hotair--2020-01-09--Remember those national park signs saying the glaciers would be gone by 2020?

Glacier National Park in Montana put up some signs back during the Obama administration warning visitors to take their selfies quickly because the glaciers would be gone by the year 2020 .
Unfortunately for the prognosticators behind that project , while some of the glaciers have definitely shrunk a bit , they stubbornly remain in the mountains to this day .
That ’ s a bit of an embarrassment , so clearly the signs need to come down or at least be altered .
Unfortunately , they can ’ t manage to get the job done so the humorous signage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chuckle at .
( Free Beacon ) The Glacier National Park is set to replace signs predicting glaciers would disappear by 2020 due to climate change .
The glaciers remain .
The signs were posted in the Montana park a decade ago because , at the time , climate change forecasts predicted the glaciers would be completely melted by 2020 .
The U.S. Geological Survey told the park in 2017 that the glaciers were not melting as fast as predicted due to changes in the forecast model , but park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the signs until now due to budget constraints .
Kurzmen told CNN the park changed one sign last year but is still waiting on budget authorization to update two other signs .
The new signs will still warn visitors that the glaciers are disappearing but won ’ t offer an expected deadline this time .
This news raises two immediate questions .
How did they get the prediction so wrong and what ’ s the holdup with replacing the signs ?
As to the first question , they ’ re blaming the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ changes in the forecast model.
” This sounds like another way of saying we don ’ t understand everything that affects the planet ’ s complex climate system so predictions are difficult to make .
( I ’ m old enough to remember when we were being warned about the advent of another ice age and everyone was going to die . )
As for the signs , Glacier National Park is crying poverty .
Seriously ?
We ’ re talking about three signs , and one of them has already been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a budget of more than three billion dollars in combined mandatory and discretionary spending.The specific budget for Glacier National Park was nearly fourteen million .
You ’ d think they could manage to swap out two signs .
The new signs are going to be intentionally vaguer so they won ’ t have to go through this again ten years from now .
They read , “ When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act .
One thing is consistent : the glaciers in the park are shrinking.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country is full of climate alarmists who are constantly talking about the climate crisis .
They ’ re out in the streets and holding demonstrations all the time , including a number of celebrities who are obviously very well off in the financial department .
Don ’ t you suppose they could pass the hat around between Jane Fonda and her friends and come up with enough money to create and install two signs ?
Or are those folks too busy getting arrested in Washington to bother with what goes on in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure how much this matters since the world is going to end in eleven years .
And then there won ’ t be anyone around to read the signs .

Glacier National Park in Montana put up some signs back during the Obama administration warning visitors to take their selfies quickly because the glaciers would be gone by the year 2020. Unfortunately for the prognosticators behind that project, while some of the glaciers have definitely shrunk a bit, they stubbornly remain in the mountains to this day. That’s a bit of an embarrassment, so clearly the signs need to come down or at least be altered. Unfortunately, they can’t manage to get the job done so the humorous signage is still in place for visitors to chuckle at. (Free Beacon)
The Glacier National Park is set to replace signs predicting glaciers would disappear by 2020 due to climate change. The glaciers remain. The signs were posted in the Montana park a decade ago because, at the time, climate change forecasts predicted the glaciers would be completely melted by 2020. The U.S. Geological Survey told the park in 2017 that the glaciers were not melting as fast as predicted due to changes in the forecast model, but park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen said the park was unable to change the signs until now due to budget constraints. Kurzmen told CNN the park changed one sign last year but is still waiting on budget authorization to update two other signs. The new signs will still warn visitors that the glaciers are disappearing but won’t offer an expected deadline this time.
This news raises two immediate questions. How did they get the prediction so wrong and what’s the holdup with replacing the signs?
As to the first question, they’re blaming the U.S. Geological Survey. Apparently there have been “changes in the forecast model.” This sounds like another way of saying we don’t understand everything that affects the planet’s complex climate system so predictions are difficult to make. (I’m old enough to remember when we were being warned about the advent of another ice age and everyone was going to die.)
As for the signs, Glacier National Park is crying poverty. Seriously? We’re talking about three signs, and one of them has already been replaced. Last year the NPS had a budget of more than three billion dollars in combined mandatory and discretionary spending.The specific budget for Glacier National Park was nearly fourteen million. You’d think they could manage to swap out two signs.
The new signs are going to be intentionally vaguer so they won’t have to go through this again ten years from now. They read, “When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.”
Here’s an idea. The country is full of climate alarmists who are constantly talking about the climate crisis. They’re out in the streets and holding demonstrations all the time, including a number of celebrities who are obviously very well off in the financial department. Don’t you suppose they could pass the hat around between Jane Fonda and her friends and come up with enough money to create and install two signs? Or are those folks too busy getting arrested in Washington to bother with what goes on in the national parks?
Anyway, I’m not sure how much this matters since the world is going to end in eleven years. And then there won’t be anyone around to read the signs.


hotair--2020-01-09--WaPo: Ukraine investigators mulling "possibility" Iran shot down commercial flight

“ Possibility ” is one word , but it ’ s starting to look like “ probability ” is a better one .
Ukrainian investigators in Iran suspect that the plane that exploded and crashed near Tehran during the missile attack on American bases in Iraq got shot down , the Washington Post reports this morning .
Nothing else appears to fit the initial set of facts , and certainly not Iran ’ s initial explanation of the incident : Ukrainian investigators are considering the possibility that an antiaircraft missile might have hit a passenger jet that crashed near Tehran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an initial report released Thursday by Iran said the plane was on fire while still in the air .
The preliminary Iranian investigation cited witnesses saying the plane was burning and was turning back to Tehran because of the “ problem ” when it went down Wednesday .
… The Ukraine International Airlines flight — bound for the Ukrainian capital , Kyiv — departed Tehran at 6:12 a.m. on Wednesday and was approaching 8,000 feet when it abruptly lost contact with ground control , officials said .
The report from Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground and among the crew of another flight in the vicinity reported seeing a fire while the Boeing 737 jet was still in the air , followed by an explosion when it crashed near an amusement park .
“ The trajectory of the collision indicated that the plane was initially moving toward the west , but after encountering a problem , it turned to the right and was approaching the airport again at the time of the crash , ” Ali Abedzadeh , head of the Civil Aviation Organization , said in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iranian explanation and tweeted out that terrorism didn ’ t play a role in the crash .
It didn ’ t take long for them to delete that statement , however , perhaps especially after viewing the video purportedly of the plane engulfed in flames while still in the air .
An NTSB official told CNN this morning that the video gives him “ shivers , ” because no normal failure would have caused this kind of fireball in the air , not without some warning from the pilot : Officially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pilot error or mechanical malfunction .
That ’ s only pro forma , however .
The plane itself was less than four years old and didn ’ t have any issues before this flight , and what kind of pilot error would turn a healthy plane into a fireball at 8,000 feet with no notice whatsoever ?
Unofficially , Ukraine discounts that possibility entirely , saying that the flight crew was too experienced to have committed such an error , and also to have not reported a problem promptly .
The catastrophe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it impossible for the pilots to communicate the emergency , and that doesn ’ t sound likely to have been either pilot error or mechanical failure .
So what did happen ?
Rumors of Russian anti-aircraft missile wreckage at the site have not yet been confirmed , but it would provide the most complete answer to this mystery .
Ukraine has unfortunate experience with this kind of incident , having had Russian-backed rebel forces shoot down a Malaysian Air flight in July 2014 thinking it was a military sortie .
The timing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the Iranian missile attacks on US forces in Iraq , lends itself to that explanation , too .
Could an Iranian anti-aircraft unit have gotten spooked by the flight and misinterpreted it as an American counterattack ?
That has an unfortunate history in this region , too .
Thirty-two years ago , the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Air commercial flight after mistaking it for an F-14 , killing all 290 people on board .
The commander of the Vincennes had gone into Iranian waters and gotten engaged in a firefight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinterpreted the flight data as a supporting Iranian attack on the ship .
The Airbus at the time was ascending on a normal flight path for passenger service , however , and the Vincennes crew didn ’ t follow proper protocol in assessing the threat .
The US wound up paying over $ 60 million in compensation to the families of the deceased , although we never admitted culpability for it .
At least at first blush , it appears that the Iranians made the same mistake .
There was no other good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially in that location , where the Americans can ’ t really get blamed for it .
We conducted no raids that night , and no other anti-aircraft units found any reason to fire their weapons , apparently .
The possibility apparently worries the Iranians enough that they are refusing to release the black boxes , although that would be from a lack of information on them .
The pilot almost certainly wouldn ’ t have seen a missile in time to react or to identify it before the explosion , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boxes would point to no other explanation — or source .

“Possibility” is one word, but it’s starting to look like “probability” is a better one. Ukrainian investigators in Iran suspect that the plane that exploded and crashed near Tehran during the missile attack on American bases in Iraq got shot down, the Washington Post reports this morning. Nothing else appears to fit the initial set of facts, and certainly not Iran’s initial explanation of the incident:
Ukrainian investigators are considering the possibility that an antiaircraft missile might have hit a passenger jet that crashed near Tehran, killing all 176 aboard, as an initial report released Thursday by Iran said the plane was on fire while still in the air. The preliminary Iranian investigation cited witnesses saying the plane was burning and was turning back to Tehran because of the “problem” when it went down Wednesday. … The Ukraine International Airlines flight — bound for the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv — departed Tehran at 6:12 a.m. on Wednesday and was approaching 8,000 feet when it abruptly lost contact with ground control, officials said. The report from Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization said eyewitnesses on the ground and among the crew of another flight in the vicinity reported seeing a fire while the Boeing 737 jet was still in the air, followed by an explosion when it crashed near an amusement park. “The trajectory of the collision indicated that the plane was initially moving toward the west, but after encountering a problem, it turned to the right and was approaching the airport again at the time of the crash,” Ali Abedzadeh, head of the Civil Aviation Organization, said in the report.
Initially, the Ukrainians accepted the Iranian explanation and tweeted out that terrorism didn’t play a role in the crash. It didn’t take long for them to delete that statement, however, perhaps especially after viewing the video purportedly of the plane engulfed in flames while still in the air. An NTSB official told CNN this morning that the video gives him “shivers,” because no normal failure would have caused this kind of fireball in the air, not without some warning from the pilot:
Officially, the Ukrainians are keeping open the possibilities of pilot error or mechanical malfunction. That’s only pro forma, however. The plane itself was less than four years old and didn’t have any issues before this flight, and what kind of pilot error would turn a healthy plane into a fireball at 8,000 feet with no notice whatsoever? Unofficially, Ukraine discounts that possibility entirely, saying that the flight crew was too experienced to have committed such an error, and also to have not reported a problem promptly. The catastrophe had to occur suddenly and totally, making it impossible for the pilots to communicate the emergency, and that doesn’t sound likely to have been either pilot error or mechanical failure.
So what did happen? Rumors of Russian anti-aircraft missile wreckage at the site have not yet been confirmed, but it would provide the most complete answer to this mystery. Ukraine has unfortunate experience with this kind of incident, having had Russian-backed rebel forces shoot down a Malaysian Air flight in July 2014 thinking it was a military sortie. The timing of the explosion, coming so soon after the Iranian missile attacks on US forces in Iraq, lends itself to that explanation, too.
Could an Iranian anti-aircraft unit have gotten spooked by the flight and misinterpreted it as an American counterattack? That has an unfortunate history in this region, too. Thirty-two years ago, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Air commercial flight after mistaking it for an F-14, killing all 290 people on board. The commander of the Vincennes had gone into Iranian waters and gotten engaged in a firefight with some gunboats, and the command misinterpreted the flight data as a supporting Iranian attack on the ship. The Airbus at the time was ascending on a normal flight path for passenger service, however, and the Vincennes crew didn’t follow proper protocol in assessing the threat. The US wound up paying over $60 million in compensation to the families of the deceased, although we never admitted culpability for it.
At least at first blush, it appears that the Iranians made the same mistake. There was no other good reason for shooting down an airliner, especially in that location, where the Americans can’t really get blamed for it. We conducted no raids that night, and no other anti-aircraft units found any reason to fire their weapons, apparently. The possibility apparently worries the Iranians enough that they are refusing to release the black boxes, although that would be from a lack of information on them. The pilot almost certainly wouldn’t have seen a missile in time to react or to identify it before the explosion, and the sudden end of data on the black boxes would point to no other explanation — or source.


hotair--2020-01-09--Appeals court approves border wall funding

Back in October , we looked at a court ruling in Texas that blocked President Trump ’ s plan to allocate certain military funding to continue work on border wall construction .
Judge David Briones , a Clinton appointee , agreed with the County of El Paso , Texas and liberal activist group Border Network for Human Rights , that the project would result in “ damages ” to the plaintiffs .
At that time , I posed a few questions , including this one .
“ You might be wondering how either of these entities established standing to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds .
Good question.
” The White House appealed the decision and it was sent to a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circut .
In a 2-1 decision , they seemed to see the same problem with the complaint and lifted the injunction , ruling that the project can move forward .
( Politico ) A divided federal appeals court has lifted a lower court ’ s order blocking $ 3.6 billion in military construction funds that President Donald Trump planned to use to finance an expanded and improved border wall .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Appeals issued a brief order on Wednesday granting the Trump administration ’ s request to stay the injunction that U.S. District Court Judge David Briones , based in El Paso , Texas , issued last month… The 5th Circuit panel ’ s majority did not provide a detailed explanation for its action , but noted that last July the Supreme Court stayed a similar injunction issued by a federal judge in Oakland , Calif .
The majority decision from the panel noted ( as I predicted originally ) that the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer .
They also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the challenge in the first place .
That second part of the panel ’ s justification in lifting the injunction probably generated a few chuckles in the judges ’ chambers .
The county of El Paso claimed in the original complaint that they had could show substantial harm done to them by border wall construction because it would have “ damaged their reputation as a county.
” The activist group Border Network for Human Rights was a bit vaguer , indicating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent people from freely crossing the border or something .
( Ya think ? )
Of course , the military didn ’ t really slow down much after the previous ruling anyway .
Last month they completed another eleven miles of wall construction in two sections near the town of Donna , Texas .
CBS News was able to get access to the locations where new border wall is being constructed along the 2,000-mile-long southern border .
In rural south Texas , construction crews are pushing to finish an 8-mile stretch of border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The total cost is about $ 167 million .
West of Donna , CBS News saw a second 3-mile stretch of wall that is also being built .
Nearly $ 10 billion has been diverted from government agencies for wall funding .
Critics who are unhappy with new border wall construction are quick to point out that not all sections of the new or refurbished wall are contiguous .
That ’ s true , but we were never going to come close to building a wall along the entire border in a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completed is one less mile where we need border agents on patrol .
And as the electronic monitoring technology continues to be installed , the manpower requirements go down even further .
All of this work is already producing measurable effects .
In the second half of 2019 , illegal border crossings dropped for five straight months as compared to previous years .
A lot of people seemed to feel that this sort of progress was impossible .
Apparently it wasn ’ t .

Back in October, we looked at a court ruling in Texas that blocked President Trump’s plan to allocate certain military funding to continue work on border wall construction. Judge David Briones, a Clinton appointee, agreed with the County of El Paso, Texas and liberal activist group Border Network for Human Rights, that the project would result in “damages” to the plaintiffs. At that time, I posed a few questions, including this one. “You might be wondering how either of these entities established standing to bring a lawsuit over the disbursement of federal funds. Good question.”
The White House appealed the decision and it was sent to a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circut. In a 2-1 decision, they seemed to see the same problem with the complaint and lifted the injunction, ruling that the project can move forward. (Politico)
A divided federal appeals court has lifted a lower court’s order blocking $3.6 billion in military construction funds that President Donald Trump planned to use to finance an expanded and improved border wall. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order on Wednesday granting the Trump administration’s request to stay the injunction that U.S. District Court Judge David Briones, based in El Paso, Texas, issued last month… The 5th Circuit panel’s majority did not provide a detailed explanation for its action, but noted that last July the Supreme Court stayed a similar injunction issued by a federal judge in Oakland, Calif.
The majority decision from the panel noted (as I predicted originally) that the Supreme Court already shot down a similar complaint last summer. They also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring the challenge in the first place.
That second part of the panel’s justification in lifting the injunction probably generated a few chuckles in the judges’ chambers. The county of El Paso claimed in the original complaint that they had could show substantial harm done to them by border wall construction because it would have “damaged their reputation as a county.” The activist group Border Network for Human Rights was a bit vaguer, indicating that border walls are bad because they prevent people from freely crossing the border or something. (Ya think?)
Of course, the military didn’t really slow down much after the previous ruling anyway. Last month they completed another eleven miles of wall construction in two sections near the town of Donna, Texas.
CBS News was able to get access to the locations where new border wall is being constructed along the 2,000-mile-long southern border. In rural south Texas, construction crews are pushing to finish an 8-mile stretch of border wall in the town of Donna. The total cost is about $167 million. West of Donna, CBS News saw a second 3-mile stretch of wall that is also being built. Nearly $10 billion has been diverted from government agencies for wall funding.
Critics who are unhappy with new border wall construction are quick to point out that not all sections of the new or refurbished wall are contiguous. That’s true, but we were never going to come close to building a wall along the entire border in a single term. But every mile that is completed is one less mile where we need border agents on patrol. And as the electronic monitoring technology continues to be installed, the manpower requirements go down even further.
All of this work is already producing measurable effects. In the second half of 2019, illegal border crossings dropped for five straight months as compared to previous years. A lot of people seemed to feel that this sort of progress was impossible. Apparently it wasn’t.


hotair--2020-01-09--Megyn Kelly talks to Fox News ex-staffers: What it was like to be sexually harassed by Roger Ailes

Worth the 30 minutes if you can spare it , although if you can ’ t there ’ s a three-minute snippet posted elsewhere by Kelly addressing Ailes ’ s infamous habit of asking women anchors to “ spin ” for him so he could check them out .
I was a law-school grad , a successful lawyer , a professional woman , says Kelly .
But when he asked me to spin I did , she adds , mortified .
Which makes a certain twisted sense .
If you ’ ve chased your dream of newscasting far enough and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to land a meeting with Roger Ailes , traveling a thousand miles to finally arrive at the doorstep of mega-success , it must be hard to decline to enter when that door opens and you ’ re told the price of entry is a moment of casual sexual denigration by the boss .
And later , in some cases , much more than a moment .
The inspiration for this interview was “ Bombshell , ” the new movie about the downfall of Ailes at Fox News after first Gretchen Carlson and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his habits to investigators .
Carlson is conspicuously absent here but former Fox reporters Juliet Huddy and Rudi Bakhtiar as well as former producer Julie Zann , all of whom allege harassment while at Fox , participated .
( Neither Huddy nor Bakhtiar has worked in television since , notes Kelly in the intro . )
They watch the movie together at the start of the interview and then revisit some of the scenes during their conversation , often emotionally ; a notable example comes at 22:25 , when Kelly ’ s character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her years of silence on Ailes enabled him to prey on other women .
The character is cavalier and ruthless about that .
The real Kelly is not .
If you only have time for one newsy tidbit , though , skip to 14:27 and listen to Juliet Huddy tell her story about Bill O ’ Reilly .
Hoo boy .
Not to be missed , trust me .

Worth the 30 minutes if you can spare it, although if you can’t there’s a three-minute snippet posted elsewhere by Kelly addressing Ailes’s infamous habit of asking women anchors to “spin” for him so he could check them out. I was a law-school grad, a successful lawyer, a professional woman, says Kelly. But when he asked me to spin I did, she adds, mortified.
Which makes a certain twisted sense. If you’ve chased your dream of newscasting far enough and long enough and with enough good fortune to land a meeting with Roger Ailes, traveling a thousand miles to finally arrive at the doorstep of mega-success, it must be hard to decline to enter when that door opens and you’re told the price of entry is a moment of casual sexual denigration by the boss.
And later, in some cases, much more than a moment.
The inspiration for this interview was “Bombshell,” the new movie about the downfall of Ailes at Fox News after first Gretchen Carlson and then Kelly, among others, finally reported his habits to investigators. Carlson is conspicuously absent here but former Fox reporters Juliet Huddy and Rudi Bakhtiar as well as former producer Julie Zann, all of whom allege harassment while at Fox, participated. (Neither Huddy nor Bakhtiar has worked in television since, notes Kelly in the intro.) They watch the movie together at the start of the interview and then revisit some of the scenes during their conversation, often emotionally; a notable example comes at 22:25, when Kelly’s character in the film is confronted about how her years of silence on Ailes enabled him to prey on other women. The character is cavalier and ruthless about that. The real Kelly is not.
If you only have time for one newsy tidbit, though, skip to 14:27 and listen to Juliet Huddy tell her story about Bill O’Reilly. Hoo boy. Not to be missed, trust me.


hotair--2020-01-09--Are you ready for the Hillary Clinton docuseries on Hulu?

To quote Hillary Clinton herself , “ What difference , at this point , does it make ?
” In March , Hulu will release a four-part docuseries on Hillary Clinton .
Will it be a blockbuster hit for the streaming service or has everyone finally had their fill of her and her unending need for attention ?
It is titled Hillary which seems like a really unimaginative title .
Despite the ho-hum beginning with the title , the docuseries is described as historic by Hulu and will debut at the Sundance Film Festival .
Wednesday it was announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Q & A , along with the director .
Who among us is surprised that Madame President will take the opportunity to deliver her opinions to a “ star-studded crowd ” in an elitist setting ?
The director , Nanette Burstein , spoke about access to Hillary ’ s life story .
It includes Bill and Chelsea , too .
“ This was a fantastic opportunity , ” said Burstein .
“ Secretary Clinton gave me extraordinary access to her life story , which is utterly compelling .
Beyond that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were able to highlight the history of the women ’ s movement over the last fifty years , and especially what happens to women who aspire to take on roles traditionally inhabited by men.
” The docuseries will have interviews Clinton , her husband former President Bill Clinton , her daughter Chelsea Clinton , as well as staff , friends and journalists .
The project will have moments that have never been seen before form her 2016 campaign , as well as what Hulu calls “ biographical chapters of Clinton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became at once one of the most admired and vilified women in the world.
” I don ’ t know about you , but I find it hard to believe that there is much of anything that hasn ’ t been previously released about Hillary Clinton ’ s life , even about her failed presidential campaign .
According to the director , she was given “ free rein to pose even the most difficult questions to Clinton.
” The trailer for the docuseries doesn ’ t reveal anything we don ’ t already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill .
It will be interesting to see what exactly the difficult questions are , though .
Hillary has been releasing photographs on social media that are decades old .
She did it with posts during the Christmas season , using old Christmas cards .
Continuing along the same lines , a picture was posted on her Instagram account when the docuseries was announced .
It looks to be between 20 and 30 years old .
Maybe it shows up in the docuseries .
A Sundance director really loves Hillary now , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was a fan of Hillary ’ s before , though .
“ It ’ s a more nuanced and much more personal [ project ] , getting to know somebody as a person as much as their political life , ” Sundance director John Cooper tells The Hollywood Reporter .
“ I was a Hillary supporter , but I don ’ t know if I ever loved her as much as I did watching this film .
Her strength and intelligence .
Seeing the struggle of her trying to [ run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All the rules were changing .
Things that were happening that would kick a candidate [ like Donald Trump ] out were making him stronger .
It ’ s just fascinating to watch.
” The CEO of Hulu is a fan , too .
There is a possibility that both Clinton and the Obamas might find themselves at Sundance at the same time .
That would be liberal nirvana .
The documentary “ Crip Camp , ” produced by Higher Ground , the production company opened by former President Obama and Michelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I admit when it comes to Hulu , I ’ ll watch Hillary .
I like documentaries , though four hours is a stretch .
I ’ ll be curious about what she says .
We all know she ’ s not going anywhere .
She ’ ll stay on the stage as long as she can .
The Sundance Film Festival will be held from Jan. 23 to Feb. 2 , 2020 .
Hillary debuts exclusively on Hulu on March 6 , 2020 .
I ’ ll end with this little post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account Wednesday .
Why ?
I don ’ t know but let ’ s hope it ’ s not about encouraging her to run again .
And , note – it ’ s another decades-old clip of her .
It ’ s just weird at this point .

To quote Hillary Clinton herself, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” In March, Hulu will release a four-part docuseries on Hillary Clinton. Will it be a blockbuster hit for the streaming service or has everyone finally had their fill of her and her unending need for attention? It is titled Hillary which seems like a really unimaginative title.
Despite the ho-hum beginning with the title, the docuseries is described as historic by Hulu and will debut at the Sundance Film Festival. Wednesday it was announced that Hillary will attend the premiere and participate in a Q&A, along with the director. Who among us is surprised that Madame President will take the opportunity to deliver her opinions to a “star-studded crowd” in an elitist setting? The director, Nanette Burstein, spoke about access to Hillary’s life story. It includes Bill and Chelsea, too.
“This was a fantastic opportunity,” said Burstein. “Secretary Clinton gave me extraordinary access to her life story, which is utterly compelling. Beyond that, given the particulars of her narrative, we were able to highlight the history of the women’s movement over the last fifty years, and especially what happens to women who aspire to take on roles traditionally inhabited by men.” The docuseries will have interviews Clinton, her husband former President Bill Clinton, her daughter Chelsea Clinton, as well as staff, friends and journalists. The project will have moments that have never been seen before form her 2016 campaign, as well as what Hulu calls “biographical chapters of Clinton’s life and seeks to examine how she became at once one of the most admired and vilified women in the world.”
I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to believe that there is much of anything that hasn’t been previously released about Hillary Clinton’s life, even about her failed presidential campaign. According to the director, she was given “free rein to pose even the most difficult questions to Clinton.” The trailer for the docuseries doesn’t reveal anything we don’t already know about her and her life with Bill. It will be interesting to see what exactly the difficult questions are, though.
Hillary has been releasing photographs on social media that are decades old. She did it with posts during the Christmas season, using old Christmas cards. Continuing along the same lines, a picture was posted on her Instagram account when the docuseries was announced. It looks to be between 20 and 30 years old. Maybe it shows up in the docuseries.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B5dA_9xpVsW/?utm_source=ig_embed
A Sundance director really loves Hillary now, you know, after watching the four-hour docuseries. He was a fan of Hillary’s before, though.
“It’s a more nuanced and much more personal [project], getting to know somebody as a person as much as their political life,” Sundance director John Cooper tells The Hollywood Reporter. “I was a Hillary supporter, but I don’t know if I ever loved her as much as I did watching this film. Her strength and intelligence. Seeing the struggle of her trying to [run for president] in a changing world. All the rules were changing. Things that were happening that would kick a candidate [like Donald Trump] out were making him stronger. It’s just fascinating to watch.”
The CEO of Hulu is a fan, too.
“Hillary is a deeply personal, reflective and unflinching look at the woman who is arguably the most recognizable female political figure in history,” said Randy Freer, CEO, Hulu. “Hillary is yet another example of Hulu’s continued commitment to elevating powerful and relevant stories about the human experience and joins our growing slate of original documentaries including award-winning Minding The Gap and Ask Dr. Ruth.”
There is a possibility that both Clinton and the Obamas might find themselves at Sundance at the same time. That would be liberal nirvana. The documentary “Crip Camp,” produced by Higher Ground, the production company opened by former President Obama and Michelle Obama will also premiere at Sundance.
I admit when it comes to Hulu, I’ll watch Hillary. I like documentaries, though four hours is a stretch. I’ll be curious about what she says. We all know she’s not going anywhere. She’ll stay on the stage as long as she can.
The Sundance Film Festival will be held from Jan. 23 to Feb. 2, 2020. Hillary debuts exclusively on Hulu on March 6, 2020.
I’ll end with this little post that appeared on Hillary’s Twitter account Wednesday. Why? I don’t know but let’s hope it’s not about encouraging her to run again. And, note – it’s another decades-old clip of her. It’s just weird at this point.


hotair--2020-01-09--Iranian commander: We made sure not to inflict casualties on US in missile strike

Old and busted , Iranian propaganda edition : We inflicted scores of casualties on the Great Satan to avenge Qassem Soleimani ’ s death !
New hotness : We deliberately avoided casualties to keep from provoking the Great Satan !
Er … what ?
After initially claiming to have killed 80 “ American terrorists ” and wounding another 200+ in their missile strikes , an Iranian commander explained that they didn ’ t intend to hurt anyone .
The cognitive whiplash in Tehran must have sent dozens to the hospital : An Iranian military commander said Thursday that missiles fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq were not aimed at inflicting casualties , in the latest sign that Iran was seeking to avoid any further escalation of hostilities with the United States .
After more than a dozen missiles slammed into the bases early Wednesday local time , both sides for now appear to be stepping back from further conflict .
“ We did not intend to kill , ” said Brig .
Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh , head of the Revolutionary Guard ’ s Aerospace Force , according to Iranian state media .
“ We intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even so , the Iranians are sticking with their initial casualty assessment propaganda : To put it mildly , this is a bizarre claim .
Is Hajizadeh saying his military was incompetent with its use of precision missiles ?
If the intent was not to cause casualties , shouldn ’ t his forces have been able to carry out that mission — especially on a facility as large and spread out as the Ayn al-Assad base ?
Eighty killed and two hundred-plus wounded is a pretty sloppy outcome if the attack was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances in which a significantly lethal attack might have prompted return fire on Iranian facilities , including its capital .
This is an attempt by the regime to eat its rather pathetic cake and have it , too .
They want credit for a limited response internationally while talking up the damage for domestic consumption .
This concession to reality suggests , however , that perhaps taking on the Great Satan wasn ’ t as popular a move as the mullahs might have thought , or perhaps that the people aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani as much as Western media has been led to believe .
( We ’ ll have more on that later today . )
Still , Hajizadeh confirms what most assumed yesterday after the pinprick missile strikes in Iraq : Iran didn ’ t have the stomach for an all-out , overt fight .
They deliberately calculated their “ retaliation ” to be completely symbolic rather than substantive .
The death of Soleimani changed the rules and made clear that the US had decided not to play along with the proxy deception that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll eventually test that again , but the next time they won ’ t have Soleimani ’ s replacement out in the open when they do .
Addendum : Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Milley isn ’ t buying it , although he emphasizes this is a personal opinion : He ’ s more expert than I am , obviously , but if Iran wanted to kill people , they would have shot more than 16 missiles at two very large and largely empty compounds .

Old and busted, Iranian propaganda edition: We inflicted scores of casualties on the Great Satan to avenge Qassem Soleimani’s death! New hotness: We deliberately avoided casualties to keep from provoking the Great Satan!
Er … what? After initially claiming to have killed 80 “American terrorists” and wounding another 200+ in their missile strikes, an Iranian commander explained that they didn’t intend to hurt anyone. The cognitive whiplash in Tehran must have sent dozens to the hospital:
An Iranian military commander said Thursday that missiles fired at bases used by U.S. troops in Iraq were not aimed at inflicting casualties, in the latest sign that Iran was seeking to avoid any further escalation of hostilities with the United States. After more than a dozen missiles slammed into the bases early Wednesday local time, both sides for now appear to be stepping back from further conflict. “We did not intend to kill,” said Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Aerospace Force, according to Iranian state media. “We intended to hit the enemy’s military machinery.”
Even so, the Iranians are sticking with their initial casualty assessment propaganda:
However, he repeated the government’s claim that “tens of people were killed or wounded.” U.S. and Iraqi officials said the strikes caused no casualties.
To put it mildly, this is a bizarre claim. Is Hajizadeh saying his military was incompetent with its use of precision missiles? If the intent was not to cause casualties, shouldn’t his forces have been able to carry out that mission — especially on a facility as large and spread out as the Ayn al-Assad base? Eighty killed and two hundred-plus wounded is a pretty sloppy outcome if the attack was intended to be non-lethal, especially given the circumstances in which a significantly lethal attack might have prompted return fire on Iranian facilities, including its capital.
This is an attempt by the regime to eat its rather pathetic cake and have it, too. They want credit for a limited response internationally while talking up the damage for domestic consumption. This concession to reality suggests, however, that perhaps taking on the Great Satan wasn’t as popular a move as the mullahs might have thought, or perhaps that the people aren’t mourning the loss of their jailer Soleimani as much as Western media has been led to believe. (We’ll have more on that later today.)
Still, Hajizadeh confirms what most assumed yesterday after the pinprick missile strikes in Iraq: Iran didn’t have the stomach for an all-out, overt fight. They deliberately calculated their “retaliation” to be completely symbolic rather than substantive. The death of Soleimani changed the rules and made clear that the US had decided not to play along with the proxy deception that Iran has used for decades. They’ll eventually test that again, but the next time they won’t have Soleimani’s replacement out in the open when they do.
Addendum: Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Milley isn’t buying it, although he emphasizes this is a personal opinion:
Milley calls it a "personal assessment," though https://t.co/buSqEP5gnJ — Jennifer Cafarella (@JennyCafarella) January 8, 2020
He’s more expert than I am, obviously, but if Iran wanted to kill people, they would have shot more than 16 missiles at two very large and largely empty compounds.


hotair--2020-01-09--Mike Lee: They wouldn't tell us at the briefing if they thought Trump needed Congress's approval to

Mike Lee: They wouldn't tell us at the briefing if they thought Trump needed Congress's approval to assassinate Iran's supreme leader

“ The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting , ” says Lee in the NPR interview embedded below , reflecting on the now-infamous briefing .
That hypothetical shouldn ’ t have been difficult for the briefers .
Soleimani was arguably fair game because he was a military officer and was operating on Iraqi soil , where U.S. troops are stationed .
Khamenei is a head of state and assassinations of political figures are barred by executive order .
Plus , to hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran itself .
And even if we caught him outside Iran , liquidating the nation ’ s supreme leader would be an act of all-out war that not even Soleimani ’ s death was .
The reprisals wouldn ’ t be limited this time to missile attacks on an air base ’ s empty parking lot or trollish JPEGs of Trump with a handprint across his face .
Khamenei ’ s a terrorist and deserves the Soleimani treatment as a moral matter but so do a lot of people who ’ ll never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t and shouldn ’ t target him without Congress weighing in beforehand to say on behalf of the American people that they accept the enormous consequences of proceeding with an operation like that .
According to Lee , though , the briefers were noncommittal when asked about it .
Decapitating the head of a major Middle Eastern power on a presidential whim seems to be an option that ’ s in play among our top national security officers .
Lee was also asked today why his pal Marco Rubio seemed so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise highly depressing briefing .
He ’ s too nice a guy to really unload ( and Senate norms of comity would frown upon him for doing so even if he wanted to ) , but this is as close as we ’ ll get in Lee-speak to “ Because he sucks.
” It ’ s not difficult to imagine .
Rubio is an extreme hawk .
Like Lindsey Graham , he ’ ll never decline an opportunity to provide political cover to the White House and Pentagon when they ’ re poised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that means operating in bad faith .
Be happy that he at least didn ’ t stoop to the sort of demagogic garbage Graham did yesterday when he accused Lee and Rand Paul of “ empowering the enemy ” by wanting congressional limits on presidential warmaking .
Or float the novel theory to the Fox faithful that it ’ s Congress that ’ s seeking to take away the constitutional power to declare war from the president rather than vice versa : “ [ A ] ccording to a source with knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he had watched [ Tucker ] Carlson ’ s show and it had affected his view on the Iran situation , ” reported BuzzFeed in a story last night .
That was the source of lots of jokes : To think , we might be bombing Iran right now if Bill O ’ Reilly were still in the 8 p.m. slot on Fox .
But the alarming truth behind the absurdity of Trump taking his cues from a cable-news yakker is that Carlson may be more of a restraint on the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team right now than Congress is .
If the people who briefed Lee yesterday really are telling Trump privately that he has the inherent authority to hit anyone and everyone at any time , with no advance buy-in from the national legislature , than persuading the president to the contrary is a far more potent weapon than Congress ’ s Article I power to check the executive .
Sweet dreams tonight .

“The fact that there was nothing but a refusal to answer that question was perhaps the most deeply upsetting thing to me in that meeting,” says Lee in the NPR interview embedded below, reflecting on the now-infamous briefing. That hypothetical shouldn’t have been difficult for the briefers. Soleimani was arguably fair game because he was a military officer and was operating on Iraqi soil, where U.S. troops are stationed. Khamenei is a head of state and assassinations of political figures are barred by executive order. Plus, to hit him we’d have to attack Iran itself. And even if we caught him outside Iran, liquidating the nation’s supreme leader would be an act of all-out war that not even Soleimani’s death was. The reprisals wouldn’t be limited this time to missile attacks on an air base’s empty parking lot or trollish JPEGs of Trump with a handprint across his face.
Khamenei’s a terrorist and deserves the Soleimani treatment as a moral matter but so do a lot of people who’ll never receive it. So no, we couldn’t and shouldn’t target him without Congress weighing in beforehand to say on behalf of the American people that they accept the enormous consequences of proceeding with an operation like that.
According to Lee, though, the briefers were noncommittal when asked about it. Decapitating the head of a major Middle Eastern power on a presidential whim seems to be an option that’s in play among our top national security officers.
Lee was also asked today why his pal Marco Rubio seemed so impressed with what he heard in this otherwise highly depressing briefing. He’s too nice a guy to really unload (and Senate norms of comity would frown upon him for doing so even if he wanted to), but this is as close as we’ll get in Lee-speak to “Because he sucks.”
Sen. Lee to NPR: "I literally find it difficult to imagine how my friend Marco [Rubio], who is smart, who listens carefully, who cares about these things, how he could emerge from that meeting at say that it was good. It was terrible. It was an unmitigated disaster.” — Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 9, 2020
It’s not difficult to imagine. Rubio is an extreme hawk. Like Lindsey Graham, he’ll never decline an opportunity to provide political cover to the White House and Pentagon when they’re poised to flex some military muscle, even if that means operating in bad faith. Be happy that he at least didn’t stoop to the sort of demagogic garbage Graham did yesterday when he accused Lee and Rand Paul of “empowering the enemy” by wanting congressional limits on presidential warmaking. Or float the novel theory to the Fox faithful that it’s Congress that’s seeking to take away the constitutional power to declare war from the president rather than vice versa:
https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1215261817603284994
“[A]ccording to a source with knowledge of the conversations, Trump told people that he had watched [Tucker] Carlson’s show and it had affected his view on the Iran situation,” reported BuzzFeed in a story last night. That was the source of lots of jokes: To think, we might be bombing Iran right now if Bill O’Reilly were still in the 8 p.m. slot on Fox. But the alarming truth behind the absurdity of Trump taking his cues from a cable-news yakker is that Carlson may be more of a restraint on the president and, by extension, his natsec team right now than Congress is. If the people who briefed Lee yesterday really are telling Trump privately that he has the inherent authority to hit anyone and everyone at any time, with no advance buy-in from the national legislature, than persuading the president to the contrary is a far more potent weapon than Congress’s Article I power to check the executive. Sweet dreams tonight.


hotair--2020-01-10--Today's Twitter dispute: Did the US kill Muammar Gaddafi?

This morning Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley tweeted that Obama “ killed bin Laden , al-Awlaki and Gaddafi , without Congressional approval… ” But lots of people jumped in with a correction on this point : Is this true ?
Well , technically yes .
Gaddafi ’ s last moments didn ’ t come at the hands of Americans .
However , his death did follow an airstrike led by a US predator drone being operated from Las Vegas .
Here ’ s a detailed account published in Oct 2011 by the Telegraph : Gaddafi had been under surveillance by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intelligence breakthrough allowed them to pinpoint his location .
An American drone and an array of Nato eavesdropping aircraft had been trained on his Sirte stronghold to ensure he could not escape… MI6 agents and CIA officers on the ground were also providing intelligence and it is believed that Gaddafi was given a code name in the same way that US forces used the name Geronimo during the operation to kill Osama bin Laden… The Predator drone , flown out of Sicily and controlled via satellite from a base outside Las Vegas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Hellfire anti-tank missiles .
Moments later French jets , most likely Rafales , swept in , targeting the vehicles with 500lb Paveway bombs or highly accurate £600,000 AASM munitions .
Gaddafi survived the attack on the convoy but was captured by rebel forces a few hours later .
So to sum up , we invaded Libya , helped track Gaddafi to where he was hiding , isolated him , realized he was making a run for it , and fired missiles at his convoy such that he wound up hiding in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who shot him .
Some argued that it was disingenuous to pretend the US wasn ’ t responsible given the events leading to his death : Gidley argued his critics were missing the point : It ’ s worth noting that Gidley is correct about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
She was much less careful about Gaddafi ’ s cause of death during a break between interviews back in 2011 : “ We came .
We saw .
He died , ” she said , an obvious reference to “ Veni , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came , I saw , I conquered ) attributed to Julius Caesar .
At the time she said this she had just gotten word of Gaddafi ’ s capture which was still unconfirmed .
Still , it ’ s fair to say she wasn ’ t averse to the idea the US was responsible .
Update : Twitchy has some more context from 2011 .
The US drone connection to Gaddafi ’ s death didn ’ t seem as obscure then as it does today .

This morning Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley tweeted that Obama “killed bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Gaddafi, without Congressional approval…”
Soleimani was, in fact, planning "imminent attacks." While Democrats and the media quibble over its definition, quick point: When Obama killed bin Laden, al-Awlaki and Gaddafi, without Congressional approval, there were NO "imminent attacks" and Democrats did not ask or care. — Hogan Gidley 45 Archived (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
But lots of people jumped in with a correction on this point:
Gaddafi wasn’t killed by the US https://t.co/y87kUXOCoi — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 10, 2020
Hey Hogan, long time no see. Bin Laden and Awlaki were senior, operational Al Qaeda leaders. Congress authorized war against AQ back in 2001. Gaddafi was killed by members of the NTC – not by US forces. But wrt imminence – you have agency here. Release the intelligence. Prove it. — Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) January 10, 2020
Obama did not kill Gaddafi. What? https://t.co/K9iWIbgmys — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) January 10, 2020
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1215712513817567238
Narrator: Obama did not in fact kill Gaddafi. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) January 10, 2020
Dude, can you do the basic level of homework to know that "Obama" didn't kill Gaddafi? He was caught by a rebel militia and executed, you ridiculous goof. — Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 10, 2020
Is this true? Well, technically yes. Gaddafi’s last moments didn’t come at the hands of Americans. However, his death did follow an airstrike led by a US predator drone being operated from Las Vegas. Here’s a detailed account published in Oct 2011 by the Telegraph:
Gaddafi had been under surveillance by Nato forces for the past week after an intelligence breakthrough allowed them to pinpoint his location. An American drone and an array of Nato eavesdropping aircraft had been trained on his Sirte stronghold to ensure he could not escape… MI6 agents and CIA officers on the ground were also providing intelligence and it is believed that Gaddafi was given a code name in the same way that US forces used the name Geronimo during the operation to kill Osama bin Laden… The Predator drone, flown out of Sicily and controlled via satellite from a base outside Las Vegas, struck the convoy with a number of Hellfire anti-tank missiles. Moments later French jets, most likely Rafales, swept in, targeting the vehicles with 500lb Paveway bombs or highly accurate £600,000 AASM munitions.
Gaddafi survived the attack on the convoy but was captured by rebel forces a few hours later. So to sum up, we invaded Libya, helped track Gaddafi to where he was hiding, isolated him, realized he was making a run for it, and fired missiles at his convoy such that he wound up hiding in a drain pipe. But it was locals who shot him. Some argued that it was disingenuous to pretend the US wasn’t responsible given the events leading to his death:
If we want to effectively challenge Trump propaganda on murdering Soleimani, the answer is not parroting Obama propaganda on murdering Gaddafi. Gaddafi was killed after US-led NATO forces bombed his convoy & gave intel to allies on the ground. So US played major role in killing. https://t.co/xY4HSYpLcr — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 10, 2020
Gidley argued his critics were missing the point:
…Emails (the ones Hillary didn’t delete) showed her advisers urged her to own it. Obama’s authorization of a bombing campaign and his Administration’s assistance in the overthrow of the Libyan government led to Gaddafi’s death…everyone knows this. We all saw how he died… — Hogan Gidley 45 Archived (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
…Bottom line: For Democrats, this is not about the power of the Presidency this is about who the President is. Democrats rush to criticize this President – even when he takes out the world’s most dangerous terrorist, simply because the President is @realDonaldTrump. — Hogan Gidley 45 Archived (@hogangidley45) January 10, 2020
It’s worth noting that Gidley is correct about then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was much less careful about Gaddafi’s cause of death during a break between interviews back in 2011: “We came. We saw. He died,” she said, an obvious reference to “Veni, Vidi, Vici,” (I came, I saw, I conquered) attributed to Julius Caesar.
At the time she said this she had just gotten word of Gaddafi’s capture which was still unconfirmed. Still, it’s fair to say she wasn’t averse to the idea the US was responsible.
Update: Twitchy has some more context from 2011.
MT @AnnCurry US officials tell NBC News a US Predator drone fired hellfire missile at convoy carrying Khadafy, who was then captured. — NBC News (@NBCNews) October 20, 2011
Steve Clemons of The Atlantic on Libya–"I have no doubt someday there will be a Barack Obama Square"/Monument in shape of Predator Drone? — Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) October 21, 2011
The US drone connection to Gaddafi’s death didn’t seem as obscure then as it does today.


hotair--2020-01-10--Rest easy, England: Oprah weighs in on Megxit

Because , of course , she did .
The story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle ’ s desire to shed their royal obligations and flee England for a life in North America ( Megxit ) has officially jumped the shark .
Oprah Winfrey ’ s friendship with the royal couple has delivered a whole new layer to the story .
As Ed wrote about earlier this week , the two are not thrilled with their life in England .
It ’ s not easy being royal , you know .
What with royal duties and obligations , and unrelenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents supposed to cope ?
It really all boils down to that – they would now like to go their own way and no longer be under the thumb of Harry ’ s grandmother , the Queen of England .
As an Anglophile , I don ’ t even have a problem with the “ stepping away ” from the royal family story .
To quote America ’ s queen bee , Hillary Clinton , “ What difference , at this point , what difference does it make ?
” Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line to the throne and he only receives attention when he is messing up .
Other than stories on his time in the Army and two tours of service in Afghanistan – all admirable – Harry really captured attention when he decided to settle down and marry an American actress .
Also , the fact that Meghan Markle is biracial and how she fits into the royal family was British tabloid gold .
Before Meghan , he was known as a party boy who drank a lot , dated a lot , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time he donned an imitation uniform complete with a Nazi insignia .
Meghan Markle is used to the life of an American actress .
She is a far-left feminist and liked to voice political opinions , especially during the 2016 election cycle .
She was anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton .
Now that she is a member of the royal family , she is not at liberty to make political statements , as the royal family is supposed to be non-political .
She even made a point of not taking part in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You may remember that President Trump described her as a “ nasty woman ” .
Most of her comments occurred during an appearance on The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore .
It was 2016 and Meghan Markle was supporting Hillary Clinton for president ahead of the election .
She said : “ Of course Trump is divisive—think about female voters alone .
I think it was in 2012 , the Republican Party lost the female vote by 12 points .
That ’ s a huge number and as misogynistic as Trump is—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge chunk of it.
” She went on : “ You ’ re not just voting for a woman if it ’ s Hillary ( Clinton ) .
Yes , you ’ re voting because she ’ s a woman , but certainly , because Trump has made it easy to see that you don ’ t really want that kind of world that he ’ s painting.
” She also encouraged her Instagram followers to read Noam Chomsky ’ s book , “ Who Rules the World ” .
The book includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election results .
The timing of the announcement by Harry and Meghan was tone-deaf .
This week has brought headlines of continuing Australian bushfires and the deaths of Canadians in the aircraft crash in Iran .
It certainly looks like the two are more concerned about their own life than those whom they are supposed to serve .
Oprah is denying a report that she advised them to develop their own brand , but the couple “ have trademarked “ Sussex Royal ” as a brand on more than 100 properties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , photographs and educational and charitable endeavors — with predicted revenue of over $ 500 million.
” This plays into their claim that they wish to be financially independent of the royal family .
If anyone knows about building a personal brand and reaping the benefits of that brand , it ’ s Oprah .
When asked about the story , she denied it .
What else was she to do ?
Take credit for encouraging a move that blindsided the Queen of England ?
Harry and Meghan have lots of celebrity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coterie of powerful US players , including the Obamas , George and Amal Clooney , Serena Williams , James Corden and Meghan ’ s designer pal Misha Nonoo , whose new husband , oil heir Michael Hess , has offered them a place to stay in one of the family ’ s three homes in the gated Malibu Colony — dubbed “ Billionaire ’ s Beach ” — we are told .
A source said , “ Oprah was the first person to talk to Harry and Meghan about breaking free and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own brand .
She made them realize it was really possible.
” A rep for Oprah declined to comment .
Harry is also close to Barack Obama , and insiders say the prince could follow a similar after-presidency career path , involving philanthropy , speeches , book deals and documentaries .
Page Six can also reveal that Oprah ’ s BFF Gayle King is set to score the first interview with the Sussexes post-Megxit .
King attended Meg ’ s NYC baby shower and visited them after the birth of baby Archie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s hush-hush , but there ’ s no one else they would turn to.
” The point is this – they can go off and live a life of their own making without the drama of a formal split with the royals .
No one will care .
This story is all about them .
The marketing of their royal brand is tacky , to say the least .
Vendors work hard to acquire the official stamp of approval of the royal family in England .
Meghan Markle knew the life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t blame Harry for trying to protect her from the British press .
But , that ’ s a part of the job .
Running away will not end attention from the press , at least not for a while .
For now , they just look like whiny brats .
This drama will continue for a while .
Already Meghan has gone back to Canada to be with baby Archie and left Harry to deal with his family .
All this publicity will be great for sales of branded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , right ?
Unless it all backfires .

Because, of course, she did. The story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s desire to shed their royal obligations and flee England for a life in North America (Megxit) has officially jumped the shark. Oprah Winfrey’s friendship with the royal couple has delivered a whole new layer to the story.
As Ed wrote about earlier this week, the two are not thrilled with their life in England. It’s not easy being royal, you know. What with royal duties and obligations, and unrelenting press coverage, how are the new parents supposed to cope? It really all boils down to that – they would now like to go their own way and no longer be under the thumb of Harry’s grandmother, the Queen of England.
As an Anglophile, I don’t even have a problem with the “stepping away” from the royal family story. To quote America’s queen bee, Hillary Clinton, “What difference, at this point, what difference does it make?” Let’s be honest, Harry is sixth in line to the throne and he only receives attention when he is messing up. Other than stories on his time in the Army and two tours of service in Afghanistan – all admirable – Harry really captured attention when he decided to settle down and marry an American actress. Also, the fact that Meghan Markle is biracial and how she fits into the royal family was British tabloid gold. Before Meghan, he was known as a party boy who drank a lot, dated a lot, and sometimes dressed in questionable fashion – like the time he donned an imitation uniform complete with a Nazi insignia.
Meghan Markle is used to the life of an American actress. She is a far-left feminist and liked to voice political opinions, especially during the 2016 election cycle. She was anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton. Now that she is a member of the royal family, she is not at liberty to make political statements, as the royal family is supposed to be non-political. She even made a point of not taking part in a royal reception for the Trumps last summer. You may remember that President Trump described her as a “nasty woman”.
Most of her comments occurred during an appearance on The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. It was 2016 and Meghan Markle was supporting Hillary Clinton for president ahead of the election. She said: “Of course Trump is divisive—think about female voters alone. I think it was in 2012, the Republican Party lost the female vote by 12 points. That’s a huge number and as misogynistic as Trump is—and so vocal about it—that’s a huge chunk of it.” She went on: “You’re not just voting for a woman if it’s Hillary (Clinton). Yes, you’re voting because she’s a woman, but certainly, because Trump has made it easy to see that you don’t really want that kind of world that he’s painting.”
She also encouraged her Instagram followers to read Noam Chomsky’s book, “Who Rules the World”. The book includes an afterword urging a probe into the 2016 election results.
The timing of the announcement by Harry and Meghan was tone-deaf. This week has brought headlines of continuing Australian bushfires and the deaths of Canadians in the aircraft crash in Iran. It certainly looks like the two are more concerned about their own life than those whom they are supposed to serve.
Oprah is denying a report that she advised them to develop their own brand, but the couple “have trademarked “Sussex Royal” as a brand on more than 100 properties in the UK, including clothing, stationery, photographs and educational and charitable endeavors — with predicted revenue of over $500 million.” This plays into their claim that they wish to be financially independent of the royal family. If anyone knows about building a personal brand and reaping the benefits of that brand, it’s Oprah. When asked about the story, she denied it. What else was she to do? Take credit for encouraging a move that blindsided the Queen of England?
“Meghan and Harry do not need my help figuring out what’s best for them,” Winfrey, who famously attended the couple’s wedding in May 2018, tells PEOPLE. “I care about them both and support whatever decisions they make for their family.”
Harry and Meghan have lots of celebrity and high-profile friends.
They’ve gathered a coterie of powerful US players, including the Obamas, George and Amal Clooney, Serena Williams, James Corden and Meghan’s designer pal Misha Nonoo, whose new husband, oil heir Michael Hess, has offered them a place to stay in one of the family’s three homes in the gated Malibu Colony — dubbed “Billionaire’s Beach” — we are told. A source said, “Oprah was the first person to talk to Harry and Meghan about breaking free and doing their own thing, building on their own brand. She made them realize it was really possible.” A rep for Oprah declined to comment. Harry is also close to Barack Obama, and insiders say the prince could follow a similar after-presidency career path, involving philanthropy, speeches, book deals and documentaries. Page Six can also reveal that Oprah’s BFF Gayle King is set to score the first interview with the Sussexes post-Megxit. King attended Meg’s NYC baby shower and visited them after the birth of baby Archie. A TV source said: “It’s hush-hush, but there’s no one else they would turn to.”
The point is this – they can go off and live a life of their own making without the drama of a formal split with the royals. No one will care. This story is all about them. The marketing of their royal brand is tacky, to say the least. Vendors work hard to acquire the official stamp of approval of the royal family in England. Meghan Markle knew the life she was getting into and frankly, I don’t blame Harry for trying to protect her from the British press. But, that’s a part of the job. Running away will not end attention from the press, at least not for a while. For now, they just look like whiny brats. This drama will continue for a while. Already Meghan has gone back to Canada to be with baby Archie and left Harry to deal with his family. All this publicity will be great for sales of branded products when they go to market, though, right? Unless it all backfires.


hotair--2020-01-10--Ilhan Omar: Sanctions on Israel would be completely different from the sanctions placed on Iran

Via Julio Rosas , a follow-up to Wednesday ’ s post about Omar accusing Trump of waging “ economic warfare ” against Iran in the form of U.S. sanctions .
He slapped another round on them just this morning , in fact , to punish them for the missile attacks on American bases on Iraq on Tuesday night .
Lots of righties wondered : If Omar thinks sanctions are tantamount to warfare in the case of Iran , i.e .
a draconian measure that should be eschewed in the interest of peace , why does she endorse sanctions against Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Sanctions ” ( BDS ) movement ?
Rosas caught up with her while she was leaving a protest last night and put the question to her .
I have no idea what this means : Is she implying that BDS has popular support ?
It doesn ’ t , at least not among the general population .
It ’ s more popular among Democratic voters — but reeeeeally unpopular among Democratic members of Congress .
When I first watched the clip below I thought maybe she was just being a lazy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preferences are necessarily shared by “ the people ” and that those she dislikes are being imposed on “ the people ” by a corrupt government .
But Philip Klein had a different read on it .
Is she … just pretending that “ sanctions ” aren ’ t part of BDS ?
While it ’ s true that the “ B ” aspect of the BDS movement involves private boycotts of Israel , the “ S ” refers to the ultimate goal of the movement : getting governments to slap sanctions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take this from me .
Just check out the website of the Palestinian BDS National Committee , which is the coalition of Palestinian organizations that leads BDS efforts .
“ One of the main reasons that Israel is able to violate international law and commit crimes against Palestinians is because governments fail to meet their legal obligations to hold it to account and provide Israel with political and material support , ” the committee explains .
“ Sanctions were the final blow to the apartheid regime in South Africa and the BDS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The BDS movement also calls for governments to meet their legal obligations not to be complicit in Israeli crimes and not to provide aid or assistance that help Israel maintain its regime of settler colonialism and apartheid.
” Is that what she ’ s doing here , ignoring the “ S ” in “ BDS ” and playing it off as nothing more than an attempt to organize an international grassroots boycott of Israel ?
I think she ’ s punting .
She knows she ’ s guilty of a double standard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the obvious , that she thinks any attempt by America to pressure another nation is a species of “ colonialism ” or whatever against oppressed peoples unless that nation turns out to be Israel .
This was the best she could do to dodge when Rosas put her on the spot .

Via Julio Rosas, a follow-up to Wednesday’s post about Omar accusing Trump of waging “economic warfare” against Iran in the form of U.S. sanctions. He slapped another round on them just this morning, in fact, to punish them for the missile attacks on American bases on Iraq on Tuesday night. Lots of righties wondered: If Omar thinks sanctions are tantamount to warfare in the case of Iran, i.e. a draconian measure that should be eschewed in the interest of peace, why does she endorse sanctions against Israel by supporting the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement?
Rosas caught up with her while she was leaving a protest last night and put the question to her. I have no idea what this means:
“The BDS movement is a movement that is driven by the people,” Omar told Townhall. “The sanctions on Iran, are sanctions that are being placed to create maximum pressure by a government. That’s very different.”
Is she implying that BDS has popular support? It doesn’t, at least not among the general population. It’s more popular among Democratic voters — but reeeeeally unpopular among Democratic members of Congress.
When I first watched the clip below I thought maybe she was just being a lazy populist, assuming that her personal policy preferences are necessarily shared by “the people” and that those she dislikes are being imposed on “the people” by a corrupt government. But Philip Klein had a different read on it. Is she … just pretending that “sanctions” aren’t part of BDS?
While it’s true that the “B” aspect of the BDS movement involves private boycotts of Israel, the “S” refers to the ultimate goal of the movement: getting governments to slap sanctions on Israel. You don’t have to take this from me. Just check out the website of the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which is the coalition of Palestinian organizations that leads BDS efforts. “One of the main reasons that Israel is able to violate international law and commit crimes against Palestinians is because governments fail to meet their legal obligations to hold it to account and provide Israel with political and material support,” the committee explains. “Sanctions were the final blow to the apartheid regime in South Africa and the BDS movement calls for sanctions against Israel. The BDS movement also calls for governments to meet their legal obligations not to be complicit in Israeli crimes and not to provide aid or assistance that help Israel maintain its regime of settler colonialism and apartheid.”
Is that what she’s doing here, ignoring the “S” in “BDS” and playing it off as nothing more than an attempt to organize an international grassroots boycott of Israel?
I think she’s punting. She knows she’s guilty of a double standard and has no explanation for it apart from the obvious, that she thinks any attempt by America to pressure another nation is a species of “colonialism” or whatever against oppressed peoples unless that nation turns out to be Israel. This was the best she could do to dodge when Rosas put her on the spot.


hotair--2020-01-10--G/O Media: We're going to restart Deadspin in Chicago

G/O Media is the company that owns the Onion and also the former Gawker properties including Deadspin .
You may recall that back in October there was a mass resignation at Deadspin after management asked employees to stick to sports .
By early November , nearly the entire staff of the site had resigned .
Today , G/O Media CEO Jim Spanfeller issued a memo stating that he plans to relaunch Deadspin but instead of doing so in New York where the site was formerly located , it will be relocated to Chicago .
The letter says employees who wish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed back but it sounds as if G/O Media is making a move to cut Deadspin off from its former employees .
Spanfeller also said he will no longer negotiate with the writer ’ s union over proposals which he said were unreasonable .
“ In terms of modifications to the Gizmodo collective bargaining agreement ’ s editorial independence provisions , we believe we have reached a point where our discussions are no longer productive and as such , we will not engage in further discussions on this topic , ” the letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek are designed not to protect the integrity of reporting , but to place virtually full operational control of the brands in control of the bargaining unit .
For example , your request to give the staff veto power over who might be hired as their boss goes far outside the norms of the media industry .
Your unreasonable and unprecedented demands are not in the best interests of the company and would inhibit our ability to successfully operate our websites for the benefit of our readers… ” The letter also criticizes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company attempted to hire : “ We have seen at least one extremely public example of a freelance writer being harassed incessantly—to the point that the individual refused to work for Deadspin further.
” The letter adds that this appears to be an effort to dissuade anyone from taking a job at Deadspin , which of course it is .
In fact , it ’ s pretty standard union operating procedure to hound “ scab ” workers .
In this case , I ’ m not sure what the point is since most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ union published a response to Spanfeller ’ s letter today .
It reads in part , “ Moving Deadspin to Chicago will not solve the problem that Jim never understood Deadspin , and did everything in his power to kill it .
The members of this bargaining unit vehemently object to this decision.
” It sort of reads like a letter from a teen runaway : “ You never understood me !
” Maybe so , but they did own the company which does matter in the real world .
Obviously there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Maybe with the site moving to Chicago , everyone involved can just move on with their lives .
Here ’ s the full letter from G/O Media : Update : Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports is offering to take Deadspin off G/O Media ’ s hands :

G/O Media is the company that owns the Onion and also the former Gawker properties including Deadspin. You may recall that back in October there was a mass resignation at Deadspin after management asked employees to stick to sports. By early November, nearly the entire staff of the site had resigned.
Today, G/O Media CEO Jim Spanfeller issued a memo stating that he plans to relaunch Deadspin but instead of doing so in New York where the site was formerly located, it will be relocated to Chicago. The letter says employees who wish to return in New York could be allowed back but it sounds as if G/O Media is making a move to cut Deadspin off from its former employees.
Spanfeller also said he will no longer negotiate with the writer’s union over proposals which he said were unreasonable. “In terms of modifications to the Gizmodo collective bargaining agreement’s editorial independence provisions, we believe we have reached a point where our discussions are no longer productive and as such, we will not engage in further discussions on this topic,” the letter said.
“The further revisions you seek are designed not to protect the integrity of reporting, but to place virtually full operational control of the brands in control of the bargaining unit. For example, your request to give the staff veto power over who might be hired as their boss goes far outside the norms of the media industry. Your unreasonable and unprecedented demands are not in the best interests of the company and would inhibit our ability to successfully operate our websites for the benefit of our readers…”
The letter also criticizes the former employees for targeting replacement writers the company attempted to hire: “We have seen at least one extremely public example of a freelance writer being harassed incessantly—to the point that the individual refused to work for Deadspin further.” The letter adds that this appears to be an effort to dissuade anyone from taking a job at Deadspin, which of course it is. In fact, it’s pretty standard union operating procedure to hound “scab” workers. In this case, I’m not sure what the point is since most of the previous staff quit.
The union published a response to Spanfeller’s letter today. It reads in part, “Moving Deadspin to Chicago will not solve the problem that Jim never understood Deadspin, and did everything in his power to kill it. The members of this bargaining unit vehemently object to this decision.”
It sort of reads like a letter from a teen runaway: “You never understood me!” Maybe so, but they did own the company which does matter in the real world.
Obviously there’s no love lost on either side. Maybe with the site moving to Chicago, everyone involved can just move on with their lives. Here’s the full letter from G/O Media:
News: G/O Media is moving Deadspin to Chicago and suspending negotiations with unionized employees. Here's the letter from Jim Spanfeller. pic.twitter.com/x3ymCOCbmI — Ben Mullin (@BenMullin) January 10, 2020
Update: Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports is offering to take Deadspin off G/O Media’s hands:


hotair--2020-01-10--Tulsi Gabbard: Yes, America bears some blame for Iran shooting down that Ukrainian jet

Between this and last month ’ s weak-ass cop-out on the big impeachment vote , she ’ s repaying her righty fans richly for their inexplicable political interest in her .
There was suspense surrounding her vote on impeachment , though .
There was no suspense as to whether she ’ d agree with Pete Buttigieg that moral culpability for the Ukrainian jet shootdown is shared between Iran and the United States even though it was Iran ’ s own negligence that brought the jet down , with not a single bullet fired that evening by the U.S. A rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good stead during Gabbard interviews : When offered an opportunity to deflect blame from Iran or its proxies ( notably Bashar Assad ) for the region ’ s problems , she ’ ll take it every time .
If it were a simple matter of her wanting to communicate that war inevitably leads to escalation and therefore should be avoided , she could have made that point without involving the jet .
Their proxies attacked our embassy ; then we attacked their general ; then they attacked our air bases ; then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s their turn to retaliate for that .
People have died and more people will .
She could have bracketed the calamity with the jet as something different , an example of “ the fog of war ” and Iranian incompetence .
But ardent doves like Gabbard are a mirror image of ardent hawks like Lindsey Graham in that their urgency to advance their position leads them easily into demagoguery of domestic opponents , even when those opponents are allies on unrelated issues .
Graham votes with Mike Lee and Rand Paul on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t stop him from accusing them of “ empowering the enemy ” by trying to assert Congress ’ s constitutional power over declaring war .
Gabbard has become MAGA Nation ’ s favorite Democrat for her isolationism and her willingness to break with party orthodoxy on some issues ( e.g.
, she believes in borders ) but that doesn ’ t stop her here from endorsing the Buttigieg view of Trump ’ s culpability .
The best part is the slightly annoyed , “ Are you implying that they did this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impute sinister motives to the great Iranian nation .
The interesting word , though , is “ foresight.
” It was foreseeable when the U.S. liquidated Soleimani that Iran would retaliate , just like it was foreseeable when they besieged the embassy in Baghdad that Trump would respond .
It was not obviously foreseeable that Iran wouldn ’ t take precautions to avoid shooting down its own passenger jets on a night when its missile defenses were on high alert .
But Gabbard ’ s agenda is that military hostilities — at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily unjustified , and so she takes the most expansive possible view of “ foresight.
” We can ’ t foresee which individual mistakes will happen in war but we can certainly foresee that some mistakes will .
Ergo , their mistakes are our fault .
Either we comply with the wishes of the Iranian regime , starting with full withdrawal from Iraq , or we ’ re responsible for every bit of carnage that follows .
I wonder if her pal Tucker Carlson will embrace this talking point too .
I missed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seen anything online today suggesting he attributed blame for the jet shootdown to the White House , so I assume he hasn ’ t .
Maybe that ’ s a bridge too far for Tucker ’ s own dovish impulses , although I doubt it .
More likely , he realizes that he has to choose his words carefully in how he sells isolationism to the Fox faithful .
They ’ ll tolerate hosts being anti-war , they won ’ t tolerate them being anti-Trump .
“ The blood of those passengers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is a tough pitch to Republican viewers .

Between this and last month’s weak-ass cop-out on the big impeachment vote, she’s repaying her righty fans richly for their inexplicable political interest in her.
There was suspense surrounding her vote on impeachment, though. There was no suspense as to whether she’d agree with Pete Buttigieg that moral culpability for the Ukrainian jet shootdown is shared between Iran and the United States even though it was Iran’s own negligence that brought the jet down, with not a single bullet fired that evening by the U.S. A rule of thumb that will stand you in good stead during Gabbard interviews: When offered an opportunity to deflect blame from Iran or its proxies (notably Bashar Assad) for the region’s problems, she’ll take it every time.
If it were a simple matter of her wanting to communicate that war inevitably leads to escalation and therefore should be avoided, she could have made that point without involving the jet. Their proxies attacked our embassy; then we attacked their general; then they attacked our air bases; then we sanctioned them; and now it’s their turn to retaliate for that. People have died and more people will. She could have bracketed the calamity with the jet as something different, an example of “the fog of war” and Iranian incompetence. But ardent doves like Gabbard are a mirror image of ardent hawks like Lindsey Graham in that their urgency to advance their position leads them easily into demagoguery of domestic opponents, even when those opponents are allies on unrelated issues. Graham votes with Mike Lee and Rand Paul on most business before the Senate but that didn’t stop him from accusing them of “empowering the enemy” by trying to assert Congress’s constitutional power over declaring war. Gabbard has become MAGA Nation’s favorite Democrat for her isolationism and her willingness to break with party orthodoxy on some issues (e.g., she believes in borders) but that doesn’t stop her here from endorsing the Buttigieg view of Trump’s culpability.
Rep. Gabbard refuses to blame Iran for shooting down Ukrainian airplane, blames U.S. insteadhttps://t.co/70pV3IeIPE pic.twitter.com/By2njJXKhQ — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 10, 2020
The best part is the slightly annoyed, “Are you implying that they did this intentionally?” How dare Bill Hemmer impute sinister motives to the great Iranian nation.
The interesting word, though, is “foresight.” It was foreseeable when the U.S. liquidated Soleimani that Iran would retaliate, just like it was foreseeable when they besieged the embassy in Baghdad that Trump would respond. It was not obviously foreseeable that Iran wouldn’t take precautions to avoid shooting down its own passenger jets on a night when its missile defenses were on high alert. But Gabbard’s agenda is that military hostilities — at least with Shiite regimes — are always and necessarily unjustified, and so she takes the most expansive possible view of “foresight.” We can’t foresee which individual mistakes will happen in war but we can certainly foresee that some mistakes will. Ergo, their mistakes are our fault. Either we comply with the wishes of the Iranian regime, starting with full withdrawal from Iraq, or we’re responsible for every bit of carnage that follows.
I wonder if her pal Tucker Carlson will embrace this talking point too. I missed his show last night and haven’t seen anything online today suggesting he attributed blame for the jet shootdown to the White House, so I assume he hasn’t. Maybe that’s a bridge too far for Tucker’s own dovish impulses, although I doubt it. More likely, he realizes that he has to choose his words carefully in how he sells isolationism to the Fox faithful. They’ll tolerate hosts being anti-war, they won’t tolerate them being anti-Trump. “The blood of those passengers is on your hero’s hands” is a tough pitch to Republican viewers.


hotair--2020-01-10--Angry Dem to AOC: 'Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills'

Does Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to be part of the Democratic Party ?
Increasingly the answer seems to be not really .
Earlier this week , Ed wrote about AOC ’ s comments that in any other country she and Joe Biden wouldn ’ t be in the same party .
That ’ s certainly true but she was elected in this country , as a Democrat .
So expressing disappointment that the person currently leading primary polls for your party is part of the party seems , shall we say , counter-productive .
AOC responded to all of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News reported that AOC has also refused to pay dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( DCCC ) .
Despite being the top fundraiser among House Democrats , AOC hasn ’ t given a single dollar to the DCCC , choosing instead to donate directly to candidates she endorses .
That decision isn ’ t sitting well with some Democrats : “ Sometimes the question comes : ‘ Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority ?
’ ” Rep. Gregory Meeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about AOC ’ s stance .
“ And do you want to be part of a team ?
” … Another Democrat was less diplomatic : “ Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills , ” complained the Democratic source .
“ She ’ s always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.
” … “ DCCC dues are about supporting others because you want to be part of the team , ” he said .
“ The goal is to be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when you are on a team I would think , to respect individuals whose districts are different than yours.
” But AOC doesn ’ t seem to really believe other districts are different from hers .
She seems to think democratic socialists should be able to win in every district .
In fact , AOC has raised money for two progressive candidates who are attempting to unseat moderate Democrats : Bucking the Democratic Party line , Ocasio-Cortez led online fundraisers for at least two progressives who are trying to defeat sitting Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 18,000 in donations for Marie Newman , who is taking on current Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski , a conservative Democrat who opposes abortion .
She also gave Newman an additional $ 5,000 directly from her campaign account .
Ocasio-Cortez also raised nearly $ 35,000 in online donations for progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros , who is trying to defeat Rep. Henry Cuellar , D-Texas… Cuellar said Democrats should be focused on the larger goal of beating Republicans and retaining the House majority .
“ To have people try to purify the caucus because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – 100 percent , I certainly don ’ t agree with that.
” You certainly can ’ t fault her for compromising her vision , but the fact remains that most of the Democrats who flipped seats in 2018 were moderates .
But what we ’ re seeing is bigger than AOC .
It ’ s part of the larger battle within the Democratic Party which has been taking place at the national level since 2016 .
This year that conflict is still building , with Bernie Sanders running close behind Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in the same divisive dynamic we saw between Hillary and Bernie in 2016 .
The direct conflict between the factions has been moderated thus far because there are still so many candidates to choose from , but very soon it will likely come down to another choice between the moderate left candidate and the far left candidate .
Once that happens , things are likely to get ugly .
As Rep. Meeks told Fox News , Sanders “ revolution is to not just to stop the Republicans , it ’ s to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AOC is appears to be eager to help him .

Does Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to be part of the Democratic Party? Increasingly the answer seems to be not really. Earlier this week, Ed wrote about AOC’s comments that in any other country she and Joe Biden wouldn’t be in the same party. That’s certainly true but she was elected in this country, as a Democrat. So expressing disappointment that the person currently leading primary polls for your party is part of the party seems, shall we say, counter-productive. AOC responded to all of this by…attacking moderate Democrats:
Are people actually upset over discussing multiparty systems? The conversation is helpful for understanding difference among Dems. People are acting like a Dem didn’t just join the GOP a few wks ago. Other safe Dems actually fundraise for Republicans. That’s not “moderate.” — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 7, 2020
Today, Fox News reported that AOC has also refused to pay dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Despite being the top fundraiser among House Democrats, AOC hasn’t given a single dollar to the DCCC, choosing instead to donate directly to candidates she endorses. That decision isn’t sitting well with some Democrats:
“Sometimes the question comes: ‘Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority?’” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., told Fox News, when asked about AOC’s stance. “And do you want to be part of a team?”… Another Democrat was less diplomatic: “Deadbeat Cortez should pay her bills,” complained the Democratic source. “She’s always whining about people paying their fair share and here she is leaving her friends with the bill.”… “DCCC dues are about supporting others because you want to be part of the team,” he said. “The goal is to be in the majority. And the goal is, when you are on a team I would think, to respect individuals whose districts are different than yours.”
But AOC doesn’t seem to really believe other districts are different from hers. She seems to think democratic socialists should be able to win in every district. In fact, AOC has raised money for two progressive candidates who are attempting to unseat moderate Democrats:
Bucking the Democratic Party line, Ocasio-Cortez led online fundraisers for at least two progressives who are trying to defeat sitting Democratic members of Congress. She solicited nearly $18,000 in donations for Marie Newman, who is taking on current Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, a conservative Democrat who opposes abortion. She also gave Newman an additional $5,000 directly from her campaign account. Ocasio-Cortez also raised nearly $35,000 in online donations for progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros, who is trying to defeat Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas… Cuellar said Democrats should be focused on the larger goal of beating Republicans and retaining the House majority. “To have people try to purify the caucus because they don’t agree with them – 100 percent, I certainly don’t agree with that.”
You certainly can’t fault her for compromising her vision, but the fact remains that most of the Democrats who flipped seats in 2018 were moderates. But what we’re seeing is bigger than AOC. It’s part of the larger battle within the Democratic Party which has been taking place at the national level since 2016. This year that conflict is still building, with Bernie Sanders running close behind Joe Biden in a way that seems likely to result in the same divisive dynamic we saw between Hillary and Bernie in 2016. The direct conflict between the factions has been moderated thus far because there are still so many candidates to choose from, but very soon it will likely come down to another choice between the moderate left candidate and the far left candidate. Once that happens, things are likely to get ugly.
As Rep. Meeks told Fox News, Sanders “revolution is to not just to stop the Republicans, it’s to blow up the Democratic Party.” And AOC is appears to be eager to help him.