hotair--2020-01-11--PuppyGate: PETA comes for AOC... and her little dog, too

It ’ s tough being an attention-seeking freshman lawmaker , as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez is finding out .
This week two negative stories about her made headlines .
AOC is feeling the wrath of some of her fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives because she isn ’ t paying dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee .
She is doing her own thing , not following traditional party guidelines on fundraising , and that should not be a surprise to anyone .
AOC isn ’ t a team player – just ask Speaker Pelosi .
Sandy from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice of Harry S. Truman .
Truman famously said , “ You want a friend in Washington ?
Get a dog.
” So , she did .
She made an announcement on Instagram ( where else ? )
that she is the proud owner of a French Bulldog .
People love puppies so the response was mostly positive .
Will she bring the dog to work ?
That was one of the questions from a supporter .
This little pup is being raised by a socialist , so now it is the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pup ” .
It takes a village , you know .
She wants to subject the little dog to town hall meetings .
Now that ’ s cruelty .
The puppy looks like a purebred French Bulldog but AOC never claimed as much .
She also didn ’ t specifically say where the dog came from .
It didn ’ t take long for PETA to weigh in .
The animal rights organization is not pleased with AOC ’ s choice .
She should have chosen a rescue dog from an animal shelter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
This assumes that the dog is a purebred and that it didn ’ t come from a shelter .
The full letter to AOC didn ’ t pull any punches .
Also , PETA is against crate training and didn ’ t appreciate AOC talking about the puppy being put in one overnight .
They sent along a book to explain their objections to her .
On Wednesday , she posted on her Instgram story about her pup ’ s “ hard ” first night at home .
“ it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all new people , in an all-new place .
The humans are happy but the pup can be sad or scared , ” she wrote .
She continued : “ Our pup ( who shall be named ) became very attached to us on the rid home , and would whimper every time I went to bed for longer than 10-15 minutes .
So I spent the night next to his crate , and he didn ’ t whimper again .
We won ’ t make it a habit , but the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The good news is that he really enjoys his crate !
He ’ s made it his own little bedroom , moves the blankets around , and goes there to hang out on his own.
” She also posted about the ups and downs of house-training her French bulldog : “ He ’ d much rather stay in where it ’ s warm and dry !
But he ’ s improving quickly , ” she wrote on her Story on Wednesday .
The full letter from PETA goes into detail about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaks to the thousands of homeless dogs waiting for homes .
We really couldn ’ t believe our eyes , because you are a role model for how to live , so we understand that you just didn ’ t realize what you were doing in this case—you couldn ’ t have .
With the millions of homeless dogs out there , you apparently chose to buy a purebred puppy instead of adopting one from an animal shelter .
Right this minute , on Petfinder alone , there are more than 110,000 dogs—including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are bursting at the seams with hundreds of thousands more , many of whom will be “ put to sleep ” for lack of a home .
French bulldogs are inbred in order to produce “ breed-specific traits , ” which cause health problems that many people who will be influenced by your purchase won ’ t be able to afford to address .
They are particularly at risk because their “ cute ” features plague them with a lifetime of breathing problems ( you may have seen the media uproar this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s MRI went viral ) , ear and eye infections , skin irritation , a weak stomach , and other issues—all “ man-made.
” I don ’ t have an argument with any of that .
It ’ s all true .
Lots of people want specific breeds , though , and in a perfect world the dogs would be purebreeds in need of homes from an animal shelter .
Some rescue shelters even specialize in specific breeds – German Shepherd rescue facilities , for example .
I ’ m biased – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t purchase them from breeders or pet shops .
PETA wants AOC to use her huge presence on social media to promote shelter adoptions .
She has 6.1M followers on Twitter and 4.1M followers on Instagram .
She could influence a lot of people .
PETA does , rightly , say that purebred dogs are found at animal shelters .
PETA just assumes hers didn ’ t come from one .
Now , though , that puppy needs a name .
She ’ s asking for suggestions .
Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ social good related ” one .
Oh brother .
PETA is known for strong stances .
Whether it is over a street name that references fried chicken , or bringing live animals on television talk shows , PETA makes their opinion clear .
The important part of the story is that a puppy who needed a home has received one .
That ’ s a good thing .

It’s tough being an attention-seeking freshman lawmaker, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez is finding out. This week two negative stories about her made headlines.
AOC is feeling the wrath of some of her fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives because she isn’t paying dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She is doing her own thing, not following traditional party guidelines on fundraising, and that should not be a surprise to anyone. AOC isn’t a team player – just ask Speaker Pelosi.
Sandy from the Bronx is, however, taking the advice of Harry S. Truman. Truman famously said, “You want a friend in Washington? Get a dog.” So, she did. She made an announcement on Instagram (where else?) that she is the proud owner of a French Bulldog. People love puppies so the response was mostly positive. Will she bring the dog to work? That was one of the questions from a supporter.
Yes! 🐶 the goal is to train him to be a community pup. Ideally we want to work to the point where he can enjoy town halls, be an Amtrak pup, come to the office, etc. But first, naps 😴 pic.twitter.com/ec8beJTrmZ — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 7, 2020
This little pup is being raised by a socialist, so now it is the people’s pup – “a community pup”. It takes a village, you know. She wants to subject the little dog to town hall meetings. Now that’s cruelty. The puppy looks like a purebred French Bulldog but AOC never claimed as much. She also didn’t specifically say where the dog came from. It didn’t take long for PETA to weigh in. The animal rights organization is not pleased with AOC’s choice. She should have chosen a rescue dog from an animal shelter instead of a purebred dog, they say. This assumes that the dog is a purebred and that it didn’t come from a shelter.
With millions of dogs, including Frenchies, homeless in shelter cages waiting for homes, @AOC’s choice to publicize getting a purebred puppy is disappointing.
As a person who fights for justice, we doubt she could’ve realized the implications. Adoption is the ONLY option. pic.twitter.com/CiptDEaZmu — PETA (@peta) January 10, 2020
The full letter to AOC didn’t pull any punches. Also, PETA is against crate training and didn’t appreciate AOC talking about the puppy being put in one overnight. They sent along a book to explain their objections to her.
On Wednesday, she posted on her Instgram story about her pup’s “hard” first night at home. “it’s their first night away, with all new people, in an all-new place. The humans are happy but the pup can be sad or scared,” she wrote. She continued: “Our pup (who shall be named) became very attached to us on the rid home, and would whimper every time I went to bed for longer than 10-15 minutes. So I spent the night next to his crate, and he didn’t whimper again. We won’t make it a habit, but the first night or two is usually an exception. The good news is that he really enjoys his crate! He’s made it his own little bedroom, moves the blankets around, and goes there to hang out on his own.” She also posted about the ups and downs of house-training her French bulldog: “He’d much rather stay in where it’s warm and dry! But he’s improving quickly,” she wrote on her Story on Wednesday.
The full letter from PETA goes into detail about the physical consequences of breeding purebred dogs and speaks to the thousands of homeless dogs waiting for homes.
We really couldn’t believe our eyes, because you are a role model for how to live, so we understand that you just didn’t realize what you were doing in this case—you couldn’t have. With the millions of homeless dogs out there, you apparently chose to buy a purebred puppy instead of adopting one from an animal shelter. Right this minute, on Petfinder alone, there are more than 110,000 dogs—including French bulldogs—who need homes. Animal shelters are bursting at the seams with hundreds of thousands more, many of whom will be “put to sleep” for lack of a home. French bulldogs are inbred in order to produce “breed-specific traits,” which cause health problems that many people who will be influenced by your purchase won’t be able to afford to address. They are particularly at risk because their “cute” features plague them with a lifetime of breathing problems (you may have seen the media uproar this week after a disturbing photo of a pug’s MRI went viral), ear and eye infections, skin irritation, a weak stomach, and other issues—all “man-made.”
I don’t have an argument with any of that. It’s all true. Lots of people want specific breeds, though, and in a perfect world the dogs would be purebreeds in need of homes from an animal shelter. Some rescue shelters even specialize in specific breeds – German Shepherd rescue facilities, for example. I’m biased – we rescue animals in my family, we don’t purchase them from breeders or pet shops.
PETA wants AOC to use her huge presence on social media to promote shelter adoptions. She has 6.1M followers on Twitter and 4.1M followers on Instagram. She could influence a lot of people. PETA does, rightly, say that purebred dogs are found at animal shelters. PETA just assumes hers didn’t come from one.
Now, though, that puppy needs a name. She’s asking for suggestions. Let’s hope she doesn’t choose a “social good related” one. Oh brother.
“He doesn’t have a name yet!” she wrote in a later Instagram Story update, asking for suggestions from her followers. “We are thinking something Star Trek related or Bronx/Queens/NYC/social good related.”
PETA is known for strong stances. Whether it is over a street name that references fried chicken, or bringing live animals on television talk shows, PETA makes their opinion clear.
The important part of the story is that a puppy who needed a home has received one. That’s a good thing.


hotair--2020-01-11--Pentagon attempts to explain why they keep changing their story on UFOs

Regular readers are already aware of the frustration many of us , particularly journalists , have experienced when trying to get information out of the Pentagon on the subject of UFOs ( or “ UAPs , ” Unidentified Aerial/Aerospace Phenomena ) encountered by our military .
It ’ s not just the secrecy , as a certain amount of that is expected , particularly if there are any sensitive American military programs involved .
The bigger problem is the way they actually do provide some answers but almost invariably wind up contradicting what other departments tell us or , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The key person at the Pentagon who is supposed to be responsible for answering all questions regarding the AATIP program and UFOs , in general , is spokesperson Susan Gough .
She has directly contradicted both herself and other agencies such as the Office of Naval Intelligence ( ONI ) on multiple occasions .
Ms. Gough apparently noticed the number of us pointing out these inconsistencies and decided on Friday to send out something by way of explanation .
A copy of her statement was obtained by research expert John Greenewald at The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key portion .
Myself and my predecessors in my office , as well as our colleagues in the Defense Intelligence Agency and elsewhere in the department , have done our best to provide you and others asking about AATIP the most accurate information we had available to us at the time we responded to your questions .
Questions about AATIP have continued ever since this past Spring , becoming more focused and asking for details beyond what was readily available on a program that ended nearly eight years ago , especially as people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved to other positions or left the department .
As we conducted research to try to answer the continuing questions , we sometimes uncovered new information that changed some of our previous responses .
When responding to subsequent queries , we used the new information in our responses to be as accurate as possible with what we now knew.
” Without injecting any more snark than is absolutely required , allow me to try to translate this memo from military to civilian .
What Ms. Gough seems to be saying is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago and many of the people involved in it have moved on .
So when we ask her questions , she tells us what is known .
But sometimes , the Pentagon learns new information so they issue new , contradictory statements based on this “ new information.
” Pardon my saying , but I think we still have some questions , Madam .
As you point out , the program ended eight years ago .
Did nobody keep any records ?
Speaking as someone with direct experience in both the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report that very little ever goes on in that world without meticulous , frequently mind-numbing records being stored .
When you found out that the New York Times piece was about to drop in December of 2017 , did nobody go back and review those records so the Pentagon could get its story straight and determine what information should be made available to the public ?
Even if we are to assume that “ new information ” keeps somehow popping up , the expanse of some of the discrepancies we ’ ve observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few memos that were missed originally .
For two years you told us that AATIP was created to study these UFOs .
And then suddenly , one day in December , you discovered some “ new information ” indicating that the program was never even about UFOs in the first place ?
We would dearly love to know what new information revealed that gem , particularly when you consider that Harry Reid ( the guy who originally started AATIP ) came out the same day and said you were wrong .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told us that the three , brief , grainy videos released over the past two years are the only ones in existence .
And yet , just this week , the Office of Naval Intelligence came out and said they had another one , but they couldn ’ t release it because it still hadn ’ t been declassified .
Is this more “ new information ” that you didn ’ t previously have ?
And if so , will you be confirming it ?
Correct me if I ’ m wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon/DoD , isn ’ t it ?
Didn ’ t anyone think to ask them about this previously ?
I ’ d love to be more generous and assume that the Pentagon isn ’ t simply lying to us on a regular basis .
But the only other explanation is that everyone up there is basically clueless and the left hand doesn ’ t know what the right one is doing .
And these are the people who are supposed to keep us safe .
If that ’ s the case , it @ @ @ @ @ @

Regular readers are already aware of the frustration many of us, particularly journalists, have experienced when trying to get information out of the Pentagon on the subject of UFOs (or “UAPs,” Unidentified Aerial/Aerospace Phenomena) encountered by our military. It’s not just the secrecy, as a certain amount of that is expected, particularly if there are any sensitive American military programs involved. The bigger problem is the way they actually do provide some answers but almost invariably wind up contradicting what other departments tell us or, more often, their own previous statements.
The key person at the Pentagon who is supposed to be responsible for answering all questions regarding the AATIP program and UFOs, in general, is spokesperson Susan Gough. She has directly contradicted both herself and other agencies such as the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) on multiple occasions. Ms. Gough apparently noticed the number of us pointing out these inconsistencies and decided on Friday to send out something by way of explanation. A copy of her statement was obtained by research expert John Greenewald at The Black Vault. Here’s the key portion.
Myself and my predecessors in my office, as well as our colleagues in the Defense Intelligence Agency and elsewhere in the department, have done our best to provide you and others asking about AATIP the most accurate information we had available to us at the time we responded to your questions. Questions about AATIP have continued ever since this past Spring, becoming more focused and asking for details beyond what was readily available on a program that ended nearly eight years ago, especially as people who had direct knowledge of AATIP have moved to other positions or left the department. As we conducted research to try to answer the continuing questions, we sometimes uncovered new information that changed some of our previous responses. When responding to subsequent queries, we used the new information in our responses to be as accurate as possible with what we now knew.”
Without injecting any more snark than is absolutely required, allow me to try to translate this memo from military to civilian. What Ms. Gough seems to be saying is that the program (AATIP) ended roughly eight years ago and many of the people involved in it have moved on. So when we ask her questions, she tells us what is known. But sometimes, the Pentagon learns new information so they issue new, contradictory statements based on this “new information.”
Pardon my saying, but I think we still have some questions, Madam.
As you point out, the program ended eight years ago. Did nobody keep any records? Speaking as someone with direct experience in both the military and government work, I can reliably report that very little ever goes on in that world without meticulous, frequently mind-numbing records being stored. When you found out that the New York Times piece was about to drop in December of 2017, did nobody go back and review those records so the Pentagon could get its story straight and determine what information should be made available to the public?
Even if we are to assume that “new information” keeps somehow popping up, the expanse of some of the discrepancies we’ve observed can’t plausibly be explained by a few memos that were missed originally. For two years you told us that AATIP was created to study these UFOs. And then suddenly, one day in December, you discovered some “new information” indicating that the program was never even about UFOs in the first place? We would dearly love to know what new information revealed that gem, particularly when you consider that Harry Reid (the guy who originally started AATIP) came out the same day and said you were wrong.
For another example, you’ve consistently told us that the three, brief, grainy videos released over the past two years are the only ones in existence. And yet, just this week, the Office of Naval Intelligence came out and said they had another one, but they couldn’t release it because it still hadn’t been declassified. Is this more “new information” that you didn’t previously have? And if so, will you be confirming it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the ONI is part of the Pentagon/DoD, isn’t it? Didn’t anyone think to ask them about this previously?
I’d love to be more generous and assume that the Pentagon isn’t simply lying to us on a regular basis. But the only other explanation is that everyone up there is basically clueless and the left hand doesn’t know what the right one is doing. And these are the people who are supposed to keep us safe. If that’s the case, it’s pretty darned alarming.


hotair--2020-01-11--NFL divisional championships, round 1 open thread. The Brady dunk edition

Jazz : I suppose the second half of the wildcard weekend went a bit better than the first .
I managed to break even and go 1-1 , bringing my postseason record to a less than impressive 1-3 .
But it was at least good enough to have me writing the first NFL post this weekend .
Can I scrape and claw my way back to a second trophy for the season ?
Time will tell .
What ’ s probably more interesting is whether or not Tom Brady will be wearing a helmet next season or a headset as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage networks .
Somehow I kind of doubt he wants to go out on a sour note like the one he rang up last week .
Ed : I too went 1-3 on opening weekend , thanks to surprising wins by the Vikings and Titans , and a not-so-surprising-to-anyone-but-me win by the Seahawks .
( That ’ s the last time I listen to Jake Tapper on a football pick . )
Now that we ’ re in the divisional playoffs , there should be fewer surprises .
Or should there ?
Jazz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vikings traveling to San Francisco to challenge the 49ers ( 4:35 pm , NBC ) .
If you look at this game strictly on paper , the outcome is obvious .
The Vikings have put in one heck of a season , but now they ’ re running into the buzzsaw that ’ s been the 49ers all year .
San Francisco scored way more points all season than Minnesota , while both allowed roughly the same amount on defense .
Vegas has the 49ers as a favorite by a touchdown .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be full of surprises so far and the rollercoaster ride isn ’ t over yet .
Minnesota ’ s defense has more playoff experience and they ’ ve been surging in the last third of the season .
Vegas be darned , I ’ m going with the upset .
Vikings over 49ers 27-21 .
The late game has the Titans heading to Charm City to take on the Ravens ( 8:15 pm , CBS ) .
Tennessee has been pulling off a series of miracles to get where they are now and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now they ’ re up against Lamar Jackson and there just doesn ’ t seem to be a solution to that puzzle for anyone this year .
Tennessee has done a great job and they deserve serious props for making it this far given the low expectations that were set for them at the beginning of the season , but this is the end of the road .
Somebody may stop Baltimore before the end , but it won ’ t be Tennessee .
Ravens over Titans 34-17 .
Ed : Jazz thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 49ers , but I just don ’ t see how .
San Francisco won its two final games and three of its last four , including wins over playoff-bound teams like the Saints and Seahawks — both on the road , by the way .
Coming off a bye at home , they ’ re now pretty healthy , while two of Minnesota ’ s receivers got limited practice time this week .
Stephon Diggs was sick but Adam Thielen injured his ankle and is questionable for today ’ s game .
Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only has a middling rush defense , so the Vikings should be able to make it close .
Overall , though , the 49ers have the second-ranked defense in the league this year and # 1 against the pass .
They also have the fourth-ranked offense overall , and score four more points a game than Minnesota .
49ers 30-23 over the Vikings , but I wouldn ’ t mind being proven wrong in this case .
Again .
I ’ d be a little more receptive to the idea of a Titans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a stretch too .
Tennessee is a gutsy team and the Ravens are perhaps at risk for coming out flat after their bye week , but … this is a team that hasn ’ t lost since getting stunned by the then-competitive Browns in week 4 .
Their only other loss was to the Chiefs the week previous to that , and they ’ ve won twelve straight games since .
In that streak , the Ravens have beaten the following playoff teams : Seahawks on the road , Patriots at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home , and the Bills on the road .
Other than their playoff win last week and a throwaway game against Houston the week before when the Texans sat their starters , Tennessee ’ s only win against a playoff team this year was against the Chiefs when Patrick Mahomes was dinged up .
The Ravens are just too much for the Titans on both sides of the ball .
Ravens 35-20 over the Titans .

Jazz: I suppose the second half of the wildcard weekend went a bit better than the first. I managed to break even and go 1-1, bringing my postseason record to a less than impressive 1-3. But it was at least good enough to have me writing the first NFL post this weekend. Can I scrape and claw my way back to a second trophy for the season? Time will tell. What’s probably more interesting is whether or not Tom Brady will be wearing a helmet next season or a headset as a commentator for one of the sports coverage networks. Somehow I kind of doubt he wants to go out on a sour note like the one he rang up last week.
Ed: I too went 1-3 on opening weekend, thanks to surprising wins by the Vikings and Titans, and a not-so-surprising-to-anyone-but-me win by the Seahawks. (That’s the last time I listen to Jake Tapper on a football pick.) Now that we’re in the divisional playoffs, there should be fewer surprises. Or should there?
Jazz: Our first game today sees the Vikings traveling to San Francisco to challenge the 49ers (4:35 pm, NBC). If you look at this game strictly on paper, the outcome is obvious. The Vikings have put in one heck of a season, but now they’re running into the buzzsaw that’s been the 49ers all year. San Francisco scored way more points all season than Minnesota, while both allowed roughly the same amount on defense. Vegas has the 49ers as a favorite by a touchdown. But this postseason has been turning out to be full of surprises so far and the rollercoaster ride isn’t over yet. Minnesota’s defense has more playoff experience and they’ve been surging in the last third of the season. Vegas be darned, I’m going with the upset. Vikings over 49ers 27-21.
The late game has the Titans heading to Charm City to take on the Ravens (8:15 pm, CBS). Tennessee has been pulling off a series of miracles to get where they are now and they deserve plenty of credit. But now they’re up against Lamar Jackson and there just doesn’t seem to be a solution to that puzzle for anyone this year. Tennessee has done a great job and they deserve serious props for making it this far given the low expectations that were set for them at the beginning of the season, but this is the end of the road. Somebody may stop Baltimore before the end, but it won’t be Tennessee. Ravens over Titans 34-17.
Ed: Jazz thinks the Vikings are going to surprise the 49ers, but I just don’t see how. San Francisco won its two final games and three of its last four, including wins over playoff-bound teams like the Saints and Seahawks — both on the road, by the way. Coming off a bye at home, they’re now pretty healthy, while two of Minnesota’s receivers got limited practice time this week. Stephon Diggs was sick but Adam Thielen injured his ankle and is questionable for today’s game. Minnesota has Dalvin Cook healthy and San Francisco only has a middling rush defense, so the Vikings should be able to make it close. Overall, though, the 49ers have the second-ranked defense in the league this year and #1 against the pass. They also have the fourth-ranked offense overall, and score four more points a game than Minnesota. 49ers 30-23 over the Vikings, but I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong in this case. Again.
I’d be a little more receptive to the idea of a Titans upset over the Ravens, but that’s a stretch too. Tennessee is a gutsy team and the Ravens are perhaps at risk for coming out flat after their bye week, but … this is a team that hasn’t lost since getting stunned by the then-competitive Browns in week 4. Their only other loss was to the Chiefs the week previous to that, and they’ve won twelve straight games since. In that streak, the Ravens have beaten the following playoff teams: Seahawks on the road, Patriots at home, Texans at home, 49ers at home, and the Bills on the road. Other than their playoff win last week and a throwaway game against Houston the week before when the Texans sat their starters, Tennessee’s only win against a playoff team this year was against the Chiefs when Patrick Mahomes was dinged up. The Ravens are just too much for the Titans on both sides of the ball. Ravens 35-20 over the Titans.


hotair--2020-01-11--Officials tell WaPo: We don't know what Trump means when he says Soleimani was plotting against four

Officials tell WaPo: We don't know what Trump means when he says Soleimani was plotting against four of our embassies

Hard to believe , and not just because he ’ s prone to exaggerating numbers .
( Case in point , he repeated his standard claim on Twitter this morning that he ’ s at 53 percent job approval even though no poll , including Trump-friendly Rasmussen , has him north of 50 . )
Hitting four U.S. embassies would have been an unambiguous act of war by Iran inviting major U.S. retaliation .
Even if they had farmed out the dirty work to proxies like Hezbollah , the number of attacks would have made it obvious that Iran had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that Iran wants all-out engagement with the U.S. military ?
If they do , why didn ’ t they seize on Soleimani ’ s killing to do something meaningful last week to kill Americans instead of those dry-bite missile strikes on Iraqi air bases ?
WaPo wondered too and started working the phones to try to find evidence that four embassies were in the crosshairs .
No dice .
But a senior administration official and a senior defense official , speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a plot against the embassy in Baghdad and that the information did not suggest a fully formed plot .
Neither official said there were threats against multiple embassies .
The senior defense official did not directly contradict Trump but said there was concern that there might be an attempt to place a bomb at the Baghdad embassy , a heavily fortified structure in a secure area of the Iraqi capital… The embassy in Baghdad did not receive an alert commensurate to the threat Trump described , said a person familiar with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment publicly .
When the U.S. government has specific information about threats to embassies , warnings or alerts are often sent to embassy personnel to be vigilant .
That ’ s not all .
U.S. diplomats weren ’ t warned to avoid travel to Iraq before the Soleimani strike , at a time when the supposed plot against the embassies presumably would have been known to U.S. intelligence : WaPo asked senators who attended this week ’ s briefing with Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel whether they heard anything there about four embassies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Had they presented threats about four embassies , there would have been a very different disposition from senators coming out of that briefing , ” Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told the paper .
Mike Lee and Rand Paul also walked out of the briefing on Thursday claiming that they ’ d heard nothing impressive intelligence-wise to support the administration ’ s claims of a major threat .
As I write this at 2 p.m .
ET , I ’ m unaware of any Republicans in Congress corroborating the claim that multiple embassies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , Pompeo was asked yesterday at a press conference if he had any specific information he could share to substantiate the claim that Soleimani was planning an “ imminent ” attack .
We knew it would happen imminently , he insisted , but we didn ’ t know precisely when or where — although he did include “ U.S .
embassies ” as part of the potential targets : That gets us back to the original question .
If Iran is so hot for war with America that they were on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region , why ’ d they pull their punches in retaliating for Soleimani ?
Either Pompeo ’ s exaggerating about the threat or the regime has hit pause for the moment while the IRGC regroups .
War will come in that case .
It ’ s just on a new timetable .
The irony of Trump chattering about a vague threat is that this would otherwise seem like a perfect “ Colonel Jessup ” moment for him .
Did you order the code red on Soleimani because he was an evil bastard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. won ’ t be pushed around after that assault on the embassy in Baghdad ?
You ’ re g-ddamned right I did .
That explanation would have been “ problematic ” inasmuch as he needs some shred of an “ imminent ” threat to justify acting without approval from Congress .
But c ’ mon .
What ’ s Congress going to do at this late stage of decline in its authority if Trump had said , “ I did it because Soleimani had it coming ” ?
In lieu of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of hair-raising propaganda being circulated by the IRGC .
If Iran can ’ t wound the Great Satan , it can at least fantasize .

The president, yesterday:
https://twitter.com/SeanCordicon/status/1215779863338110977
Hard to believe, and not just because he’s prone to exaggerating numbers. (Case in point, he repeated his standard claim on Twitter this morning that he’s at 53 percent job approval even though no poll, including Trump-friendly Rasmussen, has him north of 50.) Hitting four U.S. embassies would have been an unambiguous act of war by Iran inviting major U.S. retaliation. Even if they had farmed out the dirty work to proxies like Hezbollah, the number of attacks would have made it obvious that Iran had coordinated the operation.
Is there any evidence that Iran wants all-out engagement with the U.S. military? If they do, why didn’t they seize on Soleimani’s killing to do something meaningful last week to kill Americans instead of those dry-bite missile strikes on Iraqi air bases?
WaPo wondered too and started working the phones to try to find evidence that four embassies were in the crosshairs. No dice.
But a senior administration official and a senior defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information, said they were only aware of vague intelligence about a plot against the embassy in Baghdad and that the information did not suggest a fully formed plot. Neither official said there were threats against multiple embassies. The senior defense official did not directly contradict Trump but said there was concern that there might be an attempt to place a bomb at the Baghdad embassy, a heavily fortified structure in a secure area of the Iraqi capital… The embassy in Baghdad did not receive an alert commensurate to the threat Trump described, said a person familiar with the situation, who was not authorized to comment publicly. When the U.S. government has specific information about threats to embassies, warnings or alerts are often sent to embassy personnel to be vigilant.
That’s not all. U.S. diplomats weren’t warned to avoid travel to Iraq before the Soleimani strike, at a time when the supposed plot against the embassies presumably would have been known to U.S. intelligence:
5. Holmgren also adds: "An imminent threat of attack should have triggered the Intelligence Community's Duty to Warn obligations or the State Department’s No Double Standard Policy and resulted in some type of public alert." — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) January 11, 2020
WaPo asked senators who attended this week’s briefing with Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel whether they heard anything there about four embassies. Nope, said several Democrats. “Had they presented threats about four embassies, there would have been a very different disposition from senators coming out of that briefing,” Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told the paper. Mike Lee and Rand Paul also walked out of the briefing on Thursday claiming that they’d heard nothing impressive intelligence-wise to support the administration’s claims of a major threat. As I write this at 2 p.m. ET, I’m unaware of any Republicans in Congress corroborating the claim that multiple embassies were at risk.
On the other hand, Pompeo was asked yesterday at a press conference if he had any specific information he could share to substantiate the claim that Soleimani was planning an “imminent” attack. We knew it would happen imminently, he insisted, but we didn’t know precisely when or where — although he did include “U.S. embassies” as part of the potential targets:
Pompeo insists the ideas that Soleimani presented an "imminent" threat but the administration doesn't know when or where he planned to strike are "completely consistent thoughts." pic.twitter.com/7LDFR7zcVU — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 10, 2020
That gets us back to the original question. If Iran is so hot for war with America that they were on the brink of attacking multiple U.S. facilities across the region, why’d they pull their punches in retaliating for Soleimani? Either Pompeo’s exaggerating about the threat or the regime has hit pause for the moment while the IRGC regroups. War will come in that case. It’s just on a new timetable.
The irony of Trump chattering about a vague threat is that this would otherwise seem like a perfect “Colonel Jessup” moment for him. Did you order the code red on Soleimani because he was an evil bastard and you wanted to show that the U.S. won’t be pushed around after that assault on the embassy in Baghdad? You’re g-ddamned right I did.
That explanation would have been “problematic” inasmuch as he needs some shred of an “imminent” threat to justify acting without approval from Congress. But c’mon. What’s Congress going to do at this late stage of decline in its authority if Trump had said, “I did it because Soleimani had it coming”?
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a bit of hair-raising propaganda being circulated by the IRGC. If Iran can’t wound the Great Satan, it can at least fantasize.


hotair--2020-01-11--Hmmm: Iranian national arrested near Mar-A-Lago with machete, pickaxe, $22K in cash

A covert attempt to stage a retaliatory assassination ?
Or just a case of Florida-By-Way-Of-Tehran Man ?
I know which way I ’ m betting , but the Secret Service gets paid to not place bets or take chances : Police in Palm Beach , Florida , arrested an Iranian man carrying weapons and cash not far from President Trump ’ s Mar-a-Lago resort on Friday .
The man , an Iranian national identified as Masoud Yareilzoleh , was arrested after Palm Beach police received a call about a suspicious person .
When they caught up to the man , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pickax and two knives along with $ 22,000 in cash .
Police also searched a car associated with Yareilzoleh at Palm Beach International Airport .
The arrest happened near the Flagler Memorial Bridge , about four miles from the president ’ s Mar-a-Lago , although Mr. Trump was not there at the time .
Other reports note that Yareilzoleh has legal residence in the US , so he ’ s not a visitor , but … this seems very strange .
He had a ton of cash on him , but he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ park .
He has legal status in the US , but he ’ s got a car parked at the airport while he ’ s sleeping under a bridge .
And let ’ s not forget about walking around with a machete and other weapons , too , which isn ’ t exactly de rigueur in the US , no matter what the media might think .
Although if I was planning to camp out in a public park with $ 22,000 in my pocket , maybe I ’ d carry a machete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternately , maybe I ’ d find a Motel 6 or even splurge on a Residence Inn .
Or , hey , maybe a room at Mar-A-Lago !
Maybe I ’ d only have $ 21,000 after that , but at least I ’ d get a shower and bed with a roof over it .
So yeah , this looks very suspicious .
However , what are the odds that the Iranians sent Mr. Sleep-In-Gazebo for a covert mission to take out the president ?
One would assume that such operatives would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with their surroundings , rather than scare the normals by sacking out in a public park .
They would send a team , keep the cash hidden , and know to get themselves a room , although not at Mar-A-Lago .
Those are the kinds of threats that the Secret Service must be working overtime to prevent and/or uncover .
The feds are checking into Yareilzoleh , of course , at least for due diligence .
The local police don ’ t think this is a national-security case : Officer Michael Ogrodnick told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parked at Palm Beach International Airport and that federal authorities were collaborating in an investigation .
… Yareilzoleh was in the country legally and did not pose a national threat , the officer said , though an investigation is ongoing .
“ This is not a national security threat–absolutely not , ” Ogrodnick said .
Is this just a case of mental illness , unrelated to Trump at all ?
Perhaps , but that seems very coincidental , especially with the cash , the car at the airport , and the proximity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many mentally-ill homeless walk around with twenty-two large in cash , at least not for long , nor do they have cars parked at the airport .
Perhaps this is a lone-wolf case , or maybe he had something else entirely in mind .
It seems pretty far-fetched as a master-plan plot , but it seems a bit premature to write the threat off entirely .

A covert attempt to stage a retaliatory assassination? Or just a case of Florida-By-Way-Of-Tehran Man? I know which way I’m betting, but the Secret Service gets paid to not place bets or take chances:
Police in Palm Beach, Florida, arrested an Iranian man carrying weapons and cash not far from President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on Friday. The man, an Iranian national identified as Masoud Yareilzoleh, was arrested after Palm Beach police received a call about a suspicious person. When they caught up to the man, they said he had a machete, pickax and two knives along with $22,000 in cash. Police also searched a car associated with Yareilzoleh at Palm Beach International Airport. The arrest happened near the Flagler Memorial Bridge, about four miles from the president’s Mar-a-Lago, although Mr. Trump was not there at the time.
Other reports note that Yareilzoleh has legal residence in the US, so he’s not a visitor, but … this seems very strange. He had a ton of cash on him, but he was sleeping in a gazebo in a public park. He has legal status in the US, but he’s got a car parked at the airport while he’s sleeping under a bridge. And let’s not forget about walking around with a machete and other weapons, too, which isn’t exactly de rigueur in the US, no matter what the media might think.
Although if I was planning to camp out in a public park with $22,000 in my pocket, maybe I’d carry a machete around with me too. Or, alternately, maybe I’d find a Motel 6 or even splurge on a Residence Inn. Or, hey, maybe a room at Mar-A-Lago! Maybe I’d only have $21,000 after that, but at least I’d get a shower and bed with a roof over it.
So yeah, this looks very suspicious. However, what are the odds that the Iranians sent Mr. Sleep-In-Gazebo for a covert mission to take out the president? One would assume that such operatives would take steps to blend in a bit with their surroundings, rather than scare the normals by sacking out in a public park. They would send a team, keep the cash hidden, and know to get themselves a room, although not at Mar-A-Lago. Those are the kinds of threats that the Secret Service must be working overtime to prevent and/or uncover.
The feds are checking into Yareilzoleh, of course, at least for due diligence. The local police don’t think this is a national-security case:
Officer Michael Ogrodnick told the outlet the man had a car parked at Palm Beach International Airport and that federal authorities were collaborating in an investigation. … Yareilzoleh was in the country legally and did not pose a national threat, the officer said, though an investigation is ongoing. “This is not a national security threat–absolutely not,” Ogrodnick said.
Is this just a case of mental illness, unrelated to Trump at all? Perhaps, but that seems very coincidental, especially with the cash, the car at the airport, and the proximity to Trump’s Florida resort. Not too many mentally-ill homeless walk around with twenty-two large in cash, at least not for long, nor do they have cars parked at the airport. Perhaps this is a lone-wolf case, or maybe he had something else entirely in mind. It seems pretty far-fetched as a master-plan plot, but it seems a bit premature to write the threat off entirely.


hotair--2020-01-11--Jed Bartlett and The Joker arrested during Fonda's final D.C. protest

That ’ s a wrap .
The final Fire Drill Fridays protest is in the books .
Actress and activist Jane Fonda has to get back to her real job in Los Angeles .
The filming for Grace and Frankie , her Netflix series , is about to begin again .
She ducked out on getting arrested with the other protesters as jail time would interfere with her filming schedule .
Most of Jane Fonda ’ s co-stars in Grace and Frankie have come to protest and support her .
Co-star Sam Waterson has been arrested in two of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , and this week Martin Sheen showed up to get himself arrested .
Sheen is an old hand at protesting and getting arrested so I knew he would eventually show up .
He waited for the grand finale .
Sheen launched into President Jed Bartlett mode ( The West Wing ) and his speech included a poem for the protesters .
He read Rabindranath Tagore ’ s poem “ Where the Mind Is Without Fear ” .
He pandered to women , too .
He ’ s their president , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fonda ’ s daughter came to her second Fonda-organized protest and dragged her very young son along .
A surprise guest , according to Fonda , was the Joker , Joaquin Phoenix .
She said she didn ’ t invite him but he called and said he would be there .
He spoke to the crowd , too .
Fresh off his win at the Golden Globes award , he ’ s all about preaching to the choir of climate alarmists .
He does put a touch of tough love into his lectures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refrain from traveling in their private jets quite so much at the Golden Globes and during the protest Friday , he admitted he flew to D.C. but encouraged them to stop eating meat and dairy products .
Apparently flying is still tolerated but burgers and milkshakes are out .
“ Sometimes we wonder what can we do in this fight against climate change , and there is something that you can do today and tomorrow , by making a choice about what you consume , ” Phoenix said .
He said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t avoid .
I flew a plane here today , or last night rather , but one thing I can do is change my eating habits.
” While Jane and her civil disobedience aficionados were on the Capitol ’ s southeast lawn , others were occupying a Chase bank to protest the financing of pipelines and coal mines .
Actress Susan Sarandon was among those protesters .
Jane Fonda plans to join in with Fire Drill Fridays protests in Los Angeles .
Greenpeace is taking over organizing the weekly protests across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This week 147 people were arrested .
They were all charged with crowding , obstructing or incommoding , as were the charges in previous weeks .
I ’ ll end with a reply to a tweet from the Sunrise Movement by Frank Luntz .
He calls out a Twitter thread posted by the Sunrise Movement which spreads disinformation against the fossil fuel industry .
The inconvenient truth for climate alarmists is that Big Oil and others in the energy sector have been working on developing alternative energy for years .

That’s a wrap. The final Fire Drill Fridays protest is in the books. Actress and activist Jane Fonda has to get back to her real job in Los Angeles. The filming for Grace and Frankie, her Netflix series, is about to begin again. She ducked out on getting arrested with the other protesters as jail time would interfere with her filming schedule.
Most of Jane Fonda’s co-stars in Grace and Frankie have come to protest and support her. Co-star Sam Waterson has been arrested in two of the protests, Lily Tomlin was arrested last month, and this week Martin Sheen showed up to get himself arrested. Sheen is an old hand at protesting and getting arrested so I knew he would eventually show up. He waited for the grand finale.
Sheen launched into President Jed Bartlett mode (The West Wing) and his speech included a poem for the protesters. He read Rabindranath Tagore’s poem “Where the Mind Is Without Fear”. He pandered to women, too. He’s their president, you know.
Sheen called Fonda “one of my heroes nearly all my adult life” and said that, “Clearly, the world will be saved by women. Thank God they outnumber is men.”
Listen to this incredible speech from OUR President, Martin Sheen #FireDrillFriday 🔥 pic.twitter.com/Z7HxNkovR8 — Fire Drill Fridays (@FireDrillFriday) January 10, 2020
Actress June Diane Raphael who plays Fonda’s daughter came to her second Fonda-organized protest and dragged her very young son along.
Thank you @MsJuneDiane for joining #FireDrillFriday for a 2nd time and bringing along a youth climate striker 🔥 pic.twitter.com/PPtHcH6RZO — Fire Drill Fridays (@FireDrillFriday) January 10, 2020
A surprise guest, according to Fonda, was the Joker, Joaquin Phoenix. She said she didn’t invite him but he called and said he would be there. He spoke to the crowd, too. Fresh off his win at the Golden Globes award, he’s all about preaching to the choir of climate alarmists. He does put a touch of tough love into his lectures, though. He asked the celebrities to refrain from traveling in their private jets quite so much at the Golden Globes and during the protest Friday, he admitted he flew to D.C. but encouraged them to stop eating meat and dairy products. Apparently flying is still tolerated but burgers and milkshakes are out.
“Sometimes we wonder what can we do in this fight against climate change, and there is something that you can do today and tomorrow, by making a choice about what you consume,” Phoenix said. He said that “there are things I can’t avoid. I flew a plane here today, or last night rather, but one thing I can do is change my eating habits.”
Even the Joker believes in climate change! Joaquin Phoenix calls out the meat and dairy industry for being the 3rd leading cause of the climate crisis #FireDrillFriday pic.twitter.com/NpxdC7aU38 — Fire Drill Fridays (@FireDrillFriday) January 10, 2020
While Jane and her civil disobedience aficionados were on the Capitol’s southeast lawn, others were occupying a Chase bank to protest the financing of pipelines and coal mines. Actress Susan Sarandon was among those protesters.
Jane Fonda plans to join in with Fire Drill Fridays protests in Los Angeles. Greenpeace is taking over organizing the weekly protests across the country, the organization’s spokesperson says.
Fonda plans to return to Los Angeles on Saturday to begin the final season of Grace and Frankie, but will participate in future protests being planned now for California. Greenpeace USA will help organize the demonstrations, with the first planned for Feb. 7 in Los Angeles, and continuing each month. Organizers say that Fonda then plans to continue full-time climate activism after Grace and Frankie wraps production in July.
If you want to be involved with #FireDrillFriday moving forward text JANE to 877877 pic.twitter.com/VDcNI7A0hE — Fire Drill Fridays (@FireDrillFriday) January 10, 2020
This week 147 people were arrested. They were all charged with crowding, obstructing or incommoding, as were the charges in previous weeks.
I’ll end with a reply to a tweet from the Sunrise Movement by Frank Luntz. He calls out a Twitter thread posted by the Sunrise Movement which spreads disinformation against the fossil fuel industry. The inconvenient truth for climate alarmists is that Big Oil and others in the energy sector have been working on developing alternative energy for years.


hotair--2020-01-11--Texas: We'll pass on that refugee resettlement thing, thanks

President Trump previously signed an executive order allowing states to opt out of the national Refugee Resettlement Program .
It ’ s a system designed to assist refugees who are accepted into the United States in finding a place to live and connect them with various public services and charitable organizations that are able to help them get started .
Up until now , none of the nation ’ s governors had chosen to drop out of the program , including the Republicans .
But that changed this week when Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State would be taking a pass on the program , at least for the time being .
( Daily Caller ) Republican Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott announced Friday that his state will not accept refugees in a letter obtained by the Daily Caller .
The Trump administration has given states the option to opt out of a refugee resettlement program , but Texas is the first state to announce they will not participate in the program .
18 Republican governors have already opted into the program .
The governor praised his state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but said that he does not feel Texas should participate in the program , citing the current immigration crisis .
You can read Abbott ’ s full letter at the link above , but there ’ s nothing particularly remarkable about it .
He ’ s not slamming the resettlement program , nor is he looking to impose some sort of ban on new refugees in Texas .
He ’ s simply pointing out that between refugees , asylum seekers and a massive number of illegal aliens , Texas has already done more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years , in terms of new arrivals finding places to live in the United States .
He also goes to great lengths to point out that once refugees have been initially settled in other states and gotten themselves established , there ’ s nothing preventing them from seeking to relocate to Texas if opportunities present themselves .
It seems like a fair compromise .
Of course , we would be somewhat disingenuous if we tried to completely ignore the political component in this decision .
When any state takes in massive numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and South America , a majority of them tend to wind up being successfully courted by the Democratic Party .
These shifting demographics are already threatening to turn Texas blue at some point down the line .
Abbott obviously sees the self-defeating nature of continuing to participate in a program that only accelerates the process .
What seems more surprising , at least to me , is the fact that it took this long for any Republican governors to accept the President ’ s invitation to drop out .
In fact , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors go the opposite way and specifically state that they will remain in the resettlement program .
( You can see a list of them here . )
Some of the names aren ’ t all that surprising since they come from purple or blue states that don ’ t typically absorb as much of the brunt of illegal immigrant inflow .
Those include the governors of Maryland , Massachusetts and Vermont .
But there are some deep red states on the list also , like North Dakota , West Virginia , Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , North Dakota kind of makes sense since they can ’ t find enough workers to fill all the jobs in the oil fields . )
In any event , there doesn ’ t seem to be any course of appeal to this decision so it ’ s likely a done deal .
Abbott will no doubt be labeled a racist by Democrats for choosing this course , but as long as he ’ s the one in the Governor ’ s Mansion , he ’ ll be calling the shots .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program later if he changes his mind .

President Trump previously signed an executive order allowing states to opt out of the national Refugee Resettlement Program. It’s a system designed to assist refugees who are accepted into the United States in finding a place to live and connect them with various public services and charitable organizations that are able to help them get started. Up until now, none of the nation’s governors had chosen to drop out of the program, including the Republicans. But that changed this week when Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the State Department informing them that the Lone Star State would be taking a pass on the program, at least for the time being. (Daily Caller)
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced Friday that his state will not accept refugees in a letter obtained by the Daily Caller. The Trump administration has given states the option to opt out of a refugee resettlement program, but Texas is the first state to announce they will not participate in the program. 18 Republican governors have already opted into the program. The governor praised his state’s history of accepting refugees, but said that he does not feel Texas should participate in the program, citing the current immigration crisis.
You can read Abbott’s full letter at the link above, but there’s nothing particularly remarkable about it. He’s not slamming the resettlement program, nor is he looking to impose some sort of ban on new refugees in Texas. He’s simply pointing out that between refugees, asylum seekers and a massive number of illegal aliens, Texas has already done more than its fair share, particularly in recent years, in terms of new arrivals finding places to live in the United States.
He also goes to great lengths to point out that once refugees have been initially settled in other states and gotten themselves established, there’s nothing preventing them from seeking to relocate to Texas if opportunities present themselves. It seems like a fair compromise.
Of course, we would be somewhat disingenuous if we tried to completely ignore the political component in this decision. When any state takes in massive numbers of new immigrants, particularly from Mexico and South America, a majority of them tend to wind up being successfully courted by the Democratic Party. These shifting demographics are already threatening to turn Texas blue at some point down the line. Abbott obviously sees the self-defeating nature of continuing to participate in a program that only accelerates the process.
What seems more surprising, at least to me, is the fact that it took this long for any Republican governors to accept the President’s invitation to drop out. In fact, we’ve so far had 18 GOP governors go the opposite way and specifically state that they will remain in the resettlement program. (You can see a list of them here.) Some of the names aren’t all that surprising since they come from purple or blue states that don’t typically absorb as much of the brunt of illegal immigrant inflow. Those include the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont. But there are some deep red states on the list also, like North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri and Utah. (To be fair, North Dakota kind of makes sense since they can’t find enough workers to fill all the jobs in the oil fields.)
In any event, there doesn’t seem to be any course of appeal to this decision so it’s likely a done deal. Abbott will no doubt be labeled a racist by Democrats for choosing this course, but as long as he’s the one in the Governor’s Mansion, he’ll be calling the shots. And he can always join back into the program later if he changes his mind.


hotair--2020-01-11--Iran admits it shot down jet, blames human error (and the US)

After an internal investigation by the military , President Hassan Rouhani announced “ missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane.
” He said Iran regretted the “ disastrous mistake.
” A fuller statement published by the BBC shows Rouhani also said said “ an atmosphere of threats and intimidation by the aggressive American regime ” had Iran ’ s Armed Forces on alert when a “ miscalculated shooting caused a major catastrophe.
” Foreign Minister Javad Zarif echoed those comments , blaming “ a crisis caused by US adventurism.
” US progressives have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not everyone is buying his excuse .
I can ’ t improve on Yashar Ali ’ s response : The NY Times reports that plenty of Iranians were expressing their anger on social media : On social media , Iranians began expressing anger toward the military soon after the announcement , many of them using the term “ harshest revenge , ” which officials had repeatedly promised in the wake of the American drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , a powerful Revolutionary Guards commander , last week .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against America , not the people , ” wrote Mojtaba Fathi , a journalist .
The Iranian military ’ s statement said the plane “ took the flying posture and altitude of an enemy target ” as it came close to an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base .
It said that “ under these circumstances , because of human error , ” the plane “ came under fire.
” What I find most interesting about this belated admission is that it comes after several days of strenuous denials by Iran .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A spokesman for Iran ’ s armed forces , Abolfazl Shekarchi , said the crash was not a result of any military action .
“ They are spreading propaganda that the Ukrainian flight was targeted , ” the Iranian news media quoted Mr. Shekarchi as saying .
“ This is ridiculous .
Most of the passengers on this flight were our valued young Iranian men and women .
Whatever we do , we do it for the protection and defense of our country and our people.
” And Friday morning , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it looked as if Iran was responsible , Iran again denied it : Initially , you may recall , Iran claimed the plane had experienced a mechanical failure .
But this announcement came before Iran had even examined the wreckage and they definitely hadn ’ t examined the black boxes .
So how could they possibly know ?
All of this leads to an obvious question : Is it really possible that Iranian officials didn ’ t know someone had fired off a surface-to-air missile for three days ?
Or is it more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had happened but was hoping to lie its way through this ?
I ’ d say the latter is more likely given the immediate claims that this was definitely a mechanical failure .
It sounded too defensive .
Also , wouldn ’ t there be some chain of command involved in this ?
Assuming this is just a failed cover up , it seems possible one thing that changed the calculus for Iran was the existence and spread of video on social media yesterday which clearly showed a missile impacting the plane .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was going to be a tall order to continue denying responsibility .
So the best Iran can do now is try to lay off some of the blame on “ US adventurism ” knowing that lots of progressives in this country will eagerly agree .

After an internal investigation by the military, President Hassan Rouhani announced “missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane.” He said Iran regretted the “disastrous mistake.”
The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake. My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families. I offer my sincerest condolences. https://t.co/4dkePxupzm — Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) January 11, 2020
A fuller statement published by the BBC shows Rouhani also said said “an atmosphere of threats and intimidation by the aggressive American regime” had Iran’s Armed Forces on alert when a “miscalculated shooting caused a major catastrophe.”
Iran's President Rouhani on shooting down of flight Ukraine flight #PS752 pic.twitter.com/Xc62qSS6yF — BBC Monitoring (@BBCMonitoring) January 11, 2020
Foreign Minister Javad Zarif echoed those comments, blaming “a crisis caused by US adventurism.”
A sad day. Preliminary conclusions of internal investigation by Armed Forces: Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster Our profound regrets, apologies and condolences to our people, to the families of all victims, and to other affected nations.
💔 — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 11, 2020
US progressives have been saying that for days, but not everyone is buying his excuse. I can’t improve on Yashar Ali’s response:
2. People are treating the Iranian government like a co-dependent parent treats their child who is misbehaving…no accountability for Iran in terms of the accidental missile strike against civilian aircraft. It's someone else's fault — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 11, 2020
4. I know it's Twitter, but it's remarkable how people are incapable of separating blame here. They can't say…it was a strategic error for the US to kill Soleimani but what the hell was Iran doing allowing civilian aircraft to fly while they were bombing a US air base — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) January 11, 2020
The NY Times reports that plenty of Iranians were expressing their anger on social media:
On social media, Iranians began expressing anger toward the military soon after the announcement, many of them using the term “harshest revenge,” which officials had repeatedly promised in the wake of the American drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a powerful Revolutionary Guards commander, last week. “They were supposed to take their harsh revenge against America, not the people,” wrote Mojtaba Fathi, a journalist. The Iranian military’s statement said the plane “took the flying posture and altitude of an enemy target” as it came close to an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base. It said that “under these circumstances, because of human error,” the plane “came under fire.”
What I find most interesting about this belated admission is that it comes after several days of strenuous denials by Iran. Here’s what the NY Times reported Thursday:
A spokesman for Iran’s armed forces, Abolfazl Shekarchi, said the crash was not a result of any military action. “They are spreading propaganda that the Ukrainian flight was targeted,” the Iranian news media quoted Mr. Shekarchi as saying. “This is ridiculous. Most of the passengers on this flight were our valued young Iranian men and women. Whatever we do, we do it for the protection and defense of our country and our people.”
And Friday morning, as leaders in the US and Canada said it looked as if Iran was responsible, Iran again denied it:
“What is obvious for us, and what we can say with certainty, is that no missile hit the plane,” Ali Abedzadeh, head of Iran’s national aviation department, told a press conference. “If they are really sure, they should come and show their findings to the world” in accordance with international standards, he added.
Initially, you may recall, Iran claimed the plane had experienced a mechanical failure. But this announcement came before Iran had even examined the wreckage and they definitely hadn’t examined the black boxes. So how could they possibly know?
All of this leads to an obvious question: Is it really possible that Iranian officials didn’t know someone had fired off a surface-to-air missile for three days? Or is it more likely that Iran knew almost immediately what had happened but was hoping to lie its way through this? I’d say the latter is more likely given the immediate claims that this was definitely a mechanical failure. It sounded too defensive. Also, wouldn’t there be some chain of command involved in this?
Assuming this is just a failed cover up, it seems possible one thing that changed the calculus for Iran was the existence and spread of video on social media yesterday which clearly showed a missile impacting the plane. Once the truth was out, it was going to be a tall order to continue denying responsibility. So the best Iran can do now is try to lay off some of the blame on “US adventurism” knowing that lots of progressives in this country will eagerly agree.


hotair--2020-01-12--2020 Olympics: Iranian Olympian defects, IOC bans protests at games

The sole female Iranian Olympic medalist has defected .
Kimia Alizadeh bid farewell and has relocated to Europe .
It is reported she has gone to the Netherlands .
The bronze medalist in Taekwondo posted her letter of farewell on Instagram just one day after the Iranian government admitted it shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet .
She wrote in Farsi .
“ Let me start with a greeting , a farewell or condolences , ” the 21-year–old wrote in an Instagram post explaining why she was defecting .
“ I am one of the millions of oppressed women in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years.
” “ They took me wherever they wanted .
I wore whatever they said .
Every sentence they ordered me to say , I repeated .
Whenever they saw fit , they exploited me , ” she wrote , adding that credit always went to those in charge .
“ I wasn ’ t important to them .
None of us mattered to them , we were tools , ” Alizadeh goes on to say , explaining that while the regime celebrated her medals , it criticized the sport she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman is not to stretch her legs !
” None of those criticisms of the brutal dictatorship in Iran are new , of course .
It is excellent timing on her part , though , to garner peak publicity for her decision to leave .
With the world press focused on the events in Iran right now , especially the protests going on after the downing of the jet , her defection is yet another slap to the faces of the mullahs .
Though the head of Iran ’ s Taekwondo Federation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defected , Alizadeh confirmed her announcement .
She spoke of the gravity of her decision .
No doubt she is worried about the family she left behind in Iran .
Alizadeh confirmed the rumors Saturday , saying she “ didn ’ t want to sit at the table of hypocrisy , lies , injustice and flattery ” and that she did not want to be complicit with the regime ’ s “ corruption and lies.
” “ My troubled spirit does not fit with your dirty economic ties and tight political lobbies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taekwondo , safety and for a happy and healthy life , she said adding that she was not invited to go to Europe .
She said the decision was harder than winning Olympic gold .
“ I remain a daughter of Iran wherever I am , ” she said .
Speaking of the Olympics , the International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) has had enough of athletes making political statements by way of protests on the winners ’ podium and within the Olympic village .
The committee issued a three-page guideline Thursday on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the 2020 Olympics in Toyko .
Essentially the message is just take the protesting outside .
The IOC said athletes are banned from protesting while on the field of play , in the Olympic Village and during medal and other official ceremonies .
However , they are allowed to express political opinions during press interviews outside the Village , in meetings and on traditional and social media .
“ We believe that the example we set by competing with the world ’ s best while living in harmony in the Olympic Village @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an increasingly divided world , ” the IOC said in a statement .
“ This is why it is important , on both a personal and a global level , that we keep the venues , the Olympic Village and the podium neutral and free from any form of political , religious or ethnic demonstrations.
” If the athletes don ’ t follow the new guidelines , there will be consequences .
Protests are different than voicing political speech is a distinction the committee is making here .
The protocol for medal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of competition is to be respected .
The athletes can mouth off , er , express themselves on social media or in media interviews , but they can ’ t kneel in protest on the ceremonial platform or on the field .
The committee intends to limit “ divisive disruption.
” The athletes are being warned – there will be disciplinary action taken .
This is good news for the sports audience and for the other athletes , too .
The audience isn ’ t interested in a few athletes pushing a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competition .
The protest antics also take away attention from other medalists , who are just as entitled to recognition as the few who try to grab headlines for themselves .
Not to be “ silenced ” or something , soccer star Megan Rapinoe tells her Instagram followers that she ’ s not having the new guidelines .
That ’ s predictable behavior from her – she ’ s made a lot of money and garnered a lot of attention around the world for her protests .
The IOC president weighed in and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – just leave personal political opinions out of the competition .
They can do the protesting on their own time .
No one is silencing the athletes .
IOC President Thomas Bach supported the rules Friday , arguing that political neutrality of the Olympics would be undercut if an athlete took a knee in protest on the medal podium .
“ They are not and must never be a platform to advance political or any other divisive ends , ” Bach said of the Olympics .
“ Our political neutrality is undermined whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olympic Games as a stage for their own agendas , as legitimate as they may be.
” The Olympics begin on July 24 in Tokyo .

The sole female Iranian Olympic medalist has defected. Kimia Alizadeh bid farewell and has relocated to Europe. It is reported she has gone to the Netherlands.
The bronze medalist in Taekwondo posted her letter of farewell on Instagram just one day after the Iranian government admitted it shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet. She wrote in Farsi.
“Let me start with a greeting, a farewell or condolences,” the 21-year–old wrote in an Instagram post explaining why she was defecting. “I am one of the millions of oppressed women in Iran who they have been playing with for years.” “They took me wherever they wanted. I wore whatever they said. Every sentence they ordered me to say, I repeated. Whenever they saw fit, they exploited me,” she wrote, adding that credit always went to those in charge. “I wasn’t important to them. None of us mattered to them, we were tools,” Alizadeh goes on to say, explaining that while the regime celebrated her medals, it criticized the sport she had chosen: “The virtue of a woman is not to stretch her legs!”
https://www.instagram.com/p/B7LtxeOnZZU/
None of those criticisms of the brutal dictatorship in Iran are new, of course. It is excellent timing on her part, though, to garner peak publicity for her decision to leave. With the world press focused on the events in Iran right now, especially the protests going on after the downing of the jet, her defection is yet another slap to the faces of the mullahs.
Though the head of Iran’s Taekwondo Federation, Seyed Mohammad Pouladgar, denied that she defected, Alizadeh confirmed her announcement. She spoke of the gravity of her decision. No doubt she is worried about the family she left behind in Iran.
Alizadeh confirmed the rumors Saturday, saying she “didn’t want to sit at the table of hypocrisy, lies, injustice and flattery” and that she did not want to be complicit with the regime’s “corruption and lies.” “My troubled spirit does not fit with your dirty economic ties and tight political lobbies. I wish for nothing else than for Taekwondo, safety and for a happy and healthy life, she said adding that she was not invited to go to Europe. She said the decision was harder than winning Olympic gold. “I remain a daughter of Iran wherever I am,” she said.
State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus tweeted out support for Alizadeh.
#KimiaAlizadeh, Iran’s only female Olympic medalist, has rejected the regime’s oppression of women. She has defected for a life of security, happiness, and freedom. #Iran will continue to lose more strong women unless it learns to empower and support them. https://t.co/NIzdo4PPwI — Ned Price (@StateDeptSpox) January 12, 2020
Speaking of the Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has had enough of athletes making political statements by way of protests on the winners’ podium and within the Olympic village. The committee issued a three-page guideline Thursday on how and where the athletes can protest during the 2020 Olympics in Toyko. Essentially the message is just take the protesting outside.
The IOC said athletes are banned from protesting while on the field of play, in the Olympic Village and during medal and other official ceremonies. However, they are allowed to express political opinions during press interviews outside the Village, in meetings and on traditional and social media. “We believe that the example we set by competing with the world’s best while living in harmony in the Olympic Village is a uniquely positive message to send to an increasingly divided world,” the IOC said in a statement. “This is why it is important, on both a personal and a global level, that we keep the venues, the Olympic Village and the podium neutral and free from any form of political, religious or ethnic demonstrations.”
If the athletes don’t follow the new guidelines, there will be consequences. Protests are different than voicing political speech is a distinction the committee is making here. The protocol for medal ceremonies and actions taken on the field of competition is to be respected. The athletes can mouth off, er, express themselves on social media or in media interviews, but they can’t kneel in protest on the ceremonial platform or on the field. The committee intends to limit “divisive disruption.” The athletes are being warned – there will be disciplinary action taken.
This is good news for the sports audience and for the other athletes, too. The audience isn’t interested in a few athletes pushing a political agenda in the midst of world-class amateur competition. The protest antics also take away attention from other medalists, who are just as entitled to recognition as the few who try to grab headlines for themselves.
Not to be “silenced” or something, soccer star Megan Rapinoe tells her Instagram followers that she’s not having the new guidelines. That’s predictable behavior from her – she’s made a lot of money and garnered a lot of attention around the world for her protests.
Megan Rapinoe responds to the IOC banning protests at the Olympics: “We will not be silenced” pic.twitter.com/69PljKC8u5 — Sports Illustrated (@SInow) January 10, 2020
The IOC president weighed in and said what most of us are thinking – just leave personal political opinions out of the competition. They can do the protesting on their own time. No one is silencing the athletes.
IOC President Thomas Bach supported the rules Friday, arguing that political neutrality of the Olympics would be undercut if an athlete took a knee in protest on the medal podium. “They are not and must never be a platform to advance political or any other divisive ends,” Bach said of the Olympics. “Our political neutrality is undermined whenever organizations or individuals attempt to use the Olympic Games as a stage for their own agendas, as legitimate as they may be.”
The Olympics begin on July 24 in Tokyo.


hotair--2020-01-12--Are millennials really worse off than their parents?

One of the common themes emerging from the slate of 2020 Democratic candidates who are struggling to play down the current , booming economy , is that prosperity isn ’ t being spread around evenly .
This so-called “ prosperity disparity ” is allegedly evident in the fact that some workers today , particularly millennials , don ’ t have the same chance at the American Dream as previous generations .
It ’ s a common claim made by Bernie Sanders , found right on his website , where he proclaims that the millennials may be the first generation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their parents .
The media has been more than happy to pick up this ball and run with it .
One recent example is found in this CNN analysis from Tami Luhby .
She claims that not only is this bad news , but it ’ s unprecedented in modern American history .
Even though the US economy is growing — according to a recent CNN poll , 76 % of Americans think it ’ s doing better than it has in decades — not everyone is prospering .
Millennials are on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exceed their parents in terms of job status or income , studies show… Millennials — which the Pew Research Center classifies as the generation born between 1981 and 1996 — have faced challenges .
They came of age at the worst possible moment — when the economy collapsed in the Great Recession , said Michael Hout , a sociology professor at New York University .
The US economy is not supporting a continuing increase in occupational status to the extent it once did .
Compounding the problem is that millennials ’ parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job status , making it even harder to surpass their accomplishments .
There are two factors to consider when evaluating this argument .
First , is it true ?
And second , if this reflects current realities… why ?
Only recently I was engaged in an email exchange on this exact subject with a friend who is from my generation .
( Actually several years older . )
He was born in the early fifties and grew up during what are frequently called the original “ happy days.
” He was also familar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grandparents , describing what life was like for them .
He made some good points I ’ d like to share with you today .
Let ’ s think about the lives of the grandparents of the baby boomers .
Most of them were born when there was hardly any rural electrification .
Most of them had outhouses .
The majority of the people lived in rural areas , frequently on small family farms that were only a bit better than subsistence level businesses .
There were hardly any cars .
Medicine was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone micro-surgery .
Hardly anyone went to college unless you came from a very wealthy family .
And also , oh , yeah… they lived through two world wars separated by the Great Depression .
So , really , what were the odds , following WW2 , that the children of that generation would end up with a “ lower standard of living ” as tracked by relative income than their parents and grandparents ?
Even with the improving standards of living for those coming into adulthood in the seventies and eighties , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better also had many baked-in enhancements .
We went through a few rough patches in the eighties , but anyone making it into the nineties lived through the massive technology boom that increased wages and drove a thriving economy .
The housing bubble was still over the horizon so home ownership continued to grow .
Also , while tuition rates were rising , the growth was nowhere near what it would become in the 2000s , and more and more financial aid programs became available .
But at some point , all bubbles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of technology and the economy , hits a pause or at least slows significantly .
That ’ s the world that the millennials born in the early nineties were facing when they graduated high school and college .
The great recession is finally over and we ’ re back to a higher growth era , but those millennial workers came into adulthood in dark economic times .
And too many of those college financial aid programs pushed lower-income students into crippling loan programs that endorsed an attitude of , “ don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can worry about it after you graduate.
” Coming out of college into a struggling jobs market with stagnant wage growth , high unemployment and carrying massive student debt , is it any wonder that this generation wasn ’ t facing the same escalator to greater prosperity than their parents enjoyed ?
So yes , in many cases what Bernie Sanders and other candidates are discribing is at least partially true , particularly for millennials .
But that ’ s not some new phenomenon that can be blamed on Trump , the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other recent events .
This is a challenging situation that ’ s been growing for decades , and there ’ s plenty of “ blame ” to go around .
And yet economic and employment trends are still heading in the right direction .
We ’ re on a path to a brand new “ happy days ” era if we manage to not blow it , and we don ’ t need some massive socialist overhaul of our system to ensure that the next generations will once again have the chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

One of the common themes emerging from the slate of 2020 Democratic candidates who are struggling to play down the current, booming economy, is that prosperity isn’t being spread around evenly. This so-called “prosperity disparity” is allegedly evident in the fact that some workers today, particularly millennials, don’t have the same chance at the American Dream as previous generations. It’s a common claim made by Bernie Sanders, found right on his website, where he proclaims that the millennials may be the first generation to not be able to exceed the success of their parents.
Millennials are financially worse off than previous generations, and may not have the chance to do better than their parents, according to a new study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Commissioned by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the analysis paints a dire economic picture for millennial households: compared to previous generations’ economic status at the same age, millennials—despite higher levels of educational achievement—have lower median and average net worth, lower home ownership rates, higher student debt, and flat incomes.
The media has been more than happy to pick up this ball and run with it. One recent example is found in this CNN analysis from Tami Luhby. She claims that not only is this bad news, but it’s unprecedented in modern American history.
Even though the US economy is growing — according to a recent CNN poll, 76% of Americans think it’s doing better than it has in decades — not everyone is prospering. Millennials are on track to be the first generation not to exceed their parents in terms of job status or income, studies show… Millennials — which the Pew Research Center classifies as the generation born between 1981 and 1996 — have faced challenges. They came of age at the worst possible moment — when the economy collapsed in the Great Recession, said Michael Hout, a sociology professor at New York University. The US economy is not supporting a continuing increase in occupational status to the extent it once did. Compounding the problem is that millennials’ parents did benefit from an upward shift in job status, making it even harder to surpass their accomplishments.
There are two factors to consider when evaluating this argument. First, is it true? And second, if this reflects current realities… why?
Only recently I was engaged in an email exchange on this exact subject with a friend who is from my generation. (Actually several years older.) He was born in the early fifties and grew up during what are frequently called the original “happy days.” He was also familar with the tales of our parents and grandparents, describing what life was like for them. He made some good points I’d like to share with you today.
Let’s think about the lives of the grandparents of the baby boomers. Most of them were born when there was hardly any rural electrification. Most of them had outhouses. The majority of the people lived in rural areas, frequently on small family farms that were only a bit better than subsistence level businesses. There were hardly any cars. Medicine was barely into the antibiotic phase, let alone micro-surgery. Hardly anyone went to college unless you came from a very wealthy family. And also, oh, yeah… they lived through two world wars separated by the Great Depression.
So, really, what were the odds, following WW2, that the children of that generation would end up with a “lower standard of living” as tracked by relative income than their parents and grandparents?
Even with the improving standards of living for those coming into adulthood in the seventies and eighties, the chance for their kids to do better also had many baked-in enhancements. We went through a few rough patches in the eighties, but anyone making it into the nineties lived through the massive technology boom that increased wages and drove a thriving economy. The housing bubble was still over the horizon so home ownership continued to grow. Also, while tuition rates were rising, the growth was nowhere near what it would become in the 2000s, and more and more financial aid programs became available.
But at some point, all bubbles burst and growth, both in terms of technology and the economy, hits a pause or at least slows significantly. That’s the world that the millennials born in the early nineties were facing when they graduated high school and college. The great recession is finally over and we’re back to a higher growth era, but those millennial workers came into adulthood in dark economic times. And too many of those college financial aid programs pushed lower-income students into crippling loan programs that endorsed an attitude of, “don’t concern yourself with all that. You can worry about it after you graduate.”
Coming out of college into a struggling jobs market with stagnant wage growth, high unemployment and carrying massive student debt, is it any wonder that this generation wasn’t facing the same escalator to greater prosperity than their parents enjoyed? So yes, in many cases what Bernie Sanders and other candidates are discribing is at least partially true, particularly for millennials.
But that’s not some new phenomenon that can be blamed on Trump, the GOP, the 2017 tax cuts or any other recent events. This is a challenging situation that’s been growing for decades, and there’s plenty of “blame” to go around. And yet economic and employment trends are still heading in the right direction. We’re on a path to a brand new “happy days” era if we manage to not blow it, and we don’t need some massive socialist overhaul of our system to ensure that the next generations will once again have the chance to exceed the accomplishments of their parents.