hotair--2020-01-12--Trump to Iranian protesters: We are with you

Good tweets , good message .
And to his credit , not the first time he ’ s taken care to distinguish the Iranian government from the people of Iran .
That ’ s what made his grumbling last week about bombing Iranian cultural sites so foolish .
It ’ s the sort of blow that would be felt by the entire population , not just the mullahs and IRGC .
Social media is overflowing this morning with reports of protests in Iran yesterday following the regime ’ s admission that it was an Iranian missile that destroyed that Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathered last night in Tehran for what began as a vigil and ended with them shouting their rage at velayat-e faqih .
They shouted for the Revolutionary Guards to “ let go of the country ” and , “ Death to the dictator !
” referring to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei… “ Soleimani was a murderer , his leader is , too !
” was one chant heard Saturday .
Posters of the general that had been hung for his funeral were torn down , videos posted online showed… Some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ F- -k you & your mistake !
” and had the names and photos of the 16 Iranian students who died in the disaster .
They chanted , “ Bisharaf !
” a Farsi word for “ dishonorable ” that is considered one of the worst insults in the culture , and demanded officials involved in the missile attack be removed from their positions and tried .
The Times has video of the “ bisharaf ” chanting .
The State Department is making sure that everyone knows the state of play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ optimism about the protests given how resilient the regime ’ s been in putting out populist fires over the last decade or so .
They quashed the Green Revolution in 2009 and proved last year that they ’ re willing to spill oceans of blood to keep the peace after mass demonstrations broke out over rising gas prices .
But it isn ’ t just excitable anti-regime activists today who think the outrage over the jet shootdown is a big deal internally .
Media observers think so too .
“ Criticism directed at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factions inside the country , ” claims the Times , with even hardliners groaning about the military ’ s lies and incompetence .
“ The criticism of Iran over the crash threatens to eclipse whatever international sympathy Iran has garnered in its escalating confrontation with the Trump administration , ” it added .
One of the leaders of the Green Revolution proclaimed afterward that Khamenei had lost his moral authority to rule .
A 10-day span that began with the U.S. taking out the country ’ s top general and Iran exacting no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end with a devastating legitimacy crisis for … Iran , thanks to its recklessness in taking down the jet .
Jason Rezaian , the WaPo reporter who was taken prisoner by the regime for 18 months several years ago , writes today that the jet shootdown is a “ make-or-break moment ” for it .
The completely avoidable shoot-down of the Ukrainian airliner offers just another reminder of how careless this regime is with the lives of its own citizens… How Iranian security forces respond to new protests will be a key factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If they attempt to suppress this public anger over an act of senseless aggression that killed 176 innocent people , they will exacerbate their already massive credibility problem .
A more conciliatory action could lead to a short-term cooling of tensions , but it would also be an expression of weakness , something a regime that claims to draw its leadership from the divine is loath to do .
There have been precious few instances in the Islamic republic ’ s 40-year history when authorities have admitted mistakes .
It is surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the Russian playbook of flatly denying culpability no matter how clear the evidence is to the contrary .
Presumably the video of the shootdown forced their hand — although even then , you ’ d expect them to fart out a conspiracy theory involving the CIA and Mossad taking down the jet to frame the Islamic Republic or whatever .
Regardless , Rezaian ’ s point that Iranian blood is cheap to the regime is well taken , especially so soon after the bloody crackdown on the gas protests .
I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I read someone yesterday speculate that Iran kept passenger jets flying on Tuesday night instead of closing the airport ahead of its missile attack because it feared a U.S. counterattack and hoped having those jets aloft in Iranian airspace might deter one .
That is , Iran was using the passengers as human shields .
They ended up dead anyway by Iran ’ s hand , not ours The irony amid the uproar is that Iranians have been more clear-eyed about blaming their own government for the shootdown than American liberals have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here and read through the thoughts of journalist Yashar Ali , who has family in Iran and reports today that the country is a “ tinderbox ” because of outrage over the jet ’ s fate and the regime ’ s lies about it afterward .
This would be a fine moment for lefties here at home to rally behind the protesters , Ali notes .
So why aren ’ t they doing it ?
If Iranian demonstrators believe the blood is on the regime ’ s hands instead of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s domestic opposition here ?
Worse yet for Democrats , if the jet shootdown ends up destabilizing the regime then the most dire predictions of critics of the Soleimani strike will have been upended .
Instead of an Iran unified in rage at the United States and eager for multi-theater conflict , we might end up with Iran bitterly divided and the regime badly weakened by internal opposition .
The protests , quite simply , are bad for the narrative that Trump farked up egregiously here , even if they end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran .
In lieu of an exit question , gon na leave you with a few tweets .

Good tweets, good message. And to his credit, not the first time he’s taken care to distinguish the Iranian government from the people of Iran. That’s what made his grumbling last week about bombing Iranian cultural sites so foolish. It’s the sort of blow that would be felt by the entire population, not just the mullahs and IRGC.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216114135529902081
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216120362230067202
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216356280933273600
Social media is overflowing this morning with reports of protests in Iran yesterday following the regime’s admission that it was an Iranian missile that destroyed that Ukrainian jet last Tuesday. Thousands of students gathered last night in Tehran for what began as a vigil and ended with them shouting their rage at velayat-e faqih.
They shouted for the Revolutionary Guards to “let go of the country” and, “Death to the dictator!” referring to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei… “Soleimani was a murderer, his leader is, too!” was one chant heard Saturday. Posters of the general that had been hung for his funeral were torn down, videos posted online showed… Some of the students held up a banner that read, “F- -k you & your mistake!” and had the names and photos of the 16 Iranian students who died in the disaster. They chanted, “Bisharaf!” a Farsi word for “dishonorable” that is considered one of the worst insults in the culture, and demanded officials involved in the missile attack be removed from their positions and tried.
The Times has video of the “bisharaf” chanting. The State Department is making sure that everyone knows the state of play too:
The Iranian people continue their protests against the lies, incompetence, and cruelty of the ayatollah’s regime. #IranProtests pic.twitter.com/iF6aJFc0T3 — Department of State (@StateDept) January 12, 2020
I’m wary of optimism about the protests given how resilient the regime’s been in putting out populist fires over the last decade or so. They quashed the Green Revolution in 2009 and proved last year that they’re willing to spill oceans of blood to keep the peace after mass demonstrations broke out over rising gas prices. But it isn’t just excitable anti-regime activists today who think the outrage over the jet shootdown is a big deal internally. Media observers think so too. “Criticism directed at Iran’s leadership came from all factions inside the country,” claims the Times, with even hardliners groaning about the military’s lies and incompetence. “The criticism of Iran over the crash threatens to eclipse whatever international sympathy Iran has garnered in its escalating confrontation with the Trump administration,” it added. One of the leaders of the Green Revolution proclaimed afterward that Khamenei had lost his moral authority to rule. A 10-day span that began with the U.S. taking out the country’s top general and Iran exacting no American casualties in response is going to end with a devastating legitimacy crisis for … Iran, thanks to its recklessness in taking down the jet.
Jason Rezaian, the WaPo reporter who was taken prisoner by the regime for 18 months several years ago, writes today that the jet shootdown is a “make-or-break moment” for it.
The completely avoidable shoot-down of the Ukrainian airliner offers just another reminder of how careless this regime is with the lives of its own citizens… How Iranian security forces respond to new protests will be a key factor in determining the future of the regime. If they attempt to suppress this public anger over an act of senseless aggression that killed 176 innocent people, they will exacerbate their already massive credibility problem. A more conciliatory action could lead to a short-term cooling of tensions, but it would also be an expression of weakness, something a regime that claims to draw its leadership from the divine is loath to do. There have been precious few instances in the Islamic republic’s 40-year history when authorities have admitted mistakes.
It is surprising that they admitted the mistake instead of following the Russian playbook of flatly denying culpability no matter how clear the evidence is to the contrary. Presumably the video of the shootdown forced their hand — although even then, you’d expect them to fart out a conspiracy theory involving the CIA and Mossad taking down the jet to frame the Islamic Republic or whatever.
Regardless, Rezaian’s point that Iranian blood is cheap to the regime is well taken, especially so soon after the bloody crackdown on the gas protests. I can’t remember where at the moment but I read someone yesterday speculate that Iran kept passenger jets flying on Tuesday night instead of closing the airport ahead of its missile attack because it feared a U.S. counterattack and hoped having those jets aloft in Iranian airspace might deter one. That is, Iran was using the passengers as human shields. They ended up dead anyway by Iran’s hand, not ours
The irony amid the uproar is that Iranians have been more clear-eyed about blaming their own government for the shootdown than American liberals have been. Take 30 seconds to click here and read through the thoughts of journalist Yashar Ali, who has family in Iran and reports today that the country is a “tinderbox” because of outrage over the jet’s fate and the regime’s lies about it afterward. This would be a fine moment for lefties here at home to rally behind the protesters, Ali notes. So why aren’t they doing it?
10. And that's why I tweeted this earlier today. In this context, Iranians are being used by certain people on the left (i didn't say all) as a tool to attack President Trump. But these same people don't seem to care to to support their right to protest?https://t.co/M1wLT4Lv3B — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 12, 2020
12. This happens often with people living in authoritarian states & with certain religious/ethnic groups. We're used as tools to push domestic political agendas. We're told what to feel & think by people with no connection to our country & have no idea what they're talking about — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 12, 2020
If Iranian demonstrators believe the blood is on the regime’s hands instead of Trump’s, of what use are they to Trump’s domestic opposition here? Worse yet for Democrats, if the jet shootdown ends up destabilizing the regime then the most dire predictions of critics of the Soleimani strike will have been upended. Instead of an Iran unified in rage at the United States and eager for multi-theater conflict, we might end up with Iran bitterly divided and the regime badly weakened by internal opposition. The protests, quite simply, are bad for the narrative that Trump farked up egregiously here, even if they end up reducing the chances of war with Iran.
In lieu of an exit question, gonna leave you with a few tweets.
“Soleimani was a murderer, his Leader is also a murderer!”
“Soleimani was a murderer, his Leader is also a murderer!”
“Soleimani was a murderer, his Leader is also a murderer!”
“Soleimani was a murderer, his Leader is also a murderer!” Bravest people in the world. pic.twitter.com/xjCav4reQi — Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) January 11, 2020
“They lie and say the enemy is America, our enemy is right here in #Iran.”
Anti regime protests in Esfahan, #Iran. pic.twitter.com/oae0Ji8fDu — Alireza Nader علیرضا نادر (@AlirezaNader) January 11, 2020


hotair--2020-01-12--NFL divisional playoffs open thread, the Bye Bye Blackbird edition

Ed : Can a 1-1 day be called a rebound ?
I managed to move to 2-4 in playoff picks so far , which isn ’ t great but leaves me with the task of writing today ’ s open thread .
If there was going to be a ground-shaking upset , why couldn ’ t it have been in the opening game yesterday rather than with the Ravens ’ surprise exit ?
Not only would that have made my Viking-fan pals a lot less gloomy around the Twin Cities today , we ’ d still have Lamar Jackson mixing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least .
Now the one team that looked most unbeatable at the end of the season will have another off-season to figure out what went wrong … this time .
Jazz : So much for that .
After my thrilling “ success ” of going 1-1 last Sunday , I switched back to another swing and a miss yesterday .
My longshot bet on the Vikings didn ’ t pay off and then I apparently cursed the Ravens .
I didn ’ t even bother watching the late game and went to bed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lopsided game .
This postseason is shaping up to be a year where everyone just has to expect the unexpected .
Ed : Today ’ s games show more promise for upsets , although it will still be tough to pick against the home teams .
Today starts out with Texans at Chiefs ( 3:05 pm ET , CBS ) and more than a couple of question marks .
Last week against the Bills , the Texans dug themselves a 16-point hole before climbing out of it in the second half , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in a 35-point hole against Patrick Mahomes and KC .
Deshaun Watson made a brilliant play to win the game in OT , but his numbers last week weren ’ t exactly spectacular — 20/25 for 247 and a TD , while taking seven sacks .
The Texans gave up 425 yards to the Bills , who had the 24th-ranked offense during the regular season .
They ’ re facing the 6th-ranked offense today , 5th on points per game , whose defense was ranked 7th on points allowed per game .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t count out the Texans until time runs out , but I suspect the last sands of the hourglass will come today .
Chiefs 35-23 over the Texans .
Next up we get a tougher game to pick with Seahawks at Packers ( 6:40 pm , Fox ) .
Both teams are coming into the game dinged up , but the injury list contains two of Russell Wilson ’ s offensive line as either questionable or doubtful .
Green Bay ’ s defense is already stingy , and that won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnovers ; they ’ re tied for third overall this season with a +12 differential .
( The top two teams lost last weekend , though — New England and New Orleans ) .
Seattle ’ s defense gives up five more points a game , and the offense barely got by Philadelphia ’ s D last week , only scoring 17 points .
This one looks like a game in which home-field advantage will make the difference .
Seattle was 7-1 on the road this year , but Green Bay was 7-1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s gon na be cold out there .
It ’ ll be 22 degrees with wind chill taking it to 17 degrees , an environment the Packers know well but Seattle doesn ’ t .
They only managed 64 rushing yards last week , so it will be on Wilson ’ s shoulders , and the Packers ’ D was third-best in completion percentage , 59.7 % .
Seattle ’ s D was ranked 21st at 64 % .
This one should be a close game , but I ’ ll pick Packers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texans have a QB who ’ s not afraid to run with the ball when he has to , adding another element to their offense that ’ s confounded some very respectable defense .
( He ran more than a dozen times against the Bills . )
But even with those options available , beating the Chiefs at home is going to be a daunting task .
While I hesitate to say this after that Raven ’ s game , I just don ’ t see the Texans having enough in the tank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now be one of the top picks for a Superbowl ring .
I ’ ll go with the Chiefs over the Texans 34-26 .
For the late game , I basically came down to flipping a coin .
Seattle didn ’ t exactly shine in their win last week , though they managed to get the job done .
But Green Bay hasn ’ t exactly been looking like the team to beat either .
Particularly when the game is being played at Lambeau , under the lights and in freezing temperatures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game to lose .
But the coin flip says what it says and I say this season of the unexpected will continue to deliver surprises .
I ’ ll go with the Seahawks over the Packers 24-17 .

Ed: Can a 1-1 day be called a rebound? I managed to move to 2-4 in playoff picks so far, which isn’t great but leaves me with the task of writing today’s open thread. If there was going to be a ground-shaking upset, why couldn’t it have been in the opening game yesterday rather than with the Ravens’ surprise exit? Not only would that have made my Viking-fan pals a lot less gloomy around the Twin Cities today, we’d still have Lamar Jackson mixing things up for another week, at least. Now the one team that looked most unbeatable at the end of the season will have another off-season to figure out what went wrong … this time.
Jazz: So much for that. After my thrilling “success” of going 1-1 last Sunday, I switched back to another swing and a miss yesterday. My longshot bet on the Vikings didn’t pay off and then I apparently cursed the Ravens. I didn’t even bother watching the late game and went to bed confident that Baltimore would win a boring, lopsided game. This postseason is shaping up to be a year where everyone just has to expect the unexpected.
Ed: Today’s games show more promise for upsets, although it will still be tough to pick against the home teams. Today starts out with Texans at Chiefs (3:05 pm ET, CBS) and more than a couple of question marks. Last week against the Bills, the Texans dug themselves a 16-point hole before climbing out of it in the second half, but that kind of play would likely result in a 35-point hole against Patrick Mahomes and KC. Deshaun Watson made a brilliant play to win the game in OT, but his numbers last week weren’t exactly spectacular — 20/25 for 247 and a TD, while taking seven sacks. The Texans gave up 425 yards to the Bills, who had the 24th-ranked offense during the regular season. They’re facing the 6th-ranked offense today, 5th on points per game, whose defense was ranked 7th on points allowed per game. We found out last week that you can’t count out the Texans until time runs out, but I suspect the last sands of the hourglass will come today. Chiefs 35-23 over the Texans.
Next up we get a tougher game to pick with Seahawks at Packers (6:40 pm, Fox). Both teams are coming into the game dinged up, but the injury list contains two of Russell Wilson’s offensive line as either questionable or doubtful. Green Bay’s defense is already stingy, and that won’t help matters. Both defenses get turnovers; they’re tied for third overall this season with a +12 differential. (The top two teams lost last weekend, though — New England and New Orleans). Seattle’s defense gives up five more points a game, and the offense barely got by Philadelphia’s D last week, only scoring 17 points.
This one looks like a game in which home-field advantage will make the difference. Seattle was 7-1 on the road this year, but Green Bay was 7-1 at home too, and it’s gonna be cold out there. It’ll be 22 degrees with wind chill taking it to 17 degrees, an environment the Packers know well but Seattle doesn’t. They only managed 64 rushing yards last week, so it will be on Wilson’s shoulders, and the Packers’ D was third-best in completion percentage, 59.7%. Seattle’s D was ranked 21st at 64%. This one should be a close game, but I’ll pick Packers over Seahawks 27-21.
Jazz: The Texans have a QB who’s not afraid to run with the ball when he has to, adding another element to their offense that’s confounded some very respectable defense. (He ran more than a dozen times against the Bills.) But even with those options available, beating the Chiefs at home is going to be a daunting task. While I hesitate to say this after that Raven’s game, I just don’t see the Texans having enough in the tank to stop the Chiefs, who may now be one of the top picks for a Superbowl ring. I’ll go with the Chiefs over the Texans 34-26.
For the late game, I basically came down to flipping a coin. Seattle didn’t exactly shine in their win last week, though they managed to get the job done. But Green Bay hasn’t exactly been looking like the team to beat either. Particularly when the game is being played at Lambeau, under the lights and in freezing temperatures, this should be Green Bay’s game to lose. But the coin flip says what it says and I say this season of the unexpected will continue to deliver surprises. I’ll go with the Seahawks over the Packers 24-17.


hotair--2020-01-12--Caritas, condescension, and phasers: Sunday reflection

Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him .
John tried to prevent him , saying , “ I need to be baptized by you , and yet you are coming to me ?
” Jesus said to him in reply , “ Allow it now , for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.
” Then he allowed him .
After Jesus was baptized , he came up from the water and behold , the heavens were opened for him , and he saw the Spirit of God descending like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And a voice came from the heavens , saying , “ This is my beloved Son , with whom I am well pleased.
” Bear with me on this , because as a Star Trek fan , today ’ s Gospel reminds me of , er … one of the worst moments of the franchise .
Forgive me as I recount The Film That Must Not Be Mentioned , 1989 ’ s Star Trek V : The Final Frontier .
After a convoluted series of plot twists and embarrassing vignettes ( such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Spock ’ s never-before-mentioned half-brother uses what can best be called amateur psychotherapy to convince the crew to let him hijack the ship .
He wants to take it to the center of the galaxy , where no man has gone before , to literally find God and paradise .
Kirk seems impervious to psychotherapy , however ( what a shock ! )
, and manages to regain control of the ship just before they arrive .
They meet something on the planet beyond the , er , Great Beyond , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I guess it beats blowing it up again . )
Everyone seems kinda groovy with that too until Kirk asks , “ What does God need with a starship ?
” McCoy scolds Kirk , “ You don ’ t ask the Almighty for his ID !
” , at which point “ God ” shoots lightning bolt up Kirk ’ s backside .
This turns out to be the answer that unlocks the stupor into which the most experienced and storied crew in Star Fleet have fallen for two hours , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some phasers at “ God.
” That seems to do the trick , as it turns out that this entity is not even up to Klingonian levels of fight .
So why bring this up , other than to vent 31 years of frustration ?
( Don ’ t knock the healing power of venting 31 years of frustration , by the way . )
It ’ s because we have a very similar question in this exchange between John the Baptist and Jesus .
Fortunately , we get a much better answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time the real God shows up , too .
John the Baptist has preached in the desert for years at this point for the need to repent and be washed of sin .
The baptisms taking place in the Jordan are meant to ready the people for the coming of Christ , allowing them to open their hearts to His Word by removing the sins that cloud their judgment .
His preaching has already drawn the suspicion of the temple authorities , who question his authority to teach and to proclaim sins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at finding Jesus as one of the supplicants looking to be baptized .
John clearly understands Jesus ’ true nature , having been anointed a prophet to prepare His way .
The coming of Jesus would establish a kingdom of peace and the defeat of sin , not through the actions of men but through God ’ s own grace .
Thus when Jesus asked to be baptized , John rightly asked the obvious question : What need does God have to be baptized ?
Even in the theory of baptism that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a very good question .
Baptism washes away the flaw of original sin , although it doesn ’ t eliminate its aftereffects .
It gives us the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit most fully , and to order our hearts away from the selfish materialism that would otherwise dominate them .
However , that necessity of baptism for salvation doesn ’ t apply to Jesus .
Mary was born of an immaculate conception , in which the Lord intervened to eliminate original sin as it applied to Mary .
Jesus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Mary ’ s permission , an act of complete acquiescence to the will of God — the antithesis of original sin .
This series of acts ensured that Jesus ’ human nature was not corrupted by original sin , and in fact His mere existence defeats it .
So why be baptized ?
The sacraments are His signs for us , not for His own sake .
However , Jesus condescends to be baptized in the same manner in which He condescends to become man .
He does this precisely because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own , just as He did in coming to us in human form as the Word of God incarnate .
He lived among us to establish the manner in which salvation perfects humanity , and then at the end He sacrificed Himself to show how salvation defeats death .
His baptism is another condescension by which Jesus demonstrates how we must open ourselves to the Holy Spirit by being reborn in it — going through the death of our sinful natures and coming to life in the waters of salvation .
This teaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own nature .
Too often we want to believe that we can achieve salvation on our own terms and under our own steam .
Not to get too Star Trek V-ish , but I certainly tend to approach it on a “ let ’ s hijack a starship to get to heaven ” basis at times .
It ’ s tough to admit that we can ’ t do this on our own , even for those of us who believe ; we stubbornly refuse to ask for God ’ s help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves for salvation , we end up getting in our own way .
In participating in the baptism at the Jordan , Jesus teaches us that we don ’ t have the power to save ourselves .
It takes the Lord ’ s grace and our active cooperation with it for us to form ourselves toward the Lord .
And what happens when Jesus goes through the ritual ?
The Lord makes an appearance in an iconic theophany , in which the dove becomes the symbol of the Holy Spirit , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trinity that flows between Father and Son .
Baptism prepares us to join in that caritas , the utterly selfless love which the Father has for all of us , but which we have the freedom to choose or reject .
The full Trinity makes an appearance at the baptism in this Gospel as a sign of hope and joy , not for Jesus ’ benefit but for ours .
As our Christmas season ends , let us focus on that tremendous gift we have received through Christ ’ s condescension and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trek V. The front-page image is a detail from “ The Baptism of Christ ” by Andrea del Verrocchio and Leonardo da Vinci , c. 1475 .
On display at the Uffizi Gallery , 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be found here .
For previous Green Room entries , click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is Matthew 3:13–17:
Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened for him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Bear with me on this, because as a Star Trek fan, today’s Gospel reminds me of, er … one of the worst moments of the franchise. Forgive me as I recount The Film That Must Not Be Mentioned, 1989’s Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. After a convoluted series of plot twists and embarrassing vignettes (such as Uhura’s desert fan dance), Spock’s never-before-mentioned half-brother uses what can best be called amateur psychotherapy to convince the crew to let him hijack the ship. He wants to take it to the center of the galaxy, where no man has gone before, to literally find God and paradise. Kirk seems impervious to psychotherapy, however (what a shock!), and manages to regain control of the ship just before they arrive.
They meet something on the planet beyond the, er, Great Beyond, who also wants to hijack the Enterprise. (I guess it beats blowing it up again.) Everyone seems kinda groovy with that too until Kirk asks, “What does God need with a starship?” McCoy scolds Kirk, “You don’t ask the Almighty for his ID!”, at which point “God” shoots lightning bolt up Kirk’s backside. This turns out to be the answer that unlocks the stupor into which the most experienced and storied crew in Star Fleet have fallen for two hours, and they return the favor by shooting some phasers at “God.” That seems to do the trick, as it turns out that this entity is not even up to Klingonian levels of fight.
So why bring this up, other than to vent 31 years of frustration? (Don’t knock the healing power of venting 31 years of frustration, by the way.) It’s because we have a very similar question in this exchange between John the Baptist and Jesus. Fortunately, we get a much better answer than lightning bolts and phasers, and this time the real God shows up, too.
John the Baptist has preached in the desert for years at this point for the need to repent and be washed of sin. The baptisms taking place in the Jordan are meant to ready the people for the coming of Christ, allowing them to open their hearts to His Word by removing the sins that cloud their judgment. His preaching has already drawn the suspicion of the temple authorities, who question his authority to teach and to proclaim sins forgiven.
Imagine John’s consternation at finding Jesus as one of the supplicants looking to be baptized. John clearly understands Jesus’ true nature, having been anointed a prophet to prepare His way. The coming of Jesus would establish a kingdom of peace and the defeat of sin, not through the actions of men but through God’s own grace. Thus when Jesus asked to be baptized, John rightly asked the obvious question: What need does God have to be baptized?
Even in the theory of baptism that is in place to this day, it’s a very good question. Baptism washes away the flaw of original sin, although it doesn’t eliminate its aftereffects. It gives us the opportunity to receive the Holy Spirit most fully, and to order our hearts away from the selfish materialism that would otherwise dominate them.
However, that necessity of baptism for salvation doesn’t apply to Jesus. Mary was born of an immaculate conception, in which the Lord intervened to eliminate original sin as it applied to Mary. Jesus was then conceived through the Holy Spirit with Mary’s permission, an act of complete acquiescence to the will of God — the antithesis of original sin. This series of acts ensured that Jesus’ human nature was not corrupted by original sin, and in fact His mere existence defeats it.
So why be baptized? The sacraments are His signs for us, not for His own sake. However, Jesus condescends to be baptized in the same manner in which He condescends to become man. He does this precisely because it is for our sake, not His own, just as He did in coming to us in human form as the Word of God incarnate. He lived among us to establish the manner in which salvation perfects humanity, and then at the end He sacrificed Himself to show how salvation defeats death. His baptism is another condescension by which Jesus demonstrates how we must open ourselves to the Holy Spirit by being reborn in it — going through the death of our sinful natures and coming to life in the waters of salvation.
This teaches us another lesson, too, about our own nature. Too often we want to believe that we can achieve salvation on our own terms and under our own steam. Not to get too Star Trek V-ish, but I certainly tend to approach it on a “let’s hijack a starship to get to heaven” basis at times. It’s tough to admit that we can’t do this on our own, even for those of us who believe; we stubbornly refuse to ask for God’s help in forming ourselves. Instead of preparing ourselves for salvation, we end up getting in our own way. In participating in the baptism at the Jordan, Jesus teaches us that we don’t have the power to save ourselves. It takes the Lord’s grace and our active cooperation with it for us to form ourselves toward the Lord.
And what happens when Jesus goes through the ritual? The Lord makes an appearance in an iconic theophany, in which the dove becomes the symbol of the Holy Spirit, which is the manifestation of the caritas love of the Trinity that flows between Father and Son. Baptism prepares us to join in that caritas, the utterly selfless love which the Father has for all of us, but which we have the freedom to choose or reject. The full Trinity makes an appearance at the baptism in this Gospel as a sign of hope and joy, not for Jesus’ benefit but for ours.
As our Christmas season ends, let us focus on that tremendous gift we have received through Christ’s condescension and caritas. It certainly beats remembering Star Trek V.
The front-page image is a detail from “The Baptism of Christ” by Andrea del Verrocchio and Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1475. On display at the Uffizi Gallery, 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.


hotair--2020-01-12--The blue state exodus is coming into focus

We ’ ve been seeing omens of significant population shifts among the states over the past decade for some time now .
These occur on a decennial basis anyway , but some older trends appear to be reversing themselves in terms of specifically who is going where .
The 2020 census will mark the official end to the current tracking , resulting in a reallocation of seats in the House of Representatives while also giving us a better idea of how cultural trends are morphing across the states .
But with the 2019 figures from the Census Bureau in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty good idea as to where the final numbers will fall .
And they are telling a now-familiar story .
People are indeed fleeing blue states for red states in an accelerating fashion and it ’ s not that hard to figure out why .
( From Merrill Matthews at The Hill ) According to an Election Data Services analysis of the Census Bureau report , “ The population projections point toward a ten [ congressional ] seat change over 17 states across the nation by year 2020.
” Seven states are projected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the 2020 election ; 10 states are projected lose one seat .
The red-state leader is Texas , with a projected pickup of three congressional seats following the 2020 census — and that after gaining four congressional seats after the 2010 election .
Florida will pick up two seats , and Arizona , Colorado , Montana , North Carolina and Oregon will each gain one , according to the analysis .
As you can see from that list , of the seven states gaining seats , nearly all of them are red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten states projected to lose at least one seat each are primarily from the opposite mold .
They include California , Illinois , Michigan , Minnesota , New York , Ohio , Pennsylvania , and Rhode Island .
The two exceptions are Alabama and West Virginia .
( Arguably , West Virginia is experiencing its own exodus because of the collapse of the coal industry .
Alabama is a bit harder to figure out . )
As Matthews ’ analysis goes on to point out , of the seven states gaining seats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
The ten states losing seats split evenly between Trump and Clinton .
So the net shift would appear to play in the GOP ’ s favor going into 2021 and beyond .
But that good news may be relatively short-lived .
In a depressing example of irony , the influx of new voters from blue states into red ones has been bringing with it a surge of liberal , Democratic voters .
This has led to some traditionally red states becoming increasingly competitive for the Democrats .
( Texas is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there hasn ’ t fully turned yet . )
The grim humor in this is that these migrants seem to fail to realize that the conditions they were fleeing in those blue states were a direct result of the policies put in place by liberals .
Higher taxes , more oppressive governmental regulations and “ woke ” policies that are more tolerant of crime and damaging to traditional values made many of those places basically unlivable .
But by coming into red states , where lower costs of living , more freedom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting the way they always have , they ’ re basically bringing their own poison with them into their new pool .
The bigger question for some of us is whether the disaffected voters who are sticking it out in their home states will look at these numbers and finally begin to get a clue .
New York is one of the biggest culprits and largest losers in the emigration race .
Will voters there finally tire of the liberal madness that has driven so many of their friends and family out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examples is the chaos brought about by the recently enacted bail “ reform ” law and it ’ s in the news every day .
Perhaps that will be the straw that finally breaks the liberal camel ’ s back .
But I ’ m too much of a natural pessimist to believe that just yet .

We’ve been seeing omens of significant population shifts among the states over the past decade for some time now. These occur on a decennial basis anyway, but some older trends appear to be reversing themselves in terms of specifically who is going where. The 2020 census will mark the official end to the current tracking, resulting in a reallocation of seats in the House of Representatives while also giving us a better idea of how cultural trends are morphing across the states. But with the 2019 figures from the Census Bureau in the books, we can now get a pretty good idea as to where the final numbers will fall. And they are telling a now-familiar story. People are indeed fleeing blue states for red states in an accelerating fashion and it’s not that hard to figure out why. (From Merrill Matthews at The Hill)
According to an Election Data Services analysis of the Census Bureau report, “The population projections point toward a ten [congressional] seat change over 17 states across the nation by year 2020.” Seven states are projected to gain one or more congressional seats after the 2020 election; 10 states are projected lose one seat. The red-state leader is Texas, with a projected pickup of three congressional seats following the 2020 census — and that after gaining four congressional seats after the 2010 election. Florida will pick up two seats, and Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon will each gain one, according to the analysis.
As you can see from that list, of the seven states gaining seats, nearly all of them are red or purple by political leanings. The ten states projected to lose at least one seat each are primarily from the opposite mold. They include California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The two exceptions are Alabama and West Virginia. (Arguably, West Virginia is experiencing its own exodus because of the collapse of the coal industry. Alabama is a bit harder to figure out.)
As Matthews’ analysis goes on to point out, of the seven states gaining seats, five of them voted for Trump in 2016. The ten states losing seats split evenly between Trump and Clinton. So the net shift would appear to play in the GOP’s favor going into 2021 and beyond.
But that good news may be relatively short-lived. In a depressing example of irony, the influx of new voters from blue states into red ones has been bringing with it a surge of liberal, Democratic voters. This has led to some traditionally red states becoming increasingly competitive for the Democrats. (Texas is probably the best example, though the tide there hasn’t fully turned yet.)
The grim humor in this is that these migrants seem to fail to realize that the conditions they were fleeing in those blue states were a direct result of the policies put in place by liberals. Higher taxes, more oppressive governmental regulations and “woke” policies that are more tolerant of crime and damaging to traditional values made many of those places basically unlivable. But by coming into red states, where lower costs of living, more freedom, and better security were waiting, and voting the way they always have, they’re basically bringing their own poison with them into their new pool.
The bigger question for some of us is whether the disaffected voters who are sticking it out in their home states will look at these numbers and finally begin to get a clue. New York is one of the biggest culprits and largest losers in the emigration race. Will voters there finally tire of the liberal madness that has driven so many of their friends and family out of the state? One of the best examples is the chaos brought about by the recently enacted bail “reform” law and it’s in the news every day. Perhaps that will be the straw that finally breaks the liberal camel’s back. But I’m too much of a natural pessimist to believe that just yet.


hotair--2020-01-12--Judge Judy: America "deserves greatness," joins Bloomberg in Texas

The jury is in – Judy Sheindlin a.k.a .
Judge Judy , has endorsed billionaire Michael Bloomberg for president .
The television star is even going on the campaign trail with him to plead his case to voters .
The two campaigned together in Texas Saturday .
Sheindlin , like Bloomberg , is 77 years old and a New Yorker .
She references Bloomberg ’ s tenure as Mayor of New York City as proof of his skills – he ’ s “ innovative , ” “ courageous ” and “ beholden to no one.
” Most of all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat primary and wasn ’ t finding it with the other candidates .
“ I looked at the rest of the field and I said America is the greatest country in the world and it deserves greatness .
And I looked at everybody else and I said , “ I don ’ t see greatness there , ” she said .
“ Everybody else out there is just a lot of noise , I also think that he is the only person — you ’ re going to have an election in November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need someone who can stand toe-to-toe , who understands the incumbent , and who understands and appreciates how to manage him .
I think he ’ s the only one who can do that , ” Sheindlin said .
Not to put too fine of a point on this but doesn ’ t that sound like she ’ s describing Donald Trump ?
His 2016 campaign was centered around the premise that he wasn ’ t beholden to anyone because he was an outsider , which Bloomberg is not , and Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside of the box .
“ Innovative ” is how Trump rolls .
And as far as “ courageous ” goes , well , does anyone think Trump ’ s afraid to go up against anyone ?
Trump also campaigned on his ability to defeat Hillary Clinton because he knew her , he traveled in the same social circles and even donated to her past political campaigns .
She and Bill were guests at his wedding to Melania .
On Biden ’ s candidacy , Judge Judy says he ’ s a nice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guy ” by virtue of what he has accomplished .
She likes the word “ great ” , doesn ’ t she ?
She also pointed out that this is Biden ’ s third run for the nomination .
She acknowledged that voters seem to think Biden is the safe choice in the race .
Judy doesn ’ t think we need a revolution , which is good news , I suppose .
America is already great , she said .
Some systems just need to be tweaked .
“ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country , I think it ’ s the greatest country on Earth .
Everybody wants to come here , nobody ’ s asking for a permanent exit visa out of the United States of America .
Everyone wants to come here .
That doesn ’ t sound to me like a country that needs a revolution , ” Sheindlin said .
“ That doesn ’ t mean that some of its systems don ’ t need tweaking .
They need tweaking .
It has to be made fairer and the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made available for more people.
” So , in other words , she presents no clear reason that Bloomberg should replace Trump as president .
Is she a good surrogate ?
Not really , but she brings star power to Bloomberg ’ s events .
People know her name and have likely seen her on television .
She can offer a little added interest to Bloomberg ’ s otherwise ho-hum campaign .
Texans have been bombarded by political ads on television from Mr. Bloomberg .
I don ’ t mean once a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nature of my work , our television is on from the time I wake up until the time I go to sleep .
I can tell you that his ads come on multiple times in a 24-hour cycle – both on network television and on cable stations .
The closest competition he has on-air is Tom Steyer , the other billionaire in the Democrat primary .
He runs several each day , too .
As we move closer to Super Tuesday , it will only get worse .
These two guys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll spend whatever it takes in this race .
Bloomberg and the judge are campaigning in Texas on a bus tour this weekend .
For some reason , Bloomberg sounds as though he thinks Beto O ’ Rourke won the Senate race against Ted Cruz .
One snippet from his rallies Saturday that appeared on social media has Bloomberg saying that Beto proved that a Democrat can win in Texas by visiting all of its 254 counties .
Robert Francis O ’ Rourke consistently mentioned that he visited all of the counties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a badge of honor .
Alas , Mr. Bloomberg , no one refers to Beto as Senator O ’ Rourke because he didn ’ t win the race .
Ted Cruz is still the junior senator from Texas .
Currently , Joe Biden is leading in Texas polls for Democrats .
No one is betting against Trump to win Texas in November .
The fever dream of turning Texas back to a blue state after a couple of decades of Republican dominance will not be realized this cycle , no matter how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started in San Antonio and went on to Austin and Dallas .
Bloomberg campaigned in Houston last month .
His strategy is to focus on the Super Tuesday ( March 3 ) states , not the early voting states .
“ You can rest assured I will not spare a penny to defeat Donald Trump in Texas , ” Bloomberg said in December .
Bloomberg has also announced plans to open a state campaign headquarters in Houston and 16 field offices around the state .
He ’ s spending big in Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV ads in the state .
“ Our teams on the ground are in more states at once during primary season than any campaign in history , ” said Dan Kanninen , states director for Bloomberg ’ s campaign .
“ We have organizers , volunteers , and supporters in all corners of states throughout the country .
”

The jury is in – Judy Sheindlin a.k.a. Judge Judy, has endorsed billionaire Michael Bloomberg for president. The television star is even going on the campaign trail with him to plead his case to voters. The two campaigned together in Texas Saturday.
Sheindlin, like Bloomberg, is 77 years old and a New Yorker. She references Bloomberg’s tenure as Mayor of New York City as proof of his skills – he’s “innovative,” “courageous” and “beholden to no one.” Most of all, she was searching for greatness in the Democrat primary and wasn’t finding it with the other candidates.
“I looked at the rest of the field and I said America is the greatest country in the world and it deserves greatness. And I looked at everybody else and I said, “I don’t see greatness there,” she said. “Everybody else out there is just a lot of noise, I also think that he is the only person — you’re going to have an election in November, and you’re going to need someone who can stand toe-to-toe, who understands the incumbent, and who understands and appreciates how to manage him. I think he’s the only one who can do that,” Sheindlin said.
Not to put too fine of a point on this but doesn’t that sound like she’s describing Donald Trump? His 2016 campaign was centered around the premise that he wasn’t beholden to anyone because he was an outsider, which Bloomberg is not, and Trump’s appeal was his willingness to think outside of the box. “Innovative” is how Trump rolls. And as far as “courageous” goes, well, does anyone think Trump’s afraid to go up against anyone? Trump also campaigned on his ability to defeat Hillary Clinton because he knew her, he traveled in the same social circles and even donated to her past political campaigns. She and Bill were guests at his wedding to Melania.
On Biden’s candidacy, Judge Judy says he’s a nice guy but America needs a “great guy” by virtue of what he has accomplished. She likes the word “great”, doesn’t she? She also pointed out that this is Biden’s third run for the nomination. She acknowledged that voters seem to think Biden is the safe choice in the race.
Judy doesn’t think we need a revolution, which is good news, I suppose. America is already great, she said. Some systems just need to be tweaked.
“I don’t think we need a revolution in this country, I think it’s the greatest country on Earth. Everybody wants to come here, nobody’s asking for a permanent exit visa out of the United States of America. Everyone wants to come here. That doesn’t sound to me like a country that needs a revolution,” Sheindlin said. “That doesn’t mean that some of its systems don’t need tweaking. They need tweaking. It has to be made fairer and the ability to realize the American dream has to be made available for more people.”
Judge Judy introducing Mike Bloomberg in San Antonio. “Those that are touting revolution in this country are wrong. It’s the best county on earth.” pic.twitter.com/zAYq7aJDpV — Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 11, 2020
So, in other words, she presents no clear reason that Bloomberg should replace Trump as president. Is she a good surrogate? Not really, but she brings star power to Bloomberg’s events. People know her name and have likely seen her on television. She can offer a little added interest to Bloomberg’s otherwise ho-hum campaign.
Bloomberg and Judge Judy work the crowd pic.twitter.com/K8iZwN7x0O — Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 11, 2020
Texans have been bombarded by political ads on television from Mr. Bloomberg. I don’t mean once a day or even twice a day. Due to the nature of my work, our television is on from the time I wake up until the time I go to sleep. I can tell you that his ads come on multiple times in a 24-hour cycle – both on network television and on cable stations. The closest competition he has on-air is Tom Steyer, the other billionaire in the Democrat primary. He runs several each day, too. As we move closer to Super Tuesday, it will only get worse. These two guys have made it clear that they’ll spend whatever it takes in this race.
Austin City Manager Spencer Cronk, who previously worked in Bloomberg admin., helps intro him in Austin. Cronk mentions several area state reps are in attendance, including @CeliaIsrael, Warren endorser @ErinForYall, @DonnaHowardTX, @BucyForTexas & @EddieforTexas. #txlege — Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) January 11, 2020
Live from the Bloomberg scrum in Austin pic.twitter.com/aWxtx6tEDs — Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) January 11, 2020
Bloomberg and the judge are campaigning in Texas on a bus tour this weekend. For some reason, Bloomberg sounds as though he thinks Beto O’Rourke won the Senate race against Ted Cruz. One snippet from his rallies Saturday that appeared on social media has Bloomberg saying that Beto proved that a Democrat can win in Texas by visiting all of its 254 counties. Robert Francis O’Rourke consistently mentioned that he visited all of the counties in his stump speeches, as though it was a badge of honor.
“@BetoORourke showed that a Democrat can win Texas,” Bloomberg says in Austin to cheers, adding it’s done by investing time and resources around the state. — Ali Vitali (@alivitali) January 11, 2020
Alas, Mr. Bloomberg, no one refers to Beto as Senator O’Rourke because he didn’t win the race. Ted Cruz is still the junior senator from Texas. Currently, Joe Biden is leading in Texas polls for Democrats. No one is betting against Trump to win Texas in November. The fever dream of turning Texas back to a blue state after a couple of decades of Republican dominance will not be realized this cycle, no matter how much money Bloomberg spends here.
Bloomberg started in San Antonio and went on to Austin and Dallas. Bloomberg campaigned in Houston last month. His strategy is to focus on the Super Tuesday (March 3) states, not the early voting states.
“You can rest assured I will not spare a penny to defeat Donald Trump in Texas,” Bloomberg said in December. Bloomberg has also announced plans to open a state campaign headquarters in Houston and 16 field offices around the state. He’s spending big in Texas, sinking more than $8 million on TV ads in the state. “Our teams on the ground are in more states at once during primary season than any campaign in history,” said Dan Kanninen, states director for Bloomberg’s campaign. “We have organizers, volunteers, and supporters in all corners of states throughout the country.”


hotair--2020-01-12--Are we *literally* blackmailing Iraq to not kick out our troops?

As Ed Morrissey noted on Friday , the Trump administration ’ s response to the Iraqi legislature ’ s non-binding resolution to have our troops leave their country was , shall we say… less than positive .
As it turns out , there was more pressure being applied to the Iraqi Prime Minister than a simple refusal to comply .
During a call on Wednesday , the White House suggested to Adil Abdul-Hahdi ’ s people that possible sanctions in response to kicking us out could include freezing the country ’ s access to their bank accounts in the Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could send Iraq ’ s already tenuous financial position into a tailspin .
( NY Post ) The US is warning Iraq that it will pay big time if Baghdad boots out American troops .
State Department officials took aim at Iraq ’ s central bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City , promising a cash crunch if US forces are sent home , the Wall Street Journal reported .
Many nations maintain government accounts at the New York Fed .
Any move by the Trump administration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the already shaky Iraqi economy .
Iraq ’ s response to the elimination of terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani has left the Trump administration in yet another situation of considering something we legally can do , but perhaps shouldn ’ t .
As long as the Iraqis don ’ t do any more than the non-binding resolution , no action is really required .
And if they do move to make the demand mandatory , we would be on shaky moral grounds if we retaliated .
As I mentioned , we could legally freeze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reserve if appropriate sanctions were put in place .
In fact , as the Wall Street Journal pointed out this week , we ’ ve done it before .
In 2015 we suspended their access to those accounts for a few weeks over concerns that the money was being filtered through the black market to Iranian interests and possibly being used to support ISIS .
But that was then and this is now .
It ’ s important to remember that this isn ’ t a threat to cut off foreign aid or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Iraq , generated and used to conduct oil sales and other government interests .
Yes , those funds can be frozen if we suspect the money is being used for illegal purposes , to fund terrorism or any similar channels .
But nobody is currently suggesting that anything like that is going on .
If we threaten to freeze Iraq ’ s legitimate access to their funds in the Federal Reserve simply because we don ’ t like one of their government policies , we ’ re basically just openly blackmailing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of the Iraqi government to their own people .
They are in control of their own destiny for better or worse .
And if they decide that they no longer want foreign troops ( even ours ) based on their soil , we have a responsibility to comply with the wishes of their elected representatives .
Making this sort of threat sets a terrible precedent and the optics in terms of international affairs are simply awful .
We should also ask why President Trump is fighting this idea so hard to begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a promise to conclude our “ endless wars ” and get out troops out of Iraq .
If he pulls out on his own his critics can accuse him of cutting and running or “ abandoning our Iraqi allies.
” But if the Iraqis throw us out , Trump can simply say , “ Hey , I didn ’ t want to do it .
But it ’ s their country .
What choice did I have ?
” Then , as soon as we ’ re out of the country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and say that yet another campaign promise has been kept .
To once again steal ( and paraphrase ) an observation that Allahpundit recently made , threatening Trump with kicking our troops out is akin to threatening to let him build another Trump Tower in Baghdad .
It ’ s a win-win for Trump either way .
All he has to do is spin the story correctly in the aftermath .
I would urge the White House to seriously reconsider these threats of sanctions on Iraq .
They only serve to drive that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Russia while gaining nothing much for us .
Once the crowds calm down about Soleimani , a minimal amount of positive diplomacy should be able to return our relationship to its previous condition .
And failing that , the worse thing that happens is we bring a bunch of our troops home .
Yes , that will have ramifications in the Middle East in the long run , but that ship may have already sailed anyway .

As Ed Morrissey noted on Friday, the Trump administration’s response to the Iraqi legislature’s non-binding resolution to have our troops leave their country was, shall we say… less than positive. As it turns out, there was more pressure being applied to the Iraqi Prime Minister than a simple refusal to comply. During a call on Wednesday, the White House suggested to Adil Abdul-Hahdi’s people that possible sanctions in response to kicking us out could include freezing the country’s access to their bank accounts in the Federal Reserve in New York City. And that could send Iraq’s already tenuous financial position into a tailspin. (NY Post)
The US is warning Iraq that it will pay big time if Baghdad boots out American troops. State Department officials took aim at Iraq’s central bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City, promising a cash crunch if US forces are sent home, the Wall Street Journal reported. Many nations maintain government accounts at the New York Fed. Any move by the Trump administration to turn off the money tap could jolt the already shaky Iraqi economy.
Iraq’s response to the elimination of terrorist mastermind Qassem Soleimani has left the Trump administration in yet another situation of considering something we legally can do, but perhaps shouldn’t. As long as the Iraqis don’t do any more than the non-binding resolution, no action is really required. And if they do move to make the demand mandatory, we would be on shaky moral grounds if we retaliated.
As I mentioned, we could legally freeze Iraq’s assets in the Federal Reserve if appropriate sanctions were put in place. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out this week, we’ve done it before. In 2015 we suspended their access to those accounts for a few weeks over concerns that the money was being filtered through the black market to Iranian interests and possibly being used to support ISIS.
But that was then and this is now. It’s important to remember that this isn’t a threat to cut off foreign aid or loans. This is money that belongs to Iraq, generated and used to conduct oil sales and other government interests. Yes, those funds can be frozen if we suspect the money is being used for illegal purposes, to fund terrorism or any similar channels. But nobody is currently suggesting that anything like that is going on.
If we threaten to freeze Iraq’s legitimate access to their funds in the Federal Reserve simply because we don’t like one of their government policies, we’re basically just openly blackmailing them. We have long since turned over control of the Iraqi government to their own people. They are in control of their own destiny for better or worse. And if they decide that they no longer want foreign troops (even ours) based on their soil, we have a responsibility to comply with the wishes of their elected representatives.
Making this sort of threat sets a terrible precedent and the optics in terms of international affairs are simply awful. We should also ask why President Trump is fighting this idea so hard to begin with. Remember that the President ran on a promise to conclude our “endless wars” and get out troops out of Iraq. If he pulls out on his own his critics can accuse him of cutting and running or “abandoning our Iraqi allies.” But if the Iraqis throw us out, Trump can simply say, “Hey, I didn’t want to do it. But it’s their country. What choice did I have?”
Then, as soon as we’re out of the country, Trump could go to his next rally and say that yet another campaign promise has been kept. To once again steal (and paraphrase) an observation that Allahpundit recently made, threatening Trump with kicking our troops out is akin to threatening to let him build another Trump Tower in Baghdad. It’s a win-win for Trump either way. All he has to do is spin the story correctly in the aftermath.
I would urge the White House to seriously reconsider these threats of sanctions on Iraq. They only serve to drive that nation further into the arms of Iran and Russia while gaining nothing much for us. Once the crowds calm down about Soleimani, a minimal amount of positive diplomacy should be able to return our relationship to its previous condition. And failing that, the worse thing that happens is we bring a bunch of our troops home. Yes, that will have ramifications in the Middle East in the long run, but that ship may have already sailed anyway.


hotair--2020-01-12--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

War , both foreign and domestic , is the topic du jour this fine Sunday morning , with the chat shows forced to tackle Iran ’ s missile attack on U.S. bases on Iraq and Nancy Pelosi ’ s surprise decision to finally send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate within a few days .
She ’ s the star guest on “ This Week , ” where she ’ ll address the prospects of John Bolton being called to testify in Trump ’ s trial ( hint : not great ) and the prospects of Congress being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to wage war with Iran ( hint : not great ) .
Obvious question for her : What did she gain by her “ impeach and withhold ” strategy considering that McConnell made not a single concession before she capitulated ?
The White House will send out its two biggest names on national defense to defend Trump ’ s decision to target Qassem Soleimani .
SecDef Mark Esper is set for “ Face the Nation ” and “ State of the Union ” while national security advisor Robert O ’ Brien will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Fox News Sunday.
” The president told Laura Ingraham on Friday that Soleimani was plotting to target as many as four American embassies ; the Washington Post reported on Friday night that the intelligence to support that claim is thin .
Will Esper and O ’ Brien offer specifics to back Trump up or was the “ four embassies ” claim just one of those things he says because the number seems impressive , like when he claims he ’ s worth $ 10 billion ?
Also worth watching this morning are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be on “ Face the Nation ” together .
If you watched this video on Wednesday , you know why : Lee walked into the administration ’ s briefing that afternoon undecided on whether to support Kaine ’ s resolution limiting Trump ’ s war powers towards Iran and walked out an ardent supporter .
He was enraged that one of the briefers allegedly warned Congress that they ’ d embolden the enemy by merely holding a debate on the subject .
He and Kaine are on this morning to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing the Senate .
They should have 49 votes in the bank already .
Can they get Collins and Murkowski to put them over the top ?
One last note : Lefty billionaire and presidential candidate Tom Steyer will be on “ State of the Union ” to discuss the upcoming primaries .
Normally that ’ d be filed under “ who cares ?
” but Fox News published two shock polls on Thursday night showing Steyer in second place in South Carolina ( ! )
at 15 percent and tied with Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 percent .
How ’ s he doing it ?
With cargo loads of money , of course , saturating the airwaves in both states with campaign ads .
The left will have a collective aneurysm if he ends up finishing ahead of Sanders and Warren there given how important SC and NV are to building early momentum .
The full line-up is at the AP .

War, both foreign and domestic, is the topic du jour this fine Sunday morning, with the chat shows forced to tackle Iran’s missile attack on U.S. bases on Iraq and Nancy Pelosi’s surprise decision to finally send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate within a few days. She’s the star guest on “This Week,” where she’ll address the prospects of John Bolton being called to testify in Trump’s trial (hint: not great) and the prospects of Congress being able to rein in Trump’s power to wage war with Iran (hint: not great). Obvious question for her: What did she gain by her “impeach and withhold” strategy considering that McConnell made not a single concession before she capitulated?
The White House will send out its two biggest names on national defense to defend Trump’s decision to target Qassem Soleimani. SecDef Mark Esper is set for “Face the Nation” and “State of the Union” while national security advisor Robert O’Brien will chat with “This Week” and “Fox News Sunday.” The president told Laura Ingraham on Friday that Soleimani was plotting to target as many as four American embassies; the Washington Post reported on Friday night that the intelligence to support that claim is thin. Will Esper and O’Brien offer specifics to back Trump up or was the “four embassies” claim just one of those things he says because the number seems impressive, like when he claims he’s worth $10 billion?
Also worth watching this morning are Mike Lee and Tim Kaine, who’ll be on “Face the Nation” together. If you watched this video on Wednesday, you know why: Lee walked into the administration’s briefing that afternoon undecided on whether to support Kaine’s resolution limiting Trump’s war powers towards Iran and walked out an ardent supporter. He was enraged that one of the briefers allegedly warned Congress that they’d embolden the enemy by merely holding a debate on the subject. He and Kaine are on this morning to defend the resolution and preview its chances of passing the Senate. They should have 49 votes in the bank already. Can they get Collins and Murkowski to put them over the top?
One last note: Lefty billionaire and presidential candidate Tom Steyer will be on “State of the Union” to discuss the upcoming primaries. Normally that’d be filed under “who cares?” but Fox News published two shock polls on Thursday night showing Steyer in second place in South Carolina(!) at 15 percent and tied with Elizabeth Warren for third place in Nevada at 12 percent. How’s he doing it? With cargo loads of money, of course, saturating the airwaves in both states with campaign ads. The left will have a collective aneurysm if he ends up finishing ahead of Sanders and Warren there given how important SC and NV are to building early momentum.
The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-01-12--Rand Paul and Mike Lee, correctly, ask why U.S. is in Middle East

Two Republican U.S .
Senators want to know why the United States is still involved in Iraq and Afghanistan .
Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee are especially concerned about the fact the president is sticking with almost two-decade-old authorizations to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq .
“ This is what really infuriated me about the briefing : Is they maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do whatever they want , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Paul declared on NBC ’ s Meet the Press on Sunday while pushing for a vote in Congress on new Authorizations for Use of Military Force .
“ And I don ’ t think that ’ s what Congress meant in 2002 , nor do I think one generation can bind another generation .
So my point in being for this war powers debate is that we really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan.
” The Kentucky Republican also expressed concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirety of the Middle East including Saudi Arabia where several thousand American military personnel are stationed .
This doesn ’ t count the over 4k recently deployed to the Middle East since the assassination or targeted killing or whatever you want to call it of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani .
“ I think President Trump has been very consistent saying he doesn ’ t want perpetual war , ” Paul said noting a bit of a mixed message in the words from the White House .
“ But I have pushed back and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you keep sending more troops , you will have perpetual war.
” The troops are merely targets.
” Lee ’ s concern on CBS Face the Nation was also quite palpable .
“ [ A ] nytime we have something like this and we ’ ve signaled in advance that it ’ s not covered by an existing AUMF then yeah we ’ re- we ’ re relying on the good faith use of a commander in chief power by the president , ” Lee explained on Sunday while noting the Defense Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani ’ s killing earlier this month .
“ This is not a new precedent , it ’ s not- it ’ s not contingent on or- or rooted in- in this presidential administration.
” What is going on now with mission creep involving U.S. troops is nothing new .
America ’ s tendency to get more and more involved in military entanglements without congressional approval dates back to the 1950s when then-President Harry Truman sent U.S. troops to Korea .
Other administrations have followed the lead including former President Ronald Reagan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ex-President Barack Obama also did multiple drone strikes across the Middle East without congressional approval .
It ’ s a bipartisan issue .
Lee and Paul also expressed disappointment in the briefing given by the Trump Administration on why they targeted Soleimani without congressional approval .
“ Throughout the whole briefing they were dismissive of Congress , ” Paul complained on NBC .
“ They , in the end , said they didn ’ t have time to come back .
We only had about eight senators ask questions and they said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have time .
We ’ re busy ” about coming back to brief the rest of us or take questions from the rest of us .
So it was very dismissive.
” “ [ I ] n that briefing , we didn ’ t receive very much information that wasn ’ t already available through public media sources , ” Lee commented on CNN ’ s State of the Union while also noting briefers didn ’ t say anything about the potential of Iran attacking four U.S. embassies .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very frustrating .
When something like this happens , when events are unfolding quickly , events that will have a profound impact on national security and military strategy , Congress does need to know about it , in part so we can evaluate the scope of our authority to act or choose not to act .
We didn ’ t get that .
And that was disappointing.
” There is a solution , although it ’ s one those in Washington seem hesitant to use .
Congress is the only part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action .
No other branch can do so .
Yet Congress has long been willing to allow the executive to do whatever it wants regardless of whatever part is in power .
Much hay was made about the War Powers Resolution passed by the House last week .
Yet it ’ s a concurrent , non-binding resolution meaning it ’ s completely toothless .
The White House can ignore it and go about its merry way without any real worry .
The War Powers Resolution sponsored by Virginia Democrat Senator Tim Kaine is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution meaning President Donald Trump will have to either sign it into law or veto it .
Congress could then override Trump ’ s veto meaning the U.S. could not go to war with Iran .
This is a vote which needs to happen and needs to happen sooner rather than later .
The other needed vote is one on a new Authorization for Use of Force regarding Afghanistan and Iraq .
The enemy is no longer Saddam Hussein .
He ’ s long dead .
Osama bin Laden is dead .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – two more died this weekend in Afghanistan – when the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are over and done with ?
It ’ s time to move on , reduce troop levels in the Middle East , and leave .

Two Republican U.S. Senators want to know why the United States is still involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee are especially concerned about the fact the president is sticking with almost two-decade-old authorizations to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“This is what really infuriated me about the briefing: Is they maintain both in private and in public that a vote by Congress in 2003 or 2002 to go after Saddam Hussein was a vote that now allows them to still be in Iraq and do whatever they want, including killing a foreign general from Iran,” Paul declared on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday while pushing for a vote in Congress on new Authorizations for Use of Military Force. “And I don’t think that’s what Congress meant in 2002, nor do I think one generation can bind another generation. So my point in being for this war powers debate is that we really need to have a debate about whether we should still be in Iraq or in Afghanistan.”
The Kentucky Republican also expressed concern about the number of troops in the entirety of the Middle East including Saudi Arabia where several thousand American military personnel are stationed. This doesn’t count the over 4k recently deployed to the Middle East since the assassination or targeted killing or whatever you want to call it of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
“I think President Trump has been very consistent saying he doesn’t want perpetual war,” Paul said noting a bit of a mixed message in the words from the White House. “But I have pushed back and I’ve said, “If you keep sending more troops, you will have perpetual war.” The troops are merely targets.”
Lee’s concern on CBS Face the Nation was also quite palpable.
“[A]nytime we have something like this and we’ve signaled in advance that it’s not covered by an existing AUMF then yeah we’re- we’re relying on the good faith use of a commander in chief power by the president,” Lee explained on Sunday while noting the Defense Department failed to give Congress enough justification on Soleimani’s killing earlier this month. “This is not a new precedent, it’s not- it’s not contingent on or- or rooted in- in this presidential administration.”
What is going on now with mission creep involving U.S. troops is nothing new. America’s tendency to get more and more involved in military entanglements without congressional approval dates back to the 1950s when then-President Harry Truman sent U.S. troops to Korea. Other administrations have followed the lead including former President Ronald Reagan’s decision to invade Grenada in 1983. Ex-President Barack Obama also did multiple drone strikes across the Middle East without congressional approval. It’s a bipartisan issue.
Lee and Paul also expressed disappointment in the briefing given by the Trump Administration on why they targeted Soleimani without congressional approval.
“Throughout the whole briefing they were dismissive of Congress,” Paul complained on NBC. “They, in the end, said they didn’t have time to come back. We only had about eight senators ask questions and they said, “Oh, we don’t have time. We’re busy” about coming back to brief the rest of us or take questions from the rest of us. So it was very dismissive.”
“[I]n that briefing, we didn’t receive very much information that wasn’t already available through public media sources,” Lee commented on CNN’s State of the Union while also noting briefers didn’t say anything about the potential of Iran attacking four U.S. embassies. “This is one of the things that’s very frustrating. When something like this happens, when events are unfolding quickly, events that will have a profound impact on national security and military strategy, Congress does need to know about it, in part so we can evaluate the scope of our authority to act or choose not to act. We didn’t get that. And that was disappointing.”
There is a solution, although it’s one those in Washington seem hesitant to use. Congress is the only part of the government allowed to declare war or military action. No other branch can do so. Yet Congress has long been willing to allow the executive to do whatever it wants regardless of whatever part is in power.
Much hay was made about the War Powers Resolution passed by the House last week. Yet it’s a concurrent, non-binding resolution meaning it’s completely toothless. The White House can ignore it and go about its merry way without any real worry.
The War Powers Resolution sponsored by Virginia Democrat Senator Tim Kaine is not. It’s a joint resolution meaning President Donald Trump will have to either sign it into law or veto it. Congress could then override Trump’s veto meaning the U.S. could not go to war with Iran. This is a vote which needs to happen and needs to happen sooner rather than later.
The other needed vote is one on a new Authorization for Use of Force regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. The enemy is no longer Saddam Hussein. He’s long dead. Osama bin Laden is dead. Why are we risking the lives of Americans – two more died this weekend in Afghanistan – when the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq are over and done with?
It’s time to move on, reduce troop levels in the Middle East, and leave.


hotair--2020-01-14--LSU beat Clemson and Vince Vaughn must be cancelled

LSU Tigers fans are happy with the final score of the 2020 College Football National Championship game .
Clemson Tigers fans , not so much .
I ’ ll just put it out there that I grew up in Louisiana and lived many years there as an adult so I ’ m in the former category .
The final score was LSU 42 – Clemson 25 .
This is not really a sports story about college football , though , it ’ s about the fans and how we behave in the Trump years .
The big story coming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome , was the reception that President Trump and the First Lady received as they walked onto the football field in New Orleans .
The stadium erupted in thunderous applause .
Chants rang out – “ USA !
” and “ Four more years !
” .
How refreshing .
For a few minutes , it was as if we were transported back to a time when a president and first lady were acknowledged as they should be – with applause and cheers .
You can scroll HERE to see a good series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good time was being had by all .
Then the reaction arrived on social media .
Not even a college championship game escapes those filled with rage from Trump Derangement Syndrome .
Actor Vince Vaughn stopped by the skybox from which Trump and Melania were watching the game to say hello .
The short chat was captured on camera and soon made its way to Twitter .
One reporter with a resume that includes The Daily Beast and Deadspin broke the sad news – Vince Vaughn spoke to President Trump and shook his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked the decision for the outrage mob to cancel Vaughn .
All he did was smile , have what looked to be a little pleasant small talk with the president and Melania , then shook Trump ’ s hand , waved goodbye to others , and left .
In other words , he behaved as a regular adult in a social setting .
But , no .
It was like that time Ellen DeGeneres sat next to and spoke to former President George W. Bush at at the Dallas Cowboys and the Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twist of this story is that now we are being told that the reporter wasn ’ t criticizing Vaughn , he was just being sarcastic about the song playing – Sweet Caroline , or something .
A reporter for MMFA weighed in by bashing the “ right-wing accounts ” for claiming Vaughn is now cancelled .
It ’ s all as dumb as the story was about Degeneres and Bush .
It does speak to the divisive environment in which we all live .
Twitter isn ’ t real life for most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a positive thing for viewers across the country .
Americans are worn out by politics invading every single aspect of life , including sports .
Vince Vaughn is a Libertarian .
He supported Rand Paul in 2016 .
He votes Republican .
None of this is breaking news .
Vaughn has never shied away from voicing a political opinion that runs opposite of his entertainment industry peers .
Most of the tweets criticizing Vaughn for chatting with Trump were from small user accounts , not from fellow celebrities .
One Facebook post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Vince Vaughn shows , including visiting troops overseas .
Vaughn isn ’ t a saint but he ’ s able to rise above the nonsense and be a decent human being in social circumstances .
His willingness to make the day of a military man serving overseas puts him at the top of the list of Hollywood celebs .
It was good to be reminded that not all of the country wants to boo the president when he shows up at a public event .
The Washington Post even wrote a decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That must have been a bitter pill to swallow .
A quote from LSU ’ s quarterback summed it up nicely .

LSU Tigers fans are happy with the final score of the 2020 College Football National Championship game. Clemson Tigers fans, not so much. I’ll just put it out there that I grew up in Louisiana and lived many years there as an adult so I’m in the former category. The final score was LSU 42 – Clemson 25.
This is not really a sports story about college football, though, it’s about the fans and how we behave in the Trump years. The big story coming out of the game, other than the outcome, was the reception that President Trump and the First Lady received as they walked onto the football field in New Orleans. The stadium erupted in thunderous applause. Chants rang out – “USA!” and “Four more years!”.
How refreshing. For a few minutes, it was as if we were transported back to a time when a president and first lady were acknowledged as they should be – with applause and cheers. You can scroll HERE to see a good series of photos from the event. A good time was being had by all.
Then the reaction arrived on social media. Not even a college championship game escapes those filled with rage from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Actor Vince Vaughn stopped by the skybox from which Trump and Melania were watching the game to say hello. The short chat was captured on camera and soon made its way to Twitter. One reporter with a resume that includes The Daily Beast and Deadspin broke the sad news – Vince Vaughn spoke to President Trump and shook his hand. Watch the 31-second clip that sparked the decision for the outrage mob to cancel Vaughn.
I'm very sorry to have to share this video with you. All of it, every part of it. pic.twitter.com/ELMbDHZbZq — Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) January 14, 2020
All he did was smile, have what looked to be a little pleasant small talk with the president and Melania, then shook Trump’s hand, waved goodbye to others, and left. In other words, he behaved as a regular adult in a social setting. But, no. It was like that time Ellen DeGeneres sat next to and spoke to former President George W. Bush at at the Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers game in Dallas.
The twist of this story is that now we are being told that the reporter wasn’t criticizing Vaughn, he was just being sarcastic about the song playing – Sweet Caroline, or something. A reporter for MMFA weighed in by bashing the “right-wing accounts” for claiming Vaughn is now cancelled.
The caption is about the people singing along to Sweet Caroline and now I’m getting actual death threats on the phone https://t.co/BKtx9bWfZA — Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) January 14, 2020
It’s all as dumb as the story was about Degeneres and Bush. It does speak to the divisive environment in which we all live. Twitter isn’t real life for most of America, and Trump’s welcome was a positive thing for viewers across the country. Americans are worn out by politics invading every single aspect of life, including sports.
Vince Vaughn is a Libertarian. He supported Rand Paul in 2016. He votes Republican. None of this is breaking news. Vaughn has never shied away from voicing a political opinion that runs opposite of his entertainment industry peers. Most of the tweets criticizing Vaughn for chatting with Trump were from small user accounts, not from fellow celebrities.
One Facebook post spoke to the support for our military that Vince Vaughn shows, including visiting troops overseas.
https://www.facebook.com/63105846/posts/10101432818627412/?d=n
Vaughn isn’t a saint but he’s able to rise above the nonsense and be a decent human being in social circumstances. His willingness to make the day of a military man serving overseas puts him at the top of the list of Hollywood celebs.
It was good to be reminded that not all of the country wants to boo the president when he shows up at a public event. The Washington Post even wrote a decent piece about Trump’s welcome. That must have been a bitter pill to swallow. A quote from LSU’s quarterback summed it up nicely.
Trump knows both teams fairly well; he was warmly welcomed at the LSU-Alabama game in November in Tuscaloosa, Ala. “Regardless of your political views, that’s pretty cool, having the president at the game,” LSU quarterback Joe Burrow, the hero of the championship game Monday night, remarked then. “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican, [having] a president at the game is pretty cool.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216961142867681280


hotair--2020-01-14--Sanders forgets when he was an immigration hawk

We ’ ll have to wait and see if this comes up at the debates .
As I ’ m sure you all know , the Democrats running for the 2020 nomination are all in a race to prove their woke credentials , and that includes matters related to immigration , both legal and illegal .
The standard party line is that all are welcome , open borders , immigrants doing jobs Americans won ’ t… you know the drill .
But when Bernie Sanders sat down this week for an interview with the New York Times editorial board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about a previous position he held , once saying that too many foreign workers have the effect of driving down wages .
Bernie was quick to point out that the comments in question were ancient history .
Ancient ?
Hey , Bernie… we ’ re talking about 2015 here .
( Free Beacon ) In an interview transcript released on Monday , New York Times editor Nick Fox asked Sanders if he still believed that foreign workers depress wages for Americans .
“ No , ” Sanders responded .
“ That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dobbs show 250 years ago , right ?
” Sanders made that argument in 2015 on at least two occasions .
“ What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy , ” Sanders said in a Vox interview .
“ Bring in all kinds of people , work for $ 2 or $ 3 an hour , that would be great for them .
I don ’ t believe in that .
I think we have to raise wages in this country.
” Sanders reiterated his hawkish immigration views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chamber of Commerce event , arguing that if “ open borders ” advocates got their way , it would “ substantially lower wages in this country.
” Way back when ( less than five years ago ) Bernie was going on television and complaining about “ open borders advocates.
” That ’ s not going to go over very well with the actual open borders advocates in the Democratic base and the ones running against him for the nomination .
If immigration is a topic that ’ s covered during this debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden , and Buttigieg start a dogpile on him by resurrecting those comments .
The funny part is that while Sanders was blowing off the old quote by saying it was “ 250 years ago , ” he went on to make essentially the exact same point to editorial board member Binyamin Appelbaum .
Sanders “ clarified ” his position by saying the exploitation of illegal immigrants results in lower wages for domestic workers .
“ If you ’ re undocumented , and you ’ re being paid five bucks an hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her $ 12 an hour ?
” This seemed to stump Appelbaum , who said , “ You just said that again .
So , I ’ m confused about what has changed about your position.
” This led to a back and forth debate over whether illegal aliens drive down wages , with Sanders continuing to insist that they do .
In other words , after starting off by saying that his comments from 2015 were ancient history ( implying that he no longer feels that way ) , Bernie went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t changed at all .
This is an unusual slipup for Bernie Sanders .
He ’ s usually pretty sharp on the campaign trail , leaving the gaffes and “ senior moments ” to Joe Biden .
But he stuck his foot in his mouth this time , leaving an opening for his opponents .
The irony here is that Bernie ’ s position is actually the correct one .
Competition for lower-skill jobs is one of only many reasons to oppose immigration .
Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders , that puts him squarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

We’ll have to wait and see if this comes up at the debates. As I’m sure you all know, the Democrats running for the 2020 nomination are all in a race to prove their woke credentials, and that includes matters related to immigration, both legal and illegal. The standard party line is that all are welcome, open borders, immigrants doing jobs Americans won’t… you know the drill. But when Bernie Sanders sat down this week for an interview with the New York Times editorial board, including editor Nick Fox, he was asked about a previous position he held, once saying that too many foreign workers have the effect of driving down wages. Bernie was quick to point out that the comments in question were ancient history. Ancient? Hey, Bernie… we’re talking about 2015 here. (Free Beacon)
In an interview transcript released on Monday, New York Times editor Nick Fox asked Sanders if he still believed that foreign workers depress wages for Americans. “No,” Sanders responded. “That’s what I said on the Lou Dobbs show 250 years ago, right?” Sanders made that argument in 2015 on at least two occasions. “What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy,” Sanders said in a Vox interview. “Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.” Sanders reiterated his hawkish immigration views a few days later at a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event, arguing that if “open borders” advocates got their way, it would “substantially lower wages in this country.”
Way back when (less than five years ago) Bernie was going on television and complaining about “open borders advocates.” That’s not going to go over very well with the actual open borders advocates in the Democratic base and the ones running against him for the nomination. If immigration is a topic that’s covered during this debate, don’t be surprised if Warren, Biden, and Buttigieg start a dogpile on him by resurrecting those comments.
The funny part is that while Sanders was blowing off the old quote by saying it was “250 years ago,” he went on to make essentially the exact same point to editorial board member Binyamin Appelbaum. Sanders “clarified” his position by saying the exploitation of illegal immigrants results in lower wages for domestic workers. “If you’re undocumented, and you’re being paid five bucks an hour, why am I going to pay her $12 an hour?”
This seemed to stump Appelbaum, who said, “You just said that again. So, I’m confused about what has changed about your position.” This led to a back and forth debate over whether illegal aliens drive down wages, with Sanders continuing to insist that they do. In other words, after starting off by saying that his comments from 2015 were ancient history (implying that he no longer feels that way), Bernie went on to prove that his position hadn’t changed at all.
This is an unusual slipup for Bernie Sanders. He’s usually pretty sharp on the campaign trail, leaving the gaffes and “senior moments” to Joe Biden. But he stuck his foot in his mouth this time, leaving an opening for his opponents.
The irony here is that Bernie’s position is actually the correct one. Competition for lower-skill jobs is one of only many reasons to oppose immigration. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders, that puts him squarely outside the Democratic base on this issue.