to America ” at no risk whatsoever .
Which of these seems more organic and credible as a measure of the Iranian peoples ’ mindset ?
And yet , here we have Pelosi taking the mullah-organized protests at face value while shrugging off the current protests as student grievances at best .
Pelosi doesn ’ t fare much better on the policy argument , either .
She tells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first , which … we did with the Iran deal .
It didn ’ t stop Soleimani from organizing terror-group proxies and attacks on Americans , and it ’ s been clear for decades that Iran has no interest in de-escalation regardless .
They want to impose a regional hegemony from Tehran of their particular strain of radical Islam , not play nice in the sandbox with others .
That ’ s been apparent since 1979 , the 1982 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut , the series of kidnapping of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race to acquire nuclear weapons .
At least that ’ s an arguable point .
By embracing the anti-US protests and denigrating the anti-regime protests , Pelosi exposed herself as incoherent at best … and totally Trump-obsessed as well .

Iranians going into the street after the strike on Qassem Soleimani? “Joined together against us.” Iranians going into the street over the regime’s lies over its shootdown of a passenger jet? Well, “there are different reasons why people are in the street,” says … Nancy Pelosi?
That might be the preferred narrative for Iran’s ruling mullahcracy, but it’s a strange position for an American political leader to take. And yet, here we have Pelosi making that very argument on yesterday’s This Week with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. It doesn’t take long for Pelosi to get tangled up in the obvious contradictions of this argument and of the policy choices:
Pelosi dismisses protests in Iran against regime, "different reasons why people are in the street"https://t.co/weKuQ6fSlO pic.twitter.com/q9YwCUZrQ9 — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 12, 2020
STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is how we get there. We’re seeing now demonstrations in the streets of Iran against the regime. Do you support those protesters and would it be a good thing if they brought the regime down? PELOSI: Well, the regime — the protesters are — are protesting, as I understand it, this brand of protesters, about the fact that that plane went down. And many students were on that plane. And these are largely students in the street. I think the Iranians should have not had commercial flights going off when there was — STEPHANOPOULOS: They’re calling out the regime for lying. They’re saying death to Khomeini as well. PELOSI: Yes. Well, whatever it is. But the fact is this, the — there were protesters in the streets before against the regime. After the taking out of Soleimani, there were protesters in the street, joined together, as you know, against us. That wasn’t good. Taking down this plane is a terrible, terrible tragedy. And they should be held accountable for letting commercial flights go at a time that was so, so dangerous. But there are different reasons why people are in the street. Of course we would love to see the aspirations of the people of Iran realized with a better situation there, but escalating the situation — unless we’ve exhausted every other remedy — STEPHANOPOULOS: Which we haven’t? PELOSI: Well, we don’t know that. We don’t know that. And if the first — the first action to be taken on the threat of — there — there are — a lot of bad actors who are doing bad things and threatening bad things to us. We know that. Iran being one of them. And it being a — it’s proxies doing bad things to our interests throughout the world. But how do we deal with that in a way that calms rather than escalates?
This is an absurd statement on multiple levels. This valediction from an Iranian state television anchor makes it plain why:
Iran State TV's anchor resigns saying, "It was very hard for me to believe the killing of my countrymen. I apologize for lying to you on TV for 13 years."#IranProtests2020 https://t.co/XnTv72KDkZ — Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 13, 2020
Pelosi’s argument assumes that Iranians have agency only when they protest against the US. It’s fair to assume that ordinary Iranians might not be terribly fond of us after years of economic sanctions, but assigning independence to those protests ignores the ruthless totalitarian nature of the Iranian regime — which Pelosi also acknowledges. The Soleimani protests served the regime’s interests, which is why they were allowed to occur at all, if not actively organized by the IRGC and the mullahs themselves for the useful idiots in the West.
Last week, Iranian ex-pat Parnaz Foroutan specifically warned the media about the nature of those protests:
Since Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed last week, I have been listening very carefully, to hear what is not being said. I have done this because these many decades later, I have witnessed Western media fail to discern between the public display of ideology sanctioned by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the quickly silenced protests and opinions of those who dissent. I listened to The New York Times say that “Iran is in mourning” after his death. Headlines repeated the word mourning and showed crowds in the streets of Iran weeping and holding signs that promised revenge for the death of a beloved hero. The news has repeatedly referred to Soleimani as reveredby the Iranian people. What has not been widely said is that this revered hero was the same man who oversaw the deaths of at least 1,500 Iranians protesting the regime just this fall, when it blacked out the internet and its security forces opened fire on the millions who took to the streets — a response understood to be under Soleimani’s orders, given his role in suppressing dissent. I haven’t heard anyone refer to Soleimani’s statement, which I heard broadcast on my Los Angeles radio station only weeks ago, that he was ready to kill millions more of his own countrymen in order to protect the regime. … The international press has reported on those who have made public statements in Iran, their tear-filled condolences for the death of this revered hero, but virtually no one in the press has mentioned that some might be forced to do so in order to protect their livelihood. Because the state controls everything in Iran. If you want permission to build an apartment, shoot your movie or display your artwork, or you need a loan to start a business or to get the deed to your own home, you are at the mercy of government officials. In order to make a living, you play the part of a patriot, even if you spit upon the mention of Soleimani’s name in the privacy of your own home, in front of those you trust with your life. Because to dissent is to risk your life. In a dictatorship, under the reign of a murderous government, you either show your devoted allegiance, you do what you are told, or you die.
This puts the protests taking place now in a starkly different context. These are protests against the regime, tearing down pictures of Soleimani, who spent decades oppressing Iranians in the manner Foroutan describes. They are chanting “Death to Khameini” in great risk to their lives, not “Death to America” at no risk whatsoever. Which of these seems more organic and credible as a measure of the Iranian peoples’ mindset? And yet, here we have Pelosi taking the mullah-organized protests at face value while shrugging off the current protests as student grievances at best.
Pelosi doesn’t fare much better on the policy argument, either. She tells Stephanopoulos that we should try de-escalating policies first, which … we did with the Iran deal. It didn’t stop Soleimani from organizing terror-group proxies and attacks on Americans, and it’s been clear for decades that Iran has no interest in de-escalation regardless. They want to impose a regional hegemony from Tehran of their particular strain of radical Islam, not play nice in the sandbox with others. That’s been apparent since 1979, the 1982 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the series of kidnapping of Americans in Lebanon, and especially in their race to acquire nuclear weapons.
At least that’s an arguable point. By embracing the anti-US protests and denigrating the anti-regime protests, Pelosi exposed herself as incoherent at best … and totally Trump-obsessed as well.