hotair--2020-01-07--Buttigieg in Houston: Next president will face a more divided nation

Pete Buttigieg became the first 2020 presidential candidate to campaign in Houston in the new year on Monday .
He spoke to a gathering at a private home in the part of the city known as The Heights , a popular historic district .
Early voting begins in Texas in just 42 days .
Texas is one of the states that participate in Super Tuesday voting .
His pitch is that after Election Day 2020 , whoever the winner is will likely find a more divided America and he is just the guy to unify the country .
He told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to prioritize bringing the country together .
“ We ’ re going to need a president that prioritizes unifying the American people and bringing us together.
” Buttigieg is running in the centrist lane of the Democrat primary along with Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar .
On two big issues , he is more moderate-leaning than either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren , the far-left candidates – Medicare for All and gun control .
Buttigieg wants an approach that allows Medicare for all who want it but also protects employees who want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We take a version of Medicare and make it available for anyone who wants to participate , but in the name of freedom , we ’ re going to trust you about whether you want it.
” On gun control , you may remember that Buttigieg pushed back on Beto O ’ Rourke ’ s dream of gun confiscation .
He opposed Beto ’ s big idea of mandatory gun buybacks of AR-15s and AK-47s .
So far , Buttigieg has relied on his personal friendship with the Mayor of Austin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in Texas .
He has not opened any campaign offices in the state .
At this point , it is unlikely he will .
The last CNN poll of the Democrat primary in Texas , according to Real Clear Politics , shows Buttigieg in fourth place – a distant fourth place behind Biden .
Joe Biden is at 28.7 % , Elizabeth Warren at 16.3 % , Bernie Sanders at 13 % , and Buttigieg at 6 % .
I don ’ t see Buttigieg ’ s path to catching fire in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I occasionally see a political ad from the Biden or Steyer campaign , the candidate flooding the market in Houston is Michael Bloomberg .
His ads are running multiple times every day .
Last weekend Bloomberg was in neighboring Fort Bend County and he has hired a state director .
It looks like Houstonians will continue to see Bloomberg ’ s ads , too .
Biden , Sanders , and Warren all have hired state directors in Texas .
Of the top four candidates , Buttigieg holds his own in fundraising .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the other early states .
He rose to the first place spot in Iowa but now he ’ s behind Sanders .
I think we ’ ll see that fluctuate from now until the Iowa caucuses .
I think Bernie is having a little surge right now and Buttigieg may need more than the endorsement of actor Kevin Costner to win on caucus day .
So , Buttigieg is going to need more than a message of kumbaya in Texas .
Democrats are clinging to the hope that Texas may be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won any head to head match-ups against Trump in Texas .
As a matter of fact , the last poll taken shows Trump beating all of the Democrat candidates in Texas .
Even though he is trying to convince Texans of his moderate stances , he says something different on television .
In his interview on CNN last weekend , he declared he would be the “ most progressive ” president in a half century .
That seems to be Buttigieg ’ s biggest hurdle to overcome – he really wants to appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veer to the far left .
He can ’ t have it both ways .
The unity riff is all fine and good but Buttigieg likes to call out Trump supporters as being racists .
If you are a Trump supporter , Buttigieg thinks you are at least silently a racist .
That doesn ’ t sound too unifying , does it ?
Buttigieg has another event Tuesday in Houston and then he is off to Dallas .
None of the events are big campaign rallies , which speaks to his lack of @ @ @

Pete Buttigieg became the first 2020 presidential candidate to campaign in Houston in the new year on Monday. He spoke to a gathering at a private home in the part of the city known as The Heights, a popular historic district.
Early voting begins in Texas in just 42 days. Texas is one of the states that participate in Super Tuesday voting. His pitch is that after Election Day 2020, whoever the winner is will likely find a more divided America and he is just the guy to unify the country. He told several dozen people that the next president has to prioritize bringing the country together. “We’re going to need a president that prioritizes unifying the American people and bringing us together.”
Buttigieg is running in the centrist lane of the Democrat primary along with Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar. On two big issues, he is more moderate-leaning than either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, the far-left candidates – Medicare for All and gun control. Buttigieg wants an approach that allows Medicare for all who want it but also protects employees who want to keep their private insurance coverage. “We take a version of Medicare and make it available for anyone who wants to participate, but in the name of freedom, we’re going to trust you about whether you want it.”
On gun control, you may remember that Buttigieg pushed back on Beto O’Rourke’s dream of gun confiscation. He opposed Beto’s big idea of mandatory gun buybacks of AR-15s and AK-47s.
So far, Buttigieg has relied on his personal friendship with the Mayor of Austin, Steve Adler for guidance on how to campaign in Texas. He has not opened any campaign offices in the state. At this point, it is unlikely he will. The last CNN poll of the Democrat primary in Texas, according to Real Clear Politics, shows Buttigieg in fourth place – a distant fourth place behind Biden. Joe Biden is at 28.7%, Elizabeth Warren at 16.3%, Bernie Sanders at 13%, and Buttigieg at 6%. I don’t see Buttigieg’s path to catching fire in Texas to win the primary.
Though I occasionally see a political ad from the Biden or Steyer campaign, the candidate flooding the market in Houston is Michael Bloomberg. His ads are running multiple times every day. Last weekend Bloomberg was in neighboring Fort Bend County and he has hired a state director. It looks like Houstonians will continue to see Bloomberg’s ads, too.
Last weekend Mike Bloomberg campaigned in Fort Bend County, upped his Houston television buy to $4 million, and named Ashlea Turner, who worked on then-Houston Mayor Bill White’s 2010 campaign for governor, as state director of his presidential bid.
Biden, Sanders, and Warren all have hired state directors in Texas. Of the top four candidates, Buttigieg holds his own in fundraising. He has been concentrating on Iowa, though and the other early states. He rose to the first place spot in Iowa but now he’s behind Sanders. I think we’ll see that fluctuate from now until the Iowa caucuses. I think Bernie is having a little surge right now and Buttigieg may need more than the endorsement of actor Kevin Costner to win on caucus day.
So, Buttigieg is going to need more than a message of kumbaya in Texas. Democrats are clinging to the hope that Texas may be in play in 2020. Buttigieg has not won any head to head match-ups against Trump in Texas. As a matter of fact, the last poll taken shows Trump beating all of the Democrat candidates in Texas.
Even though he is trying to convince Texans of his moderate stances, he says something different on television. In his interview on CNN last weekend, he declared he would be the “most progressive” president in a half century. That seems to be Buttigieg’s biggest hurdle to overcome – he really wants to appear as a centrist yet he continues to veer to the far left. He can’t have it both ways.
.@PeteButtigieg: "I'm running based on what's possible. A bold policy agenda that would make me the most progressive president we've had in a half century." pic.twitter.com/za1O6fH65Z — The Hill (@thehill) January 6, 2020
The unity riff is all fine and good but Buttigieg likes to call out Trump supporters as being racists. If you are a Trump supporter, Buttigieg thinks you are at least silently a racist. That doesn’t sound too unifying, does it?
Buttigieg has another event Tuesday in Houston and then he is off to Dallas. None of the events are big campaign rallies, which speaks to his lack of support here.


hotair--2020-01-07--How Bloomberg just tanked any possible support from teachers unions

New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg is playing catchup in terms of getting all of his policy proposals fleshed out and published for public inspection .
But his team has been hard at work trying to get all of their bases covered and this week they ’ re preparing to release his education plan .
A lot of it is fairly standard material by Democratic Party standards , with plenty of free stuff and more taxpayer funding going into the public school system .
But there ’ s one portion of the summary that will definitely set Bloomberg apart from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in a good way .
Similar to how he ran things as Mayor of New York City , Mike will be throwing his support to charter schools .
( NY Post ) Presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg may have backed off supporting stop-and-frisk , but he plans to double-down on another controversial policy from his time as New York Mayor — expanding charter schools .
Bloomberg will soon roll out an education plan that will include backing the privately managed schools as an option for families , his campaign office told The Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential rivals .
To his credit , Michael Bloomberg actually did promote and support the expansion of charter schools during his tenure as Mayor of New York City .
( A process that Bill de Blasio has been doing his darndest to undermine since taking office . )
So in terms of his past positions , he ’ s definitely being consistent here .
The problem for Bloomberg is that his position is widely unpopular in the Democratic Party .
Most of the candidates running against Bloomberg decry charter schools using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public schools rather than offering parents more choices for their children ’ s education .
Joe Biden ’ s education plan doesn ’ t include a single mention of charter schools , but he ’ s been skeptical of them in the past .
Also , he focuses almost entirely on Title I spending increases .
Elizabeth Warren ’ s plan goes much further , calling for an end to the “ privatization and corruption of our public education system.
” But it ’ s not just the voters that Bloomberg needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All Democratic presidential candidates are hungry for the endorsement of the teacher ’ s unions .
They not only channel a lot of contributions to the Democrats but also tend to carry some weight with the base when they offer their backing .
Incorporating charter schools into your platform is a surefire way to have the unions take a pass on you .
Will that really matter to Bloomberg ?
Probably not .
He ’ s got enough of his own money that he doesn ’ t need to worry about their campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not going to be getting many endorsements .
( Sorry , Mike , but the elderly , wealthy , white , heterosexual male lane is already pretty full . )
Is any of this going to make a difference ?
I ’ ll confess that Bloomberg has surprised me a bit by driving his RCP average up to 5.6 in a short period of time .
But that still leaves him well behind the four currently viable candidates .
He ’ s only made it above ten percent ( eleven , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in December .
He doesn ’ t even make it out of the background static in either Iowa or New Hampshire .
And all of this is taking place while Bloomberg is arguably spending more advertising money than anyone else in the race .
You can ’ t go five minutes without seeing a Bloomberg ad on CNN or NBC News .
He ’ s already spent well over $ 100M on advertising , frequently averaging as much as four million per day .
If you can ’ t buy your way into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m not sure how much your support of charter schools is going to hurt you further .

New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg is playing catchup in terms of getting all of his policy proposals fleshed out and published for public inspection. But his team has been hard at work trying to get all of their bases covered and this week they’re preparing to release his education plan. A lot of it is fairly standard material by Democratic Party standards, with plenty of free stuff and more taxpayer funding going into the public school system. But there’s one portion of the summary that will definitely set Bloomberg apart from the rest of the field, and probably not in a good way. Similar to how he ran things as Mayor of New York City, Mike will be throwing his support to charter schools. (NY Post)
Presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg may have backed off supporting stop-and-frisk, but he plans to double-down on another controversial policy from his time as New York Mayor — expanding charter schools. Bloomberg will soon roll out an education plan that will include backing the privately managed schools as an option for families, his campaign office told The Post — drawing a contrast with other top-tier Democratic presidential rivals. “Mike’s education plan will absolutely promote charter schools,” Bloomberg campaign spokesman Stu Loeser insisted.
To his credit, Michael Bloomberg actually did promote and support the expansion of charter schools during his tenure as Mayor of New York City. (A process that Bill de Blasio has been doing his darndest to undermine since taking office.) So in terms of his past positions, he’s definitely being consistent here.
The problem for Bloomberg is that his position is widely unpopular in the Democratic Party. Most of the candidates running against Bloomberg decry charter schools using the tired old claim that they somehow undermine public schools rather than offering parents more choices for their children’s education. Joe Biden’s education plan doesn’t include a single mention of charter schools, but he’s been skeptical of them in the past. Also, he focuses almost entirely on Title I spending increases. Elizabeth Warren’s plan goes much further, calling for an end to the “privatization and corruption of our public education system.”
But it’s not just the voters that Bloomberg needs to be worried about in this case. All Democratic presidential candidates are hungry for the endorsement of the teacher’s unions. They not only channel a lot of contributions to the Democrats but also tend to carry some weight with the base when they offer their backing. Incorporating charter schools into your platform is a surefire way to have the unions take a pass on you.
Will that really matter to Bloomberg? Probably not. He’s got enough of his own money that he doesn’t need to worry about their campaign contributions and he surely knows that he’s not going to be getting many endorsements. (Sorry, Mike, but the elderly, wealthy, white, heterosexual male lane is already pretty full.)
Is any of this going to make a difference? I’ll confess that Bloomberg has surprised me a bit by driving his RCP average up to 5.6 in a short period of time. But that still leaves him well behind the four currently viable candidates. He’s only made it above ten percent (eleven, actually) in one national poll back in December. He doesn’t even make it out of the background static in either Iowa or New Hampshire.
And all of this is taking place while Bloomberg is arguably spending more advertising money than anyone else in the race. You can’t go five minutes without seeing a Bloomberg ad on CNN or NBC News. He’s already spent well over $100M on advertising, frequently averaging as much as four million per day. If you can’t buy your way into the nomination with that sort of cash, I’m not sure how much your support of charter schools is going to hurt you further.


hotair--2020-01-07--"Less stall and more ball": The new XFL rules are ... pretty fun, actually

To cleanse the palate , the short version of the rules is here and the much longer version is here but you ’ re better off carving out five minutes to watch the nifty visualizations below that the league put together .
I need to think on them further but offhand I ’ m inclined to say that at least three of the five are improvements on the NFL rules .
The kickoff and punt rules are aimed at discouraging touchbacks and fair catches , which is all to the good .
More actual returns means more excitement .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make it less physically dangerous for receivers to return the ball . )
I like giving teams one-point , two-point , and three-point PAT options after touchdowns too to make comebacks more feasible .
It feels gimmicky on first sight , but so did the three-pointer in the NBA initially , I ’ m sure .
They ’ ve eliminated the one-point PAT kick , another nod to making the game more exciting and faster-paced by culling tedious plays , forcing teams to run a play from scrimmage near the goal line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of a cheat to award only one point for scoring from the two-yard line when in the NFL that ’ s worth two .
The double forward pass rule sounds amazing at first — until you read the fine print and realize that the first pass needs to be to a receiver behind the line of scrimmage , not past it .
( Imagine throwing a 15-yard completion to a receiver who then turns around and tosses a 30-yarder to a teammate racing down the sideline . )
In reality it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the receiver will be a few yards in front of the QB instead of a yard or two behind him .
Laterals might actually work better since tossing the ball to a player who ’ s behind the quarterback will buy that guy an extra second or two to find a receiver downfield .
Try catching a pass just short of the line of scrimmage and then having to complete a pass of your own with defenders swarming all around you to make the tackle .
So that one ’ s sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come will have to do with the overtime rules .
The eternal debate with NFL overtime is whether regular game play with the added quirk of sudden death is sufficiently dramatic to atone for the potential unfairness of one team losing without ever having the ball in OT .
The XFL chose to do away with regular game play entirely and follow soccer ’ s lead by opting for the football equivalent of penalty kicks instead .
Each team gets five possessions here from the five-yard line ; the side with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over wins .
It ’ s … interesting , but I strongly prefer settling games by continuing regular game play since only regular play involves all of the skills that define excellence in the sport .
( Soccer matches should continue indefinitely until someone scores , with unlimited substitutions to spell tired players . )
The XFL scheme sort of does that since it pits each team ’ s offense and defense against each other in the red zone .
But it doesn ’ t require either to put together a drive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the five will favor offenses that rely more heavily on passing .
But you might be able to sell me on it .
The NFL scenario in which a team receives the kick to open overtime , has a nice runback , and makes one big play to set them up for a touchdown is an unsatisfying way to see the game end .
Not a ton of skills on display in a short sequence like that , after all .
I think I ’ d prefer a rule in which the teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , alternating possessions until one team scores and the other doesn ’ t .
If the team that receives the kick scores a TD , the other team gets the ball and has to match .
No gimmicky shootout stuff from the five-yard line .
Drive the length of the field and prove you can play .
Exit question : How exciting will it be when Kaepernick connects with Antonio Brown for a three-point PAT in the XFL Bowl ?

To cleanse the palate, the short version of the rules is here and the much longer version is here but you’re better off carving out five minutes to watch the nifty visualizations below that the league put together.
I need to think on them further but offhand I’m inclined to say that at least three of the five are improvements on the NFL rules. The kickoff and punt rules are aimed at discouraging touchbacks and fair catches, which is all to the good. More actual returns means more excitement. (They’ve also tweaked the rules to make it less physically dangerous for receivers to return the ball.) I like giving teams one-point, two-point, and three-point PAT options after touchdowns too to make comebacks more feasible. It feels gimmicky on first sight, but so did the three-pointer in the NBA initially, I’m sure. They’ve eliminated the one-point PAT kick, another nod to making the game more exciting and faster-paced by culling tedious plays, forcing teams to run a play from scrimmage near the goal line instead. Although it feels like a bit of a cheat to award only one point for scoring from the two-yard line when in the NFL that’s worth two.
The double forward pass rule sounds amazing at first — until you read the fine print and realize that the first pass needs to be to a receiver behind the line of scrimmage, not past it. (Imagine throwing a 15-yard completion to a receiver who then turns around and tosses a 30-yarder to a teammate racing down the sideline.) In reality it’ll function like a lateral, except the receiver will be a few yards in front of the QB instead of a yard or two behind him. Laterals might actually work better since tossing the ball to a player who’s behind the quarterback will buy that guy an extra second or two to find a receiver downfield. Try catching a pass just short of the line of scrimmage and then having to complete a pass of your own with defenders swarming all around you to make the tackle.
So that one’s sort of a wash.
Most of the arguments to come will have to do with the overtime rules. The eternal debate with NFL overtime is whether regular game play with the added quirk of sudden death is sufficiently dramatic to atone for the potential unfairness of one team losing without ever having the ball in OT. The XFL chose to do away with regular game play entirely and follow soccer’s lead by opting for the football equivalent of penalty kicks instead. Each team gets five possessions here from the five-yard line; the side with the most scores after those five possessions are over wins. It’s … interesting, but I strongly prefer settling games by continuing regular game play since only regular play involves all of the skills that define excellence in the sport. (Soccer matches should continue indefinitely until someone scores, with unlimited substitutions to spell tired players.) The XFL scheme sort of does that since it pits each team’s offense and defense against each other in the red zone. But it doesn’t require either to put together a drive. And I think starting each possession from the five will favor offenses that rely more heavily on passing.
But you might be able to sell me on it. The NFL scenario in which a team receives the kick to open overtime, has a nice runback, and makes one big play to set them up for a touchdown is an unsatisfying way to see the game end. Not a ton of skills on display in a short sequence like that, after all. I think I’d prefer a rule in which the teams play on in OT in regular fashion, alternating possessions until one team scores and the other doesn’t. If the team that receives the kick scores a TD, the other team gets the ball and has to match. No gimmicky shootout stuff from the five-yard line. Drive the length of the field and prove you can play.
Exit question: How exciting will it be when Kaepernick connects with Antonio Brown for a three-point PAT in the XFL Bowl?


hotair--2020-01-07--Trump administration to Iran's foreign minister: No visa for you ... for now

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has been denied a visa to enter the United States .
Zarif wants to attend a U.N. Security Council meeting on Thursday .
The source of the report is an anonymous U.S. official .
No one is providing much information right now .
The State Department isn ’ t commenting and Iran ’ s mission to the United Nations said , “ We have seen the media reports , but we have not received any official communication from either the U.S. or the U.N. regarding Foreign Minister Zarif ’ s visa , ” according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to comment .
Zarif requested the visa because he wants to address the U.N. Security Council about the drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani .
Left-leaning Foreign Policy reports the visa was requested before the drone strike even happened , though .
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif requested a visa a “ few weeks ago ” to enter the United States to attend a Jan. 9 Security Council meeting on the importance of upholding the U.N. Charter , according to a diplomatic source familiar with the matter .
The Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top diplomat with his first opportunity to directly address the world community since U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the Jan. 3 drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani , a top Iraqi militia leader , among others .
The Iranian government was awaiting word on the visa Monday when a Trump administration official phoned U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to inform him that the United States would not allow Zarif into the country , according to the Washington-based diplomatic source .
Reactions to this news are completely predictable – Trump supporters are cheering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State Pompeo has a history of working to restrict visas for Zarif .
Foreign Policy describes Zarif as “ a skilled debater who has studied in the United States and has extensive contacts with American journalists ” .
In July , the United States restricted his movement to a few blocks in Manhattan and Queens , preventing Zarif from making his regular visits to TV studios , universities , and think tanks .
Pompeo defended the decision , noting that American diplomats lack freedom to travel in Iran .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September 2019 , Pompeo hinted that he might bar the Iranian delegation , led by President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif , from entering the United States , saying that Iran was responsible for carrying out an earlier drone and missile strike on two critical Saudi Arabian oil installations .
The question is this – does Pompeo have the authority to deny Zarif ’ s visa request ?
The United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the revolution but Iran is permitted to maintain a diplomatic outpost in mid-town Manhattan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Nations .
That leaves the 1947 headquarters agreement .
A special headquarters agreement , signed by Secretary-General Trygve Lie and US secretary of state George C. Marshall at Lake Success on 26 June 1947 , has been in force since 21 November 1947 .
It defines the 18 acres of land in New York City located between 42nd and 48th Streets and First Avenue and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive as the Headquarters District of the United Nations .
Subsequently , by supplemental agreements between the UN and the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vicinity has been included in the Headquarters District .
The Headquarters District is “ under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in this agreement.
” It is the seat of the UN , and the agreement stipulates that the district “ shall be inviolable.
” Federal , state , and local personnel on official duty may enter it only with the consent of the Secretary-General .
The UN may make regulations for the area .
US federal , state , and local law , insofar as it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply here ; otherwise , the US courts would have jurisdiction over actions and transactions taking place in the Headquarters District .
The UN may expel persons from the district for violations of regulations .
In such cases , and generally for the preservation of law and order , US authorities have to provide a sufficient number of police if requested by the Secretary-General .
“ No form of racial or religious discrimination shall be permitted within the Headquarters District.
” Other detailed provisions in the agreement between the UN and the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accessibility of the seat of the UN to non-US citizens .
In other words , the United Nations has the final word , not the U.S. , though the United Nations is on U.S. soil .
The U.S. is generally required to allow access to the United Nations by foreign diplomats .
Washington officials , however , say the United States can deny visas for security , terrorism , and foreign policy reasons .
With escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran right now , Pompeo will likely point to security reasons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the reason to deny Zarif ’ s visa .
Iran ’ s U.N. envoy already weighed in on Soleimani ’ s death .
The only comment coming from Pompeo was delivered through his spokeswoman .
It essentially says nothing .
My prediction is that Zarif will be allowed to come and attend the U.N. Security Council meeting , as usual .
He ’ ll be allowed to speak .
His speech will focus around condemning America – a diplomatic version of “ Death to America ” .
We ’ ve seen this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
President Trump and Secretary Pompeo can say they tried to stop Zarif .
The blame can be placed where it should be – with the United Nations Security Council .

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has been denied a visa to enter the United States. Zarif wants to attend a U.N. Security Council meeting on Thursday.
The source of the report is an anonymous U.S. official. No one is providing much information right now. The State Department isn’t commenting and Iran’s mission to the United Nations said, “We have seen the media reports, but we have not received any official communication from either the U.S. or the U.N. regarding Foreign Minister Zarif’s visa,” according to Reuters. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to comment.
Zarif requested the visa because he wants to address the U.N. Security Council about the drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani. Left-leaning Foreign Policy reports the visa was requested before the drone strike even happened, though.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif requested a visa a “few weeks ago” to enter the United States to attend a Jan. 9 Security Council meeting on the importance of upholding the U.N. Charter, according to a diplomatic source familiar with the matter. The Thursday meeting was to provide Tehran’s top diplomat with his first opportunity to directly address the world community since U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the Jan. 3 drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, a top Iraqi militia leader, among others. The Iranian government was awaiting word on the visa Monday when a Trump administration official phoned U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to inform him that the United States would not allow Zarif into the country, according to the Washington-based diplomatic source.
Reactions to this news are completely predictable – Trump supporters are cheering and his opponents are crying foul. Secretary of State Pompeo has a history of working to restrict visas for Zarif. Foreign Policy describes Zarif as “a skilled debater who has studied in the United States and has extensive contacts with American journalists”.
In July, the United States restricted his movement to a few blocks in Manhattan and Queens, preventing Zarif from making his regular visits to TV studios, universities, and think tanks. Pompeo defended the decision, noting that American diplomats lack freedom to travel in Iran. On the eve of the U.N. General Assembly debate in September 2019, Pompeo hinted that he might bar the Iranian delegation, led by President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif, from entering the United States, saying that Iran was responsible for carrying out an earlier drone and missile strike on two critical Saudi Arabian oil installations.
The question is this – does Pompeo have the authority to deny Zarif’s visa request? The United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the revolution but Iran is permitted to maintain a diplomatic outpost in mid-town Manhattan. Therefore, Iran can conduct business at the United Nations. That leaves the 1947 headquarters agreement.
A special headquarters agreement, signed by Secretary-General Trygve Lie and US secretary of state George C. Marshall at Lake Success on 26 June 1947, has been in force since 21 November 1947. It defines the 18 acres of land in New York City located between 42nd and 48th Streets and First Avenue and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive as the Headquarters District of the United Nations. Subsequently, by supplemental agreements between the UN and the US, additional office space located in buildings in the vicinity has been included in the Headquarters District. The Headquarters District is “under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in this agreement.” It is the seat of the UN, and the agreement stipulates that the district “shall be inviolable.” Federal, state, and local personnel on official duty may enter it only with the consent of the Secretary-General. The UN may make regulations for the area. US federal, state, and local law, insofar as it is inconsistent with UN regulations, does not apply here; otherwise, the US courts would have jurisdiction over actions and transactions taking place in the Headquarters District. The UN may expel persons from the district for violations of regulations. In such cases, and generally for the preservation of law and order, US authorities have to provide a sufficient number of police if requested by the Secretary-General. “No form of racial or religious discrimination shall be permitted within the Headquarters District.” Other detailed provisions in the agreement between the UN and the US deal with the important matter of the accessibility of the seat of the UN to non-US citizens.
In other words, the United Nations has the final word, not the U.S., though the United Nations is on U.S. soil. The U.S. is generally required to allow access to the United Nations by foreign diplomats. Washington officials, however, say the United States can deny visas for security, terrorism, and foreign policy reasons. With escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran right now, Pompeo will likely point to security reasons, along with terrorism, of course, as the reason to deny Zarif’s visa. Iran’s U.N. envoy already weighed in on Soleimani’s death.
Iran’s U.N. envoy, Majid Takht Ravanchi, has described the killing of Soleimani as “an obvious example of State terrorism and, as a criminal act, constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental principles of international law, including, in particular … the Charter of the United Nations.”
The only comment coming from Pompeo was delivered through his spokeswoman. It essentially says nothing.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke with U.S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier on Monday. State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement the pair discussed events in the Middle East and that Pompeo “expressed his appreciation” for Guterres’ diplomatic efforts.
My prediction is that Zarif will be allowed to come and attend the U.N. Security Council meeting, as usual. He’ll be allowed to speak. His speech will focus around condemning America – a diplomatic version of “Death to America”. We’ve seen this show before, haven’t we? President Trump and Secretary Pompeo can say they tried to stop Zarif. The blame can be placed where it should be – with the United Nations Security Council.


hotair--2020-01-07--Sacre blecch: France discovers award-winning author is pedophile by, er, reading his books

They are shocked , shocked in Paris right now about Gabriel Matzneff .
Who knew this award-winning French author was a pedophile who had sexual relations with children of both sexes ?
Er , anyone who read his books or listened to him speak publicly , that ’ s who , but Matzneff has suddenly become problematic now that one of his victims has forced the country to deal with its pedophilia problem .
Matzneff is hardly alone , the New York Times ’ Norimitsu Onishi reports .
He had lots of enablers , if not colleagues , in pedophilia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hid the fact that he engaged in sex with girls and boys in their early teens or even younger .
He wrote countless books detailing his insatiable pursuits and appeared on television boasting about them .
“ Under 16 Years Old , ” was the title of an early book that left no ambiguity .
Still , he never spent a day in jail for his actions or suffered any repercussion .
Instead , he won acclaim again and again .
Much of France ’ s literary and journalism elite celebrated him and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mr. Matzneff was awarded a major literary prize in 2013 and , just two months ago , one of France ’ s most prestigious publishing houses published his latest work .
But the publication , on Thursday , of an account by one of his victims , Vanessa Springora , has suddenly fueled an intense debate in France over its historically lax attitude toward sex with people who are underage .
It has also shone a particularly harsh light on a period during which some of France ’ s leading literary figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foucault , Sartre , Libération and Le Monde — aggressively promoted the practice as a form of human liberation , or at least defended it .
A day after the publication of Ms. Springora ’ s book , “ Le Consentement , ” or “ Consent , ” which sold out quickly at many Paris bookstores , the fallout continued .
Prosecutors in Paris announced that after “ analyzing ” its contents , they had opened an investigation into the case and would also look for other victims in and out of France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was just 14 years old , according to her account , after being introduced by her mother .
She assumed that they were in love together , right up until she discovered Matzneff ’ s notes on his sexual conquests of other children , including on tours of Southeast Asia .
This would have been in the late 1980s , when sex trafficking of children on such tours had just begun to pique attention in the West .
How did Matzneff hide in plain sight for so long ?
He didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France ’ s 1968 cultural revolution liberated pedophiles to prey on children , a predation which turned out to be disturbingly popular among the Left for a disturbingly long time , Onishi recounts : Caught now in the crosscurrents of France ’ s changing attitudes toward sex , Mr. Matzneff is the product and longtime beneficiary of France ’ s May 68 movement , the social revolution started in 1968 by students and unions against France ’ s old order .
With the slogan , “ It ’ s forbidden to forbid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fought against imperialism , capitalism , racism , sexism and homophobia .
Some also argued for abolishing age-of-consent laws , saying that doing so would liberate children from the domination of their parents and allow them to be full , sexual beings .
… Thinkers on the left , like Michel Foucault , Roland Barthes , Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir , spoke in defense of the practice , or came to the defense of men accused of engaging in sex with people below the age of consent in France — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the newspaper co-founded by Sartre , championed pedophiles as a discriminated minority and ran personal ads by adults seeking children for sex .
Disgusting .
This is a case in which the perverse , politically and otherwise , hijacked perhaps-legitimate grievances to reorder society to cater to their own depraved appetites .
In this scenario , it ’ s no small wonder that Matzneff felt justified in bragging about his exploits in a book titled “ Under 16 Years Old.
” The real surprise is that his publisher still felt comfortable republishing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no eyebrows at that time .
This leftist pedophilia normalization was not limited to France , either .
A decade ago , Der Spiegel ran a shocking history of free-love communes in Germany that arose around the same time that widely and openly practiced adult-child sex .
Titled “ How the Left Took Things Too Far , ” the article exposed the German 1968 Movement as a cover for pedophilia and abuse as well : It has since faded into obscurity , but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childhood sexuality .
It is a chapter of the movement ’ s history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era .
On this issue , the veterans of the late ’ 60s student movement seem to have succumbed to acute amnesia ; an analysis of this aspect of the student revolution would certainly be worthwhile .
… The left has its own history of abuse , and it is more complicated than it would seem at first glance .
When leaders of the student movement of the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer hesitant or evasive answers .
“ At the core of the movement of 1968 , there was in fact a lack of respect for the necessary boundaries between children and adults .
The extent to which this endangerment led to abuse cases is unclear , ” Wolfgang Kraushaar , a political scientist and chronicler of the movement , writes in retrospect .
A lack of respect for boundaries is putting it mildly .
One could also say that the boundaries were violently torn open .
At least the Germans had the good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than spending decades celebrating it .
This is the context in which notorious predators such as Roman Polanski grew and flourished , as well as the generation or two that succeeded him .
It also explains why the European Left — and the Hollywood Left , for that matter — spent decades defending Polanski and hiding him from US law enforcement .
It ’ s no great mystery , with this in mind , that Jeffrey Epstein focused some of his recruiting efforts in France , where the culture groomed children with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural warp allowed predators from all across the political spectrum to operate openly .
Matzneff isn ’ t even himself a leftist , although as French columnist Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry explains , they had his back — both culturally and personally .
That explains how , in this age of # MeToo and post-Epstein , did Matzneff still manage to win awards — to the extent that it ’ s explicable at all : Oof .
Want to bet they actually read next year ’ s submissions ?
Springora has now forced France — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of celebrating pedophiles and predators .
It ’ s a brave step forward , as there will be many people in the cultural establishment who will want to protect themselves from the accountability that will follow from it .
Hopefully others victimized by Matzneff and others like him will join Springora and demand answers for how the French cultural revolution turned them into toys for darlings of the Left .

They are shocked, shocked in Paris right now about Gabriel Matzneff. Who knew this award-winning French author was a pedophile who had sexual relations with children of both sexes? Er, anyone who read his books or listened to him speak publicly, that’s who, but Matzneff has suddenly become problematic now that one of his victims has forced the country to deal with its pedophilia problem.
Matzneff is hardly alone, the New York Times’ Norimitsu Onishi reports. He had lots of enablers, if not colleagues, in pedophilia:
The French writer Gabriel Matzneff never hid the fact that he engaged in sex with girls and boys in their early teens or even younger. He wrote countless books detailing his insatiable pursuits and appeared on television boasting about them. “Under 16 Years Old,” was the title of an early book that left no ambiguity. Still, he never spent a day in jail for his actions or suffered any repercussion. Instead, he won acclaim again and again. Much of France’s literary and journalism elite celebrated him and his work for decades. Now 83, Mr. Matzneff was awarded a major literary prize in 2013 and, just two months ago, one of France’s most prestigious publishing houses published his latest work. But the publication, on Thursday, of an account by one of his victims, Vanessa Springora, has suddenly fueled an intense debate in France over its historically lax attitude toward sex with people who are underage. It has also shone a particularly harsh light on a period during which some of France’s leading literary figures and newspapers — names as big as Foucault, Sartre, Libération and Le Monde — aggressively promoted the practice as a form of human liberation, or at least defended it. A day after the publication of Ms. Springora’s book, “Le Consentement,” or “Consent,” which sold out quickly at many Paris bookstores, the fallout continued. Prosecutors in Paris announced that after “analyzing” its contents, they had opened an investigation into the case and would also look for other victims in and out of France.
Matzneff “seduced” Springora when she was just 14 years old, according to her account, after being introduced by her mother. She assumed that they were in love together, right up until she discovered Matzneff’s notes on his sexual conquests of other children, including on tours of Southeast Asia. This would have been in the late 1980s, when sex trafficking of children on such tours had just begun to pique attention in the West.
How did Matzneff hide in plain sight for so long? He didn’t need to hide at all. France’s 1968 cultural revolution liberated pedophiles to prey on children, a predation which turned out to be disturbingly popular among the Left for a disturbingly long time, Onishi recounts:
Caught now in the crosscurrents of France’s changing attitudes toward sex, Mr. Matzneff is the product and longtime beneficiary of France’s May 68 movement, the social revolution started in 1968 by students and unions against France’s old order. With the slogan, “It’s forbidden to forbid,” the movement rebelled against authority and fought against imperialism, capitalism, racism, sexism and homophobia. Some also argued for abolishing age-of-consent laws, saying that doing so would liberate children from the domination of their parents and allow them to be full, sexual beings. … Thinkers on the left, like Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, spoke in defense of the practice, or came to the defense of men accused of engaging in sex with people below the age of consent in France — which was and remains 15. Libération, the newspaper co-founded by Sartre, championed pedophiles as a discriminated minority and ran personal ads by adults seeking children for sex.
Disgusting. This is a case in which the perverse, politically and otherwise, hijacked perhaps-legitimate grievances to reorder society to cater to their own depraved appetites. In this scenario, it’s no small wonder that Matzneff felt justified in bragging about his exploits in a book titled “Under 16 Years Old.” The real surprise is that his publisher still felt comfortable republishing it in 2005 — and that it raised no eyebrows at that time.
This leftist pedophilia normalization was not limited to France, either. A decade ago, Der Spiegel ran a shocking history of free-love communes in Germany that arose around the same time that widely and openly practiced adult-child sex. Titled “How the Left Took Things Too Far,” the article exposed the German 1968 Movement as a cover for pedophilia and abuse as well:
It has since faded into obscurity, but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were caught up in a strange obsession about childhood sexuality. It is a chapter of the movement’s history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era. On this issue, the veterans of the late ’60s student movement seem to have succumbed to acute amnesia; an analysis of this aspect of the student revolution would certainly be worthwhile. … The left has its own history of abuse, and it is more complicated than it would seem at first glance. When leaders of the student movement of the late 1960s are asked about it, they offer hesitant or evasive answers. “At the core of the movement of 1968, there was in fact a lack of respect for the necessary boundaries between children and adults. The extent to which this endangerment led to abuse cases is unclear,” Wolfgang Kraushaar, a political scientist and chronicler of the movement, writes in retrospect. A lack of respect for boundaries is putting it mildly. One could also say that the boundaries were violently torn open.
At least the Germans had the good sense to be embarrassed by this rather than spending decades celebrating it. This is the context in which notorious predators such as Roman Polanski grew and flourished, as well as the generation or two that succeeded him. It also explains why the European Left — and the Hollywood Left, for that matter — spent decades defending Polanski and hiding him from US law enforcement. It’s no great mystery, with this in mind, that Jeffrey Epstein focused some of his recruiting efforts in France, where the culture groomed children with the expectation of being prey.
That leftist cultural warp allowed predators from all across the political spectrum to operate openly. Matzneff isn’t even himself a leftist, although as French columnist Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry explains, they had his back — both culturally and personally. That explains how, in this age of #MeToo and post-Epstein, did Matzneff still manage to win awards — to the extent that it’s explicable at all:
https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1214540884605362176
https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1214540889630097409
Oof. Want to bet they actually read next year’s submissions?
Springora has now forced France — and others — to confront fifty years of celebrating pedophiles and predators. It’s a brave step forward, as there will be many people in the cultural establishment who will want to protect themselves from the accountability that will follow from it. Hopefully others victimized by Matzneff and others like him will join Springora and demand answers for how the French cultural revolution turned them into toys for darlings of the Left.


hotair--2020-01-07--Bernie Sanders' escape plan for the impeachment trial

We still have no idea when or if the Senate impeachment trial will start or what the rules will be .
But the general assumption is that something ’ s got to give and they should get underway later this month .
This leaves several of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who serve in the Senate in a bit of a fix .
They can ’ t be seen skipping out on their solemn responsibility to act as President Trump ’ s jurors , but they really need to be hitting all of the campaign events in Iowa and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those if the trial drags on too long . )
So what ’ s to be done ?
Just leave the field open for Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg ?
Not in the case of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders .
He ’ s got a plan and it all revolves around that boatload of campaign contributions he picked up in the fourth quarter of last year .
( NBC News ) Of the five senator-candidates — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , Bernie Sanders of Vermont , Cory Booker of New Jersey , Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado — Sanders appears to be the best positioned to balance his senatorial duties with campaigning .
Sanders ’ war chest , including his field-leading $ 34.5 million haul in the last quarter of 2019 , allows him flexibility that other contenders can ’ t match — including the use of private jets to ferry him back and forth for late rallies in early states .
“ They ’ re not going to be meeting at night [ for the trial ] , so we can obviously fly from D.C. to states and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back , you know , so he can be back in the morning to do his work in the Senate , ” Sanders campaign adviser Jeff Weaver told NBC News .
Bernie has a lot more cash on hand than the rest of the Senators in the race .
So that means he can sit in on the trial in the afternoons and then hop on a series of private jets to fly back and forth to campaign events in the evening .
After a few hours of shuteye on the return private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to go to work in the upper chamber the next morning .
Foolproof , right ?
Well… to a certain extent , yes .
Travel to and from campaign events for the candidate and the staff are all considered legitimate uses for campaign funds , so there shouldn ’ t be any FEC problems on the horizon for him .
But , oh , Bernie… what about the optics ?
You ’ re just going to go banging back and forth six days a week on a private jet ?
What would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just by the way .
Weren ’ t you one of the authors of the Climate Emergency Resolution ?
Twelve to fourteen private jet flights per week carrying only you and your staff doesn ’ t sound very emergency-minded .
But I suppose those rules are suspended when there ’ s campaigning to be done , eh ?
Oh , and there ’ s one other factor to consider here .
That schedule would have Sanders in the chambers from fairly early in the morning until the trial session ends in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hustling to the airport , dashing to various events , speaking in noisy halls , flying back late at night and having to get up the next morning to do it all over again .
And this could last for literally weeks .
So , not to put too fine of a point on this , but aren ’ t we talking about the guy who just recently recovered from a heart attack ?
Ah , well .
The risk is his to take and if he believes he ’ s up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop him .
But oh , Bernie… I can hear Time ’ s Person of the Year tsking and clucking her tongue in the background already .

We still have no idea when or if the Senate impeachment trial will start or what the rules will be. But the general assumption is that something’s got to give and they should get underway later this month. This leaves several of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who serve in the Senate in a bit of a fix. They can’t be seen skipping out on their solemn responsibility to act as President Trump’s jurors, but they really need to be hitting all of the campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire. (And other states beyond those if the trial drags on too long.)
So what’s to be done? Just leave the field open for Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg? Not in the case of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He’s got a plan and it all revolves around that boatload of campaign contributions he picked up in the fourth quarter of last year. (NBC News)
Of the five senator-candidates — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michael Bennet of Colorado — Sanders appears to be the best positioned to balance his senatorial duties with campaigning. Sanders’ war chest, including his field-leading $34.5 million haul in the last quarter of 2019, allows him flexibility that other contenders can’t match — including the use of private jets to ferry him back and forth for late rallies in early states. “They’re not going to be meeting at night [for the trial], so we can obviously fly from D.C. to states and hold events in the evening and fly back, you know, so he can be back in the morning to do his work in the Senate,” Sanders campaign adviser Jeff Weaver told NBC News.
Bernie has a lot more cash on hand than the rest of the Senators in the race. So that means he can sit in on the trial in the afternoons and then hop on a series of private jets to fly back and forth to campaign events in the evening. After a few hours of shuteye on the return private jet flight he can be up and ready to go to work in the upper chamber the next morning. Foolproof, right?
Well… to a certain extent, yes. Travel to and from campaign events for the candidate and the staff are all considered legitimate uses for campaign funds, so there shouldn’t be any FEC problems on the horizon for him. But, oh, Bernie… what about the optics? You’re just going to go banging back and forth six days a week on a private jet? What would Greta Thunberg say?
And oh, just by the way. Weren’t you one of the authors of the Climate Emergency Resolution? Twelve to fourteen private jet flights per week carrying only you and your staff doesn’t sound very emergency-minded. But I suppose those rules are suspended when there’s campaigning to be done, eh?
Oh, and there’s one other factor to consider here. That schedule would have Sanders in the chambers from fairly early in the morning until the trial session ends in the early evening. Then he’ll be hustling to the airport, dashing to various events, speaking in noisy halls, flying back late at night and having to get up the next morning to do it all over again. And this could last for literally weeks. So, not to put too fine of a point on this, but aren’t we talking about the guy who just recently recovered from a heart attack?
Ah, well. The risk is his to take and if he believes he’s up for it we shouldn’t try to stop him. But oh, Bernie… I can hear Time’s Person of the Year tsking and clucking her tongue in the background already.


hotair--2020-01-08--Ilhan Omar: These new Iran sanctions are "economic warfare"

I ’ m okay with the description although it ’ s overwrought .
Sanctions are popular in modern America because they ’ re an alternative to warfare .
We don ’ t want to kill so we apply economic pressure instead .
But she ’ s right inasmuch as the goals of true warfare and “ economic warfare ” are similar , getting an enemy power to bend to our will on a point in dispute .
The continuation of politics by other means , as Clausewitz said .
But if we ’ re going to treat sanctions as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be consistent about it .
Where have I heard sanctions described as “ economic warfare ” before ?
Ah , right — that ’ s the term America ’ s ambassador to Israel , David Friedman , used back in August to describe the BDS movement — boycott , divest , sanction — championed by … Ilhan Omar .
As a million righties are reminding her on Twitter this afternoon , her attitude towards sanctions on Israel seems curiously different from her attitude towards sanctions on Iran .
In the case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not as “ warfare ” but as a tool towards a just settlement between Jews and Palestinians .
In July , after she filed a resolution in the House defending the BDS movement from criticism by Congress , she announced plans to visit Israel .
Not because she seeks war , she stressed , but because she seeks peace : “ Peaceful means to hold our allies accountable , ” not “ economic warfare.
” That seems to be the Omar view of anti-Israel sanctions .
But when sanctions are applied to virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outspoken skeptic of their use .
She made her position clear in an op-ed for WaPo in October opposing sanctions on Turkey for its invasion of Kurdish-held Syria entitled “ Sanctions are part of a failed foreign policy playbook .
Stop relying on them.
” In so much of our foreign policy , we rely on muscle memory and a limited toolbox to decide the best course of action .
And , too often , sanctions regimes are ill considered , incoherent and counterproductive .
Research has shown that sanctions rarely achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario , they hurt the people of a country — generally the very people we ’ re purporting to help — without making a dent in the country ’ s behavior .
And in the case of human rights abusers , research suggests that more abuses typically occur with economic sanctions in place than without them .
Sanctions are not meant to be an end in themselves , but we too often use them as a lever without a plan for what comes after , whether they achieve the desired result or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceptions .
The Magnitsky Act , which targets individuals , can be useful , she allowed .
And so can … boycott and divestment campaigns , as in the case of South Africa .
“ But economic and sector sanctions are too often designed to inflict maximum pain on civilians , not empower them , ” she added — neglecting to explain how Israeli citizens would be spared from serious economic hardship if a global BDS campaign targeting the country got traction .
Does she want “ warfare ” against Israel or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make Israelis suffer economically if she had the power to force U.S. sanctions through ?
This isn ’ t the first time a member of the Squad has been challenged for following a double standard in wanting to punish Israel more harshly for its sins than grievous human-rights violators .
The irony of Omar ’ s tweet today is that Trump ’ s new sanctions really are a form of deescalation , i.e .
a deterrent measure in lieu of military action to respond to last night ’ s missile strikes , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she likes that strategy or not .
U.S. sanctions on Iran have two goals , to bring the regime to the table to renegotiate the nuclear deal and/or , potentially , to weaken the economy to the point where Iranians are inclined towards revolution .
As I said elsewhere yesterday , the irony of the present moment is that Trump is probably more politically willing *and able* to reach a grand bargain and permanent detente with Iran than any U.S. president in decades ( although many of his advisors surely aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t just a matter of him lashing out .
If Iran wants to hand him a big diplomatic victory in exchange for economic reprieve , he ’ ll eagerly take it .

I’m okay with the description although it’s overwrought. Sanctions are popular in modern America because they’re an alternative to warfare. We don’t want to kill so we apply economic pressure instead. But she’s right inasmuch as the goals of true warfare and “economic warfare” are similar, getting an enemy power to bend to our will on a point in dispute.
The continuation of politics by other means, as Clausewitz said.
But if we’re going to treat sanctions as “warfare,” we’ll need to be consistent about it.
This makes no sense. Sanctions are economic warfare. They have already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran. You cannot claim to want deescalation and then announce new sanctions with no clear goal. This is not a measured response! https://t.co/sGWtwXuNDT — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 8, 2020
Where have I heard sanctions described as “economic warfare” before? Ah, right — that’s the term America’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, used back in August to describe the BDS movement — boycott, divest, sanction — championed by … Ilhan Omar.
Please read my attached statement with regard to the decision of the Government of Israel to deny entry to BDS activists, Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, in accordance with its national laws. pic.twitter.com/q9M2N1uRkr — Chargé d’Affaires Jonathan Shrier (@USAmbIsrael) August 15, 2019
As a million righties are reminding her on Twitter this afternoon, her attitude towards sanctions on Israel seems curiously different from her attitude towards sanctions on Iran. In the case of Israel, she appears to view sanctions not as “warfare” but as a tool towards a just settlement between Jews and Palestinians. In July, after she filed a resolution in the House defending the BDS movement from criticism by Congress, she announced plans to visit Israel. Not because she seeks war, she stressed, but because she seeks peace:
“We must support an end of the occupation and seek to achieve a two-state solution,” she added. “I believe firmly that the path to peace does not lies with a violent mean. We should condemn in the strongest terms violence that perpetuates the occupation. Whether it’s Israel, Hamas or individuals. We cannot also condemn non-violent means. We cannot simultaneously say we want peace and to oppose peaceful means to hold our allies accountable.”
“Peaceful means to hold our allies accountable,” not “economic warfare.” That seems to be the Omar view of anti-Israel sanctions. But when sanctions are applied to virtually any other country, she’s an outspoken skeptic of their use. She made her position clear in an op-ed for WaPo in October opposing sanctions on Turkey for its invasion of Kurdish-held Syria entitled “Sanctions are part of a failed foreign policy playbook. Stop relying on them.”
In so much of our foreign policy, we rely on muscle memory and a limited toolbox to decide the best course of action. And, too often, sanctions regimes are ill considered, incoherent and counterproductive. Research has shown that sanctions rarely achieve their desired goals. In the worst-case scenario, they hurt the people of a country — generally the very people we’re purporting to help — without making a dent in the country’s behavior. And in the case of human rights abusers, research suggests that more abuses typically occur with economic sanctions in place than without them. Sanctions are not meant to be an end in themselves, but we too often use them as a lever without a plan for what comes after, whether they achieve the desired result or not.
She went on to make some exceptions. The Magnitsky Act, which targets individuals, can be useful, she allowed. And so can … boycott and divestment campaigns, as in the case of South Africa. “But economic and sector sanctions are too often designed to inflict maximum pain on civilians, not empower them,” she added — neglecting to explain how Israeli citizens would be spared from serious economic hardship if a global BDS campaign targeting the country got traction.
Does she want “warfare” against Israel or not? How far would she go to make Israelis suffer economically if she had the power to force U.S. sanctions through?
This isn’t the first time a member of the Squad has been challenged for following a double standard in wanting to punish Israel more harshly for its sins than grievous human-rights violators. The irony of Omar’s tweet today is that Trump’s new sanctions really are a form of deescalation, i.e. a deterrent measure in lieu of military action to respond to last night’s missile strikes, and they are part of a strategy whether she likes that strategy or not. U.S. sanctions on Iran have two goals, to bring the regime to the table to renegotiate the nuclear deal and/or, potentially, to weaken the economy to the point where Iranians are inclined towards revolution. As I said elsewhere yesterday, the irony of the present moment is that Trump is probably more politically willing *and able* to reach a grand bargain and permanent detente with Iran than any U.S. president in decades (although many of his advisors surely aren’t enthusiastic). The sanctions aren’t just a matter of him lashing out. If Iran wants to hand him a big diplomatic victory in exchange for economic reprieve, he’ll eagerly take it.


hotair--2020-01-08--Charlie Rose admits to flirting with co-anchors, workplace relationships

It has been more than two years since the Washington Post dropped the # MeToo bomb on CBS/PBS anchor Charlie Rose .
Since then , the story about Rose has only gotten worse .
The Washington Post published a follow up in 2018 involving 27 accusers .
The day after that story appeared , three women filed a lawsuit against Rose .
He tried to get the lawsuit dismissed but yesterday Fox News reported Rose filed new documents in response to the lawsuit in which he admits to flirting with co-workers : Rose confirmed that his nickname around the office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ n Rose ” and that Gayle King and probably Norah O ’ Donnell both used it to refer to him .
NBC News reports today that Rose also admitted to having multiple relationships with women who worked for him over the years , though he wasn ’ t specific : Rose admitted in the deposition , filed in the Supreme Court of the state of New York in Manhattan as part of the suit brought against him by the three former CBS News employees , that he has had romantic relationships with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his 45-year career , and told lawyers that he now realizes why they those relationships were “ inappropriate.
” “ I ’ m saying inappropriate because the fact that I had relationships with people in the workplace over those 45 years and you know , we have now come to understand and appreciate and had by then that romantic relationships or intimacies were not appropriate in the workplace , ” he said , adding , “ you know , because there was power and balance , ” according to the deposition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the specifics of those relationships , including names .
I highlighted one section of the quote above .
It is an accurate quote from the court document ( page 83 ) , however I wonder if this was transcribed inaccurately .
It should probably read “ there was power imbalance.
” Rose claimed that he routinely kissed women he knew on the cheek when greeting them .
Asked if he also greeted men this way , he replied “ I ’ m sure there are.
” But he wasn ’ t able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The deposition makes for interesting reading .
His attorney objects on nearly every page to questions being asked and frequently tells him not to answer .
At several points the attorneys themselves are arguing strenuously over what should and should not be considered a fair question .
The attorney representing the women suing Rose promises to ask the judge to compel him to answer at a later date .
It ’ s not clear how many more months this court battle will drag on but Rose is clearly fighting the claims of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him down about his behavior toward specific women .
This report is from last September :

It has been more than two years since the Washington Post dropped the #MeToo bomb on CBS/PBS anchor Charlie Rose. Since then, the story about Rose has only gotten worse. The Washington Post published a follow up in 2018 involving 27 accusers. The day after that story appeared, three women filed a lawsuit against Rose. He tried to get the lawsuit dismissed but yesterday Fox News reported Rose filed new documents in response to the lawsuit in which he admits to flirting with co-workers:
“Did you ever flirt with Gayle King?” the plaintiffs’ counsel Kenneth Goldberg asked. “Yes,” Rose answered. “Did you flirt with Norah O’Donnell?” Goldberg followed. “Yes,” the disgraced anchor confirmed.
Rose confirmed that his nickname around the office at CBS News was “Charlie f—‘n Rose” and that Gayle King and probably Norah O’Donnell both used it to refer to him. NBC News reports today that Rose also admitted to having multiple relationships with women who worked for him over the years, though he wasn’t specific:
Rose admitted in the deposition, filed in the Supreme Court of the state of New York in Manhattan as part of the suit brought against him by the three former CBS News employees, that he has had romantic relationships with women he worked with over the span of his 45-year career, and told lawyers that he now realizes why they those relationships were “inappropriate.” “I’m saying inappropriate because the fact that I had relationships with people in the workplace over those 45 years and you know, we have now come to understand and appreciate and had by then that romantic relationships or intimacies were not appropriate in the workplace,” he said, adding, “you know, because there was power and balance,” according to the deposition. Rose declined to go into detail about the specifics of those relationships, including names.
I highlighted one section of the quote above. It is an accurate quote from the court document (page 83), however I wonder if this was transcribed inaccurately. It should probably read “there was power imbalance.”
Rose claimed that he routinely kissed women he knew on the cheek when greeting them. Asked if he also greeted men this way, he replied “I’m sure there are.” But he wasn’t able to name any men he’d kissed.
The deposition makes for interesting reading. His attorney objects on nearly every page to questions being asked and frequently tells him not to answer. At several points the attorneys themselves are arguing strenuously over what should and should not be considered a fair question. The attorney representing the women suing Rose promises to ask the judge to compel him to answer at a later date. It’s not clear how many more months this court battle will drag on but Rose is clearly fighting the claims of inappropriate behavior and resisting attempts to pin him down about his behavior toward specific women.
This report is from last September:


hotair--2020-01-08--Navy admits it has more information/video on the Nimitz UFO encounter that they're not sharing

There ’ s been an interesting , if not terribly informative development in the story of those UFOs encountered by the Nimitz aircraft carrier battle group back in 2004 .
As you may recall , there were three videos released over the past couple of years by the Navy through the efforts of To The Stars Academy ( TTSA ) showing encounters with bizarre flying objects exhibiting performance characteristics that defy much of our understanding of physics .
One was from the Nimitz incident and the others were from a much later encounter involving the carrier Roosevelt .
The videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many journalists have attempted to find out if more such videos exist , or at least if longer , clearer versions of the ones we ’ ve seen are available .
All such requests were answered in the negative .
That is… until now .
One researcher named Christian Lambright submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Naval Intelligence ( ONI ) back in October looking for some very specific information along these lines .
He finally received a response recently .
The military didn ’ t supply him with any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did concede that they located other documents and another video that would be applicable to his request .
They could not release them , however , because the documents were classified TOP SECRET and the video footage was SECRET .
Their release , the Navy claims , could cause “ grave damage ” to national security .
This information was published recently by Paul Dean .
( Emphasis added ) Our review of our records and systems reveal that ONI has no releasable records related to your request .
ONI has searched our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET .
A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriate Marked and Classified TOP SECRET under Executive Order 13526 , and the Original Classification Authority has determined that the release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States .
Specifically , under Section 1.4 , the materials would trigger protections under subcategory c ) , the Intelligence Activities of the United States , as well as the Sources and Methods that are being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Security of the United States .
In addition , the materials would trigger protections under subcategory e ) , Scientific and Technological Matters related to the National Security of the United States .
For this reason , the materials are exempt from release under the ( b ) ( 1 ) Exemption for Classified Matters of National Defense .
As a result these records may not be released and are being withheld .
We have also determined that ONI possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the Original Classification Authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Naval Air Systems Command to make a determination on releasability… ” We should immediately place these revelations in context , so let ’ s review a couple of important points .
Starting early last year , the Pentagon seemed to grow tired of fielding all of these questions about UFOs and started referring all journalistic inquiries to a single spokesperson , Susan Gough .
This is an important point to make because we ’ ve heard testimony from several of the sailors from the Nimitz battle group who witnessed these events saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , when journalists asked the Pentagon about this , Ms. Gough informed us on multiple occasions that those three videos were the only ones they had and no longer or clearer versions existed .
Now ONI has gone on record stating that there is at least one additional video from the Nimitz encounter and it can ’ t be released because it ’ s classified SECRET .
( They are reviewing that classification to see if it can be changed now so perhaps we ’ ll eventually see it . )
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Ms. Gough , saying there are no more videos and we have ONI saying there is at least one more .
Both of these things can not be simultaneously true .
In other words , somebody is lying… again .
Who should we believe ?
We might able to apply a bit of a logic test to this situation and come up with a pretty good guess .
One possibility is that someone at the Office of Naval Intelligence has decided to fabricate a fairy tale about nonexistent UFO video footage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to… I don ’ t know .
Gaslight them ?
The other possibility is that when the Pentagon was asked about additional videos they lied to us .
You may recall that I wrote a rather lengthy screed about a month ago about the Pentagon ( and really most of the government ) and their somewhat dubious relationship with the truth .
This is the same Susan Gough who told us repeatedly for many months that the AATIP program was real and it investigated UAPs .
( That ’ s their term for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7th , she inexplicably put out a statement saying that AATIP had never had anything to do with UAPs .
She also told us that TTSA ’ s Louis Elizondo was never in charge of or associated with AATIP ( which may still be true ) while numerous other sources claim that he ran the program and his name shows up on one of the only verifiable documents about AATIP associated with Harry Reid .
So I don ’ t know , sports fans .
If we have to decide whether ONI is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way are you leaning ?
One additional thing to note here is that the response from ONI speaks of a set of briefing slides and a single video .
But if you follow the link and look at Lambright ’ s FOIA request , you ’ ll note that it is structured very specifically to request information relating to UAP encounters happening in relation to the Nimitz battle group over a period from 10-16 November 2004 .
Having battled through the FOIA process myself on a number of occasions , I can assure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives up more than they have to under the law .
Lambright apparently got exactly what he asked for , but nothing more .
To put it bluntly , ONI might be sitting on thousands of documents and as many videos .
But if they originated from any time prior to November 10 , 2004 , or any date from November 17th of 2004 to the present , or if they happened anywhere else in the world but the Nimitz training exercise area , they would not include those items in the response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ve heard from the pilots involved in both the 2004 Nimitz encounter and the 2015 Roosevelt incident that they ’ ve been seeing these things “ all the time.
” This happens frequently enough to alarm some senior people in the military and they want answers .
If that ’ s the case , do you really think they only managed to record three ( or now possibly four ) videos in the past sixteen years ( at a minimum ) ?
Unlikely in the extreme .
This is yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government feeding us bogus information on this subject and being caught .
More than likely they have a mountain of evidence and they ’ re withholding it all .
And they ’ re still lying about it .
Mind you , this still doesn ’ t automatically mean that any of this has anything to do with extraterrestrials .
For example , why was the slide presentation and the other video so classified ?
Perhaps that evidence might reveal some secret program of ours or the Russians or the Chinese demonstrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how that might need to be classified .
But without emptying the bag entirely , they should tell us whether it ’ s one or the other .
And just as a favor… STOP .
LYING .
TO .
US .

There’s been an interesting, if not terribly informative development in the story of those UFOs encountered by the Nimitz aircraft carrier battle group back in 2004. As you may recall, there were three videos released over the past couple of years by the Navy through the efforts of To The Stars Academy (TTSA) showing encounters with bizarre flying objects exhibiting performance characteristics that defy much of our understanding of physics. One was from the Nimitz incident and the others were from a much later encounter involving the carrier Roosevelt. The videos were somewhat grainy and short in length. Many journalists have attempted to find out if more such videos exist, or at least if longer, clearer versions of the ones we’ve seen are available. All such requests were answered in the negative.
That is… until now. One researcher named Christian Lambright submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) back in October looking for some very specific information along these lines. He finally received a response recently. The military didn’t supply him with any new videos or documents, but they did concede that they located other documents and another video that would be applicable to his request. They could not release them, however, because the documents were classified TOP SECRET and the video footage was SECRET. Their release, the Navy claims, could cause “grave damage” to national security. This information was published recently by Paul Dean. (Emphasis added)
Our review of our records and systems reveal that ONI has no releasable records related to your request. ONI has searched our records for responsive documents. We have discovered certain briefing slides that are classified TOP SECRET. A review of these materials indicates that are currently and appropriate Marked and Classified TOP SECRET under Executive Order 13526, and the Original Classification Authority has determined that the release of these materials would cause exceptionally grave damage to the National Security of the United States. Specifically, under Section 1.4, the materials would trigger protections under subcategory c), the Intelligence Activities of the United States, as well as the Sources and Methods that are being used to gather information in support of the National Security of the United States. In addition, the materials would trigger protections under subcategory e), Scientific and Technological Matters related to the National Security of the United States. For this reason, the materials are exempt from release under the (b) (1) Exemption for Classified Matters of National Defense. As a result these records may not be released and are being withheld. We have also determined that ONI possesses a video classified SECRET that ONI is not the Original Classification Authority for. ONI has forwarded your request to Naval Air Systems Command to make a determination on releasability…”
We should immediately place these revelations in context, so let’s review a couple of important points.
Starting early last year, the Pentagon seemed to grow tired of fielding all of these questions about UFOs and started referring all journalistic inquiries to a single spokesperson, Susan Gough. This is an important point to make because we’ve heard testimony from several of the sailors from the Nimitz battle group who witnessed these events saying that they remembered seeing longer videos. However, when journalists asked the Pentagon about this, Ms. Gough informed us on multiple occasions that those three videos were the only ones they had and no longer or clearer versions existed.
Now ONI has gone on record stating that there is at least one additional video from the Nimitz encounter and it can’t be released because it’s classified SECRET. (They are reviewing that classification to see if it can be changed now so perhaps we’ll eventually see it.) So once again we have the Pentagon, through Ms. Gough, saying there are no more videos and we have ONI saying there is at least one more. Both of these things can not be simultaneously true. In other words, somebody is lying… again.
Who should we believe? We might able to apply a bit of a logic test to this situation and come up with a pretty good guess. One possibility is that someone at the Office of Naval Intelligence has decided to fabricate a fairy tale about nonexistent UFO video footage and send it out to researchers and journalists to… I don’t know. Gaslight them?
The other possibility is that when the Pentagon was asked about additional videos they lied to us. You may recall that I wrote a rather lengthy screed about a month ago about the Pentagon (and really most of the government) and their somewhat dubious relationship with the truth. This is the same Susan Gough who told us repeatedly for many months that the AATIP program was real and it investigated UAPs. (That’s their term for UFOs now.) Then on December 7th, she inexplicably put out a statement saying that AATIP had never had anything to do with UAPs. She also told us that TTSA’s Louis Elizondo was never in charge of or associated with AATIP (which may still be true) while numerous other sources claim that he ran the program and his name shows up on one of the only verifiable documents about AATIP associated with Harry Reid.
So I don’t know, sports fans. If we have to decide whether ONI is fibbing or the Pentagon is, which way are you leaning?
One additional thing to note here is that the response from ONI speaks of a set of briefing slides and a single video. But if you follow the link and look at Lambright’s FOIA request, you’ll note that it is structured very specifically to request information relating to UAP encounters happening in relation to the Nimitz battle group over a period from 10-16 November 2004. Having battled through the FOIA process myself on a number of occasions, I can assure you that the government never, ever gives up more than they have to under the law. Lambright apparently got exactly what he asked for, but nothing more.
To put it bluntly, ONI might be sitting on thousands of documents and as many videos. But if they originated from any time prior to November 10, 2004, or any date from November 17th of 2004 to the present, or if they happened anywhere else in the world but the Nimitz training exercise area, they would not include those items in the response.
What does that mean? Well, we’ve heard from the pilots involved in both the 2004 Nimitz encounter and the 2015 Roosevelt incident that they’ve been seeing these things “all the time.” This happens frequently enough to alarm some senior people in the military and they want answers. If that’s the case, do you really think they only managed to record three (or now possibly four) videos in the past sixteen years (at a minimum)? Unlikely in the extreme.
This is yet another example that’s turned up of the government feeding us bogus information on this subject and being caught. More than likely they have a mountain of evidence and they’re withholding it all. And they’re still lying about it. Mind you, this still doesn’t automatically mean that any of this has anything to do with extraterrestrials. For example, why was the slide presentation and the other video so classified? Perhaps that evidence might reveal some secret program of ours or the Russians or the Chinese demonstrating incredible technological advancements. You could understand how that might need to be classified. But without emptying the bag entirely, they should tell us whether it’s one or the other. And just as a favor… STOP. LYING. TO. US.