hotair--2020-01-18--Preening Pelosi trolls Trump on HBO: "You are impeached forever"

Just in case there is any doubt in your mind about the personal vindictiveness of Speaker Pelosi , her appearance on Bill Maher ’ s HBO show Friday night clarified everything .
In case President Trump tuned in , Pelosi wanted to be perfectly clear – no matter what happens in the Senate , the House ’ s impeachment of Trump is forever .
Pelosi ’ s appearance on Bill Maher ’ s show – Real Time with Bill Maher – is noted as a major booking accomplishment , given her role in the impeachment process .
Friday night ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 .
Maher even cleaned up his monologue in deference to her .
The solemn and prayerful Pelosi , though , showed herself to be no better than any other partisan hack .
Pelosi ’ s crowing about impeachment being forever is particularly unseemly .
Let there be no doubt in anyone ’ s mind that the Speaker is taking a lap for pushing through Trump ’ s impeachment in the House .
It doesn ’ t matter that it is a party-line exercise , either .
( Remember , she rammed through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too . )
Her contempt for Trump is as obvious as any other member of The Resistance .
She couches her glee with the claim that she had no choice , you know .
She had to proceed with impeachment because Trump brought it on himself .
Most importantly , she took the opportunity to troll Trump , just in case he was watching the show .
“ You are impeached forever.
” “ You are impeached forever , ” Pelosi said with a smile on HBO ’ s “ Real Time with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate does , it can never be erased.
” “ If I knew that the president is listening , I would want him to know that he is impeached forever , and he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit .
In doing so , he undermined our national security , he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us no choice.
” Pelosi is not solemn when she talks about her success in delivering the vote for impeachment .
She was smiling as broadly as she did when she posed for pictures after she signed the articles of impeachment .
Her own words also betray her message that it is not political or personal with her – she is just protecting the Constitution .
She describes those around Trump as his “ henchmen ” .
Bill Maher got so carried away with Pelosi ’ s presence that he declared her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thatcher .
He went on to do a bit of re-writing of history , in the fashion of Howard Zinn and gave her credit for saving the country more than once .
Margaret Thatcher must be rolling in her grave .
For those of us who look at this impeachment as a farcical form of retaliation against Trump , Pelosi says there is plenty of information out there but the House had all it needed to proceed with impeachment .
She essentially admits the case for impeachment is less than substantial in evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The fact is is that we knew we had a solid case for impeachment of the president .
The facts were clear , the Constitution required it , and we wanted to make our case and go forward , so we put forth the articles of impeachment and in fact voted them , ” she said .
“ We knew there was plenty of other , should we say , information to come forward , but it wasn ’ t necessary to impeach the president .
It would have been further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wouldn ’ t in any way weaken the case that had the support of my caucus and was completely understood by the American people.
” I ’ ll note the irony in her tone-deaf spin .
Yes , the American people “ completely understand ” what the House of Representatives did by impeaching President Trump .
Democrats have been perfectly clear since Trump ’ s inauguration – they can not accept the fact that Hillary was not elected .
Democrats have sought to delegitimize the 2016 presidential election ever since .
Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s trolling of Trump and even included another reference from across the pond when he called Trump “ a racist Teletubby ” .
Conservatives and Trump supporters completely understand that the impeachment process has been one-sided .
One Democrat even switched parties to join the GOP along the way .
Maher is known for his often vulgar way of speaking but Friday night show ’ s monologue was a bit different .
He cleaned up his language in deference to San Fran Gran .
She noticed and patted him on the head .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi and the Democrats , though , is with his successes in office .
The economy is hitting on all cylinders – unemployment is at a historic low , Wall Street records are being broken on a daily basis , mortgage rates are low , and construction numbers rose in December .
President Trump signed phase one of a historic deal with China and there is the USMCA deal with Mexico and Canada .
He is ordering drone attacks on bad guys and knocked off the evilest of terrorists , General Soleimani .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very good week for President Trump .

Just in case there is any doubt in your mind about the personal vindictiveness of Speaker Pelosi, her appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show Friday night clarified everything. In case President Trump tuned in, Pelosi wanted to be perfectly clear – no matter what happens in the Senate, the House’s impeachment of Trump is forever.
Pelosi’s appearance on Bill Maher’s show – Real Time with Bill Maher – is noted as a major booking accomplishment, given her role in the impeachment process. Friday night’s show was the premiere of Season 17. Maher even cleaned up his monologue in deference to her. The solemn and prayerful Pelosi, though, showed herself to be no better than any other partisan hack.
Pelosi’s crowing about impeachment being forever is particularly unseemly. Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Speaker is taking a lap for pushing through Trump’s impeachment in the House. It doesn’t matter that it is a party-line exercise, either. (Remember, she rammed through Obamacare on a partisan line vote, too.) Her contempt for Trump is as obvious as any other member of The Resistance. She couches her glee with the claim that she had no choice, you know. She had to proceed with impeachment because Trump brought it on himself. Most importantly, she took the opportunity to troll Trump, just in case he was watching the show. “You are impeached forever.”
“You are impeached forever,” Pelosi said with a smile on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “No matter what the Senate does, it can never be erased.” “If I knew that the president is listening, I would want him to know that he is impeached forever, and he is impeached forever because he used the office of the president to try to influence a foreign country for his personal and political benefit. In doing so, he undermined our national security, he was disloyal to his oath of office to protect the Constitution and he placed in jeopardy the integrity of our election,” she added later. “He gave us no choice.”
Pelosi is not solemn when she talks about her success in delivering the vote for impeachment. She was smiling as broadly as she did when she posed for pictures after she signed the articles of impeachment. Her own words also betray her message that it is not political or personal with her – she is just protecting the Constitution. She describes those around Trump as his “henchmen”.
Pelosi said the famous Watergate book by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would require a revamped title if it was written about Trump and his cronies. “If they were to rewrite All the Presidents Men it should be written as All the Presidents Henchmen.”
Bill Maher got so carried away with Pelosi’s presence that he declared her to be the Democrats’ version of Margaret Thatcher. He went on to do a bit of re-writing of history, in the fashion of Howard Zinn and gave her credit for saving the country more than once. Margaret Thatcher must be rolling in her grave.
Maher fluffed pillows for Pelosi with most of his questions. At one point, for instance, Maher described Pelosi as a mistreated national hero: “This is the person who saved the country from going into a depression by passing the stimulus, who saved the automobile industry, and got [trade agreement] passed and got health care [when] Obamacare got passed. You’re kind of our Iron Lady here on the left.”
For those of us who look at this impeachment as a farcical form of retaliation against Trump, Pelosi says there is plenty of information out there but the House had all it needed to proceed with impeachment. She essentially admits the case for impeachment is less than substantial in evidence yet she spins the justification for it.
“The fact is is that we knew we had a solid case for impeachment of the president. The facts were clear, the Constitution required it, and we wanted to make our case and go forward, so we put forth the articles of impeachment and in fact voted them,” she said. “We knew there was plenty of other, should we say, information to come forward, but it wasn’t necessary to impeach the president. It would have been further incriminating, but not necessary, and it wouldn’t in any way weaken the case that had the support of my caucus and was completely understood by the American people.”
I’ll note the irony in her tone-deaf spin. Yes, the American people “completely understand” what the House of Representatives did by impeaching President Trump. Democrats have been perfectly clear since Trump’s inauguration – they cannot accept the fact that Hillary was not elected. Democrats have sought to delegitimize the 2016 presidential election ever since. Bill Maher was happy to encourage Pelosi’s trolling of Trump and even included another reference from across the pond when he called Trump “a racist Teletubby”. Conservatives and Trump supporters completely understand that the impeachment process has been one-sided. One Democrat even switched parties to join the GOP along the way.
Maher is known for his often vulgar way of speaking but Friday night show’s monologue was a bit different. He cleaned up his language in deference to San Fran Gran. She noticed and patted him on the head.
The typically salty and pugnacious Maher had seemed more reserved than usual in his monologue a fact that even Pelosi noted after Maher introduced her as the top-of the-show guest. “I must say your opening was, shall we say….not [risque], not so much.” Maher looked abashed. “I was cleaning it up for you.”
The best revenge Trump can deliver to Pelosi and the Democrats, though, is with his successes in office. The economy is hitting on all cylinders – unemployment is at a historic low, Wall Street records are being broken on a daily basis, mortgage rates are low, and construction numbers rose in December. President Trump signed phase one of a historic deal with China and there is the USMCA deal with Mexico and Canada. He is ordering drone attacks on bad guys and knocked off the evilest of terrorists, General Soleimani. It turns out that Impeachment Week was a very good week for President Trump.


hotair--2020-01-18--Virginia state supreme court rules on Governor's gun ban for rally

There ’ s a big Second Amendment rally coming up on Monday in Virginia , planned to be held at the capitol in Richmond .
In advance of the event , Governor Ralph Northam decided to declare a state of emergency and ban all firearms in Capitol Square where the event is to be held .
The Governor cited “ credible threats ” of violence from white supremacists as the reason for the ban .
His decision was immediately challenged and sent all the way to the state supreme court , and on Friday night they issued a ruling upholding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ban .
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s state of emergency order banning weapons at the Capitol for Monday ’ s gun rights rally can stay in place .
Organizers of the rally petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the executive order and allow demonstrators to carry firearms at the event… In her written decision , Taylor cited rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts that found the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not unlimited .
Because of that , she wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffer an irreparable harm ” sufficient to justify the injunction .
Both the original lower court ruling from Judge Joi Taylor and the state supreme court ruling are incredibly vague .
The courts are citing the Governor ’ s power to ensure “ the safety and welfare ” of the state , as well as quoting the United States Supreme Court , saying the Second Amendment is “ not without limits.
” Both of those things are true , but the limits have to be reasonable .
And you ’ re not supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s constitutional rights every time you believe there ’ s a credible threat .
There ’ s apparently some white supremacist group called “ The Base ” that ’ s been making noises about attending the rally and starting trouble .
If that ’ s the case , then keep an eye out for them on Monday and arrest them if they so much as lift a finger to cause any violence .
( The FBI already arrested three of their members in Maryland this week who were planning to go to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is codify the idea that any Democratic governor , mayor or other officials can suspend the Second Amendment any time they feel like it simply by declaring a state of emergency .
Some blue states and cities will likely soon be in perpetual states of emergency at this rate .
I would argue that the real emergency here is the erosion of the constitution and the chilling of free speech .
None of this is to say that an outbreak of violence isn ’ t possible .
We learned that previously with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Klansmen showed up .
But it ’ s the Governor ’ s job to keep the peace and protect his citizens .
That ’ s what the State Police are for .
Adding to the confusion was the announced cancellation of an annual vigil held each year by a gun-control group at the same location shortly after the Second Amendment demonstration .
They too cited threats of violence as the reason to stay away .
I ’ m guessing that the upshot of all this will be even more unrest among gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and western reaches of the state .
And that ’ s probably going to make West Virginia ’ s offer to switch sides and join their state look all the more tempting .

There’s a big Second Amendment rally coming up on Monday in Virginia, planned to be held at the capitol in Richmond. In advance of the event, Governor Ralph Northam decided to declare a state of emergency and ban all firearms in Capitol Square where the event is to be held. The Governor cited “credible threats” of violence from white supremacists as the reason for the ban. His decision was immediately challenged and sent all the way to the state supreme court, and on Friday night they issued a ruling upholding Northam’s ability to enforce such a ban.
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled Gov. Ralph Northam’s state of emergency order banning weapons at the Capitol for Monday’s gun rights rally can stay in place. Organizers of the rally petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the executive order and allow demonstrators to carry firearms at the event… In her written decision, Taylor cited rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts that found the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not unlimited. Because of that, she wrote, the gun-rights groups would not “suffer an irreparable harm” sufficient to justify the injunction.
Both the original lower court ruling from Judge Joi Taylor and the state supreme court ruling are incredibly vague. The courts are citing the Governor’s power to ensure “the safety and welfare” of the state, as well as quoting the United States Supreme Court, saying the Second Amendment is “not without limits.”
Both of those things are true, but the limits have to be reasonable. And you’re not supposed to be able to suspend people’s constitutional rights every time you believe there’s a credible threat. There’s apparently some white supremacist group called “The Base” that’s been making noises about attending the rally and starting trouble. If that’s the case, then keep an eye out for them on Monday and arrest them if they so much as lift a finger to cause any violence. (The FBI already arrested three of their members in Maryland this week who were planning to go to the rally.)
What these rulings do is codify the idea that any Democratic governor, mayor or other officials can suspend the Second Amendment any time they feel like it simply by declaring a state of emergency. Some blue states and cities will likely soon be in perpetual states of emergency at this rate. I would argue that the real emergency here is the erosion of the constitution and the chilling of free speech.
None of this is to say that an outbreak of violence isn’t possible. We learned that previously with the events in Charlottesville where some actual neo-nazis and Klansmen showed up. But it’s the Governor’s job to keep the peace and protect his citizens. That’s what the State Police are for.
Adding to the confusion was the announced cancellation of an annual vigil held each year by a gun-control group at the same location shortly after the Second Amendment demonstration. They too cited threats of violence as the reason to stay away.
I’m guessing that the upshot of all this will be even more unrest among gun rights advocates, particularly in the southern and western reaches of the state. And that’s probably going to make West Virginia’s offer to switch sides and join their state look all the more tempting.


hotair--2020-01-18--Is the anti-Trump protest movement stalling?

I ’ m old enough to remember when it didn ’ t take anything more than Donald Trump saying he ’ d like to make America great again to see ten thousand people out in the streets of any major city screaming about how the Bad Orange Man was bad .
And orange .
But these days , if you ’ ve been getting the impression that the protests seem to be losing some steam it ’ s probably not just your imagination .
The Associated Press has been digging into some of the numbers and finds that people don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same massive numbers every time MoveOn sends out an action alert email .
Days after President Donald Trump killed an Iranian general and said he was sending more soldiers to the Middle East , about 100 protesters stood on a pedestrian bridge over Chicago ’ s Lake Shore Drive with an illuminated sign that read “ No War in Iran.
” Some 200 people marched in the bitter cold near Boston , while a few dozen people demonstrated on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall and at similarly sized gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took office and millions of people swarmed to the Women ’ s March in Washington and companion marches across the country , these typically modest protests are often the most visible sign of today ’ s Trump resistance .
Is this a symptom of something larger going on across the nation ?
When you can ’ t even get forty people to show up for a protest on the steps of City Hall in Los Angeles , ( a thing that actually happened ) something is afoot .
Los Angeles isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
It ’ s also ground zero for seething hatred of the President and chock full of celebrities with little better to occupy their time than show up for an anti-Trump protest .
It ’ s basically impossible to generate any specific data that would account for this apparent lack of enthusiasm for massive protests .
Liberal organizers who spoke to the Associated Press were quick to assure reporters that this shouldn ’ t be seen as any sort of waning of their dedication to the proposition of removing Trump from office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ too busy ” doing other things like “ knocking on doors for candidates , mailing postcards to voters , advocating for specific causes or running for office.
” But is that really what ’ s going on ?
I would suggest that it ’ s just a combination of burnout and the gradual realization that the opposition is stuck with Trump until at least next January .
The left is also very likely coming to the conclusion that the President is never going to change his behavior to suit their desires and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter how often they take to the streets .
Let ’ s remember where all of this started .
The “ women ’ s march ” showed up in Washington with more than 200,000 people before the inaugural festivities had drawn to a close .
They were protesting before the President had a chance to perform one official duty of his office aside from taking the oath .
This was never about objecting to any of the President ’ s actions or policies .
It was simply a bitter refusal to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can only keep up that sort of anger for so long before you start to burn out .
And we ’ ve seen one poll after another showing that Democrats are avoiding getting their hopes up too much because they ’ re aware that Trump may still win a second term .
And that should leave us with the key exit question spurred by these dismal protest attendance numbers .
If the Democrats can ’ t get their people out in the streets to decry Donald Trump , how do they expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in November ?

I’m old enough to remember when it didn’t take anything more than Donald Trump saying he’d like to make America great again to see ten thousand people out in the streets of any major city screaming about how the Bad Orange Man was bad. And orange. But these days, if you’ve been getting the impression that the protests seem to be losing some steam it’s probably not just your imagination. The Associated Press has been digging into some of the numbers and finds that people don’t appear to be turning out in the same massive numbers every time MoveOn sends out an action alert email.
Days after President Donald Trump killed an Iranian general and said he was sending more soldiers to the Middle East, about 100 protesters stood on a pedestrian bridge over Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive with an illuminated sign that read “No War in Iran.” Some 200 people marched in the bitter cold near Boston, while a few dozen people demonstrated on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall and at similarly sized gatherings across the U.S. Three years after Trump took office and millions of people swarmed to the Women’s March in Washington and companion marches across the country, these typically modest protests are often the most visible sign of today’s Trump resistance.
Is this a symptom of something larger going on across the nation? When you can’t even get forty people to show up for a protest on the steps of City Hall in Los Angeles, (a thing that actually happened) something is afoot. Los Angeles isn’t just the second-most populous city in the country. It’s also ground zero for seething hatred of the President and chock full of celebrities with little better to occupy their time than show up for an anti-Trump protest.
It’s basically impossible to generate any specific data that would account for this apparent lack of enthusiasm for massive protests. Liberal organizers who spoke to the Associated Press were quick to assure reporters that this shouldn’t be seen as any sort of waning of their dedication to the proposition of removing Trump from office. They say that activists are simply “too busy” doing other things like “knocking on doors for candidates, mailing postcards to voters, advocating for specific causes or running for office.”
But is that really what’s going on? I would suggest that it’s just a combination of burnout and the gradual realization that the opposition is stuck with Trump until at least next January. The left is also very likely coming to the conclusion that the President is never going to change his behavior to suit their desires and his supporters are not abandoning him, no matter how often they take to the streets.
Let’s remember where all of this started. The “women’s march” showed up in Washington with more than 200,000 people before the inaugural festivities had drawn to a close. They were protesting before the President had a chance to perform one official duty of his office aside from taking the oath. This was never about objecting to any of the President’s actions or policies. It was simply a bitter refusal to accept the results of the election.
But you can only keep up that sort of anger for so long before you start to burn out. And we’ve seen one poll after another showing that Democrats are avoiding getting their hopes up too much because they’re aware that Trump may still win a second term. And that should leave us with the key exit question spurred by these dismal protest attendance numbers. If the Democrats can’t get their people out in the streets to decry Donald Trump, how do they expect to get them out to the polls in November?


hotair--2020-01-18--Today was the 4th annual Women's March...Does it still matter?

The 4th annual Women ’ s March is taking place today in cities around the country .
Crowds in Washington DC were expected to be smaller than previous years due to bad weather .
Reporter Alejandro Alvarez had coverage of the march : Hard to tell how many people are there .
The permit application anticipated 3,000 to 10,000 .
I ’ d say it ’ s closer to 3,000 : Last year the organizers estimated the crowd in DC was 60,000 .
This year it ’ s maybe a tenth of that .
Similar marches are taking place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles : I found a live-stream helicopter shot of the LA march .
The reporter in the chopper was saying it ’ s definitely a much smaller crowd than the first one in 2017 : Someone caught a scuffle involving a marcher and a Trump supporter .
Looks like a woman spit at the guy with the “ Trump 2020 ” flag and he pushed her back hard enough to knock her down : Philadelphia…crowd looks smallish but weather looks miserable : USA Today has a story up about the diminished crowd sizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The crowd estimator pegged nationwide participation in the 650-plus sister marches that day [ 2017 ] at 3.3 million-5.3 million , making it the largest single-day protest in U.S. history .
Those figures dwindled to 1.9 million-2.6 million in 2018 and 676,000-747,000 in 2019 .
Some of the diminishing numbers can be attributed to protest fatigue , and perhaps Trump fatigue .
But not all .
“ With the reorganization of the Women ’ s March group , there ’ s been no discussion in D.C. at all really about the upcoming anniversary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a University of Maryland sociology professor and author of the book “ American Resistance , ” which chronicles the activist movement to oppose Trump .
“ They haven ’ t maintained the momentum , and they haven ’ t done a great job of continuing to connect with the individuals who have been their core activists.
’ ’ The obvious cause of some of this decline is controversy involving the leadership of the march .
In 2018 the group ’ s leaders were accused of anti-Semitism and refused to apologize for close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three of the four co-chairs resigned under pressure .
The one co-chair who remains , Carmen Perez gave an interview to the Atlantic this week .
The title of the piece is “ Has the Women ’ s March Accomplished Anything ?
” Perez—who also serves as the president and chief executive officer of the Gathering for Justice , which works against racism in the criminal-justice system—could not give a lucid description of the goals of the Women ’ s March organization .
This week , it has hosted “ actions ” —in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the march ’ s three main issue areas : immigration , climate , and reproductive justice .
But the planned events also veered into other territory , including a protest against war with Iran .
It was not clear from our conversation whether and how the Women ’ s March organization plans to take concrete action on its long list of chosen issues .
When pressed , Perez said the organization ’ s first goal is to “ bring awareness.
” As the author pointed out , when asked directly , Perez still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : As you ’ re probably aware , part of the discomfort of some within the Jewish community was your hesitation to condemn people who are proximate to your organizing efforts , specifically Farrakhan .
Have you gotten to a place where you feel comfortable saying , “ I do not stand with him , and he doesn ’ t represent what I believe ” ?
Perez : I want to make clear that I organize under the ideology of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That ’ s the reason why our messaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not anti-Trump—it was for something , for our unity principles .
I do not support racism or bigotry .
I do not support anti-Semitism .
As a Latina woman , we don ’ t denounce people , but that does not mean that we can not stand up and fight for our Jewish siblings and the Jewish community .
The work that I feel is important is to make sure that we ’ re building transformational relationships and also opportunities for reconciliation .
That is my life ’ s work .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their concerns , and they ’ ve also listened to me , and it ’ s about us building stronger relationships .
Why is it so hard to simply denounce the man ?
He ’ s a leading anti-Semite at a time when rising anti-Semitism is a serious concern .
Perez seemed to be the most willing to apologize of the original four co-chairs but she still won ’ t go there .
At this point my guess is the Women ’ s March will vanish if a Democrat wins the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests vanished once Obama was elected .
However , if Trump wins the election this year then there will probably be a resurgence in the march ’ s turnout next January .
I wonder which outcome the march organizers are hoping for at this point .

The 4th annual Women’s March is taking place today in cities around the country. Crowds in Washington DC were expected to be smaller than previous years due to bad weather. Reporter Alejandro Alvarez had coverage of the march:
Pink-hatted women have parked a big cage with a doll wrapped in a space blanket behind the media riser. Seems like a good time to mention immigration is one of their three big issues this year – others being climate and abortion rights.#WomensMarch2020 pic.twitter.com/bIIPzVUy4z — Alejandro Alvarez (@aletweetsnews) January 18, 2020
Hard to tell how many people are there. The permit application anticipated 3,000 to 10,000. I’d say it’s closer to 3,000:
The march begins. It’s big enough to fill a stretch of Constitution Avenue from 17th to 15th streets from edge to edge. That’s easily a few thousand people at least. Out front, a climate-themed phoenix showing animals rising from the ashes of a burning forest.#WomensMarch2020 pic.twitter.com/SpE6wom49J — Alejandro Alvarez (@aletweetsnews) January 18, 2020
Last year the organizers estimated the crowd in DC was 60,000. This year it’s maybe a tenth of that.
Similar marches are taking place in more than 200 other locations. Los Angeles:
Good morning from the fourth annual Women's March in downtown Los Angeles. Crowds are gathering before the march to City Hall starts pic.twitter.com/xkwrn8ATMo — Colleen Shalby (@CShalby) January 18, 2020
I found a live-stream helicopter shot of the LA march. The reporter in the chopper was saying it’s definitely a much smaller crowd than the first one in 2017:
Chicago turnout seems pretty strong:
There’s snow on the ground, but there are thousands of people here at Women’s March Chicago pic.twitter.com/hBvKMILHAB — Grace Hauck (@grace_hauck) January 18, 2020
New York City:
Someone caught a scuffle involving a marcher and a Trump supporter. Looks like a woman spit at the guy with the “Trump 2020” flag and he pushed her back hard enough to knock her down:
https://twitter.com/missiwimberly/status/1218573825631191042
Philadelphia…crowd looks smallish but weather looks miserable:
A snowy start to the Women’s March! Crowd making its way to the stage in front of the art museum steps for a rally @FOX29philly pic.twitter.com/y5zWJ8HHdM — Kelly Rule (@KellyRuleTV) January 18, 2020
USA Today has a story up about the diminished crowd sizes over the March’s history:
The crowd estimator pegged nationwide participation in the 650-plus sister marches that day [2017] at 3.3 million-5.3 million, making it the largest single-day protest in U.S. history. Those figures dwindled to 1.9 million-2.6 million in 2018 and 676,000-747,000 in 2019. Some of the diminishing numbers can be attributed to protest fatigue, and perhaps Trump fatigue. But not all. “With the reorganization of the Women’s March group, there’s been no discussion in D.C. at all really about the upcoming anniversary,’’ said Dana R. Fisher, a University of Maryland sociology professor and author of the book “American Resistance,” which chronicles the activist movement to oppose Trump. “They haven’t maintained the momentum, and they haven’t done a great job of continuing to connect with the individuals who have been their core activists.’’
The obvious cause of some of this decline is controversy involving the leadership of the march. In 2018 the group’s leaders were accused of anti-Semitism and refused to apologize for close proximity to Louis Farrakhan. Eventually, three of the four co-chairs resigned under pressure. The one co-chair who remains, Carmen Perez gave an interview to the Atlantic this week. The title of the piece is “Has the Women’s March Accomplished Anything?”
Perez—who also serves as the president and chief executive officer of the Gathering for Justice, which works against racism in the criminal-justice system—could not give a lucid description of the goals of the Women’s March organization. This week, it has hosted “actions”—in effect, guided conversations and rallies—focused on the march’s three main issue areas: immigration, climate, and reproductive justice. But the planned events also veered into other territory, including a protest against war with Iran. It was not clear from our conversation whether and how the Women’s March organization plans to take concrete action on its long list of chosen issues. When pressed, Perez said the organization’s first goal is to “bring awareness.”
As the author pointed out, when asked directly, Perez still wouldn’t condemn Farrakhan:
Green: As you’re probably aware, part of the discomfort of some within the Jewish community was your hesitation to condemn people who are proximate to your organizing efforts, specifically Farrakhan. Have you gotten to a place where you feel comfortable saying, “I do not stand with him, and he doesn’t represent what I believe”? Perez: I want to make clear that I organize under the ideology of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That’s the reason why our messaging in the 2017 Women’s March was not anti-Trump—it was for something, for our unity principles. I do not support racism or bigotry. I do not support anti-Semitism. As a Latina woman, we don’t denounce people, but that does not mean that we cannot stand up and fight for our Jewish siblings and the Jewish community. The work that I feel is important is to make sure that we’re building transformational relationships and also opportunities for reconciliation. That is my life’s work. And so I listened to the Jewish community and their concerns, and they’ve also listened to me, and it’s about us building stronger relationships.
Why is it so hard to simply denounce the man? He’s a leading anti-Semite at a time when rising anti-Semitism is a serious concern. Perez seemed to be the most willing to apologize of the original four co-chairs but she still won’t go there.
At this point my guess is the Women’s March will vanish if a Democrat wins the 2020 election, the same way the anti-war protests vanished once Obama was elected. However, if Trump wins the election this year then there will probably be a resurgence in the march’s turnout next January. I wonder which outcome the march organizers are hoping for at this point.


hotair--2020-01-19--School lunch guidelines rolled back on Michelle Obama's birthday

Is it a coincidence that the new school lunch guidelines were announced on the birthday of Michelle Obama ?
The signature initiative of the former first lady was introducing meal guidelines that she deemed healthier for school children in grades K-12 .
Who among us doesn ’ t remember the photos of Michelle working in her White House vegetable garden in super-expensive sneakers ?
She incorporated a “ Let ’ s Move !
” exercise initiative along with the school nutrition program .
The problem with government nanny initiatives coming out of Washington , D.C. is that a one-size-fits-all approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened with Michelle ’ s lunch program was further proof that the food scolds don ’ t always make the best policy decisions .
The schools reported large amounts of food waste because the kids weren ’ t eating the lunches .
The transition didn ’ t go particularly smoothly .
Mrs. Obama ’ s Ivy League cohorts applauded her actions and gave her credit for improving the diets of school children , which seemed like a stretch to me at the time .
Mrs. Obama ’ s work “ improved the diets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children in food insecure households , ” said Juliana Cohen , a nutrition professor at Harvard University ’ s School of Public Health .
More students are eating vegetables and whole grain-rich foods because of the former first lady .
“ Food waste was a problem before the healthier standards were enacted , so rolling them back won ’ t solve that problem , ” Ms. Cohen said .
“ It ’ s just that more people are paying attention to the issue now.
” With nearly 14 million American children , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few doubted Mrs. Obama ’ s intentions .
And with more than 30 million children participating in the National School Lunch Program , school meals were a powerful way to target poor diets .
Of that total , 22 million children are from low-income families .
No one doubts that we have a childhood obesity problem .
However , serving kids food they aren ’ t going to eat doesn ’ t solve any of that problem .
Instead of wasting the school ’ s food budget on food that is tossed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use that budget on food that meets nutritional guidelines without being so aggressive about food choice .
For instance , an adjustment that the Trump administration made on serving flavored milk was a smart way to get the kids to drink milk .
And , an adjustment was made on the whole grains requirement .
This allowed for more flexibility for the schools .
Flexibility is the key to the adjustments as well as a decrease in the time spent filling out paperwork .
The USDA said that the new proposals would give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve appetizing and healthy meals that appeal to their students ’ preferences and subsequently reduce food waste .
The proposed rule also encourages state and local operators to focus resources on feeding children rather than administrative paperwork.
” “ Schools and school districts continue to tell us that there is still too much food waste and that more common-sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals .
We listened and now we ’ re getting to work , ” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very best to our children nationwide and have the potential to benefit nearly 100,000 schools and institutions that feed 30 million children each school day through USDA ’ s school meal programs .
Providing children with wholesome , nutritious food is part of our motto at USDA , which is to ‘ do right and feed everyone.
’ ” The changes are pretty basic ones – more choice in the variety of vegetables offered in the meals , while not reducing the amount of vegetables served ; more customizing meals to meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simplifying meat and meat alternative options .
Some proposals are meant to reform the summer meals programs .
All of this gives more local control .
All of this is in response to the requests made by schools over the past two years .
The Agriculture Department plans a regulatory analysis and to open the public comment period this month .
Democrats are not pleased with the changes .
A member of The Squad lays the blame solely on “ The Occupant ” of the White House .
Another Squad member was just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day for all students .
Apparently parents no longer have the responsibility to feed their children in her vision of America .
The chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee weighed in .
If by “ special interests ” Rep. Scott means the people who actually interact with the students and the food suppliers , he ’ s right – they are in favor of the changes .
For example , the School Nutrition Association , which represents cafeteria workers and the food companies that provide schools with food supports the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the children .
They are the ones who know what will and will not work .
In the end , the results will save taxpayer money and provide more children with the food they need to do well in school .

Is it a coincidence that the new school lunch guidelines were announced on the birthday of Michelle Obama? The signature initiative of the former first lady was introducing meal guidelines that she deemed healthier for school children in grades K-12. Who among us doesn’t remember the photos of Michelle working in her White House vegetable garden in super-expensive sneakers? She incorporated a “Let’s Move!” exercise initiative along with the school nutrition program.
The problem with government nanny initiatives coming out of Washington, D.C. is that a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works across the country. What happened with Michelle’s lunch program was further proof that the food scolds don’t always make the best policy decisions. The schools reported large amounts of food waste because the kids weren’t eating the lunches. The transition didn’t go particularly smoothly.
Mrs. Obama’s Ivy League cohorts applauded her actions and gave her credit for improving the diets of school children, which seemed like a stretch to me at the time.
Mrs. Obama’s work “improved the diets of millions of children, especially vulnerable children in food insecure households,” said Juliana Cohen, a nutrition professor at Harvard University’s School of Public Health. More students are eating vegetables and whole grain-rich foods because of the former first lady. “Food waste was a problem before the healthier standards were enacted, so rolling them back won’t solve that problem,” Ms. Cohen said. “It’s just that more people are paying attention to the issue now.” With nearly 14 million American children, or about 19 percent, considered obese, few doubted Mrs. Obama’s intentions. And with more than 30 million children participating in the National School Lunch Program, school meals were a powerful way to target poor diets. Of that total, 22 million children are from low-income families.
No one doubts that we have a childhood obesity problem. However, serving kids food they aren’t going to eat doesn’t solve any of that problem. Instead of wasting the school’s food budget on food that is tossed out uneaten, it makes more sense to use that budget on food that meets nutritional guidelines without being so aggressive about food choice. For instance, an adjustment that the Trump administration made on serving flavored milk was a smart way to get the kids to drink milk. And, an adjustment was made on the whole grains requirement. This allowed for more flexibility for the schools.
The department finalized a rule in December 2018 that gave school meal providers permission to serve flavored low-fat milk in the National School Lunch Program and school breakfast program. That rule stipulated that only half of the weekly grains must be whole grain-rich, not the 100 percent target of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and it gave providers more time to reduce sodium in meals.
Flexibility is the key to the adjustments as well as a decrease in the time spent filling out paperwork.
The USDA said that the new proposals would give “school nutrition professionals … more flexibility to serve appetizing and healthy meals that appeal to their students’ preferences and subsequently reduce food waste. The proposed rule also encourages state and local operators to focus resources on feeding children rather than administrative paperwork.” “Schools and school districts continue to tell us that there is still too much food waste and that more common-sense flexibility is needed to provide students nutritious and appetizing meals. We listened and now we’re getting to work,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said. “Our proposed changes empower schools to give their very best to our children nationwide and have the potential to benefit nearly 100,000 schools and institutions that feed 30 million children each school day through USDA’s school meal programs. Providing children with wholesome, nutritious food is part of our motto at USDA, which is to ‘do right and feed everyone.’”
The changes are pretty basic ones – more choice in the variety of vegetables offered in the meals, while not reducing the amount of vegetables served; more customizing meals to meet the needs of different age groups; and simplifying meat and meat alternative options. Some proposals are meant to reform the summer meals programs. All of this gives more local control. All of this is in response to the requests made by schools over the past two years. The Agriculture Department plans a regulatory analysis and to open the public comment period this month.
Democrats are not pleased with the changes. A member of The Squad lays the blame solely on “The Occupant” of the White House.
Egregious. The Occupant is trying to play petty with the food our babies eat. Add it to the list affirming that the cruelty is the point with this White House. https://t.co/dowAjCu3dE — Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) January 17, 2020
Another Squad member was just as strident. She promotes three meals a day for all students. Apparently parents no longer have the responsibility to feed their children in her vision of America.
Far-left Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN) fired back by suggesting that the government should provide all the food that kids eat: “Counter proposal: make *healthy* school meals universal year-round. The #UniversalSchoolMealsProgramAct will guarantee breakfast, lunch, and dinner for every student in America.”
The chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee weighed in.
Representative Robert C. Scott of Virginia, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said, “For many children, the food they eat at school is their only access to healthy, nutritious meals.” The Trump administration, he added, was putting “special interests above the long-term health and development of America’s students.”
If by “special interests” Rep. Scott means the people who actually interact with the students and the food suppliers, he’s right – they are in favor of the changes. For example, the School Nutrition Association, which represents cafeteria workers and the food companies that provide schools with food supports the new guidelines.
“Updated nutrition standards for school meals have been a tremendous success over all, but a few of the requirements contributed to reduced lunch participation, higher costs and food waste,” Gay Anderson, the president of the association, said in a statement.
Trust the people closest to the children. They are the ones who know what will and will not work. In the end, the results will save taxpayer money and provide more children with the food they need to do well in school.
Happy birthday, Michelle!


hotair--2020-01-19--Venezuela's legislature literally moves into a political theater

A few weeks ago we looked at the fact that Venezuelan interim president Juan Guaido and his supporters in the National Assembly were blocked from entering the legislative chambers by allies of Nicolas Maduro .
This resulted in the Socialist Party assembly members holding a clearly illegitimate election of new legislative leaders loyal to Maduro , with the opposition being physically locked out of the government .
Guaido and his allies tried again the following week but were once again blocked from entry by Maduro ’ s security forces .
Now things have truly reached a point of desperation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take their seats at the usual chambers , they have moved into a theater in the town of El Hatillo on the outskirts of the capital .
I ’ ve heard of political theater before , but I ’ ve never seen the concept taken so literally .
( Associated Press ) Venezuelan opposition lawmakers are expected in the coming days to make their third attempt to get inside the legislative chamber in downtown Caracas , after twice this month being blocked by forces loyal to President Nicolás Maduro .
The losing turf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covered amphitheater in El Hatillo , a normally quiet community in the hilly outskirts of the capital that ’ s popular for its souvenir shops , restaurants and visitors strolling around the colonial square .
It ’ s unclear whether the National Assembly led by U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó will be forced on Tuesday to retreat again to El Hatillo , or perhaps the office of The Nation newspaper — where they also met in early January — or scramble for yet another safe meeting place .
This is actually an inappropriate topic for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the sad reality is that the situation in Venezuela has long since deteriorated to the point where if you don ’ t laugh you ’ ll probably cry .
Their constitution has been gutted by the Socialist Party with nearly all power having been stripped from the elected members of the National Assembly .
And if the recent “ elections ” I mentioned above are somehow allowed to stand , Juan Guaido loses his only legitimate constitutional claim to the role of interim president .
There also appears to be little hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegitimate .
The country ’ s dictator has packed the Supreme Court with his own henchmen and flunkies who do his bidding with scant attention paid to the formerly robust constitution .
Nicolas Maduro is currently holding all the cards and unless his own military rises up against him , that ’ s unlikely to change .
And as long as he maintains both the military and financial support of Russia and China , the army is unlikely to find the will to turn against him .
Speaking of Maduro , he must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these days than he was a month or two ago .
He recently released a statement saying that he ’ s ready for direct talks with the United States and other world leaders so everyone can put all of this unpleasantness behind them and return things to the old version of “ normal.
” ( WaPo ) President Nicolás Maduro cast himself as the wily survivor of a dramatic , year-long struggle by the opposition at home and its allies in Washington to unseat him , and said it ’ s now time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end the political stalemate that has crippled this nation of some 30 million .
In an exclusive , extensive interview with The Washington Post — his first with a major U.S. media outlet since he abruptly pulled the plug on a Univision taping last February and ejected its journalists from the country — an exuberant Maduro said he had outfoxed his opponents in Caracas and Washington , was comfortably in charge and is ready to talk .
Maduro would like President Trump to “ push the reset button ” on the relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests that a “ bonanza ” in oil revenue could be awaiting U.S. oil companies if sanctions are lifted and our diplomatic relations are normalized .
Both of these statements are dubious at best , however , even if Trump was willing to consider such an offer .
( Unlikely in the extreme given his previous anger at Maduro . )
First of all , the tyrant isn ’ t much of a political historian if he doesn ’ t realize what a loaded phrase “ push the reset button ” has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s embarrassing trip to Moscow .
More to the point , Venezuela ’ s oil reserves are no longer Maduro ’ s to offer up , or at least not all of them .
He ’ s run up so much debt for his nation , particularly while all of the sanctions have been in place , that he ’ s had to sell off a majority interest in the national oil company to the Russians .
And without constant injections of money from China , he can ’ t even receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any oil they do manage to produce .
That oil is mostly Vladimir Putin ’ s and Xi Jinping ’ s now .
I still don ’ t see an exit ramp from this situation that ends well for the people of Venezuela or brings any hope for a return to democratic rule .
That doesn ’ t mean that the United States or any other western nations should simply bow to Maduro ’ s demands and pretend none of this ever happened , but Guaido ’ s bid for power appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growing Axis of Bad Guys , comprised of Russia , China , North Korea , Iran and ( increasingly ) Turkey .
The entire situation stinks on ice , but absent some form of military intervention ( which nobody wants ) , there doesn ’ t appear to be much that can be done .

A few weeks ago we looked at the fact that Venezuelan interim president Juan Guaido and his supporters in the National Assembly were blocked from entering the legislative chambers by allies of Nicolas Maduro. This resulted in the Socialist Party assembly members holding a clearly illegitimate election of new legislative leaders loyal to Maduro, with the opposition being physically locked out of the government.
Guaido and his allies tried again the following week but were once again blocked from entry by Maduro’s security forces. Now things have truly reached a point of desperation for the opposition party legislators. Unable to take their seats at the usual chambers, they have moved into a theater in the town of El Hatillo on the outskirts of the capital. I’ve heard of political theater before, but I’ve never seen the concept taken so literally. (Associated Press)
Venezuelan opposition lawmakers are expected in the coming days to make their third attempt to get inside the legislative chamber in downtown Caracas, after twice this month being blocked by forces loyal to President Nicolás Maduro. The losing turf battle recently drove the lawmakers to a covered amphitheater in El Hatillo, a normally quiet community in the hilly outskirts of the capital that’s popular for its souvenir shops, restaurants and visitors strolling around the colonial square. It’s unclear whether the National Assembly led by U.S.-backed Juan Guaidó will be forced on Tuesday to retreat again to El Hatillo, or perhaps the office of The Nation newspaper — where they also met in early January — or scramble for yet another safe meeting place.
This is actually an inappropriate topic for making jokes about “political theater” but the sad reality is that the situation in Venezuela has long since deteriorated to the point where if you don’t laugh you’ll probably cry. Their constitution has been gutted by the Socialist Party with nearly all power having been stripped from the elected members of the National Assembly. And if the recent “elections” I mentioned above are somehow allowed to stand, Juan Guaido loses his only legitimate constitutional claim to the role of interim president.
There also appears to be little hope of finding anyone to declare the election illegitimate. The country’s dictator has packed the Supreme Court with his own henchmen and flunkies who do his bidding with scant attention paid to the formerly robust constitution. Nicolas Maduro is currently holding all the cards and unless his own military rises up against him, that’s unlikely to change. And as long as he maintains both the military and financial support of Russia and China, the army is unlikely to find the will to turn against him.
Speaking of Maduro, he must be feeling on much more solid ground these days than he was a month or two ago. He recently released a statement saying that he’s ready for direct talks with the United States and other world leaders so everyone can put all of this unpleasantness behind them and return things to the old version of “normal.” (WaPo)
President Nicolás Maduro cast himself as the wily survivor of a dramatic, year-long struggle by the opposition at home and its allies in Washington to unseat him, and said it’s now time for direct negotiations with the United States to end the political stalemate that has crippled this nation of some 30 million. In an exclusive, extensive interview with The Washington Post — his first with a major U.S. media outlet since he abruptly pulled the plug on a Univision taping last February and ejected its journalists from the country — an exuberant Maduro said he had outfoxed his opponents in Caracas and Washington, was comfortably in charge and is ready to talk.
Maduro would like President Trump to “push the reset button” on the relationship between our two nations. He further suggests that a “bonanza” in oil revenue could be awaiting U.S. oil companies if sanctions are lifted and our diplomatic relations are normalized.
Both of these statements are dubious at best, however, even if Trump was willing to consider such an offer. (Unlikely in the extreme given his previous anger at Maduro.) First of all, the tyrant isn’t much of a political historian if he doesn’t realize what a loaded phrase “push the reset button” has been ever since then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing trip to Moscow.
More to the point, Venezuela’s oil reserves are no longer Maduro’s to offer up, or at least not all of them. He’s run up so much debt for his nation, particularly while all of the sanctions have been in place, that he’s had to sell off a majority interest in the national oil company to the Russians. And without constant injections of money from China, he can’t even receive or load the oil tankers to transport any oil they do manage to produce. That oil is mostly Vladimir Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s now.
I still don’t see an exit ramp from this situation that ends well for the people of Venezuela or brings any hope for a return to democratic rule. That doesn’t mean that the United States or any other western nations should simply bow to Maduro’s demands and pretend none of this ever happened, but Guaido’s bid for power appears to be over and Venezuela is firmly in the growing Axis of Bad Guys, comprised of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and (increasingly) Turkey. The entire situation stinks on ice, but absent some form of military intervention (which nobody wants), there doesn’t appear to be much that can be done.


hotair--2020-01-19--Democrat Sherrod Brown: Fine by me if Republicans want to put Hunter Biden on the stand

Like I said Friday , I think lefties and more centrist Democrats will be of two different minds about this .
If you ’ re a progressive , as Sherrod Brown is , then sure , haul Hunter Biden in there .
Who cares ?
If that ’ s the price of forcing meaningful prosecution witnesses like John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney to testify , so be it .
And if Hunter ends up hurting DINO favorite Joe Biden via his testimony , eh .
Maybe that ’ ll redound to Bernie Sanders ’ s advantage in the primaries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat and you think it ’ s Biden or bust in terms of beating Trump next year , hoo boy .
Is risking damage to Joe really worth it when Bolton ’ s testimony won ’ t mean a thing to the eventual verdict in this trial ?
It ’ ll be fascinating watching lefties and establishmentarians tussle over this question in the next week or so .
Watch Brown , then read on .
Jerry Nadler was asked about Hunter Biden testifying this morning and had an interesting response .
John Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS .
MARGARET BRENNAN : So , you ’ re saying no way would Hunter Biden ever be called to testify ?
REP. NADLER : Well , I ’ m saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president .
Did the president , as we said- as the evidence shows that he did , betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to- to try to rig the election ?
Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that .
They ’ re- they ’ re asking for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smear of Hunter Biden that the president ’ s trying to get the Ukraine to do .
But the fact of the matter is , let the chief justice rule on- on– REP. NADLER : –the chief justice in the first instance rules on evidence .
The Senate can overrule him .
REP. NADLER : But no chief justice would- would- would think of- of admitting evidence that- that is not relevant– As I understand it , if Trump ’ s team attempts to call Hunter Biden and House Democrats object on relevance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then McConnell could ask for a floor vote on whether to uphold Roberts ’ s ruling .
In the end , whatever 51 senators want to do is what ’ ll be done .
But Roberts ’ s initial ruling could be influential , both in terms of public opinion and among Senate centrists like Susan Collins whose votes will be decisive .
If Roberts thinks Biden isn ’ t relevant , that ’ s a ready-made attack line for Democrats : The one guy at the trial who really is impartial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hard to believe a Collins or Cory Gardner would deny Trump the right to call Biden , if they ’ re so inclined for whatever reason they could point to Roberts ’ s opinion as cover .
“ Who am I to contradict the chief justice on a point of law ?
” I ’ m sure McConnell sees that coming , which is why I wonder if the rules they set for the trial on Tuesday will attempt to limit Roberts ’ s power to issue those sorts of rulings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the chief justice shall invite the Senate to vote .
If the Senate declines to vote , the chief justice may rule.
” Something like that .
McConnell doesn ’ t want Roberts offering his opinion on matters like relevance if he can prevent it .
Speaking of which , CBS asked John Cornyn this morning about another potential blockbuster witness in the case , Rudy Giuliani .
Cornyn ’ s answer made me laugh .
There are good reasons not to want Rudy to testify .
He ’ d slow down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all sorts of questions ; he ’ d use the platform provided by the trial to rant and grandstand semi-coherently , turning it into a circus ; and he , er , might incriminate the president in all sorts of ways if he did choose to answer questions , creating a political nightmare for Republicans .
The one reason not to object to Rudy testifying is … relevance .
Apart from Trump himself , as the point man on the pressure campaign towards Ukraine Giuliani is the most relevant witness there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former judge ( ! )
, is reaching for “ relevance ” to excuse him shows you just how desperate Republicans are to find a “ neutral ” reason to justify not calling him .
By the way , some lefties on political Twitter this morning were revisiting this quote from Trump on December 3 .
Expect to see it feature in Democratic talking points this week : “ It will be fair in the Senate , ” he said at the time , adding , “ I would love to have Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have Rick Perry , and many other people testify .
But I don ’ t want them to testify when this is a total fix ” in the House .
The president has since shifted his rationale on why Bolton , Mulvaney , and the rest shouldn ’ t testify even in the Senate , but he ’ ll take some heat over it soon .
As Brown says in the clip above , the reason House Dems declined to call witnesses like Bolton is because Trump insisted on “ absolute immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Schiff ’ s committee .
Now ’ s the president ’ s chance to free those witnesses to participate in a “ fair ” process led by Republicans !
Here ’ s Chris Wallace taking it to Dem impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries on the timing here .
How can impeachment have been an “ urgent ” matter for Democrats such that they couldn ’ t afford to wait to fight Trump in court over Bolton ’ s and Mulvaney ’ s testimony … and yet also sufficiently non-urgent that Pelosi could hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a month ?

Like I said Friday, I think lefties and more centrist Democrats will be of two different minds about this. If you’re a progressive, as Sherrod Brown is, then sure, haul Hunter Biden in there. Who cares? If that’s the price of forcing meaningful prosecution witnesses like John Bolton or Mick Mulvaney to testify, so be it. And if Hunter ends up hurting DINO favorite Joe Biden via his testimony, eh. Maybe that’ll redound to Bernie Sanders’s advantage in the primaries.
Whereas if you’re a centrist Democrat and you think it’s Biden or bust in terms of beating Trump next year, hoo boy. Is risking damage to Joe really worth it when Bolton’s testimony won’t mean a thing to the eventual verdict in this trial?
It’ll be fascinating watching lefties and establishmentarians tussle over this question in the next week or so. Watch Brown, then read on.
Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown says he would be "fine" with Republicans calling Hunter Biden to testify: “We take a position that we want to hear from witnesses… I understand both sides get to call witnesses… I think many Republicans think that’s a distraction” #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/x0gWEybYqs — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 19, 2020
Jerry Nadler was asked about Hunter Biden testifying this morning and had an interesting response. John Roberts has the first say, he reminded CBS.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re saying no way would Hunter Biden ever be called to testify? REP. NADLER: Well, I’m saying that Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president. Did the president, as we said- as the evidence shows that he did, betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to- to try to rig the election? Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that. They’re- they’re asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president’s trying to get the Ukraine to do. But the fact of the matter is, let the chief justice rule on- on– MARGARET BRENNAN: Well– REP. NADLER: –the chief justice in the first instance rules on evidence. The Senate can overrule him. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah. REP. NADLER: But no chief justice would- would- would think of- of admitting evidence that- that is not relevant–
As I understand it, if Trump’s team attempts to call Hunter Biden and House Democrats object on relevance grounds, Roberts could issue a ruling. Then McConnell could ask for a floor vote on whether to uphold Roberts’s ruling. In the end, whatever 51 senators want to do is what’ll be done. But Roberts’s initial ruling could be influential, both in terms of public opinion and among Senate centrists like Susan Collins whose votes will be decisive. If Roberts thinks Biden isn’t relevant, that’s a ready-made attack line for Democrats: The one guy at the trial who really is impartial opposed calling him. And although it’s hard to believe a Collins or Cory Gardner would deny Trump the right to call Biden, if they’re so inclined for whatever reason they could point to Roberts’s opinion as cover. “Who am I to contradict the chief justice on a point of law?”
I’m sure McConnell sees that coming, which is why I wonder if the rules they set for the trial on Tuesday will attempt to limit Roberts’s power to issue those sorts of rulings. “On any point of law, the chief justice shall invite the Senate to vote. If the Senate declines to vote, the chief justice may rule.” Something like that. McConnell doesn’t want Roberts offering his opinion on matters like relevance if he can prevent it.
Speaking of which, CBS asked John Cornyn this morning about another potential blockbuster witness in the case, Rudy Giuliani. Cornyn’s answer made me laugh.
“That’s a relationship that causes some of us to sort of scratch our heads,” the Texas Republican said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “But I’d say he’s not relevant to the articles and what the Senate is going to be asked to do, impeaching a president for the third time in American history for a non-crime over events that never occurred.”
There are good reasons not to want Rudy to testify. He’d slow down the trial considerably by asserting attorney-client privilege to all sorts of questions; he’d use the platform provided by the trial to rant and grandstand semi-coherently, turning it into a circus; and he, er, might incriminate the president in all sorts of ways if he did choose to answer questions, creating a political nightmare for Republicans. The one reason not to object to Rudy testifying is … relevance. Apart from Trump himself, as the point man on the pressure campaign towards Ukraine Giuliani is the most relevant witness there is. The fact that Cornyn, a former judge(!), is reaching for “relevance” to excuse him shows you just how desperate Republicans are to find a “neutral” reason to justify not calling him.
By the way, some lefties on political Twitter this morning were revisiting this quote from Trump on December 3. Expect to see it feature in Democratic talking points this week: “It will be fair in the Senate,” he said at the time, adding, “I would love to have Mike Pompeo and Mick and I would love to have Rick Perry, and many other people testify. But I don’t want them to testify when this is a total fix” in the House. The president has since shifted his rationale on why Bolton, Mulvaney, and the rest shouldn’t testify even in the Senate, but he’ll take some heat over it soon. As Brown says in the clip above, the reason House Dems declined to call witnesses like Bolton is because Trump insisted on “absolute immunity,” barring them from even appearing before Schiff’s committee. Now’s the president’s chance to free those witnesses to participate in a “fair” process led by Republicans!
Here’s Chris Wallace taking it to Dem impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries on the timing here. How can impeachment have been an “urgent” matter for Democrats such that they couldn’t afford to wait to fight Trump in court over Bolton’s and Mulvaney’s testimony … and yet also sufficiently non-urgent that Pelosi could hold the articles of impeachment for the better part of a month?


hotair--2020-01-19--NFL championships open thread, the 51-point spread edition

Ed : Well , I got whole in a hurry last week , thanks to Patrick Mahomes and a massive second-quarter comeback by the Chiefs .
When the Chiefs fell into a 24-point hole , I figured that I might as well hang up my prediction spurs altogether .
In the end , though , I went 2-0 last Sunday to bring my record back to .500 at 4-4 for the postseason .
With only three games to go , I might even end up over .500 in the end … depending on whether my picks rescue me this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2-0 last weekend… in my mind .
As it turns out , I had transposed my notes and swapped my picks with Ed ’ s .
Back in the real world , I went 1-1 , sinking my postseason record to a dismal 2-6 .
Considering the Vegas line on today ’ s games , there ’ s really no path to victory at this point absent some sort of asteroid strike .
But ’ tis the season to be gracious and it would simply be rude to keep both titles for myself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Titans at Chiefs ( 3:05 pm ET , CBS ) , the apex of Tennessee ’ s improbable run in 2019 .
Alas , it ’ s likely to end in Kansas City , who ’ s favored by seven points and probably are being a little underestimated in that spread .
The Chiefs came out flat against the Texans in the first quarter after their bye week , but they demonstrated their ability to completely transform a game no matter what the situation may be in the second quarter and beyond .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 24th in the league for 2019 ) , although they ’ re better against the run .
The Chiefs are worse against the run and will likely get gashed by Titans ’ RB Derrick Henry , but KC ’ s offense is built to deal with that .
Patrick Mahomes will feast on the Titan ’ s secondary in a high-scoring game , with Chiefs 37-27 over the Titans .
Next we have Packers at 49ers ( 6:40 pm , Fox ) , for one of the best matchups in this postseason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road this season and faces a San Francisco team that went 6-2 at home .
Both teams went 13-3 in the regular season .
The Pack scored 28 points , the 49ers 27 last week ; they both play on turf ; and they ’ re both reasonably healthy .
However , there ’ s a big difference between the two teams ’ performances last week , and that ’ s on defense .
The 49ers only gave up ten points and 193 yards to the Vikings , while the Pack gave up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seahawks .
San Francisco was second overall this season on defense , giving up seventy fewer yards per game than Green Bay .
Aaron Rodgers has more experience than Jimmy Garoppolo in the post-season , so that ’ s a consideration .
However , Garoppolo is playing at home , and his team looked fresher last week than the Packers , who looked gassed out in the second half against Seattle .
Put that together and it spells a home win for the 49ers over the Packers 27-20 , even though I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jazz : It ’ s not as if I have any particular affinity for the Titans , but they ’ re such a Cindarella story this season that it ’ s almost hard to root against them .
Sadly , a game like this is probably going to unfold like a shootout , but one team will be throwing bombs while the other one grinds it out on the ground .
It ’ s not hard to see the Chiefs ’ offense remaining fresher going deep in the second half .
Add in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spells an action-packed win for the Chiefs over the Titans 34-24 .
The late game doesn ’ t look much more promising for the underdogs .
In fact , we already watched this game in week 12 .
And back then , the 49ers didn ’ t just beat the Packers , they stole their lunch money and made them cry in a 37-8 blowout .
But you know what they say… any given Sunday .
Honestly , if this game were being played in the howling winter winds of Lambeau Field I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in front of a home crowd in San Francisco , I ’ m not sensing any magic in the wind for Aaron Rodgers and their playoff dreams come to an end tonight .
49ers over Packers 31-20 .

Ed: Well, I got whole in a hurry last week, thanks to Patrick Mahomes and a massive second-quarter comeback by the Chiefs. When the Chiefs fell into a 24-point hole, I figured that I might as well hang up my prediction spurs altogether. In the end, though, I went 2-0 last Sunday to bring my record back to .500 at 4-4 for the postseason. With only three games to go, I might even end up over .500 in the end … depending on whether my picks rescue me this week again.
Jazz: I also went 2-0 last weekend… in my mind. As it turns out, I had transposed my notes and swapped my picks with Ed’s. Back in the real world, I went 1-1, sinking my postseason record to a dismal 2-6. Considering the Vegas line on today’s games, there’s really no path to victory at this point absent some sort of asteroid strike. But ’tis the season to be gracious and it would simply be rude to keep both titles for myself.
Ed: First up we get Titans at Chiefs (3:05 pm ET, CBS), the apex of Tennessee’s improbable run in 2019. Alas, it’s likely to end in Kansas City, who’s favored by seven points and probably are being a little underestimated in that spread. The Chiefs came out flat against the Texans in the first quarter after their bye week, but they demonstrated their ability to completely transform a game no matter what the situation may be in the second quarter and beyond. Tennessee only has a middling pass defense (24th in the league for 2019), although they’re better against the run. The Chiefs are worse against the run and will likely get gashed by Titans’ RB Derrick Henry, but KC’s offense is built to deal with that. Patrick Mahomes will feast on the Titan’s secondary in a high-scoring game, with Chiefs 37-27 over the Titans.
Next we have Packers at 49ers (6:40 pm, Fox), for one of the best matchups in this postseason. Green Bay went 6-2 on the road this season and faces a San Francisco team that went 6-2 at home. Both teams went 13-3 in the regular season. The Pack scored 28 points, the 49ers 27 last week; they both play on turf; and they’re both reasonably healthy. However, there’s a big difference between the two teams’ performances last week, and that’s on defense. The 49ers only gave up ten points and 193 yards to the Vikings, while the Pack gave up 23 points and 387 yards to the Seahawks. San Francisco was second overall this season on defense, giving up seventy fewer yards per game than Green Bay.
Aaron Rodgers has more experience than Jimmy Garoppolo in the post-season, so that’s a consideration. However, Garoppolo is playing at home, and his team looked fresher last week than the Packers, who looked gassed out in the second half against Seattle. Put that together and it spells a home win for the 49ers over the Packers 27-20, even though I’ll be rooting the other way.
Jazz: It’s not as if I have any particular affinity for the Titans, but they’re such a Cindarella story this season that it’s almost hard to root against them. Sadly, a game like this is probably going to unfold like a shootout, but one team will be throwing bombs while the other one grinds it out on the ground. It’s not hard to see the Chiefs’ offense remaining fresher going deep in the second half. Add in home field advantage and I think it spells an action-packed win for the Chiefs over the Titans 34-24.
The late game doesn’t look much more promising for the underdogs. In fact, we already watched this game in week 12. And back then, the 49ers didn’t just beat the Packers, they stole their lunch money and made them cry in a 37-8 blowout. But you know what they say… any given Sunday. Honestly, if this game were being played in the howling winter winds of Lambeau Field I’d probably pick Green Bay anyway. But in front of a home crowd in San Francisco, I’m not sensing any magic in the wind for Aaron Rodgers and their playoff dreams come to an end tonight. 49ers over Packers 31-20.


hotair--2020-01-19--Mexico halts Honduran migrant caravan at Guatemala entry point

A new caravan formed in Honduras with about 2,500 migrants traveling toward the U.S.- Mexico border .
Saturday the Mexican National Guard stepped up and honored the “ safe third country ” agreement .
The migrants were denied entry into Mexico at the Guatemala-Mexico border .
Last November the Trump administration entered into a series of regional agreements with countries including Mexico , Guatemala , and El Salvador .
The goal is to reduce the burden of Central American migrant caravans arriving at the U.S. border .
Migrants are being returned to Guatemala , sent back to their home country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection Protocols ( MPP ) and wait in Mexico .
In this case , Mexico stopped the caravan at a point of entry as they crossed a bridge over the Suchiate River between Mexico and Guatemala .
The scene was tense but Mexican National Guardsmen kept the migrant caravan back .
There was some orderly entry allowed in small groups .
Honduran migrants waved their country ’ s flag and sang the national anthem as they approached the bridge .
At the height of the confrontation , Guatemalan authorities estimated 2,500 migrants were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get on it .
Mexican National Guardsmen slammed down a metal fence that reads “ Welcome to Mexico ” to block the path of the migrants .
Babies cried and tempers flared as the crowd swelled .
Amid shoves , Mexican officials did allow a few migrants to enter the country in groups of 20 , while a voice over a loudspeaker warned migrants against trying to slip into Mexico without passing through immigration filters .
Mexico ’ s National Migration Institute tweeted that Mexico has shored up points along the southern border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular immigration.
” A caravan of hundreds of Honduran migrants began making their way north on Wednesday , with the goal of reaching the U.S. southern border .
This is a perfect example of why the Trump administration made the safe third country agreement with Central American countries .
The caravan should have been stopped by officials in Guatemala but since it wasn ’ t , Mexico took control and halted it .
That ’ s the point , though .
Migrants without documents have to be processed in an orderly way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the way to the U.S. border without following immigration laws leads to chaos .
Migrants are taken advantage of by human traffickers and drug cartels .
That is what human rights activists should be concerned about , not Mexican authorities protecting their own borders .
By the end of Saturday , more than 150 migrants entered to apply for asylum or some other variation of permission to stay in Mexico .
All of the migrants remaining on the bridge to cross into Mexico were warned that being allowed in would not necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hundreds of guardsmen lined the river to prevent migrants from crossing into Mexico clandestinely .
The voice on the loudspeaker warned , over and over , that those aiming to transit through Mexico may not be granted asylum in the U.S. , even if they make it there .
As temperatures rose Saturday , migrants trickled back across the bridge to Guatemala .
By late afternoon , fewer than a hundred remained on the bridge .
Mexico ’ s government has said migrants entering the country without registering will not be allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But those seeking asylum or other protections will be allowed to apply and legalize their status in Mexico .
Guatemalan officials have counted about 3,000 migrants who have registered at border crossings to enter the country .
About 1,300 others did not register .
Guatemala offers bus rides back to their countries of origin .
There are more than 1,000 migrants gathered at another point on the Mexican border .
In the Peten region , there were reports that Mexican forces are on the other side of the border there , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities for them in Mexico .
They are offered legal status and employment if they agree to remain in southern Mexico .
Mexico ’ s offer of legal status and potential employment for migrants carries a stipulation that would confine migrants to southern Mexico , where wages are lower and there are fewer jobs than elsewhere in the country .
El Salvador ’ s consul general in Mexico , Antonio Azúcar , told The Associated Press that Mexican authorities had reported that the migrants crossing into Mexican territory would be housed in Ciudad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Suchiate where the bridge standoff happened .
But a Mexican official , who refused to be quoted by name , said those who request asylum in Mexico would be taken to one of two migratory stations in the state of Chiapas — one in Tapachula and the other in Tuxtla Gutiérrez .
Once in custody , in theory , migrants may request temporary work permits to remain in Mexico .
For months , however , non-profit groups have complained that the migrants are instead often returned to their countries of origin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be the ultimate goal desired for the migrants but it is a decent offer if they simply want to flee dangerous circumstances .
In the meantime , it ’ s good to know that Mexico is upholding its part of the agreement with the U.S. Let ’ s hope that continues .

A new caravan formed in Honduras with about 2,500 migrants traveling toward the U.S.- Mexico border. Saturday the Mexican National Guard stepped up and honored the “safe third country” agreement. The migrants were denied entry into Mexico at the Guatemala-Mexico border.
Last November the Trump administration entered into a series of regional agreements with countries including Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The goal is to reduce the burden of Central American migrant caravans arriving at the U.S. border. Migrants are being returned to Guatemala, sent back to their home country, or allowed to enter the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) and wait in Mexico. In this case, Mexico stopped the caravan at a point of entry as they crossed a bridge over the Suchiate River between Mexico and Guatemala.
The scene was tense but Mexican National Guardsmen kept the migrant caravan back. There was some orderly entry allowed in small groups.
Honduran migrants waved their country’s flag and sang the national anthem as they approached the bridge. At the height of the confrontation, Guatemalan authorities estimated 2,500 migrants were on the bridge, or attempting to get on it. Mexican National Guardsmen slammed down a metal fence that reads “Welcome to Mexico” to block the path of the migrants. Babies cried and tempers flared as the crowd swelled. Amid shoves, Mexican officials did allow a few migrants to enter the country in groups of 20, while a voice over a loudspeaker warned migrants against trying to slip into Mexico without passing through immigration filters.
Mexico’s National Migration Institute tweeted that Mexico has shored up points along the southern border to assure “safe, orderly and regular immigration.”
A caravan of hundreds of Honduran migrants began making their way north on Wednesday, with the goal of reaching the U.S. southern border. This is a perfect example of why the Trump administration made the safe third country agreement with Central American countries. The caravan should have been stopped by officials in Guatemala but since it wasn’t, Mexico took control and halted it.
Human rights activists object to safe third country agreements.
“The truth is, it is going to be impossible for them to reach the United States,” human rights activist Itsmania Platero said. “The Mexican police have a large contingent and they are going to catch all the migrants without documents, and they will be detained and returned to their home countries.”
That’s the point, though. Migrants without documents have to be processed in an orderly way. Allowing caravans to travel through several countries on the way to the U.S. border without following immigration laws leads to chaos. Migrants are taken advantage of by human traffickers and drug cartels. That is what human rights activists should be concerned about, not Mexican authorities protecting their own borders.
By the end of Saturday, more than 150 migrants entered to apply for asylum or some other variation of permission to stay in Mexico. All of the migrants remaining on the bridge to cross into Mexico were warned that being allowed in would not necessarily allow them passage to the U.S. border.
Hundreds of guardsmen lined the river to prevent migrants from crossing into Mexico clandestinely. The voice on the loudspeaker warned, over and over, that those aiming to transit through Mexico may not be granted asylum in the U.S., even if they make it there. As temperatures rose Saturday, migrants trickled back across the bridge to Guatemala. By late afternoon, fewer than a hundred remained on the bridge. Mexico’s government has said migrants entering the country without registering will not be allowed to pass from its southern border area. But those seeking asylum or other protections will be allowed to apply and legalize their status in Mexico.
Guatemalan officials have counted about 3,000 migrants who have registered at border crossings to enter the country. About 1,300 others did not register. Guatemala offers bus rides back to their countries of origin. There are more than 1,000 migrants gathered at another point on the Mexican border. In the Peten region, there were reports that Mexican forces are on the other side of the border there, too.
Migrants are advised that there are opportunities for them in Mexico. They are offered legal status and employment if they agree to remain in southern Mexico.
Mexico’s offer of legal status and potential employment for migrants carries a stipulation that would confine migrants to southern Mexico, where wages are lower and there are fewer jobs than elsewhere in the country. El Salvador’s consul general in Mexico, Antonio Azúcar, told The Associated Press that Mexican authorities had reported that the migrants crossing into Mexican territory would be housed in Ciudad Hidalgo, the city on the banks of the Suchiate where the bridge standoff happened. But a Mexican official, who refused to be quoted by name, said those who request asylum in Mexico would be taken to one of two migratory stations in the state of Chiapas — one in Tapachula and the other in Tuxtla Gutiérrez. Once in custody, in theory, migrants may request temporary work permits to remain in Mexico. For months, however, non-profit groups have complained that the migrants are instead often returned to their countries of origin.
An offer to settle in Mexico may not be the ultimate goal desired for the migrants but it is a decent offer if they simply want to flee dangerous circumstances. In the meantime, it’s good to know that Mexico is upholding its part of the agreement with the U.S. Let’s hope that continues.


hotair--2020-01-19--Flipping the script: Sunday reflection

Flipping the script: Sunday reflection

John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him and said , “ Behold , the Lamb of God , who takes away the sin of the world .
He is the one of whom I said , ‘ A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.
’ I did not know him , but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel.
” John testified further , saying , “ I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me , ‘ On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain , he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.
’ Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.
” More than people love a good story , they love the unexpected twist in it , a moment that upends expectations and forces the audience to see it from a completely different perspective .
That dramatic kind of plot twist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in films from The Crying Game to The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense , among many others .
In Memento , we get to the dramatic plot twist by going backward through time .
There is something fascinating about getting forced to rethink everything we know about a situation after the unexpected suddenly occurs .
We can also see the narrative of salvation history in the same way , and today ’ s Gospel is the fulcrum of that script-flipping .
Before Jesus came forward for His baptism , the plan for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord established Israel as a nation of priests to build the city of God , to which the entire world would come to learn His Law and to pay homage .
Israel lost its way in idolatry and worldly matters , preferring to be as other nations and vie for power rather than keep to its mission for salvation .
The assumption at that point would be that salvation would follow the same script .
Therefore , the Messiah would come to restore Israel ’ s worldly kingdom , chase out the Gentile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city of God .
The path to salvation would then return to what it had been in the past — and the Israelites would return to their former power and glory .
This was the only model of salvation that the Israelites knew , and they calculated the characteristics of a Messiah accordingly .
And then the Lord flipped the script .
We see in our first reading that earlier prophets had alerted Israel to the true nature of the Messiah and the path to salvation .
The Lord tells Isaiah that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be my servant , to raise up the tribes of Jacob , and restore the survivors of Israel.
” Instead , the Lord tells Isaiah , “ I will make you a light to the nations , that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.
” There will be a greater path than that of Israel , Isaiah prophesies , although the salvation of the world will come through Israel .
Nevertheless , the expectation of a warrior Messiah remained even with Isaiah ’ s other prophecies about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel itself .
The only path to salvation would come from a restoration of the Davidic kingdom in Israel and Judea , and the Israelites and Judeans were waiting for a traditional king to emerge to impose it by force .
Instead , Jesus comes to John in the wilderness , His power cloaked in humility , and asks for baptism along with the very people He came to save .
John the Baptist immediately recognizes Jesus as the Messiah , the one for whom John had been preparing the people to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the path to salvation , Jesus comes to bring salvation by establishing the temple of people ’ s hearts to receive the Holy Spirit .
This flips the script again in a much more fundamental way .
Rather than fulfill the expectation that the path to salvation would go through Jerusalem , Jesus prepares his disciples to serve a church that would take salvation directly to the people of the world .
The Lord allowed Israel the first opportunity of this mission , which began failing almost as soon as it began , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save ourselves .
In this Gospel reading , John the Baptist saw what the true path to salvation would be .
The Son of God came to establish it not just with Israel but with all His children in the world .
It takes His grace , His Word , and our willing cooperation with it to bring us to salvation .
It takes Christ come among us and then the Holy Spirit to enter us to bring us to salvation , not a temple in Jerusalem nor a kingdom of gold or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , ” John writes earlier in his Gospel , “ he gave power to become children of God , ” whether they ever saw Jerusalem or not .
Salvation has come to us , and all we need to do is accept it .
Considering the long narrative of humanity ’ s search for the Lord , that ’ s the greatest script-flip of all time .
The front-page image is a detail from “ St .
John the Baptist Preaching ” by Mattia Preti , c. 1665 .
Currently in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .
For previous Green Room entries , click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is John 1:29–34:
John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. He is the one of whom I said, ‘A man is coming after me who ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’ I did not know him, but the reason why I came baptizing with water was that he might be made known to Israel.” John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from heaven and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.”
More than people love a good story, they love the unexpected twist in it, a moment that upends expectations and forces the audience to see it from a completely different perspective. That dramatic kind of plot twist has been even more popular of late in films from The Crying Game to The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense, among many others. In Memento, we get to the dramatic plot twist by going backward through time. There is something fascinating about getting forced to rethink everything we know about a situation after the unexpected suddenly occurs.
We can also see the narrative of salvation history in the same way, and today’s Gospel is the fulcrum of that script-flipping. Before Jesus came forward for His baptism, the plan for salvation appeared to be set. The Lord established Israel as a nation of priests to build the city of God, to which the entire world would come to learn His Law and to pay homage. Israel lost its way in idolatry and worldly matters, preferring to be as other nations and vie for power rather than keep to its mission for salvation.
The assumption at that point would be that salvation would follow the same script. Therefore, the Messiah would come to restore Israel’s worldly kingdom, chase out the Gentile conquerors, and re-establish Jerusalem as the city of God. The path to salvation would then return to what it had been in the past — and the Israelites would return to their former power and glory. This was the only model of salvation that the Israelites knew, and they calculated the characteristics of a Messiah accordingly.
And then the Lord flipped the script. We see in our first reading that earlier prophets had alerted Israel to the true nature of the Messiah and the path to salvation. The Lord tells Isaiah that “it is too little … for you to be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the survivors of Israel.” Instead, the Lord tells Isaiah, “I will make you a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” There will be a greater path than that of Israel, Isaiah prophesies, although the salvation of the world will come through Israel.
Nevertheless, the expectation of a warrior Messiah remained even with Isaiah’s other prophecies about the Suffering Servant, which some interpreted as Israel itself. The only path to salvation would come from a restoration of the Davidic kingdom in Israel and Judea, and the Israelites and Judeans were waiting for a traditional king to emerge to impose it by force.
Instead, Jesus comes to John in the wilderness, His power cloaked in humility, and asks for baptism along with the very people He came to save. John the Baptist immediately recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, the one for whom John had been preparing the people to receive. Instead of a conquering hero for the path to salvation, Jesus comes to bring salvation by establishing the temple of people’s hearts to receive the Holy Spirit.
This flips the script again in a much more fundamental way. Rather than fulfill the expectation that the path to salvation would go through Jerusalem, Jesus prepares his disciples to serve a church that would take salvation directly to the people of the world. The Lord allowed Israel the first opportunity of this mission, which began failing almost as soon as it began, to teach us that we cannot save ourselves.
In this Gospel reading, John the Baptist saw what the true path to salvation would be. The Son of God came to establish it not just with Israel but with all His children in the world. It takes His grace, His Word, and our willing cooperation with it to bring us to salvation. It takes Christ come among us and then the Holy Spirit to enter us to bring us to salvation, not a temple in Jerusalem nor a kingdom of gold or cedars. “To those who accepted him,” John writes earlier in his Gospel, “he gave power to become children of God,” whether they ever saw Jerusalem or not.
Salvation has come to us, and all we need to do is accept it. Considering the long narrative of humanity’s search for the Lord, that’s the greatest script-flip of all time.
The front-page image is a detail from “St. John the Baptist Preaching” by Mattia Preti, c. 1665. Currently in a private collection. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.