hotair--2020-02-03--Iowa caucus day: Get ready for some surprises

Iowa caucus day: Get ready for some surprises -- including about how it works

After more than a year of talking , debating , and campaigning , voting finally starts tonight in the Democratic presidential primaries .
However , it doesn ’ t start with a primary but a caucus night , and in Iowa that has its own unique characteristics .
To keep track of everything that ’ s happening — and then making sense of the results — Townhall and Hot Air are partnering with Decision Desk HQ tonight , starting at 8 pm ET as the caucuses begin , to track results as the night progresses .
The DDHQ staff put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ festivities .
Unlike past cycles , this time we ’ ll get raw totals for each “ alignment ” to see how the caucuses are shifting : “ First alignment ” is the first round of voting where caucus goes may vote for any candidate .
Candidates who fail to reach 15 % support in the precinct vote are eliminated and their voters are then able to support another candidate in the second round .
“ Final alignment ” is the second round of voting after supporters of candidates who did not meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second choice candidate or can elect to remain uncommitted .
It ’ s the results from this “ final alignment ” round that are used to calculate county convention delegates and then “ state delegate equivalents ” and ultimately , national convention delegates .
We will be reporting all three sets of results throughout the course of the night .
Our call of the “ winner ” of the Caucus will be based on “ state delegate equivalents ” as that is what determines the national delegate allocation .
You ’ ll definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those results in the post that Allahpundit will have up at 8 pm ET .
Stay tuned !
Forget secret ballots and anonymity — and forget about sticking with one choice , as ITV ’ s Robert Moore explains to his British audience in this video .
Unless the rules force you to stick with that choice : Moore ’ s pretty stoked about the primary process .
WCVB in Boston gives a more visual representation of the process .
They also include a new non-poaching rule regarding supporters from “ viable ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-poaching rule sounds like a recipe for all sorts of technical challenges during the evening .
On one hand , it does make some sense in terms of ensuring that the “ viable ” tag is reliable , but … are Democrats arguing that a Biden caucuser can ’ t change his mind , or a Sanders caucuser switch ?
Or are they arguing that their surrogates can ’ t make their arguments to all caucusers ?
Does that include even casual conversations ?
That sounds like a nightmare to enforce , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice .
Not that it matters all that much , Philip Bump writes at the Washington Post .
Despite all of the hyperbole surrounding this event , it doesn ’ t usually have definitive outcomes , and it predicts little about the rest of the primaries that follow : It ’ s worth pointing out that , in addition to a revised system in which the Iowa Democratic Party will literally release multiple data points that could allow multiple campaigns to claim victory , recent caucus results have proved to be both unpredictable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes .
In other words , the caucuses are important because they come first but may not tell us much about where things are heading .
Yes , they also help winnow the field , but in the way lions winnow a pack of wildebeest : it ’ s not the strong ones who succumb .
… So what about this year ?
The pattern over these elections on both sides has been that late surges before Iowa can indicate where candidates will land .
In the current Democratic contest , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Things have been fairly static for several weeks .
Things are also complicated by the size of the field .
No candidate has the support of as much as a quarter of the state , an important factor in a process that mandates a 15 percent threshold for support in most caucus locations .
Coming into Iowa in 2016 , Trump was above 25 percent , in a slightly smaller field , though that didn ’ t translate into victory .
All of which goes to reinforce the original point .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa and what those results , whatever they may be , will mean moving forward .
Iowa serves a bit like a cross-a-state line on a long drive .
It ’ s something you look forward to as a marker of your progress , but once you reach it you realize how much farther you have to go .
Tell that to the candidates .
They will be making every effort to wring as much good press out of tonight ’ s results as possible , no matter where they land in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for New Hampshire at the earliest possible time .
The results do matter in that sense , and so keep your eyes on Townhall Media Group and Hot Air tonight .

After more than a year of talking, debating, and campaigning, voting finally starts tonight in the Democratic presidential primaries. However, it doesn’t start with a primary but a caucus night, and in Iowa that has its own unique characteristics. To keep track of everything that’s happening — and then making sense of the results — Townhall and Hot Air are partnering with Decision Desk HQ tonight, starting at 8 pm ET as the caucuses begin, to track results as the night progresses.
The DDHQ staff put together this primer for tonight’s festivities. Unlike past cycles, this time we’ll get raw totals for each “alignment” to see how the caucuses are shifting:
“First alignment” is the first round of voting where caucus goes may vote for any candidate. Candidates who fail to reach 15% support in the precinct vote are eliminated and their voters are then able to support another candidate in the second round. “Final alignment” is the second round of voting after supporters of candidates who did not meet the initial support threshold move to their second choice candidate or can elect to remain uncommitted. It’s the results from this “final alignment” round that are used to calculate county convention delegates and then “state delegate equivalents” and ultimately, national convention delegates. We will be reporting all three sets of results throughout the course of the night. Our call of the “winner” of the Caucus will be based on “state delegate equivalents” as that is what determines the national delegate allocation.
You’ll definitely want to keep a close eye on those results in the post that Allahpundit will have up at 8 pm ET. Stay tuned!
Forget secret ballots and anonymity — and forget about sticking with one choice, as ITV’s Robert Moore explains to his British audience in this video. Unless the rules force you to stick with that choice:
Moore’s pretty stoked about the primary process. WCVB in Boston gives a more visual representation of the process. They also include a new non-poaching rule regarding supporters from “viable” candidates’ pools of caucusers:
That non-poaching rule sounds like a recipe for all sorts of technical challenges during the evening. On one hand, it does make some sense in terms of ensuring that the “viable” tag is reliable, but … are Democrats arguing that a Biden caucuser can’t change his mind, or a Sanders caucuser switch? Or are they arguing that their surrogates can’t make their arguments to all caucusers? Does that include even casual conversations? That sounds like a nightmare to enforce, as well as an impediment to an informed choice.
Not that it matters all that much, Philip Bump writes at the Washington Post. Despite all of the hyperbole surrounding this event, it doesn’t usually have definitive outcomes, and it predicts little about the rest of the primaries that follow:
It’s worth pointing out that, in addition to a revised system in which the Iowa Democratic Party will literally release multiple data points that could allow multiple campaigns to claim victory, recent caucus results have proved to be both unpredictable beforehand and not particularly predictive of future outcomes. In other words, the caucuses are important because they come first but may not tell us much about where things are heading. Yes, they also help winnow the field, but in the way lions winnow a pack of wildebeest: it’s not the strong ones who succumb. … So what about this year? The pattern over these elections on both sides has been that late surges before Iowa can indicate where candidates will land. In the current Democratic contest, there are only subtle hints to that effect. Things have been fairly static for several weeks. Things are also complicated by the size of the field. No candidate has the support of as much as a quarter of the state, an important factor in a process that mandates a 15 percent threshold for support in most caucus locations. Coming into Iowa in 2016, Trump was above 25 percent, in a slightly smaller field, though that didn’t translate into victory. All of which goes to reinforce the original point. It’s hard to say what will happen in Iowa and what those results, whatever they may be, will mean moving forward. Iowa serves a bit like a cross-a-state line on a long drive. It’s something you look forward to as a marker of your progress, but once you reach it you realize how much farther you have to go.
Tell that to the candidates. They will be making every effort to wring as much good press out of tonight’s results as possible, no matter where they land in the voting, before fleeing the state for New Hampshire at the earliest possible time. The results do matter in that sense, and so keep your eyes on Townhall Media Group and Hot Air tonight.


hotair--2020-02-03--Prayers up: Rush announces his fight against advanced lung cancer

If you ’ ve ever listened to a minute of conservative talk radio , ever written a sentence for New Media on the Right , this man has been a part of it .
Rush Limbaugh practically carved out the conservative media space starting in the 1980s , and he ’ s been its most prominent voice ever since .
Today , however , Rush announced that he has been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer , and will be taking some time off for treatment .
Julio Rosas captured the audio of the announcement : It ’ s a struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my staff earlier today .
I can ’ t escape… Even though people are telling me it ’ s not the way to look at it , I can ’ t help but feel that I ’ m letting everybody down with this .
But the upshot is that I have been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer , diagnosis confirmed by two medical institutions back on January 20th .
I first realized something was wrong on my birthday weekend , January 12th .
I wish I didn ’ t have to tell you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling anybody .
I thought about trying to do this without anybody knowing , ’ cause I don ’ t like making things about me .
But there are going to be days that I ’ m not gon na be able to be here because I ’ m undergoing treatment or I ’ m reacting to treatment , and I know that that would inspire all kinds of curiosity with people wondering what ’ s going on .
And the worst thing that can happen is when there is something going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover it up .
It ’ s eventually gon na leak , and then people are gon na say , “ Why didn ’ t you just say it ?
Why ’ d you try to fool everybody ?
” It ’ s not that I want to fool anybody .
It ’ s just that I don ’ t want to burden anybody with it , and I haven ’ t wanted to .
But it is what it is .
You know me ; I ’ m the mayor of Realville @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my intention is to come here every day I can and to do this program as normally and as competently and as expertly as I do each and every day , because that is the source of my greatest satisfaction professionally , personally .
I ’ ve had so much support from family and friends during this that it ’ s just been tremendous .
I told the staff today that I have a deeply personal relationship with God that I do not proselytize about .
Oh my .
It takes some strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been easier to just quietly deal with the treatments and keep a lid on it .
Duane Patterson , my partner in crime on Thursdays and one of my best pals otherwise , went through this a couple of times and noted just how tough it is to go through this in public : I also know him to be a very philanthropic man , with me as a personal beneficiary .
Readers of Captain ’ s Quarters may recall that Rush quietly reached out to me to make sure I didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruptured a disc in my back .
I wrote about it at the time , with his ( perhaps initially reluctant ) permission .
Later , he personally introduced me at CPAC via video when they honored me with their Blogger of the Year award .
That astounded me at the time .
Still does !
Rush ’ s new battle reminds me of a scene from Patton .
While moving troops to relieve Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge , Patton ’ s adjutant tells him , “ General McAuliffe refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he said ?
” Patton replied , “ What ?
” “ Keep them moving , Colonel , ” Patton replied with a laugh .
“ A man that eloquent has to be saved.
” That ’ s exactly what my prayer will be : Lord , a man this eloquent has to be saved !
I hope you will all join me in praying for a full and quick recovery for our friend Rush , and for his doctors and care team doing their best to provide it .

If you’ve ever listened to a minute of conservative talk radio, ever written a sentence for New Media on the Right, this man has been a part of it. Rush Limbaugh practically carved out the conservative media space starting in the 1980s, and he’s been its most prominent voice ever since. Today, however, Rush announced that he has been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, and will be taking some time off for treatment.
Julio Rosas captured the audio of the announcement:
Here's the audio of Rush Limbaugh announcing on his show that he has lung cancer. pic.twitter.com/V60pAOpf68 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) February 3, 2020
It’s a struggle for me because I had to inform my staff earlier today. I can’t escape… Even though people are telling me it’s not the way to look at it, I can’t help but feel that I’m letting everybody down with this. But the upshot is that I have been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, diagnosis confirmed by two medical institutions back on January 20th. I first realized something was wrong on my birthday weekend, January 12th. I wish I didn’t have to tell you this, and I thought about not telling anybody. I thought about trying to do this without anybody knowing, ’cause I don’t like making things about me. But there are going to be days that I’m not gonna be able to be here because I’m undergoing treatment or I’m reacting to treatment, and I know that that would inspire all kinds of curiosity with people wondering what’s going on. And the worst thing that can happen is when there is something going on and you try to hide it and cover it up. It’s eventually gonna leak, and then people are gonna say, “Why didn’t you just say it? Why’d you try to fool everybody? ” It’s not that I want to fool anybody. It’s just that I don’t want to burden anybody with it, and I haven’t wanted to. But it is what it is. You know me; I’m the mayor of Realville. So this has happened, and my intention is to come here every day I can and to do this program as normally and as competently and as expertly as I do each and every day, because that is the source of my greatest satisfaction professionally, personally. I’ve had so much support from family and friends during this that it’s just been tremendous. I told the staff today that I have a deeply personal relationship with God that I do not proselytize about.
Oh my. It takes some strength to make this public; it might have been easier to just quietly deal with the treatments and keep a lid on it. Duane Patterson, my partner in crime on Thursdays and one of my best pals otherwise, went through this a couple of times and noted just how tough it is to go through this in public:
Rush is a master at the craft of radio. I also know him to be a very philanthropic man. His reluctance to go public with a cancer diagnosis resonates a lot with me, as I had to go through both cancer treatment and whether or not to make it public. God speed, El Rushbo. Prayers up https://t.co/8eKSebLC15 — Duane Patterson (@Radioblogger) February 3, 2020
I also know him to be a very philanthropic man, with me as a personal beneficiary. Readers of Captain’s Quarters may recall that Rush quietly reached out to me to make sure I didn’t fall into addiction when I ruptured a disc in my back. I wrote about it at the time, with his (perhaps initially reluctant) permission. Later, he personally introduced me at CPAC via video when they honored me with their Blogger of the Year award. That astounded me at the time. Still does!
Rush’s new battle reminds me of a scene from Patton. While moving troops to relieve Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, Patton’s adjutant tells him, “General McAuliffe refused a German surrender demand. You know what he said?” Patton replied, “What?”
“Nuts!” said the colonel.
“Keep them moving, Colonel,” Patton replied with a laugh. “A man that eloquent has to be saved.”
That’s exactly what my prayer will be: Lord, a man this eloquent has to be saved! I hope you will all join me in praying for a full and quick recovery for our friend Rush, and for his doctors and care team doing their best to provide it.


hotair--2020-02-03--Murkowski: Yes, what Trump did with Ukraine was inappropriate

How many Senate Republicans are we up to who have accused the president of wrongdoing in the impeachment saga , albeit not wrongdoing that rises to the level of justifying removal from office ?
There were at least three as of Friday , Lamar Alexander , Rob Portman , and Marco Rubio , although Rubio implied it more so than he frankly stated it .
Do I hear a fourth ?
Key GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski was asked today if she agreed with Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander that President Trump ’ s conduct was inappropriate .
“ I would concur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fifth ?
Joni Ernst had some mildly disapproving comments when asked about the Ukraine business yesterday : “ I think ferreting out corruption is absolutely the right thing to do , ” the Iowa senator told CNN ’ s State of the Union on Sunday , referring to Trump ’ s explanation for why he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden , who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president… “ The president has a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do , ” Ernst , 49 , said .
“ I think , generally speaking , going after corruption would be the right thing to do .
He did it maybe in the wrong manner .
But I think he could have done it through different channels.
” I ’ m going to treat that as four and a half .
Alexander was also on the Sunday shows and made the same point , that Trump had good intentions ( sort of ) in seeking dirt on the Bidens but he went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He should have asked the Justice Department to investigate instead of outsourcing this to Rudy Giuliani and his crooked cronies , Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman .
Chuck Todd challenged him on that : Why do you think he didn ’ t do it that way ?
Which reduced Alexander to this pitiful reply .
“ Maybe he didn ’ t know to do it.
” I guess there was no one in his phalanx of lawyers and advisors to whom he reasonably might have turned and said , “ What ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter to the DOJ ’ s attention ?
” Lem me float three theories for why Trump didn ’ t go to Bill Barr with it , short and sweet .
One : He wasn ’ t sure Barr would play ball .
Barr is loyal but he ’ s not an old friend and campaign hand who ’ ll obey every order he ’ s given .
Rudy is .
Two : Because Rudy is a personal friend and crony , he could be trusted to keep his mouth shut to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General isn ’ t the best guy to loop in on a scheme that may or may not amount to an abuse of official power .
Three : If you believe witnesses like Gordon Sondland , Trump was less interested in an actual investigation of the Bidens and Burisma than the announcement that an investigation had been opened .
A full DOJ investigation would be a political liability if it was carried out and concluded by clearing Joe Biden before the election .
What Trump wanted was suspicion , not resolution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d be keen to hear each Republican who thinks Trump behaved “ inappropriately ” explain precisely what they thought was inappropriate in his conduct towards Ukraine .
There are three distinct allegations of wrongdoing : ( 1 ) He tried to use the diplomatic powers of his office to tilt the election his way by damaging a likely electoral opponent ; ( 2 ) he outsourced a foreign investigation of official corruption by a former vice president to his personal lawyer and his shady associates instead of two the DOJ and State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withheld military aid that had been duly appropriated by Congress in order to increase his leverage in his dubious scheme .
Alexander and Ernst appear willing to grant that number 2 and probably number 3 were inappropriate , but how about number one ?
That ’ s the big one since it touches on whether the president had a corrupt motive or not .
Was he sincerely alarmed by allegations of corruption by the Biden or did he treat the Burisma matter the way he once treated the idea that Barack Obama was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s father may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination , i.e .
as information that was useful in damaging an enemy irrespective of whether it was true or not ?
Does the chorus of Republicans who think Trump did wrong believe that allegation 1 has been proved ?
If they do , was that inappropriate ?
They ’ re playing a little game here in which they ’ re trying to hedge their votes against calling witnesses and in favor of acquittal by allowing that Trump engaged in misconduct , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that misconduct was , exactly .
Let ’ s hear specifics .
In the meantime , no , of course Trump isn ’ t going to be censured .
I know why Republicans don ’ t want to talk about censure but I can ’ t understand why Democrats wouldn ’ t want to at this point .
They have nothing more to lose , having lost the big witness vote and now headed for an acquittal in which every Republican ( except possibly Mitt Romney ) sides with Trump .
Why not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put pressure on Alexander , Murkowski , and the rest who are burbling about “ inappropriate ” actions by Trump but unwilling to put any teeth into their statements ?
Force reporters to ask Collins , Gardner , and the rest , “ Should the president at least be censured ?
” If they say no , as virtually all of them would , that ’ s something new Dems could point to as part of their “ COVER-UP !
” messaging about the trial after it ’ s over .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wouldn ’ t even go on record in rebuking him , let alone removing him.
” Etc .
Here ’ s Joni Ernst arguing that , if nothing else , Trump has learned his lesson from this ordeal : “ I think that he knows now that if he is trying to do certain things — whether it ’ s ferreting out corruption there , in Afghanistan , whatever it is — he needs to go through the proper channels.
” Alexander made the same point to Chuck Todd , saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you an impeachment , I would think he would think twice before he did it again.
” To which an incredulous Todd replied , astutely , “ What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been chastened ?
” I don ’ t know why anyone would think he ’ d “ chastened ” by all this when he ’ s insisted all along that his call with Zelensky was “ PERFECT !
” And it ’ s not as if Democrats are going to impeach him again before the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see how chastened he ’ s likely to be going forward .

How many Senate Republicans are we up to who have accused the president of wrongdoing in the impeachment saga, albeit not wrongdoing that rises to the level of justifying removal from office? There were at least three as of Friday, Lamar Alexander, Rob Portman, and Marco Rubio, although Rubio implied it more so than he frankly stated it. Do I hear a fourth?
I do:
Key GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski was asked today if she agreed with Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander that President Trump’s conduct was inappropriate. Here’s how she responded: “I would concur,” she said.
How about a fifth? Joni Ernst had some mildly disapproving comments when asked about the Ukraine business yesterday:
“I think ferreting out corruption is absolutely the right thing to do,” the Iowa senator told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, referring to Trump’s explanation for why he wanted Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president… “The president has a lot of latitude to do what he wants to do,” Ernst, 49, said. “I think, generally speaking, going after corruption would be the right thing to do. He did it maybe in the wrong manner. But I think he could have done it through different channels.”
I’m going to treat that as four and a half. Alexander was also on the Sunday shows and made the same point, that Trump had good intentions (sort of) in seeking dirt on the Bidens but he went about it in the wrong way. He should have asked the Justice Department to investigate instead of outsourcing this to Rudy Giuliani and his crooked cronies, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Chuck Todd challenged him on that: Why do you think he didn’t do it that way? Which reduced Alexander to this pitiful reply.
ICYMI: @SenAlexander says “maybe [Trump] did not know how to” call the AG to look into Bidens and Burisma. #MTP@chucktodd: “At what point is he no longer new to this? Sen. Alexander: “Well, the bottom line, it's not an excuse.” pic.twitter.com/oe6eYWbhkF — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) February 3, 2020
“Maybe he didn’t know to do it.”
I guess there was no one in his phalanx of lawyers and advisors to whom he reasonably might have turned and said, “What’s the proper way to bring the Burisma matter to the DOJ’s attention?”
Lemme float three theories for why Trump didn’t go to Bill Barr with it, short and sweet. One: He wasn’t sure Barr would play ball. Barr is loyal but he’s not an old friend and campaign hand who’ll obey every order he’s given. Rudy is. Two: Because Rudy is a personal friend and crony, he could be trusted to keep his mouth shut to a greater degree than Barr could. The Attorney General isn’t the best guy to loop in on a scheme that may or may not amount to an abuse of official power. Three: If you believe witnesses like Gordon Sondland, Trump was less interested in an actual investigation of the Bidens and Burisma than the announcement that an investigation had been opened. A full DOJ investigation would be a political liability if it was carried out and concluded by clearing Joe Biden before the election. What Trump wanted was suspicion, not resolution. Rudy could give him that.
I’d be keen to hear each Republican who thinks Trump behaved “inappropriately” explain precisely what they thought was inappropriate in his conduct towards Ukraine. There are three distinct allegations of wrongdoing: (1) He tried to use the diplomatic powers of his office to tilt the election his way by damaging a likely electoral opponent; (2) he outsourced a foreign investigation of official corruption by a former vice president to his personal lawyer and his shady associates instead of two the DOJ and State Department; and (3) he withheld military aid that had been duly appropriated by Congress in order to increase his leverage in his dubious scheme. Alexander and Ernst appear willing to grant that number 2 and probably number 3 were inappropriate, but how about number one? That’s the big one since it touches on whether the president had a corrupt motive or not. Was he sincerely alarmed by allegations of corruption by the Biden or did he treat the Burisma matter the way he once treated the idea that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or that Ted Cruz’s father may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination, i.e. as information that was useful in damaging an enemy irrespective of whether it was true or not?
Does the chorus of Republicans who think Trump did wrong believe that allegation 1 has been proved? If they do, was that inappropriate? They’re playing a little game here in which they’re trying to hedge their votes against calling witnesses and in favor of acquittal by allowing that Trump engaged in misconduct, but they’re being coy about what that misconduct was, exactly. Let’s hear specifics.
In the meantime, no, of course Trump isn’t going to be censured.
Asked to gauge the appetite for censure among Republicans, Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said, “ … zero.” The vast majority of Republicans, he said, believe that Trump committed no wrongdoing and that he has been subjected to a partisan, politically motivated investigation… “What he did was an impeachable offense — I think it’s absolutely obvious, and giving a slap on the wrist doesn’t do any good,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) suggested that a censure would only allow Republicans to skirt responsibility for protecting Trump, saying, “I’m not bailing them out.”
I know why Republicans don’t want to talk about censure but I can’t understand why Democrats wouldn’t want to at this point. They have nothing more to lose, having lost the big witness vote and now headed for an acquittal in which every Republican (except possibly Mitt Romney) sides with Trump. Why not start talking up censure as a way to put pressure on Alexander, Murkowski, and the rest who are burbling about “inappropriate” actions by Trump but unwilling to put any teeth into their statements? Force reporters to ask Collins, Gardner, and the rest, “Should the president at least be censured?” If they say no, as virtually all of them would, that’s something new Dems could point to as part of their “COVER-UP!” messaging about the trial after it’s over. “They’re so afraid of Trump they wouldn’t even go on record in rebuking him, let alone removing him.” Etc.
Here’s Joni Ernst arguing that, if nothing else, Trump has learned his lesson from this ordeal: “I think that he knows now that if he is trying to do certain things — whether it’s ferreting out corruption there, in Afghanistan, whatever it is — he needs to go through the proper channels.” Alexander made the same point to Chuck Todd, saying, “If a call like that gets you an impeachment, I would think he would think twice before he did it again.” To which an incredulous Todd replied, astutely, “What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been chastened?” I don’t know why anyone would think he’d “chastened” by all this when he’s insisted all along that his call with Zelensky was “PERFECT!” And it’s not as if Democrats are going to impeach him again before the election. Go read this Axios post to see how chastened he’s likely to be going forward.


hotair--2020-02-03--Report: Bernie Sanders has been spending big on private jets

The Sanders campaign spent nearly $ 1.2 million on private jets last quarter as the candidate traveled between the Senate impeachment and campaign stops .
The Washington Free Beacon reports Joe Biden wasn ’ t far behind : The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $ 1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets , LLC , a “ luxury private jet charter service.
” The campaign spent an additional $ 23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team .
The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter… Sanders has long leaned on private air travel on the campaign trail , despite his belief that limiting carbon emissions from the transportation sector is crucial to combating climate change .
Every candidate relies on aviation to travel between campaign stops .
In the early days of a campaign when the tempo is slow , it ’ s possible for the candidates to travel by bus or on commercial flights .
But once the campaign heats up and candidates are attempting to make multiple stops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only option and sometimes commercial flights just aren ’ t available at the correct times .
So , on the one hand , this is all pretty normal .
On the other hand : “ When anybody tells you that politics is bulls**t or that they don ’ t want to get involved tell them that the future of this country , and in terms of climate change , the future of the planet is at stake .
You can ’ t sit it out.
” You can ’ t sit it out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private luxury jet , I guess .
Remember AOC , who is now Sanders ’ top surrogate , is the champion of the Green New Deal , an initial summary of which recommended making air travel less necessary through the use of more high speed trains .
Even Sen. Mazie Hirono saw the problem with that : So , again , it ’ s completely normal for candidates to use private jets , but in this case the candidate and his top surrogate are fond of tellng anyone who will listen that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is part of the problem .
This is , after all , why the teen face of climate change , Greta Thunberg , insists on using multi-million dollar sailboats to cross the Atlantic rather than flying .
Bernie ostensibly believes what Thunberg does about our need to change the world immediately and dramatically , but he doesn ’ t have a problem spending over a million dollars on private jets in just a few months if that ’ s what it takes to help him win an election .
So why should anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footprint if ultra-environmentalist Bernie Sanders is flooding the atmosphere with carbon from private jets ?

The Sanders campaign spent nearly $1.2 million on private jets last quarter as the candidate traveled between the Senate impeachment and campaign stops. The Washington Free Beacon reports Joe Biden wasn’t far behind:
The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service.” The campaign spent an additional $23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team. The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden, whose campaign spent $1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter… Sanders has long leaned on private air travel on the campaign trail, despite his belief that limiting carbon emissions from the transportation sector is crucial to combating climate change.
Every candidate relies on aviation to travel between campaign stops. In the early days of a campaign when the tempo is slow, it’s possible for the candidates to travel by bus or on commercial flights. But once the campaign heats up and candidates are attempting to make multiple stops per day, air travel is the only option and sometimes commercial flights just aren’t available at the correct times. So, on the one hand, this is all pretty normal.
On the other hand: “When anybody tells you that politics is bulls**t or that they don’t want to get involved tell them that the future of this country, and in terms of climate change, the future of the planet is at stake. You can’t sit it out.”
‘You can’t sit it out’ — Bernie Sanders and AOC teamed up for a livestream to discuss the Green New Deal, creating a grassroots movement, and having longevity in politics pic.twitter.com/pbneajos7Y — Tomthunkit™ (@TomthunkitsMind) February 3, 2020
You can’t sit it out unless you’re sitting on a private luxury jet, I guess. Remember AOC, who is now Sanders’ top surrogate, is the champion of the Green New Deal, an initial summary of which recommended making air travel less necessary through the use of more high speed trains. Even Sen. Mazie Hirono saw the problem with that:
Sen Mazie Hirono (D-HI) on Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal & trying to cut down on air air travel. “That would be pretty hard for Hawaii” — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 7, 2019
So, again, it’s completely normal for candidates to use private jets, but in this case the candidate and his top surrogate are fond of tellng anyone who will listen that the planet is at stake and air travel is part of the problem. This is, after all, why the teen face of climate change, Greta Thunberg, insists on using multi-million dollar sailboats to cross the Atlantic rather than flying.
Bernie ostensibly believes what Thunberg does about our need to change the world immediately and dramatically, but he doesn’t have a problem spending over a million dollars on private jets in just a few months if that’s what it takes to help him win an election. So why should anyone feel guilty about their relatively tiny carbon footprint if ultra-environmentalist Bernie Sanders is flooding the atmosphere with carbon from private jets?


hotair--2020-02-03--Too dumb to check. NY now requires a permit to look for UFOs or stargaze

What is the theoretical limit to how dumb oppressive government regulations can become ?
We ’ re probably closing in on that number in the state of New York now that 2020 has begun .
As of the beginning of the year , you now need a permit to stare up at the night sky in a number of state parks .
I realize this sounds like a satirical piece that was rejected by the Onion , but it ’ s actually true .
If you want to go to the park and look up into the sky , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars ( 60 if you ’ re coming in from out of state ) or you will face the potential of a fine .
For standing and looking up into the sky .
( Redstate , with a hat tip to Mysterious Universe ) The Free Thought Project first reported on the story , explaining that “ If citizens of the state wish to look up at the sky and view the stars at one of New York ’ s public parks , they will first have to obtain a ‘ Stargazing permit.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution in the sky makes it more difficult for New Yorkers in “ highly populated areas ” to see the sky at night , so they travel to remote areas , many of which are located in state parks .
The state is charging residents $ 35 to become a fully-licensed stargazer allowed to view the stars between January and December of the year .
If you are not lucky enough to be a New York resident and you are just visiting , you will have to fork over $ 60 for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the night sky .
Lest you still think this is satire , you can view the details of the permit requirements at the state ’ s Parks Department website .
The permits are only available for sale between January 1st and March 31st ( plus the Tuesday after Labor Day through New Year ’ s Eve ) so you ’ ll want to head out and get your permit pretty quickly .
As Paul Seaburn at MU pointed out , the number of questions such a policy raises is staggering .
The most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you demand a permit for people to look upward ?
Paul speculates that it was done in an effort to cut down on nighttime traffic at some of the more popular parks .
But this isn ’ t a permit to drive through the park .
It ’ s a permit to stand and look upward , so it would affect people who walk there , take public transportation or anything else .
Aside from the bloody-minded stupidity of passing such a regulation in the first place , there are also plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What if the park rangers move in to apprehend you but you tell them that you ’ re not interested in the stars , but are instead hunting for UFOs ?
Would you still get a ticket ?
What if you ’ re on a date at the park and decide to have some impromptu “ splendor in the grass ?
” ( Younger readers can Google that . )
Would the person on the bottom be subject to a fine if their eyes are facing upward ?
Are you still required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s cloudy out ?
After all , you wouldn ’ t be able to see the stars on an overcast night .
( Or UFOs for that matter , unless they were flying really low to the ground . )
Do the legally blind get a pass if they tip their heads upward ?
I ’ m sincerely tempted to just head down to the park closest to me on a clear night this month and stand around looking at the sky .
I can ’ t find what the penalties are for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m pretty sure it would be worth it to be the first person to go to court and fight this .
And I can ’ t even imagine how embarrassing it would be for the Park Ranger to have to walk up and give you a ticket for looking at the sky .

What is the theoretical limit to how dumb oppressive government regulations can become? We’re probably closing in on that number in the state of New York now that 2020 has begun. As of the beginning of the year, you now need a permit to stare up at the night sky in a number of state parks. I realize this sounds like a satirical piece that was rejected by the Onion, but it’s actually true. If you want to go to the park and look up into the sky, you’ll need a permit costing 35 dollars (60 if you’re coming in from out of state) or you will face the potential of a fine. For standing and looking up into the sky. (Redstate, with a hat tip to Mysterious Universe)
The Free Thought Project first reported on the story, explaining that “If citizens of the state wish to look up at the sky and view the stars at one of New York’s public parks, they will first have to obtain a ‘Stargazing permit.’” The site pointed out that pollution in the sky makes it more difficult for New Yorkers in “highly populated areas” to see the sky at night, so they travel to remote areas, many of which are located in state parks. The state is charging residents $35 to become a fully-licensed stargazer allowed to view the stars between January and December of the year. If you are not lucky enough to be a New York resident and you are just visiting, you will have to fork over $60 for the privilege of admiring your favorite constellation in the night sky.
Lest you still think this is satire, you can view the details of the permit requirements at the state’s Parks Department website. The permits are only available for sale between January 1st and March 31st (plus the Tuesday after Labor Day through New Year’s Eve) so you’ll want to head out and get your permit pretty quickly.
As Paul Seaburn at MU pointed out, the number of questions such a policy raises is staggering. The most obvious one is… why? Why would you demand a permit for people to look upward? Paul speculates that it was done in an effort to cut down on nighttime traffic at some of the more popular parks. But this isn’t a permit to drive through the park. It’s a permit to stand and look upward, so it would affect people who walk there, take public transportation or anything else.
Aside from the bloody-minded stupidity of passing such a regulation in the first place, there are also plenty of questions about enforcement that leap to mind. What if the park rangers move in to apprehend you but you tell them that you’re not interested in the stars, but are instead hunting for UFOs? Would you still get a ticket? What if you’re on a date at the park and decide to have some impromptu “splendor in the grass?” (Younger readers can Google that.) Would the person on the bottom be subject to a fine if their eyes are facing upward?
Are you still required to have the permit if it’s cloudy out? After all, you wouldn’t be able to see the stars on an overcast night. (Or UFOs for that matter, unless they were flying really low to the ground.) Do the legally blind get a pass if they tip their heads upward?
I’m sincerely tempted to just head down to the park closest to me on a clear night this month and stand around looking at the sky. I can’t find what the penalties are for violating this regulation, but I’m pretty sure it would be worth it to be the first person to go to court and fight this. And I can’t even imagine how embarrassing it would be for the Park Ranger to have to walk up and give you a ticket for looking at the sky.


hotair--2020-02-03--House Dem closing argument: Only guilty people assert their rights and insist on judicial review, or

House Dem closing argument: Only guilty people assert their rights and insist on judicial review, or something

As a description of the House Democrats ’ philosophy on their obstruction article of impeachment , Rep. Val Demings hits the nail right on the head .
As an expression of just how bankrupt this argument is , it ’ s as good as it gets , too .
Demings told the Senate that asserting legal rights and privileges in an investigation is “ what guilty people do , ” which should have both defense and civil-rights attorneys cringing from coast to coast .
Should , but probably won ’ t : Let ’ s start with this declaration first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the process .
The House never formally authorized an impeachment inquiry , a choice that left the inquiry in a legal limbo at the beginning .
Courts might have taken a more skeptical view of executive privilege in a duly authorized impeachment inquiry , but House Democrats skipped that step for purely political reasons .
Trump wasn ’ t defying an impeachment inquiry — he was defying a fishing expedition conducted by the House Intelligence Committee , rather than an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee where impeachment inquiries are usually handled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is small potatoes when it comes to her next point .
Guilty people assert rights and privileges , Demings argues , while innocent people produce evidence to prove their innocence in our system : This is most assuredly not how our system of jurisprudence works .
Innocent people — especially those with reason to suspect that an investigation might be biased or corrupt — are very well advised to assert every single one of their rights and privileges along the way .
Ask Richard Jewell ( figuratively speaking ) how well cooperation worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not required to exonerate themselves ; prosecutors are required to use all lawful means to provide evidence of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .
Demings ’ attitude is precisely why the Bill of Rights exists and why the burden of proof is on the prosecutors rather than defendants .
The phrase “ lawyering up ” denigrates what is almost always a very wise decision that ’ s not necessarily related at all to innocence or guilt .
When investigators start making demands for access to documents , it ’ s best to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court to make sure your rights are protected .
Furthermore , executive privilege is a constitutional part of the presidency ’ s status as a co-equal branch elected separately by the people .
The mere existence of a House investigation doesn ’ t negate it in any way , shape , or form .
The House could have taken the Trump administration to court to argue its case that privilege didn ’ t cover these documents and witnesses , and they could have accelerated that process by voting for a formal impeachment inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final argument in this clip : And … so what ?
In America , people get to fight subpoenas .
They probably lose more often than they win , but they still can challenge them in court .
The House never bothered to fight for their subpoenas , and in most cases didn ’ t even bother to issue them at all .
They just took that “ vow ” and called it obstruction , a conclusion as absurd as Demings ’ emoting all over the podium in this clip .
Whether one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what people think of the other article of impeachment , this argument is dangerous for American justice and constitutional order .
It ’ s a demand to treat the accused as guilty until proven innocent , to regard assertion of rights as evidence of guilt , and to hand massive power over to prosecutors — including in Congress — to railroad people at will .
Demings wants an all-powerful House without any checks or balance by the executive or judiciary , and that is far more dangerous to the Republic than anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @

As a description of the House Democrats’ philosophy on their obstruction article of impeachment, Rep. Val Demings hits the nail right on the head. As an expression of just how bankrupt this argument is, it’s as good as it gets, too. Demings told the Senate that asserting legal rights and privileges in an investigation is “what guilty people do,” which should have both defense and civil-rights attorneys cringing from coast to coast.
Should, but probably won’t:
Rep. Val Demings: "The president's obstruction was unlawful and unprecedented—but it also confirmed his guilt. Innocent people don't try to hide every document and witness, especially those that could clear them. That's what guilty people do." https://t.co/lCrIAfTgkR pic.twitter.com/fD84NWrdGi — ABC News (@ABC) February 3, 2020
DEMINGS: Once he got caught, President Trump engaged in categorical and indiscriminate obstruction of any investigation into his wrongdoing. He ordered every government agency and every official to defy the House’s impeachment inquiry. And he did so for a simple reason: to conceal evidence of his wrongdoing from Congress and the American people.
Let’s start with this declaration first, as Demings omits a fundamental defect in the process. The House never formally authorized an impeachment inquiry, a choice that left the inquiry in a legal limbo at the beginning. Courts might have taken a more skeptical view of executive privilege in a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, but House Democrats skipped that step for purely political reasons. Trump wasn’t defying an impeachment inquiry — he was defying a fishing expedition conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, rather than an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee where impeachment inquiries are usually handled.
That defect in Demings’ argument is small potatoes when it comes to her next point. Guilty people assert rights and privileges, Demings argues, while innocent people produce evidence to prove their innocence in our system:
DEMINGS: The president’s obstruction was unlawful and unprecedented—but it also confirmed his guilt. Innocent people don’t try to hide every document and witness, especially those that would clear them. That’s what guilty people do. That’s what guilty people do. Innocent people do everything they can to clear their name, and provide evidence that shows that they are innocent.
This is most assuredly not how our system of jurisprudence works. Innocent people — especially those with reason to suspect that an investigation might be biased or corrupt — are very well advised to assert every single one of their rights and privileges along the way. Ask Richard Jewell (figuratively speaking) how well cooperation worked out for him. Innocent people are not required to exonerate themselves; prosecutors are required to use all lawful means to provide evidence of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Demings’ attitude is precisely why the Bill of Rights exists and why the burden of proof is on the prosecutors rather than defendants. The phrase “lawyering up” denigrates what is almost always a very wise decision that’s not necessarily related at all to innocence or guilt. When investigators start making demands for access to documents, it’s best to demand a subpoena and test it in court to make sure your rights are protected.
Furthermore, executive privilege is a constitutional part of the presidency’s status as a co-equal branch elected separately by the people. The mere existence of a House investigation doesn’t negate it in any way, shape, or form. The House could have taken the Trump administration to court to argue its case that privilege didn’t cover these documents and witnesses, and they could have accelerated that process by voting for a formal impeachment inquiry.
That brings us to Demings’ final argument in this clip:
DEMINGS: But it would be a mistake to view the president’s obstruction narrowly, as the president’s counsel have tried to portray it. The president didn’t try to defy the House’s impeachment inquiry as part of a routine interbranch dispute, or because he wanted to protect the constitutional rights and privileges of his presidency. He did it consistent with his vow to fight all subpoenas.
And … so what? In America, people get to fight subpoenas. They probably lose more often than they win, but they still can challenge them in court. The House never bothered to fight for their subpoenas, and in most cases didn’t even bother to issue them at all. They just took that “vow” and called it obstruction, a conclusion as absurd as Demings’ emoting all over the podium in this clip.
Whether one likes Trump or not, and regardless of what people think of the other article of impeachment, this argument is dangerous for American justice and constitutional order. It’s a demand to treat the accused as guilty until proven innocent, to regard assertion of rights as evidence of guilt, and to hand massive power over to prosecutors — including in Congress — to railroad people at will. Demings wants an all-powerful House without any checks or balance by the executive or judiciary, and that is far more dangerous to the Republic than anything they have charged Trump with doing.


hotair--2020-02-03--Iran knew right away that the Ukrainian jet was shot down by a missile

It took several days for Iran to admit that a missile had shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet leaving Tehran airport .
The admission from Iran came at about the same time a video was circulating which showed a missile rising into the sky and exploding near the plane .
But it turns out Iran must have known about the missile launch almost immediately because another pilot flying in the same area reported it to ground control .
A transcript of the exchange between the Iranian pilot and an air-traffic controller was turned over to Ukraine .
The conversation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what was said : “ A series of lights like … yes , it is a missile , is there something ?
” the pilot calls out to the controller .
“ No , how many miles ?
Where ?
” the controller asks .
The pilot responds that he saw the light by the Payam airport , near where the Guard ’ s Tor M-1 anti-aircraft missile was launched from .
The controller says nothing has been reported to them , but the pilot remains insistent .
“ It is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pilot says .
“ Don ’ t you see anything anymore ?
” the controller asks .
“ Dear engineer , it was an explosion .
We saw a very big light there , I don ’ t really know what it was , ” the pilot responds .
The AP points out that Iran would have had immediate access to recordings on conversations with air traffic controllers .
Not to mention that , unless the air-traffic controller who took the report is a complete idiot , he ’ d probably have remembered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappeared .
Bottom line : Iran must have known within hours what had really happened but chose to lie about it for several days .
The response in Iran to the obvious fact that the government had lied about its involvement in shooting down the plane was anger .
There were protests that continued for several days .
But here in the US , the media seemed to mostly gloss over the fact that Iran had lied even when reporting on its belated admission of what it had done .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mention the days of previous denials at all .
In general , the US media seemed reluctant to blame Iran for its behavior but strangely eager to dole out a share of the blame for the downed airliner to President Trump .

It took several days for Iran to admit that a missile had shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet leaving Tehran airport. The admission from Iran came at about the same time a video was circulating which showed a missile rising into the sky and exploding near the plane. But it turns out Iran must have known about the missile launch almost immediately because another pilot flying in the same area reported it to ground control. A transcript of the exchange between the Iranian pilot and an air-traffic controller was turned over to Ukraine. The conversation was in Farsi but this is a translation of what was said:
“A series of lights like … yes, it is a missile, is there something?” the pilot calls out to the controller. “No, how many miles? Where?” the controller asks. The pilot responds that he saw the light by the Payam airport, near where the Guard’s Tor M-1 anti-aircraft missile was launched from. The controller says nothing has been reported to them, but the pilot remains insistent. “It is the light of a missile,” the pilot says. “Don’t you see anything anymore?” the controller asks. “Dear engineer, it was an explosion. We saw a very big light there, I don’t really know what it was,” the pilot responds.
The AP points out that Iran would have had immediate access to recordings on conversations with air traffic controllers. Not to mention that, unless the air-traffic controller who took the report is a complete idiot, he’d probably have remembered the missile report after the Ukrainian jet disappeared. Bottom line: Iran must have known within hours what had really happened but chose to lie about it for several days.
The response in Iran to the obvious fact that the government had lied about its involvement in shooting down the plane was anger. There were protests that continued for several days. But here in the US, the media seemed to mostly gloss over the fact that Iran had lied even when reporting on its belated admission of what it had done. For instance, this CNN story about the Iranian admission doesn’t mention the days of previous denials at all.
In general, the US media seemed reluctant to blame Iran for its behavior but strangely eager to dole out a share of the blame for the downed airliner to President Trump.


hotair--2020-02-03--Sanders' proposed fracking ban would cost him Pennsylvania and probably the election

This news actually came out last week , but with the Iowa caucuses happening today it seems an appropriate time to bring it up .
Last Thursday , Bernie Sanders introduced a new bill in the Senate with the stated purpose of banning hydraulic fracturing ( fracking ) for oil and natural gas all across the United States .
He ’ s already promised to take action along these lines , as have Elizabeth Warren and some of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls .
Sanders attracted several co-sponsors for the bill , including at least two members of “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to go anywhere this year , it ’ s a not terribly subtle effort to stake out his position on “ keep it in the ground ” as he fights for the nomination .
( The Hill ) Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) this week introduced a bill that aims to ban hydraulic fracking .
The bill was introduced on Tuesday and is titled “ a bill to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing , and for other purposes , ” according to the Library of Congress , though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the site .
Sanders has called for a ban on fracking while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination , as has Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass. )
.
As of this morning , the full text of the bill still hasn ’ t been posted , but the title alone likely tells us all we need to know .
As I suggested above , however , it likely doesn ’ t matter because any legislation like this is dead on arrival in the Senate while the GOP holds the majority .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it passed , President Trump would veto it so fast it would make your head spin .
But Bernie Sanders and his “ keep it in the ground ” friends are severely miscalculating the political fallout from their actions .
While they try to impress the furthest left portion of the Democratic base , they are being shortsighted in terms of the potential consequences this will have in the general election .
If Sanders wants to remove Donald Trump from office in November , he ’ s going to need to flip a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And do you know where fracking is very popular ?
In Pennsylvania .
Fracking has brought a flood of new jobs to the state and to this day there are still more openings than they can find people to fill them .
Recruiters are trying to attract more people to the Keystone State with jobs that start at anywhere from $ 50K to more than $ 100K per year .
And a lot of them don ’ t even require a college degree .
Additionally , landowners with property sitting on the Marcellus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leases with the oil and gas industry bringing them much needed income .
All of that adds up to a net positive for Pennsylvania residents .
If you promise to eliminate all of that activity as president , it ’ s a safe bet that voters will turn out in support of Donald Trump once again in November .
To a lesser extent , there is also fracking in Ohio , primarily in the eastern part of the state .
The same situation exists there in terms of jobs and leasing opportunities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move that will likely cost you Pennsylvania and Ohio , the path to victory suddenly narrows drastically .
And not for nothing , but if you had any dreams about turning Texas blue , the quickest way to burst that balloon is to come after the oil and gas industry .
A Bernie Sanders candidacy will almost certainly keep the Lone Star State firmly in the red column and very likely push the state legislature back toward the GOP even further .
But hey , Bernie .
I ’ m not here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s your plan , you go with it , buddy .
I ’ ll be back here on the east coast munching on popcorn and watching the show .

This news actually came out last week, but with the Iowa caucuses happening today it seems an appropriate time to bring it up. Last Thursday, Bernie Sanders introduced a new bill in the Senate with the stated purpose of banning hydraulic fracturing (fracking) for oil and natural gas all across the United States. He’s already promised to take action along these lines, as have Elizabeth Warren and some of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls. Sanders attracted several co-sponsors for the bill, including at least two members of “the squad.” While it’s obviously not going to go anywhere this year, it’s a not terribly subtle effort to stake out his position on “keep it in the ground” as he fights for the nomination. (The Hill)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) this week introduced a bill that aims to ban hydraulic fracking. The bill was introduced on Tuesday and is titled “a bill to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes,” according to the Library of Congress, though the text of the legislation was not available on the site. Sanders has called for a ban on fracking while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, as has Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
As of this morning, the full text of the bill still hasn’t been posted, but the title alone likely tells us all we need to know. As I suggested above, however, it likely doesn’t matter because any legislation like this is dead on arrival in the Senate while the GOP holds the majority. And even if he did manage to get it passed, President Trump would veto it so fast it would make your head spin.
But Bernie Sanders and his “keep it in the ground” friends are severely miscalculating the political fallout from their actions. While they try to impress the furthest left portion of the Democratic base, they are being shortsighted in terms of the potential consequences this will have in the general election.
If Sanders wants to remove Donald Trump from office in November, he’s going to need to flip a number of states that Trump carried. And do you know where fracking is very popular? In Pennsylvania. Fracking has brought a flood of new jobs to the state and to this day there are still more openings than they can find people to fill them. Recruiters are trying to attract more people to the Keystone State with jobs that start at anywhere from $50K to more than $100K per year. And a lot of them don’t even require a college degree.
Additionally, landowners with property sitting on the Marcellus shale deposits have been able to sign leases with the oil and gas industry bringing them much needed income. All of that adds up to a net positive for Pennsylvania residents. If you promise to eliminate all of that activity as president, it’s a safe bet that voters will turn out in support of Donald Trump once again in November.
To a lesser extent, there is also fracking in Ohio, primarily in the eastern part of the state. The same situation exists there in terms of jobs and leasing opportunities.
If you start your presidential run with a move that will likely cost you Pennsylvania and Ohio, the path to victory suddenly narrows drastically. And not for nothing, but if you had any dreams about turning Texas blue, the quickest way to burst that balloon is to come after the oil and gas industry. A Bernie Sanders candidacy will almost certainly keep the Lone Star State firmly in the red column and very likely push the state legislature back toward the GOP even further.
But hey, Bernie. I’m not here to rain on your parade. If that’s your plan, you go with it, buddy. I’ll be back here on the east coast munching on popcorn and watching the show.


hotair--2020-02-03--Trump: I don't think I can work with Democrats after impeachment

More to the point , Donald Trump doesn ’ t think Democrats can work with him either .
In his Super Bowl interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity , Trump complained bitterly about the “ damage ” done to his family and the country in the impeachment and trial .
“ I ’ d like to ” work with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi , Trump told Hannity , but they ’ re so dishonest and obsessed with winning that he doesn ’ t think it ’ s possible .
That sounds like exactly what Pelosi and Schumer would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred and seventy days from now , I guess the ultimate jury –the American people — go to the polls .
My question is , is this a campaign issue for you ?
Do you let it go ?
Do you see a path that you can work with Chuck Schumer , Nancy Pelosi , and the Democrats ?
TRUMP : Well , I ’ d like to , but it ’ s pretty hard when you think about it , because it ’ s been such — I used the word witch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I see the hatred , I see the love — They don ’ t care about fairness , they don ’ t care about lying .
You look at the lies , you look at the reports that were done that were so false , the level of hypocrisy .
So I ’ m not sure that they can do it , to be honest .
I think they just want to win , and it doesn ’ t matter how they win .
The solution , Trump tells Hannity , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than a food fight on Capitol Hill : TRUMP : In the meantime I really believe this administration , me and this administration , we ’ ve done more than any administration in the history of our country .
We ’ ve rebuilt our military , we ’ ve cut taxes at the highest amount ever in the history of our country .
I mean you see what ’ s going on .
There ’ s a revolution going on in this country — I mean a positive revolution .
So African-American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the best numbers we ’ ve ever had .
African-American — the poverty numbers are now reversed and they ’ re the best that they ’ ve ever had .
So I don ’ t know how anybody could possibly beat me with that vote .
So we ’ ll see how it does .
Under more normal circumstances , in a time when institutions had more credibility , an election would likely resolve most of the remaining tension , if not the bitterness .
In such an environment , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been credible candidates for the presidency .
An election in this environment might simply relocate the battlefield — and even then , only temporarily .
The Washington Post ’ s Marc Fisher spoke with focus-group specialist Frank Luntz , who sounds pessimistic that an election will change anything at this point : By now , Frank Luntz figured that emotionally exhausted Americans would be hungry for unity , eager to embrace moderate messages and candidates who promised to find and claim common ground .
But Luntz , a longtime Republican consultant who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been taking the temperatures of voters in Iowa , New Hampshire and other states , and he has found that “ people are desperate to vote , but the center has collapsed.
” “ They want the pitchfork message , not the unity message — on both sides , ” he said .
“ I wish I was wrong , but that fear of losing the country is deep and very emotional , on both sides , ” Luntz added .
“ The Trump side believes the left is trying to overturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hell to prevent it .
And the Democrats have a disdain for Donald Trump that I ’ ve never seen .
This isn ’ t as bad as 1968 , but it ’ s pretty damn bad.
” We have become a nation of brute-force majoritarians over the last 52 years , accelerated by the Robert Bork confirmation hearing and the Bill Clinton impeachment .
This raises a very interesting question about voters in the next election and then the midterms beyond that .
Americans have a history of voting for shared-power federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control the White House , Senate , and House at the same time — and never for very long .
After this impeachment , how long will that continue ?
Can we afford to have shared power any longer , or do we need to essentially form a quasi-parliamentary government every election in order to get anything at all done in Washington ?
Gridlock may have had its legitimate attraction to voters in the past , but two impeachments later , the poisonous atmosphere and retaliatory politics in the Beltway may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t afford any longer .
Unfortunately , that conclusion will only feed the bitterness and rancor of elections and politics as elections become an all-or-nothing gambit , with the advantage going to those who have the fewest scruples .
One has to wonder whether F.A .
Hayek would have recognized the parallels to his Road to Serfdom in this slow erosion of representative democracy .

More to the point, Donald Trump doesn’t think Democrats can work with him either. In his Super Bowl interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump complained bitterly about the “damage” done to his family and the country in the impeachment and trial. “I’d like to” work with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, Trump told Hannity, but they’re so dishonest and obsessed with winning that he doesn’t think it’s possible.
That sounds like exactly what Pelosi and Schumer would say, too:
HANNITY: Two hundred and seventy days from now, I guess the ultimate jury –the American people — go to the polls. My question is, is this a campaign issue for you? Do you let it go? Do you see a path that you can work with Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats? TRUMP: Well, I’d like to, but it’s pretty hard when you think about it, because it’s been such — I used the word witch hunt, I used the word hoax. I see the hatred, I see the love — They don’t care about fairness, they don’t care about lying. You look at the lies, you look at the reports that were done that were so false, the level of hypocrisy. So I’m not sure that they can do it, to be honest. I think they just want to win, and it doesn’t matter how they win.
The solution, Trump tells Hannity, is to hash this out in an election rather than a food fight on Capitol Hill:
TRUMP: In the meantime I really believe this administration, me and this administration, we’ve done more than any administration in the history of our country. We’ve rebuilt our military, we’ve cut taxes at the highest amount ever in the history of our country. I mean you see what’s going on. There’s a revolution going on in this country — I mean a positive revolution. So African-American, Hispanic American, Asian-American, we have the best numbers we’ve ever had. African-American — the poverty numbers are now reversed and they’re the best that they’ve ever had. So I don’t know how anybody could possibly beat me with that vote. So we’ll see how it does.
Under more normal circumstances, in a time when institutions had more credibility, an election would likely resolve most of the remaining tension, if not the bitterness. In such an environment, however, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders never would have been credible candidates for the presidency. An election in this environment might simply relocate the battlefield — and even then, only temporarily.
The Washington Post’s Marc Fisher spoke with focus-group specialist Frank Luntz, who sounds pessimistic that an election will change anything at this point:
By now, Frank Luntz figured that emotionally exhausted Americans would be hungry for unity, eager to embrace moderate messages and candidates who promised to find and claim common ground. But Luntz, a longtime Republican consultant who conducts focus groups for news organizations, has been taking the temperatures of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states, and he has found that “people are desperate to vote, but the center has collapsed.” “They want the pitchfork message, not the unity message — on both sides,” he said. “I wish I was wrong, but that fear of losing the country is deep and very emotional, on both sides,” Luntz added. “The Trump side believes the left is trying to overturn democracy, and they will fight like hell to prevent it. And the Democrats have a disdain for Donald Trump that I’ve never seen. This isn’t as bad as 1968, but it’s pretty damn bad.”
We have become a nation of brute-force majoritarians over the last 52 years, accelerated by the Robert Bork confirmation hearing and the Bill Clinton impeachment. This raises a very interesting question about voters in the next election and then the midterms beyond that. Americans have a history of voting for shared-power federal government, only rarely allowing one party to control the White House, Senate, and House at the same time — and never for very long.
After this impeachment, how long will that continue? Can we afford to have shared power any longer, or do we need to essentially form a quasi-parliamentary government every election in order to get anything at all done in Washington? Gridlock may have had its legitimate attraction to voters in the past, but two impeachments later, the poisonous atmosphere and retaliatory politics in the Beltway may have made it a luxury we simply can’t afford any longer. Unfortunately, that conclusion will only feed the bitterness and rancor of elections and politics as elections become an all-or-nothing gambit, with the advantage going to those who have the fewest scruples. One has to wonder whether F.A. Hayek would have recognized the parallels to his Road to Serfdom in this slow erosion of representative democracy.


hotair--2020-02-03--How many normal people will actually get the references in Bloomberg's new ad trolling Trump?

Political junkies like you and me will get most or all of them .
But I ’ d kill to watch a focus group of working people who pay attention to politics for maybe 20 minutes a day — 90 percent of the country , I figure — try to make heads or tails of the spot .
To understand how this is a troll of Trump , first you need to watch Trump ’ s Super Bowl ad .
Now here ’ s Team Bloomberg ’ s quick-cut reply , uploaded last night to Twitter and already creeping up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political junkie sees : “ Okay , that ’ s some of the ‘ very fine people ’ from the alt-right at the Charlottesville rally .
Then we see illegals being detained and kids sleeping under foil blankets , an allusion to Trump ’ s family separation policy .
Then a quick shot of Emma Gonzalez , one of the student activists from the Marjorie Stoneham Douglas school shooting , plus teenagers crying , a reference to gun violence .
Then there ’ s Trump cavalierly tossing paper towels to desperate Puerto Ricans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hurricane Maria .
Then that freakish incident after Hurricane Dorian when he altered the map of the hurricane ’ s projected path so that he didn ’ t have to admit that he had been wrong when he said it threatened Alabama .
Then , uh , his hair blowing around in the wind and looking unkempt .
Then Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford testifying ; no doubt Team Bloomy believes her testimony over his .
Then a protester objecting to Trump ’ s ban on transgender people in the military .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crazy moment during Trump ’ s summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore when he saluted a North Korean military officer .
And then Trump shaking hands with Putin.
” My best guess at what the political non-junkie sees : “ Some guys with … torches ?
Okay , then some illegals being rounded up at the border .
Kids crying for some reason .
Is that … Trump shooting a roll of paper towels like a basketball ?
All right , now he ’ s in the Oval Office with a map @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hair looks messed up .
That ’ s his Supreme Court nominee , whatsisname , and that woman who accused him .
Some guy with a sign about transsexuals .
Some guy in glasses who I don ’ t know .
Trump saluting a soldier .
Oh , that ’ s him and Putin shaking hands.
” What dread does this ad inspire in the person who gets their political news by the spoonful instead of by the firehose blast ?
I don ’ t think it ’ s necessarily a misfire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question is simply this : Who ’ s the intended audience ?
If this spot were destined to play on TV in Wisconsin it ’ d be a bizarre miscalculation , but I don ’ t think it is .
I think it ’ s an online-only spot thrown together on the fly by one of Bloomberg ’ s army of staffers and injected into the Twitter bloodstream in hopes that a very specific person will see it .
NBC takes a glimpse at Bloomberg ’ s strategy : The gloves are off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and Michael Bloomberg , with Trump taking shots at the former New York mayor ’ s physical stature and Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign calling the president a “ pathological liar.
” … Bloomberg ’ s campaign , responding to an interview in which Trump insulted the former mayor , suggested their strategy of getting under the president ’ s skin was bearing fruit .
Kevin Sheekey , Bloomberg ’ s campaign manager , told NBC News that “ it is fair to say ” that their “ theory of the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on wartime footing.
” … It ’ s a deliberate strategy to counter-program the Iowa caucuses on Monday , the formal starting gun for the primary contests and a critical test for most other Democratic candidates – except , perhaps , Bloomberg , who is skipping Iowa and the other early states .
Bloomberg ’ s at risk of becoming an afterthought this month as the press obsesses over the drama in Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina .
He entered the race too late to make the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focused on Super Tuesday , but Super Tuesday ’ s a long way away .
How does he stay relevant ?
By baiting the hell out of Trump and hoping that the president , true to form , simply can ’ t let an insult slide .
It was working like a charm even before the new troll ad was released : He ’ s going to try to irritate Trump into giving him free publicity , on top of the mountains of paid publicity Bloomberg is getting from the endless millions he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defacing Trump ’ s own Super Bowl ad by recutting it as an attack on him is a cheap and easy way to try to get his attention .
And it ’ s clever in the sense that watching Bloomberg get attacked by the left ’ s archenemy can only help soften up liberal opinion of Bloomy .
If you ’ re a megarich financier and former Republican you need all the assistance you can get to convince Democratic primary voters to see you as an ally .
Team Mike is going for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is my friend ” mojo here .
And even if Trump doesn ’ t see the ad , there may be more political junkies online than any of us suspect .
Pew reported this morning that fully 29 percent of Democrats use Twitter .
That ’ s different from saying that 29 percent of Democrats follow politics so closely that they ’ ll understand the references in the ad , but the ad may reach them nonetheless .
It can only help him .

Political junkies like you and me will get most or all of them. But I’d kill to watch a focus group of working people who pay attention to politics for maybe 20 minutes a day — 90 percent of the country, I figure — try to make heads or tails of the spot.
To understand how this is a troll of Trump, first you need to watch Trump’s Super Bowl ad.
https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1224171421221429248
Now here’s Team Bloomberg’s quick-cut reply, uploaded last night to Twitter and already creeping up on a million views:
Donald Trump said he was going to bring change to this country. He did.#SuperBowl pic.twitter.com/4vcIycilow — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 3, 2020
What the political junkie sees: “Okay, that’s some of the ‘very fine people’ from the alt-right at the Charlottesville rally. Then we see illegals being detained and kids sleeping under foil blankets, an allusion to Trump’s family separation policy. Then a quick shot of Emma Gonzalez, one of the student activists from the Marjorie Stoneham Douglas school shooting, plus teenagers crying, a reference to gun violence. Then there’s Trump cavalierly tossing paper towels to desperate Puerto Ricans during his visit to the island after Hurricane Maria. Then that freakish incident after Hurricane Dorian when he altered the map of the hurricane’s projected path so that he didn’t have to admit that he had been wrong when he said it threatened Alabama. Then, uh, his hair blowing around in the wind and looking unkempt. Then Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford testifying; no doubt Team Bloomy believes her testimony over his. Then a protester objecting to Trump’s ban on transgender people in the military. Then Bill Barr testifying. Then that crazy moment during Trump’s summit with Kim Jong Un in Singapore when he saluted a North Korean military officer. And then Trump shaking hands with Putin.”
My best guess at what the political non-junkie sees: “Some guys with … torches? Okay, then some illegals being rounded up at the border. Kids crying for some reason. Is that … Trump shooting a roll of paper towels like a basketball? All right, now he’s in the Oval Office with a map. Now he’s outside and his hair looks messed up. That’s his Supreme Court nominee, whatsisname, and that woman who accused him. Some guy with a sign about transsexuals. Some guy in glasses who I don’t know. Trump saluting a soldier. Oh, that’s him and Putin shaking hands.”
What dread does this ad inspire in the person who gets their political news by the spoonful instead of by the firehose blast?
I don’t think it’s necessarily a misfire by Team Bloomy, though. The question is simply this: Who’s the intended audience? If this spot were destined to play on TV in Wisconsin it’d be a bizarre miscalculation, but I don’t think it is. I think it’s an online-only spot thrown together on the fly by one of Bloomberg’s army of staffers and injected into the Twitter bloodstream in hopes that a very specific person will see it. NBC takes a glimpse at Bloomberg’s strategy:
The gloves are off in the escalating competition between President Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg, with Trump taking shots at the former New York mayor’s physical stature and Bloomberg’s presidential campaign calling the president a “pathological liar.”… Bloomberg’s campaign, responding to an interview in which Trump insulted the former mayor, suggested their strategy of getting under the president’s skin was bearing fruit. Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg’s campaign manager, told NBC News that “it is fair to say” that their “theory of the case is playing out, and we are on wartime footing.”… It’s a deliberate strategy to counter-program the Iowa caucuses on Monday, the formal starting gun for the primary contests and a critical test for most other Democratic candidates – except, perhaps, Bloomberg, who is skipping Iowa and the other early states.
Bloomberg’s at risk of becoming an afterthought this month as the press obsesses over the drama in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. He entered the race too late to make the ballot in those states so he’s focused on Super Tuesday, but Super Tuesday’s a long way away. How does he stay relevant? By baiting the hell out of Trump and hoping that the president, true to form, simply can’t let an insult slide. It was working like a charm even before the new troll ad was released:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1223836174294441984
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1223837731056427009
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1223839756234215424
He’s going to try to irritate Trump into giving him free publicity, on top of the mountains of paid publicity Bloomberg is getting from the endless millions he’s already spent on advertising. Defacing Trump’s own Super Bowl ad by recutting it as an attack on him is a cheap and easy way to try to get his attention. And it’s clever in the sense that watching Bloomberg get attacked by the left’s archenemy can only help soften up liberal opinion of Bloomy. If you’re a megarich financier and former Republican you need all the assistance you can get to convince Democratic primary voters to see you as an ally. Team Mike is going for a little “enemy of my enemy is my friend” mojo here.
And even if Trump doesn’t see the ad, there may be more political junkies online than any of us suspect. Pew reported this morning that fully 29 percent of Democrats use Twitter. That’s different from saying that 29 percent of Democrats follow politics so closely that they’ll understand the references in the ad, but the ad may reach them nonetheless. It can only help him.


hotair--2020-02-03--Twitter suspends 8 year old's account over post on Thunberg

The first question that comes to mind is this – why does an 8-year-old child have a Twitter account ?
Twitter and other social media sites are not a healthy place for any young child to be .
If you guessed that climate change alarmism is at the core of the reason , you ’ re correct .
It turns out that India has its own Greta Thunberg .
Licypriya Kangujam is a young girl in India who , like Greta , is spreading adult talking points on climate change .
Like Greta , Licypriya is coached by her father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not call her the Greta Thunberg of India because she will not be happy .
She explained that she was the first child scold on climate change , not Greta , in a thread on Twitter .
It sounds like she ’ s irritated that Greta is hogging all the publicity , doesn ’ t it ?
Not only does she say she ’ s the original child protester over climate change but she also does it weekly , as Greta has promoted with her Fridays for Future .
Licypriya says she began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially began her protesting in August 2018 .
So , apparently she had a one month jump on Greta .
She notes that she is sacrificing “ so much ” that she doesn ’ t want to be called the “ Greta of India ” .
Twitter didn ’ t take kindly to Licypriya speaking up for herself and it suspended her account .
It was a temporary action , though , and her account was quickly restored .
After the suspension was lifted , Kangujam said her posts weren ’ t abusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just used Greta name as to stop calling me ‘ Greta of India ’ by some media for my activities .
My post had over 1.9 million views in the last 2 days with over 135,000 likes and over 29,000 shares , ” she told WION .
She also doubts that her age was a factor behind her suspension .
Her mission is to get the attention of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and hold him to his word that he is a champion of clean energy .
She wants India to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2015 climate change agreement .
Like Greta , she is full of doom and gloom that adults have already ruined the planet .
“ It is already too late.
” Her conviction won over even U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres at COP25 , but Licypriya came away from the experience frustrated .
“ I heard many speeches from our leaders .
… ‘ We will do this and that … we will , we will , we will.
’ ” She stops and looks at her father .
Finally , the child in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost her train of thought and what they had written down prior to our meeting .
Her father prompts her in their native Manipuri language .
“ But in the end , the conference failed .
It was such a waste of time and money , ” she quickly remembers .
She ’ s worried about clean water supplies and wants climate change education to be mandatory in schools .
Her father is Dr. KK Singh , a local youth activist .
He says that at age four , his daughter was captivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abdul Ghani ( aka the Green Man of India ) .
That is when she fell prey to climate change propaganda .
She hit the global summit circuit .
She holds weekly protests in front of Parliament of India and because of her active participation in protesting , she has dropped out of school .
She ’ s eight years old .
Instead of her parents and the child being heralded as heroes of the climate change movement , stories should point out that this is a form of child abuse , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults .
Her father has his own history of making headlines with activism .
She is seeing some success .
Two states in India have made climate change a mandatory subject in school curriculums .
Licypriya says she will go back to school in April .
Let ’ s hope so .
Perhaps someone should let the child know that a postive message is more inspiring than doom and gloom .
Instead of painting a picture of hopelessness , she could be inspiring her generation with ways in which they can make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back to school and her parents should let her be a kid for a while .
Turning a four year old into an activist is child abuse .

The first question that comes to mind is this – why does an 8-year-old child have a Twitter account? Twitter and other social media sites are not a healthy place for any young child to be. If you guessed that climate change alarmism is at the core of the reason, you’re correct. It turns out that India has its own Greta Thunberg.
Licypriya Kangujam is a young girl in India who, like Greta, is spreading adult talking points on climate change. Like Greta, Licypriya is coached by her father, an activist himself. But do not call her the Greta Thunberg of India because she will not be happy. She explained that she was the first child scold on climate change, not Greta, in a thread on Twitter.
Dear Media,
Stop calling me “Greta of India”. I am not doing my activism to looks like Greta Thunberg. Yes, she is one of our Inspiration & great influencer. We have common goal but I have my own identity, story. I began my movement since July 2018 even before Greta was started. pic.twitter.com/3UEqCVWYM8 — Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) January 27, 2020
I first raised my voice to world leaders in Mongolia 🇲🇳 in an UN event in July 4, 2018. Since then I started my movement called “Child Movement”. In Hindi, we called it “Bachpan Andolan” to call our world leaders to take immediate climate action. pic.twitter.com/79IQzQm2Sn — Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) January 27, 2020
I even dropped out my school since February 2019 (before Grade 1 final exam) when I was just 7 years old due to my protests every week in front of the Parliament House of India. I sacrificed so much of my life in this tender age is not to called me “Greta of India”. — Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) January 27, 2020
It sounds like she’s irritated that Greta is hogging all the publicity, doesn’t it? Not only does she say she’s the original child protester over climate change but she also does it weekly, as Greta has promoted with her Fridays for Future. Licypriya says she began in July 2018, where as Greta officially began her protesting in August 2018. So, apparently she had a one month jump on Greta. She notes that she is sacrificing “so much” that she doesn’t want to be called the “Greta of India”. Twitter didn’t take kindly to Licypriya speaking up for herself and it suspended her account. It was a temporary action, though, and her account was quickly restored.
After the suspension was lifted, Kangujam said her posts weren’t abusive nor “against anyone.” “I just used Greta name as to stop calling me ‘Greta of India’ by some media for my activities. My post had over 1.9 million views in the last 2 days with over 135,000 likes and over 29,000 shares,” she told WION. She also doubts that her age was a factor behind her suspension.
Her mission is to get the attention of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and hold him to his word that he is a champion of clean energy. She wants India to follow through on pledges made in support of the 2015 climate change agreement. Like Greta, she is full of doom and gloom that adults have already ruined the planet. “It is already too late.”
Her conviction won over even U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres at COP25, but Licypriya came away from the experience frustrated. “I heard many speeches from our leaders. … ‘We will do this and that … we will, we will, we will.’” She stops and looks at her father. Finally, the child in her makes a cameo — she has lost her train of thought and what they had written down prior to our meeting. Her father prompts her in their native Manipuri language. “But in the end, the conference failed. It was such a waste of time and money,” she quickly remembers.
I was glad to meet 8-year-old @LicypriyaK at #COP25 today. Her presence reminds us of our obligations to future generations. Hers is the generation for which we have to take urgent #ClimateAction. pic.twitter.com/Z9UBvqsfnC — António Guterres (@antonioguterres) December 12, 2019
She’s worried about clean water supplies and wants climate change education to be mandatory in schools. Her father is Dr. KK Singh, a local youth activist. He says that at age four, his daughter was captivated with a friend of his, K Abdul Ghani (aka the Green Man of India). That is when she fell prey to climate change propaganda. She hit the global summit circuit.
At age 6, she participated in the Third Asian Ministerial Conference for Disaster Reduction in Mongolia. She came home to start the Child Movement, to call on world leaders to take urgent climate action. She’s become a regular on the global summit circuit, visiting 21 countries so far, and has racked up awards, including the India Peace Prize. At age 7, she organized Africa’s biggest climate protest in Luanda, the capital of Angola, where 50,000 other children joined her.
She holds weekly protests in front of Parliament of India and because of her active participation in protesting, she has dropped out of school. She’s eight years old. Instead of her parents and the child being heralded as heroes of the climate change movement, stories should point out that this is a form of child abuse, at least that is the opinion of many adults. Her father has his own history of making headlines with activism.
Back in 2016, Manipur’s Imphal Free Press reported that Singh had been arrested for impersonating a U.N. official, though no one seems to know what happened to the case.
She is seeing some success. Two states in India have made climate change a mandatory subject in school curriculums.
Its official now! Gujarat will be the second state in India 🇮🇳 after Rajasthan to include climate change as a compulsory subject in the school education curriculum after my request. Yes! Activism works! ✊🏻 pic.twitter.com/RfgxrR02gB — Licypriya Kangujam (@LicypriyaK) February 3, 2020
Licypriya says she will go back to school in April. Let’s hope so.
Even as her activism accelerates, Licypriya plans to return to school in April. “I want to become a space scientist — build a rocket and go to the moon,” she says. Her reason speaks to the urgency of her mission. “At this rate, by the time I grow up, Earth will be uninhabitable.”
Perhaps someone should let the child know that a postive message is more inspiring than doom and gloom. Instead of painting a picture of hopelessness, she could be inspiring her generation with ways in which they can make a difference. But first, she should go back to school and her parents should let her be a kid for a while. Turning a four year old into an activist is child abuse.