hotair--2020-02-23--The wise and their ruses: Sunday reflection

Jesus said to his disciples : “ You have heard that it was said , An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth .
But I say to you , offer no resistance to one who is evil .
When someone strikes you on your right cheek , turn the other one as well .
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic , hand over your cloak as well .
Should anyone press you into service for one mile , go for two miles .
Give to the one who asks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on one who wants to borrow .
“ You have heard that it was said , You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy .
But I say to you , love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you , that you may be children of your heavenly Father , for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good , and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust .
For if you love those who love you , what recompense will you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same ?
And if you greet your brothers only , what is unusual about that ?
Do not the pagans do the same ?
So be perfect , just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
” Have you ever heard of imposter syndrome ?
It ’ s a condition which plagues people who have achieved some success in life , who feel that their success has somehow been unearned and who therefore fear being exposed as a fraud .
Perhaps we all go through this to some extent , and perhaps more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , in my early life friends got me a contract job for which I had no formal qualification through a process of , shall we say , burnishing my resumé a bit .
They knew the job and knew I could do it , but I spent the first several weeks of the job fearing exposure every day .
Only after the initial contract got extended did I finally realize that I did the job competently , and that my friends had been right — and that no one really believed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a 90-day at-will contract , after all ; they could have fired me at any time , which made the risk low for giving me a chance .
In the end , I managed to stick around for a few years until cutbacks eliminated my group .
One way that some compensate for their insecurity regarding their competence is to put up a pretense of super-competence .
We cover our fear and our lack of insight by cloaking ourselves in unearned authority , and in impossible omniscience .
We pretend to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and hope that we can bluff our way through .
That puts us in position to make judgments without full knowledge , and without the foresight to see how those judgments will play out .
And if we do that long enough , we might begin to truly believe in our assumed wisdom , when a bit of recognition of our limitations might serve us better .
In his first letter to the Corinthians , Paul warned about this assumption of wisdom , even among those who might otherwise have a real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our second reading , Paul warns that those who do not grasp those limitations will get entangled by them , and that their judgment will come to naught .
In today ’ s Gospel we read one of the most famous exhortations on justice and mercy from Jesus , in which He instructs us to put aside justice for mercy .
It ’ s important to recall that the “ eye for an eye ” instruction was itself a demand for temperance in pursuit of justice .
This predates the Bible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and explicitly warned against the taking of unjust compensation for a wrong committed .
Its appearance in Exodus , Deuteronomy , and Leviticus in different forms had the same principle in mind .
The punishment meted out for a crime should not exceed the crime itself , but equal it as far as is practical .
In Leviticus , the Lord warns Moses about exceeding the bounds of justice for revenge .
“ You shall not bear hatred for your brother or sister in your heart , ” He tells Moses in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to reprove your fellow citizen , do not incur sin because of him .
Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against any of your people .
You shall love your neighbor as yourself .
I am the LORD.
” In today ’ s Gospel , Jesus reminds us of the principle of justice along with our own limitations and our own sinful nature .
If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves , do we wish to harm them even if they have harmed us ?
And who precisely are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community within which we live , then we need to treat even the errant with love while dispensing justice .
But if we define “ neighbor ” as any potential child of God no matter how wayward , then we are called to a higher sense of mercy , in part because of our own imperfections and limited wisdom .
Jesus ’ teaching goes beyond the practical applications of justice and mercy in jurisprudence , however .
He is teaching us about the formation of our hearts , where our will and intellect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spirit to dwell .
Do we see our neighbors and strangers only transactionally ?
An eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth ?
Or do we see them as ourselves , imperfect though we are , as beloved of God ?
If we do , then we can accept them in love and evangelize God ’ s word with them .
To get there , though , we must recognize ourselves in their imperfections , which means stripping away our own illusions about ourselves — not just as imposters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degradation and unworthiness too .
We are not perfect , as we know through our own sin , but we are not worthless either .
Every one of us is beloved of God , and God seeks to call us all back to Him in fidelity and love .
The Lord gives us all gifts to use in this world , and we can choose how to use them , whether in His service or not .
But if we place our trust in the Lord , we should not have anxiety about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that simplicity of spirit and trust that will put our minds at ease , and that humility and recognition of limitations that will allow us to rely on Him for the truly wisest path .
To the wise and the foolish , and to the rest in between struggling in anxiety and despair , Paul writes this reminder : “ Do you not know that you are the temple of God , and that the Spirit of God dwells in you ?
” Let that be enough , for it is everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail from “ Calling of the Apostles , ” a fresco by Domenico Ghirlandio , c. 1481 , in the Sistine Chapel .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only my own point of view , intended to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ click here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is Matthew 5:38–48:
Jesus said to his disciples: “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand over your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Have you ever heard of imposter syndrome? It’s a condition which plagues people who have achieved some success in life, who feel that their success has somehow been unearned and who therefore fear being exposed as a fraud. Perhaps we all go through this to some extent, and perhaps more or less rationally at times. For instance, in my early life friends got me a contract job for which I had no formal qualification through a process of, shall we say, burnishing my resumé a bit. They knew the job and knew I could do it, but I spent the first several weeks of the job fearing exposure every day.
Only after the initial contract got extended did I finally realize that I did the job competently, and that my friends had been right — and that no one really believed the resumé in the first place. It was a 90-day at-will contract, after all; they could have fired me at any time, which made the risk low for giving me a chance. In the end, I managed to stick around for a few years until cutbacks eliminated my group.
One way that some compensate for their insecurity regarding their competence is to put up a pretense of super-competence. We cover our fear and our lack of insight by cloaking ourselves in unearned authority, and in impossible omniscience. We pretend to be wise in order not to be challenged, and hope that we can bluff our way through. That puts us in position to make judgments without full knowledge, and without the foresight to see how those judgments will play out. And if we do that long enough, we might begin to truly believe in our assumed wisdom, when a bit of recognition of our limitations might serve us better.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul warned about this assumption of wisdom, even among those who might otherwise have a real claim to it. As we see in our second reading, Paul warns that those who do not grasp those limitations will get entangled by them, and that their judgment will come to naught.
If any one among you considers himself wise in this age, let him become a fool, so as to become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written: God catches the wise in their own ruses, and again: The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
In today’s Gospel we read one of the most famous exhortations on justice and mercy from Jesus, in which He instructs us to put aside justice for mercy. It’s important to recall that the “eye for an eye” instruction was itself a demand for temperance in pursuit of justice. This predates the Bible, appearing in the Code of Hammurabi, and explicitly warned against the taking of unjust compensation for a wrong committed. Its appearance in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus in different forms had the same principle in mind. The punishment meted out for a crime should not exceed the crime itself, but equal it as far as is practical.
In Leviticus, the Lord warns Moses about exceeding the bounds of justice for revenge. “You shall not bear hatred for your brother or sister in your heart,” He tells Moses in our first reading. “Though you may have to reprove your fellow citizen, do not incur sin because of him. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against any of your people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
In today’s Gospel, Jesus reminds us of the principle of justice along with our own limitations and our own sinful nature. If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, do we wish to harm them even if they have harmed us? And who precisely are our neighbors? If we mean the community within which we live, then we need to treat even the errant with love while dispensing justice. But if we define “neighbor” as any potential child of God no matter how wayward, then we are called to a higher sense of mercy, in part because of our own imperfections and limited wisdom.
Jesus’ teaching goes beyond the practical applications of justice and mercy in jurisprudence, however. He is teaching us about the formation of our hearts, where our will and intellect meet and where we invite the Holy Spirit to dwell. Do we see our neighbors and strangers only transactionally? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? Or do we see them as ourselves, imperfect though we are, as beloved of God?
If we do, then we can accept them in love and evangelize God’s word with them. To get there, though, we must recognize ourselves in their imperfections, which means stripping away our own illusions about ourselves — not just as imposters to wisdom, but also as imposters to degradation and unworthiness too. We are not perfect, as we know through our own sin, but we are not worthless either. Every one of us is beloved of God, and God seeks to call us all back to Him in fidelity and love.
The Lord gives us all gifts to use in this world, and we can choose how to use them, whether in His service or not. But if we place our trust in the Lord, we should not have anxiety about our place in His plan. It is that simplicity of spirit and trust that will put our minds at ease, and that humility and recognition of limitations that will allow us to rely on Him for the truly wisest path.
To the wise and the foolish, and to the rest in between struggling in anxiety and despair, Paul writes this reminder: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” Let that be enough, for it is everything.
The front page image is a detail from “Calling of the Apostles,” a fresco by Domenico Ghirlandio, c. 1481, in the Sistine Chapel. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here. For previous Green Room entries, click here.


hotair--2020-02-23--Fingerprinting California porn actors would set a bad precedent

I realize this story is a bit off the beaten path but bear with me .
Some legislators in California recently proposed a new bill that would specifically target the pornography industry in their state .
But rather than trying to just stamp out porn , they are claiming that they want to protect women and cut down on human trafficking .
( Both noble goals , to be sure . )
But in order to do that , they want all of the adult film actors to be fingerprinted , go through a background check and complete regular training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The response from the Adult Performers Actors Guild was swift and decidedly negative .
( NBC News ) A proposal in California to require adult pornography and webcam performers to be fingerprinted and obtain a license to work set off a firestorm this week , highlighting tensions among lawmakers , labor unions and advocacy groups for the industry .
Adult film actors immediately spoke out against the far-reaching bill after it was quietly unveiled Tuesday , prompting the legislation ’ s Democratic sponsors to promise by Thursday afternoon that they will remove the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AB 2389 , adult performers would have to pay for and complete training every two years on safety , human trafficking and workplace rights , and provide fingerprints to go through a background check to get a license .
The proposal would also establish a gubernatorial advisory committee that includes members of the adult film industry .
Somehow I ’ m having trouble picturing Gavin Newsom sitting down at a big conference table with a bunch of porn stars and producers .
While preventing human trafficking and sexual assault are important topics to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong with this proposal .
First of all , there ’ s the subject of unequal treatment under the law .
SAG-AFTRA claims roughly 160,000 members .
Not all of them are in California , obviously , but a lot of them are .
The porn version of the group , APAG ( Adult Performers Actors Guild ) doesn ’ t appear to list their membership numbers , but it ’ s a safe assumption that it ’ s significantly smaller .
With that in mind , all of these people work in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propose to place a significant set of new regulations on only the adult film workers and not the rest of the Hollywood glitterati ?
Even if it somehow makes it into law , I can ’ t see how such a regulation could possibly survive a court challenge .
Legal questions aside , let ’ s consider the tone-deaf approach being taken here .
The bill claims to be acting in the interest of protecting women from potential sexual abuse and reducing human trafficking .
And you ’ re not going to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollywood ?
Hello ?
Are you saying you ’ ve never heard of the # MeToo movement , Harvey Weinstein and all the rest ?
The idea that young actresses ( in particular ) working outside of the porn industry don ’ t require such protection would be laughable were it not so insulting .
If anything , one can say that when porn stars show up for work they at least go in knowing that somebody is intending to have sex with them .
Not so for aspiring actresses trying to break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wind up on some predator ’ s casting couch .
This entire proposal is beyond problematic and the bill should be pulled .
You can check out the union ’ s responses on their Twitter account .
( I probably shouldn ’ t need to warn you that a lot of the stuff in that stream may be unsuitable for more sensitive readers and it ’ s definitely NSFW and not for those under 18 . )

I realize this story is a bit off the beaten path but bear with me. Some legislators in California recently proposed a new bill that would specifically target the pornography industry in their state. But rather than trying to just stamp out porn, they are claiming that they want to protect women and cut down on human trafficking. (Both noble goals, to be sure.) But in order to do that, they want all of the adult film actors to be fingerprinted, go through a background check and complete regular training on a variety of safety-related subjects. The response from the Adult Performers Actors Guild was swift and decidedly negative. (NBC News)
A proposal in California to require adult pornography and webcam performers to be fingerprinted and obtain a license to work set off a firestorm this week, highlighting tensions among lawmakers, labor unions and advocacy groups for the industry. Adult film actors immediately spoke out against the far-reaching bill after it was quietly unveiled Tuesday, prompting the legislation’s Democratic sponsors to promise by Thursday afternoon that they will remove the licensing requirements. Under the proposal, AB 2389, adult performers would have to pay for and complete training every two years on safety, human trafficking and workplace rights, and provide fingerprints to go through a background check to get a license.
The proposal would also establish a gubernatorial advisory committee that includes members of the adult film industry. Somehow I’m having trouble picturing Gavin Newsom sitting down at a big conference table with a bunch of porn stars and producers.
While preventing human trafficking and sexual assault are important topics to address, there are clearly several things wrong with this proposal. First of all, there’s the subject of unequal treatment under the law. SAG-AFTRA claims roughly 160,000 members. Not all of them are in California, obviously, but a lot of them are. The porn version of the group, APAG (Adult Performers Actors Guild) doesn’t appear to list their membership numbers, but it’s a safe assumption that it’s significantly smaller.
With that in mind, all of these people work in the film industry. How does California propose to place a significant set of new regulations on only the adult film workers and not the rest of the Hollywood glitterati? Even if it somehow makes it into law, I can’t see how such a regulation could possibly survive a court challenge.
Legal questions aside, let’s consider the tone-deaf approach being taken here. The bill claims to be acting in the interest of protecting women from potential sexual abuse and reducing human trafficking. And you’re not going to make the rules apply to the rest of Hollywood? Hello? Are you saying you’ve never heard of the #MeToo movement, Harvey Weinstein and all the rest? The idea that young actresses (in particular) working outside of the porn industry don’t require such protection would be laughable were it not so insulting. If anything, one can say that when porn stars show up for work they at least go in knowing that somebody is intending to have sex with them. Not so for aspiring actresses trying to break into the “regular” film business who wind up on some predator’s casting couch.
This entire proposal is beyond problematic and the bill should be pulled. You can check out the union’s responses on their Twitter account. (I probably shouldn’t need to warn you that a lot of the stuff in that stream may be unsuitable for more sensitive readers and it’s definitely NSFW and not for those under 18.)


hotair--2020-02-23--Biden and Buttigieg: Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

As the state of Nevada sweeps up the wreckage from last night ’ s caucuses , a sense of shock seems to be taking over large segments of the Democratic Party .
The general consensus was that Bernie Sanders certainly did well in Iowa and New Hampshire , but he would struggle in states with a more diverse electorate .
At least for the moment , the Vermont Senator has quieted those voices down .
As of 7:30 eastern time this morning , with roughly half of the precincts reporting , Bernie was riding a 39 % victory over Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistical tie at 18 % .
Elizabeth Warren managed to wrangle 14 % .
Even more importantly , Bernie is currently projected to take almost 47 % of the delegates .
The exit polls don ’ t provide any indication that those numbers are likely to shift very much when all the counting is finished .
The details of Sanders ’ blowout win show that it wasn ’ t just white male socialists turning out for him .
As The Hill points out , there really wasn ’ t a single demographic area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competitive , if not clearly leading .
Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) won a resounding victory at the Nevada caucuses on Saturday , putting together a coalition of young people , Latinos and working class voters to cement his status as front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination… Sanders has built a diverse coalition of Latinos , young people , and union members , who drove him to a huge victory in Nevada , the most diverse state to vote so far .
Sanders won among men , women , whites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won among Black and Latino caucusgoers .
He even matched Biden among self-described moderates .
He pretty much cleaned up .
Now , this is still far from an insurmountable lead , despite what you might be hearing on cable news this morning .
But if he can come anywhere near this level of performance next Saturday in South Carolina and then on Super Tuesday , this thing really could be over .
Meanwhile , the rest of the candidates struggled to paint some lipstick on this pig .
Buttigieg was the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With another second-place finish , there ’ s clearly no reason for him to drop out .
Unfortunately , the moderate lane remains splintered , much to Sanders ’ benefit .
Joe Biden held a rally in Las Vegas and his comments raised more questions about just how firm his grip on the narrative really is .
He told his supporters , “ Y ’ all did it for me !
Now we ’ re on our way to South Carolina !
” Excuse me , but what precisely did they do for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manage half the support that Bernie received .
Normally I would write this off as the usual cheerleading candidates do to try to keep enthusiasm levels high .
But given how Biden now seems to believe that he was arrested in South Africa for some reason , I ’ m not entirely sure .
Might Joe have been thinking he was actually doing far better than he was last night ?
Of course , Joe wasn ’ t alone in that sort of behavior .
Elizabeth Warren thanked her supporters for “ keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally last night .
I ’ m not sure how a fourth-place finish , barely into double digits , keeps her in the fight .
But if she drops out , it ’ s a safe bet that a lot of her support will migrate to Bernie .
If that ’ s the case , he might start breaking 50 % in some of the other primary states and at that point , we can probably stick a fork in this thing .
( At least until the superdelegates steal the nomination from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Bloomberg if he doesn ’ t get to 51 % . )
I ’ m still far from ready to call this race , however .
Stranger things can and do happen in primary battles .
As I alluded to above , Bloomberg remains the real wildcard to watch starting on March 3rd .
And if either of Biden or Buttigieg drops out early enough , they have enough support between them to basically pull into a tie with Bernie .
They ’ ll likely get Klobuchar ’ s voters also .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than the hard socialist vote .
It ’ s just a question of how long that lane remains split .

As the state of Nevada sweeps up the wreckage from last night’s caucuses, a sense of shock seems to be taking over large segments of the Democratic Party. The general consensus was that Bernie Sanders certainly did well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he would struggle in states with a more diverse electorate. At least for the moment, the Vermont Senator has quieted those voices down. As of 7:30 eastern time this morning, with roughly half of the precincts reporting, Bernie was riding a 39% victory over Biden and Buttigieg, who were in a statistical tie at 18%. Elizabeth Warren managed to wrangle 14%. Even more importantly, Bernie is currently projected to take almost 47% of the delegates. The exit polls don’t provide any indication that those numbers are likely to shift very much when all the counting is finished.
The details of Sanders’ blowout win show that it wasn’t just white male socialists turning out for him. As The Hill points out, there really wasn’t a single demographic area where Sanders wasn’t at least competitive, if not clearly leading.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won a resounding victory at the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, putting together a coalition of young people, Latinos and working class voters to cement his status as front-runner in the race for the Democratic nomination… Sanders has built a diverse coalition of Latinos, young people, and union members, who drove him to a huge victory in Nevada, the most diverse state to vote so far.
Sanders won among men, women, whites, union and non-union voters. He won among Black and Latino caucusgoers. He even matched Biden among self-described moderates. He pretty much cleaned up. Now, this is still far from an insurmountable lead, despite what you might be hearing on cable news this morning. But if he can come anywhere near this level of performance next Saturday in South Carolina and then on Super Tuesday, this thing really could be over.
Meanwhile, the rest of the candidates struggled to paint some lipstick on this pig. Buttigieg was the most grounded and realistic of the bunch. With another second-place finish, there’s clearly no reason for him to drop out. Unfortunately, the moderate lane remains splintered, much to Sanders’ benefit.
Joe Biden held a rally in Las Vegas and his comments raised more questions about just how firm his grip on the narrative really is. He told his supporters, “Y’all did it for me! Now we’re on our way to South Carolina!”
Excuse me, but what precisely did they do for you? You didn’t even manage half the support that Bernie received. Normally I would write this off as the usual cheerleading candidates do to try to keep enthusiasm levels high. But given how Biden now seems to believe that he was arrested in South Africa for some reason, I’m not entirely sure. Might Joe have been thinking he was actually doing far better than he was last night?
Of course, Joe wasn’t alone in that sort of behavior. Elizabeth Warren thanked her supporters for “keeping me in the fight” at a rally last night. I’m not sure how a fourth-place finish, barely into double digits, keeps her in the fight. But if she drops out, it’s a safe bet that a lot of her support will migrate to Bernie. If that’s the case, he might start breaking 50% in some of the other primary states and at that point, we can probably stick a fork in this thing. (At least until the superdelegates steal the nomination from him at the convention and give it to Bloomberg if he doesn’t get to 51%.)
I’m still far from ready to call this race, however. Stranger things can and do happen in primary battles. As I alluded to above, Bloomberg remains the real wildcard to watch starting on March 3rd. And if either of Biden or Buttigieg drops out early enough, they have enough support between them to basically pull into a tie with Bernie. They’ll likely get Klobuchar’s voters also. The moderate vote still adds up to more than the hard socialist vote. It’s just a question of how long that lane remains split.


hotair--2020-02-23--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

The outcome in Nevada is still unknown as I write this on Saturday morning — and may still be unknown as you read this on Sunday morning — but one way or another it ’ ll be a big day for Joe Biden , the lead guest on “ Face the Nation.
” Either he roared to a stunning upset last night and his presidential hopes are reborn or he … did not , in which case he ’ s all but done even if he holds on to win South Carolina next weekend .
I know which way I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are destined to be brimming with other 2020 candidates this morning spinning last night ’ s outcome but only Tom Steyer is a sure thing .
He ’ ll be on “ Fox News Sunday ” to preview his chances in South Carolina , where he ’ s currently in third place and stands a real chance of siphoning off enough votes from Joe to enable a Bernie Sanders upset .
As for the rest of the field , assuming Bernie came through with a win in Nevada as expected , most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how they might conceivably possibly theoretically halt the Sanders express before Super Tuesday .
Spoiler : Unless Mike Bloomberg ’ s prepared to drop $ 500 million in Sanders attack ads tomorrow , it won ’ t happen .
If you ’ re bored of the Democratic primary , Trump national security advisor Robert O ’ Brien will also be on “ Face the Nation ” to discuss the two big Russia-related scoops at the end of the week .
What does he know about that curious briefing given to Schiff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s trying to help Trump again in this fall ’ s election ?
And what does he know about Russian efforts to help Bernie Sanders , which conveniently leaked after the Pierson story dropped — and right on the eve of the big vote in Nevada ?
Expect him to also be asked about this NYT scoop that the National Security Council he chairs is no longer in the business of giving foreign-policy advice to the president , which is supposed to be the reason it exists .
The full line-up @ @ @ @ @

The outcome in Nevada is still unknown as I write this on Saturday morning — and may still be unknown as you read this on Sunday morning — but one way or another it’ll be a big day for Joe Biden, the lead guest on “Face the Nation.” Either he roared to a stunning upset last night and his presidential hopes are reborn or he … did not, in which case he’s all but done even if he holds on to win South Carolina next weekend.
I know which way I’m betting.
The Sunday shows are destined to be brimming with other 2020 candidates this morning spinning last night’s outcome but only Tom Steyer is a sure thing. He’ll be on “Fox News Sunday” to preview his chances in South Carolina, where he’s currently in third place and stands a real chance of siphoning off enough votes from Joe to enable a Bernie Sanders upset. As for the rest of the field, assuming Bernie came through with a win in Nevada as expected, most of today’s chitchat will involve fantasies about how they might conceivably possibly theoretically halt the Sanders express before Super Tuesday. Spoiler: Unless Mike Bloomberg’s prepared to drop $500 million in Sanders attack ads tomorrow, it won’t happen.
If you’re bored of the Democratic primary, Trump national security advisor Robert O’Brien will also be on “Face the Nation” to discuss the two big Russia-related scoops at the end of the week. What does he know about that curious briefing given to Schiff’s committee by Shelby Pierson alleging that Russia’s trying to help Trump again in this fall’s election? And what does he know about Russian efforts to help Bernie Sanders, which conveniently leaked after the Pierson story dropped — and right on the eve of the big vote in Nevada? Expect him to also be asked about this NYT scoop that the National Security Council he chairs is no longer in the business of giving foreign-policy advice to the president, which is supposed to be the reason it exists. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-02-23--Sanders hedges on military action

Sanders hedges on military action

Bernie Sanders is hedging a bit on when he ’ d use military action .
Via CBS News : “ Threats against the American people , to be sure .
Threats against our allies .
I believe in NATO , ” Sanders said .
“ I believe that the United States , everything being equal , should be working with other countries in alliance , not doing it alone.
” Cooper asked Sanders if China taking military action against Taiwan would elicit a military response from the United States .
“ That ’ s something , yeah , ” Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will not sit by and allow invasions to take place , absolutely.
” It ’ s the typical comment from American politicians who don ’ t want to overturn the apple cart when it comes to alliances across the globe .
However , it also shows he may not be the dove he attempts to portray himself in the media .
A reminder for Sanders fans who believe he will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders supported the airstrikes by former President Barack Obama in 2014 .
From The Hill : “ I believe that Congress must become increasingly engaged in the Iraq-Syria crisis .
It is my understanding that the president does have the executive power to launch air strikes , ” Sanders said in a statement Monday .
“ He does not have the power to send combat troops into harm ’ s way without congressional authorization .
As someone who voted against the military action in Iraq in the first place , I continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops back into Iraq or to Syria.
” His tone when President Donald Trump decided to do airstrikes in 2017 was a wee bit different .
“ The Trump administration must explain to the American people exactly what this military escalation in Syria is intended to achieve , and how it fits into the broader goal of a political solution , which is the only way Syria ’ s devastating civil war ends .
Congress has a responsibility to weigh in on these issues .
As the Constitution requires , the president must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of force against the Assad regime .
“ Further , the U.S. must work with all parties to reinforce longstanding international norms against the use of chemical weapons , to hold Russia and Syria to the 2013 deal to destroy these weapons and to see that violators are made accountable.
” It is nice Sanders presents some sort of fealty to the Constitution when it comes to America deciding to send in ground troopers .
However , military action via airstrike is still a declaration of war and those suggesting otherwise need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires Congress to vote on war i.e .
military action .
Sanders is failing this test when it comes to discussing with CBS on what military action is appropriation without a vote in Congress ( none ) .
The way Sanders speaks it sounds like he would be perfectly fine with NATO conducting a war , or the United Nations pushing forward for some sort of military action like it did in Korea in the 1950s .
One has to wonder if this will go over well with the anti-war socialists or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it ’ s Bernie Sanders .

Bernie Sanders is hedging a bit on when he’d use military action. Via CBS News:
“Threats against the American people, to be sure. Threats against our allies. I believe in NATO,” Sanders said. “I believe that the United States, everything being equal, should be working with other countries in alliance, not doing it alone.” Cooper asked Sanders if China taking military action against Taiwan would elicit a military response from the United States. “That’s something, yeah,” Sanders said. “I mean I think we have got to make it clear to countries around the world that we will not sit by and allow invasions to take place, absolutely.”
It’s the typical comment from American politicians who don’t want to overturn the apple cart when it comes to alliances across the globe. However, it also shows he may not be the dove he attempts to portray himself in the media.
A reminder for Sanders fans who believe he will end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not get involved in other foreign conflicts. Sanders supported the airstrikes by former President Barack Obama in 2014. From The Hill:
“I believe that Congress must become increasingly engaged in the Iraq-Syria crisis. It is my understanding that the president does have the executive power to launch air strikes,” Sanders said in a statement Monday. “He does not have the power to send combat troops into harm’s way without congressional authorization. As someone who voted against the military action in Iraq in the first place, I continue to be very strongly opposed to sending combat troops back into Iraq or to Syria.”
His tone when President Donald Trump decided to do airstrikes in 2017 was a wee bit different.
“The Trump administration must explain to the American people exactly what this military escalation in Syria is intended to achieve, and how it fits into the broader goal of a political solution, which is the only way Syria’s devastating civil war ends. Congress has a responsibility to weigh in on these issues. As the Constitution requires, the president must come to Congress to authorize any further use of force against the Assad regime. “Further, the U.S. must work with all parties to reinforce longstanding international norms against the use of chemical weapons, to hold Russia and Syria to the 2013 deal to destroy these weapons and to see that violators are made accountable.”
It is nice Sanders presents some sort of fealty to the Constitution when it comes to America deciding to send in ground troopers. However, military action via airstrike is still a declaration of war and those suggesting otherwise need to re-look at the Constitution. It requires Congress to vote on war i.e. military action. Sanders is failing this test when it comes to discussing with CBS on what military action is appropriation without a vote in Congress (none).
The way Sanders speaks it sounds like he would be perfectly fine with NATO conducting a war, or the United Nations pushing forward for some sort of military action like it did in Korea in the 1950s. One has to wonder if this will go over well with the anti-war socialists or if they’re fine with his comments because it’s Bernie Sanders.
Gotta love hypocrisy.


hotair--2020-02-24--Chris Matthews: Would the Democratic establishment prefer to see Bernie lose to Trump?

A leftover from Saturday .
Bernie fans are torching him for this because he is , after all , very , very , very anti-Bernie .
Coming from him , this is no idle observation about whether the long-term interests of Democratic leaders align with Bernie ’ s interests .
This is a nudge to some of those leaders to start thinking about whether they should align .
But even so , it ’ s a fair question .
If you ’ re a traditional liberal who ’ s comfortable with Obama ’ s ideology and uncomfortable with Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you in 2020 ?
A Bernie victory that proves socialism is the way Democrats win national elections or a Bernie loss that proves socialism can ’ t win ?
Either outcome will define voters ’ calculus for a generation .
If he wins , AOC and the Squad as next-gen national leaders is a much more real prospect than if he loses .
Progressives won ’ t be able to claim either that they had an “ imperfect vessel ” as nominee or whatever if their man falters .
Sanders is the gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , the candidate whose galvanizing powers are such that he ’ s supposedly going to expand the electorate this fall by turning out millions of young adults who were otherwise disaffected by American politics .
If they crap the bed with him and generate a second term for a Republican whom Democrats despise , centrists in their party will flog them for it for decades .
It ’ ll be post-McGovern recriminations all over again , only more so .
And even if he wins it ’ ll come at a cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s effect on the initially reluctant , now fully domesticated Republican establishment over the past three years .
There are nice things about electing a populist cult leader from your party president , starting with filling judicial vacancies , but the price is the gradual zombification of the congressional caucus as the cult demands obedience to its visionary leader .
If Bernie wins , purple-district Democrats in the House will soon be stammering , “ T-t-t-true socialism has never been tried , ” assuming there are any purple-district Democrats left next year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Matthews : “ I ’ m wondering if the Democratic moderates want Bernie Sanders to be President ?
” Matthews asked out loud during a discussion with Politico ’ s Elena Schneider .
“ I mean , that ’ s maybe too exciting a question to raise–they don ’ t like Trump at all .
Do they want Bernie Sanders to take over the Democratic Party in perpetuity ?
” … “ I mean , he takes it over , he sets the direction of the future of the party , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d rather wait four years and put in the Democrat that they like.
” … “ How about losing the future ?
” Matthews prodded again .
Why , my dear boy , socialism is the future .
That ’ ll be the party line for Democrats for the next generation or two if Sanders wins .
Or at least until some other socialist nominee gets walloped in a presidential election .
Some leftists who weren ’ t gung ho for Sanders initially have already begun preaching about his basic acceptability : And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ mainstream ” aren ’ t as far away from him on matters like foreign policy as some would like to believe : One wrinkle in the party accommodating itself to Bernie and socialism is the fate of the House this fall .
It ’ s exceedingly rare for the House majority to flip to one party and then back again in the span of one election cycle but Democrats are worried about it , knowing how heavily their advantage depends on holding the seats they won in reddish districts in 2018 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of a unified Republican government in his second term , with neither the voters nor the House a check on him any longer .
If “ socialism ” is as toxic to suburbanites as everyone expects , that ’ s a real possibility .
Jonathan Chait , an Obama-style liberal , has a new piece out this afternoon titled “ If Democrats Aren ’ t Terrified of Bernie , They ’ re Not Paying Attention.
” All the candidates have exposed themselves by taking at least a few unpopular positions , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders .
What makes Bernie ’ s profile uniquely toxic is the way his liabilities all reinforce each other .
He combines discrete , deeply unpopular policy positions with an unpopular socialist label , which in turn reinforce the fact that his campaign is premised on radically changing the economy , the one thing most voters believe Trump has done well .
His historic statements praising various leftist dictators reinforce the impression of kookery… The Sanders campaign ’ s standard-issue response to electability concerns is to tout his ability to generate enthusiasm which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest voter turnout in history .
But his campaign has failed to produce anything like this so far .
Even given the near-optimal conditions of the campaign ’ s early stages , when his organizers could devote months concentrating all their resources on a handful of low-turnout contests , they have not yielded any measurable spike .
Iowa and Nevada had lower turnout than the last contested primary .
New Hampshire had somewhat higher turnout , though the increase was concentrated in areas won by Bernie ’ s opponents .
A booming economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which to nominate a socialist , notes Chait , let alone a 78-year-old socialist with heart trouble .
Can Bernie win ?
Absolutely .
Is Bernie likely to win ?
Not so much , and the chance of a wipeout is real .
I think the most probable outcome of the presidential/House races this fall is the status quo , with Trump winning and the Democrats holding their majority , followed by a Republican sweep , then a Democratic sweep , and then a weird but intriguing scenario in which Bernie wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( The odds of that last one are vanishingly small , I ’ d guess , but maybe there ’ s some weird scenario in which Trump ’ s personal baggage costs him his own election while Bernie ’ s ideological baggage costs Democrats downballot via ticket-splitting . )
I wonder which of those four permutations Democratic leaders would most prefer , bearing in mind Matthews ’ s point that a Sanders win would change the party ’ s orientation for a generation or more .
Would they prefer a second Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress to a Democratic sweep with socialism and the Berniebro cult ascendant ?
How about it , Nancy ?

A leftover from Saturday. Bernie fans are torching him for this because he is, after all, very, very, very anti-Bernie. Coming from him, this is no idle observation about whether the long-term interests of Democratic leaders align with Bernie’s interests. This is a nudge to some of those leaders to start thinking about whether they should align.
But even so, it’s a fair question. If you’re a traditional liberal who’s comfortable with Obama’s ideology and uncomfortable with Sanders’s, what’s better for you in 2020? A Bernie victory that proves socialism is the way Democrats win national elections or a Bernie loss that proves socialism can’t win? Either outcome will define voters’ calculus for a generation. If he wins, AOC and the Squad as next-gen national leaders is a much more real prospect than if he loses. Progressives won’t be able to claim either that they had an “imperfect vessel” as nominee or whatever if their man falters. Sanders is the gold standard, the most famous socialist in America, the candidate whose galvanizing powers are such that he’s supposedly going to expand the electorate this fall by turning out millions of young adults who were otherwise disaffected by American politics. If they crap the bed with him and generate a second term for a Republican whom Democrats despise, centrists in their party will flog them for it for decades. It’ll be post-McGovern recriminations all over again, only more so.
And even if he wins it’ll come at a cost. Matthews could have pointed to Trump’s effect on the initially reluctant, now fully domesticated Republican establishment over the past three years. There are nice things about electing a populist cult leader from your party president, starting with filling judicial vacancies, but the price is the gradual zombification of the congressional caucus as the cult demands obedience to its visionary leader. If Bernie wins, purple-district Democrats in the House will soon be stammering, “T-t-t-true socialism has never been tried,” assuming there are any purple-district Democrats left next year. Are party leaders ready for that? Matthews:
“I’m wondering if the Democratic moderates want Bernie Sanders to be President?” Matthews asked out loud during a discussion with Politico’s Elena Schneider. “I mean, that’s maybe too exciting a question to raise–they don’t like Trump at all. Do they want Bernie Sanders to take over the Democratic Party in perpetuity?”… “I mean, he takes it over, he sets the direction of the future of the party,” Matthews continued. “Maybe they’d rather wait four years and put in the Democrat that they like.”… “It’s early,” Elrod continued. “How about losing the future?” Matthews prodded again.
Why, my dear boy, socialism is the future. That’ll be the party line for Democrats for the next generation or two if Sanders wins. Or at least until some other socialist nominee gets walloped in a presidential election.
Some leftists who weren’t gung ho for Sanders initially have already begun preaching about his basic acceptability:
America under a Sanders presidency would still be America, both because Sanders is an infinitely better man than Trump and because the Democratic Party wouldn't enable abuse of power the way Republicans have 2/ — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 23, 2020
I'm more concerned about (a) electability and (b) if he does win, squandering political capital on unwinnable fights like abolishing private health insurance. But if he's the nominee, it's the job of Dems to make him electable if at all possible 4/ — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 23, 2020
To be honest, a Sanders administration would probably leave center-left policy wonks like me out in the cold, at least initially. But this is no time for self-indulgence and ego trips. Freedom is on the line 5/ — Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) February 23, 2020
And of course, others in the party “mainstream” aren’t as far away from him on matters like foreign policy as some would like to believe:
Since everyone suddenly wants to talk Cuba, what works as a matter of policy and politics is to support approaches that actually help the Cuban people and Cuban families living on the island and in Florida – you can simultaneously see the failures of Fidel and U.S. policy. — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) February 24, 2020
One wrinkle in the party accommodating itself to Bernie and socialism is the fate of the House this fall. It’s exceedingly rare for the House majority to flip to one party and then back again in the span of one election cycle but Democrats are worried about it, knowing how heavily their advantage depends on holding the seats they won in reddish districts in 2018. The Democratic nightmare scenario is Trump in charge of a unified Republican government in his second term, with neither the voters nor the House a check on him any longer. If “socialism” is as toxic to suburbanites as everyone expects, that’s a real possibility. Jonathan Chait, an Obama-style liberal, has a new piece out this afternoon titled “If Democrats Aren’t Terrified of Bernie, They’re Not Paying Attention.”
All the candidates have exposed themselves by taking at least a few unpopular positions, but none have gone quite as far as Sanders. What makes Bernie’s profile uniquely toxic is the way his liabilities all reinforce each other. He combines discrete, deeply unpopular policy positions with an unpopular socialist label, which in turn reinforce the fact that his campaign is premised on radically changing the economy, the one thing most voters believe Trump has done well. His historic statements praising various leftist dictators reinforce the impression of kookery… The Sanders campaign’s standard-issue response to electability concerns is to tout his ability to generate enthusiasm which, he predicts, will produce the highest voter turnout in history. But his campaign has failed to produce anything like this so far. Even given the near-optimal conditions of the campaign’s early stages, when his organizers could devote months concentrating all their resources on a handful of low-turnout contests, they have not yielded any measurable spike. Iowa and Nevada had lower turnout than the last contested primary. New Hampshire had somewhat higher turnout, though the increase was concentrated in areas won by Bernie’s opponents.
A booming economy isn’t the logical political climate in which to nominate a socialist, notes Chait, let alone a 78-year-old socialist with heart trouble. Can Bernie win? Absolutely. Is Bernie likely to win? Not so much, and the chance of a wipeout is real. I think the most probable outcome of the presidential/House races this fall is the status quo, with Trump winning and the Democrats holding their majority, followed by a Republican sweep, then a Democratic sweep, and then a weird but intriguing scenario in which Bernie wins but the GOP takes back the House. (The odds of that last one are vanishingly small, I’d guess, but maybe there’s some weird scenario in which Trump’s personal baggage costs him his own election while Bernie’s ideological baggage costs Democrats downballot via ticket-splitting.) I wonder which of those four permutations Democratic leaders would most prefer, bearing in mind Matthews’s point that a Sanders win would change the party’s orientation for a generation or more. Would they prefer a second Trump term with Democrats in total control in Congress to a Democratic sweep with socialism and the Berniebro cult ascendant? How about it, Nancy?


hotair--2020-02-24--Trudeau reverses himself, Canadian rail blockade cleared by Ontario police

Last Tuesday , with the blockade of the Canadian rail system by indigenous protests having already been underway for 12 days , Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a speech in Parliament about the need for patience and listening to other points of view .
“ We are creating a space for peaceful , honest dialog with willing partners , ” Trudeau said .
Later he added , “ What is the alternative ?
Do we want to become a country of irreconcilable differences where people talk but refuse to listen ?
Where politicians are ordering police to arrest people.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message did not go over well with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer who called it “ a word salad ” and “ the weakest response to a national crisis in Canadian history.
” For daring to disagree , Scheer was kept out of a meeting of party leaders to discuss the situation .
“ Mr .
Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech from earlier today , ” Trudeau explained .
Three days later , after nearly 1,500 rail workers were laid off , Trudeau abruptly reversed course .
At a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a very different tone .
Speaking in French at first he said , “ Let us be clear .
All Canadians are paying the price .
Some people can ’ t get to work ; others have lost their jobs.
” Then switching to English he said , “ The situation as it currently stands is unacceptable and untenable .
Everyone involved is worried .
Canadians have been patient .
Our government has been patient , but it has been two weeks and the barricades need to come down now.
” Again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his speech about patience and listening .
Monday , police moved in to break up the most significant rail blockade : Ten members of the Tyendinaga Mohawk nation were arrested on Monday when officers moved in to lift the blockade which had been erected in support of the Wet ’ suwet ’ en First Nation in British Columbia who are fighting a 416-mile pipeline through their traditional territory .
Ontario provincial police had warned the activists that they had until midnight Sunday to leave the area , or face arrest and charges… Tyendinaga @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers , telling them they were standing on Indigenous land and had no authority .
ADD Officers warned that people standing near the rail line were in violation of the injunction and faced imminent arrest .
Moments later , dozens of officers tackled a number of protestors , forcing them to the ground and cuffing their hands with zip-ties .
Here ’ s a clip showing how it actually went down : The question should be why it took 1,450 people losing their jobs and inconvenience for tens of thousands of Canadians before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the blockades to be removed .
But that was far from the only loss that resulted from allowing these illegal protests to drag on for nearly three weeks : The Premiere of Alberta , where Trudeau ’ s party lost all of its seats in the last election , tweeted his disappointment with the decision to give up on the $ 20 billion dollar project : Joe Oliver a former minister of natural resources wrote a piece for the Financial Post today warning that Teck ’ s decision to abandon this project could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future projects : Trudeau ’ s latest catastrophic failure relates to Teck Resources ’ decision to cancel its $ 20.6-billion Frontier oilsands mine in northeast Alberta , a project that received regulatory approval and support from all 14 First Nations and Métis communities the mine would have impacted , who are bitterly disappointed by the news .
The company wrote off $ 1.13 billion in sunk costs for the same reason Enbridge and TransCanada wrote off comparably staggering amounts and Kinder Morgan would have done , too , had it not been bailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inability of the government to reconcile resource development and climate change put Teck in an untenable position .
Well over $ 120 billion of projects have been cancelled in the past three years of Liberal hostility and incompetence .
The latest may signal the death knell for further projects… Then there are the ruinous implications of the blockades , which doubtless influenced the Teck decision .
The prime minister looked like a deer in the headlights when protesters blocked train tracks , bridges and highways , seriously impeding trade and travel and creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came home to address the crisis , he could not clearly communicate what if anything he would do , beyond “ dialogue.
” While Trudeau fiddled , the country burned .
Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer hammered Trudeau Monday morning on that point saying , “ There is now a clear playbook for radical activists to follow and they know that the prime minister will do literally nothing as the economy is brought to its knees.
” A bit later Scheer made the connection to the SNC-Lavalin scandal : “ Why is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , crony , insider friends the prime minister is willing to break the law but when it comes to providing hope and opportunity to thousands of Canadians the prime minister refuses to uphold the law ?
” Here ’ s the exchange today between Scheer and Trudeau :

Last Tuesday, with the blockade of the Canadian rail system by indigenous protests having already been underway for 12 days, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave a speech in Parliament about the need for patience and listening to other points of view. “We are creating a space for peaceful, honest dialog with willing partners,” Trudeau said. Later he added, “What is the alternative? Do we want to become a country of irreconcilable differences where people talk but refuse to listen? Where politicians are ordering police to arrest people.”
Trudeau’s smug tone and vague message did not go over well with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer who called it “a word salad” and “the weakest response to a national crisis in Canadian history.” For daring to disagree, Scheer was kept out of a meeting of party leaders to discuss the situation. “Mr. Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech from earlier today,” Trudeau explained.
Three days later, after nearly 1,500 rail workers were laid off, Trudeau abruptly reversed course. At a Friday press conference he gave a speech with a very different tone. Speaking in French at first he said, “Let us be clear. All Canadians are paying the price. Some people can’t get to work; others have lost their jobs.” Then switching to English he said, “The situation as it currently stands is unacceptable and untenable. Everyone involved is worried. Canadians have been patient. Our government has been patient, but it has been two weeks and the barricades need to come down now.”
Again, this was only three days after his speech about patience and listening. Monday, police moved in to break up the most significant rail blockade:
Ten members of the Tyendinaga Mohawk nation were arrested on Monday when officers moved in to lift the blockade which had been erected in support of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation in British Columbia who are fighting a 416-mile pipeline through their traditional territory. Ontario provincial police had warned the activists that they had until midnight Sunday to leave the area, or face arrest and charges… Tyendinaga Mohawk activists heckled a phalanx of police officers, telling them they were standing on Indigenous land and had no authority. ADD Officers warned that people standing near the rail line were in violation of the injunction and faced imminent arrest. Moments later, dozens of officers tackled a number of protestors, forcing them to the ground and cuffing their hands with zip-ties.
Here’s a clip showing how it actually went down:
The question should be why it took 1,450 people losing their jobs and inconvenience for tens of thousands of Canadians before Trudeau finally stepped up and called for the blockades to be removed. But that was far from the only loss that resulted from allowing these illegal protests to drag on for nearly three weeks:
The Canadian mining company Teck Resources on Sunday announced it was withdrawing from plans to build a large oil sands mine in Alberta, citing debates about global warming in Canada. The project would have created 7,000 construction jobs, according to the company.
The Premiere of Alberta, where Trudeau’s party lost all of its seats in the last election, tweeted his disappointment with the decision to give up on the $20 billion dollar project:
The withdrawal of Teck’s Frontier Mine application is more devastating news for the Canadian economy, especially for Albertans & indigenous people. This decision is clearly the result of federal regulatory uncertainty & the current lawless opposition to resource development. pic.twitter.com/DXGKC6mCo9 — Jason Kenney (@jkenney) February 24, 2020
Joe Oliver a former minister of natural resources wrote a piece for the Financial Post today warning that Teck’s decision to abandon this project could be the “death knell” for future projects:
Trudeau’s latest catastrophic failure relates to Teck Resources’ decision to cancel its $20.6-billion Frontier oilsands mine in northeast Alberta, a project that received regulatory approval and support from all 14 First Nations and Métis communities the mine would have impacted, who are bitterly disappointed by the news. The company wrote off $1.13 billion in sunk costs for the same reason Enbridge and TransCanada wrote off comparably staggering amounts and Kinder Morgan would have done, too, had it not been bailed out by the Canadian taxpayers. The inability of the government to reconcile resource development and climate change put Teck in an untenable position. Well over $120 billion of projects have been cancelled in the past three years of Liberal hostility and incompetence. The latest may signal the death knell for further projects… Then there are the ruinous implications of the blockades, which doubtless influenced the Teck decision. The prime minister looked like a deer in the headlights when protesters blocked train tracks, bridges and highways, seriously impeding trade and travel and creating a national crisis. When he finally came home to address the crisis, he could not clearly communicate what if anything he would do, beyond “dialogue.” While Trudeau fiddled, the country burned.
Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer hammered Trudeau Monday morning on that point saying, “There is now a clear playbook for radical activists to follow and they know that the prime minister will do literally nothing as the economy is brought to its knees.” A bit later Scheer made the connection to the SNC-Lavalin scandal: “Why is it that when it comes to his corporate, crony, insider friends the prime minister is willing to break the law but when it comes to providing hope and opportunity to thousands of Canadians the prime minister refuses to uphold the law?”
Here’s the exchange today between Scheer and Trudeau:


hotair--2020-02-24--Here we go: Bloomberg planning "media onslaught" against Sanders

So I guess the mystery in this post is solved .
He really is going all-in — sort of .
We may never see a higher-stakes political experiment involving an irresistible force , i.e .
Bernie ’ s momentum , meeting an immovable object , i.e .
Bloomberg ’ s mammoth ad budget .
Especially since this doesn ’ t quite sound like “ all-in.
” Digital ads are mentioned here as part of the “ onslaught ” but where are the TV spots ?
Mike Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign plans to unleash its cash-flush media operation against Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator ’ s resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses… The campaign plans a multipronged attack , including the publication of opposition research on Sanders , these people said .
It will also push out digital attack ads focused on Sanders ’ record… The attacks on Sanders , who has accused Bloomberg of trying to buy the Democratic nomination , will also attempt to highlight negative aspects of his record on race relations both as a congressman and senator , the sources said .
This comes after Sanders , now seen as the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his support of a policing policy known as stop-and-frisk that often targeted black and Latino people .
People within the Bloomberg campaign are also discussing whether to have surrogates and supporters write op-eds and show up on TV to speak out against Sanders , these people added .
I ’ d love to see a data analysis of the impact of digital ads versus TV ads on Bloomberg ’ s campaign .
My hunch is that digital audiences skew younger while TV audiences skew older , in which case there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital .
Older Democrats already seem open to centrists like Biden and Bloomberg ; it ’ s the younger ones who skew heavily towards Bernie that need to be convinced otherwise .
But the wrinkle is that those younger Sanders voters also seem to accept no substitutes , including Elizabeth Warren .
How many Berniebros in the cult are going to be deprogrammed by a Wall Street billionaire ’ s attack ads ?
It has worked out that way .
But as I said in an earlier post , Bloomberg ’ s strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee was surprisingly viable in hindsight .
All he needed was for Bernie to be a little bit weaker in the early states than he ended up being .
If Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina split among two or more candidates ( especially “ or more ” ) we ’ d be looking at a mess on Super Tuesday in which no one was likely to win big .
There ’ d be a multi-car pile-up at the top of the polls ; a contested convention would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , willing to spend a few billion to take , say , 30 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday and beyond thanks to support from Democrats who abhorred the stalemate in the race and were open to a guy who was prepared to nuke Trump with advertising .
Bloomy would have had a shot .
All he needed was for the Not Bernie candidates in the early states to win a couple .
Instead Bernie ran the table in the first three and has a real shot at SC .
Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be an irresistible force , is now in the position of having to be an immovable object .
Am I underestimating the potential impact of an anti-Bernie messaging offensive , though ?
Via Newsbusters , watch Chris Christie draw a distinction between Trump in 2016 and Bernie in 2020 .
Trump was at least being vetted by the press , he notes .
Who ’ s vetting Bernie ?
How many times has Sanders faced a hard question at the debates on a subject other than Medicare for All ?
The media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long disgusting history of useful idiocy for left-wing authoritarians but only now that it ’ s too late , when he ’ s already essentially the presumptive nominee .
Bloomberg ’ s going to try to do their job for them belatedly , for his own benefit .
Convince me that it ’ ll work , though , given that Trump has been saying disgusting things minimizing the sins of fascist authoritarians for years and has never seemed to pay a political price for it .
Why will Democratic voters have more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right had about Trump ?
They like his vision for the country , they ’ re attracted to the enthusiasm he generates among his core supporters — everything else is gravy .
At least in the primary .
But Bloomberg , and others , can try .
It ’ ll be fun .

So I guess the mystery in this post is solved. He really is going all-in — sort of. We may never see a higher-stakes political experiment involving an irresistible force, i.e. Bernie’s momentum, meeting an immovable object, i.e. Bloomberg’s mammoth ad budget.
I’m betting on the irresistible force.
Especially since this doesn’t quite sound like “all-in.” Digital ads are mentioned here as part of the “onslaught” but where are the TV spots?
Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign plans to unleash its cash-flush media operation against Bernie Sanders in the wake of the Vermont senator’s resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses… The campaign plans a multipronged attack, including the publication of opposition research on Sanders, these people said. It will also push out digital attack ads focused on Sanders’ record… The attacks on Sanders, who has accused Bloomberg of trying to buy the Democratic nomination, will also attempt to highlight negative aspects of his record on race relations both as a congressman and senator, the sources said. This comes after Sanders, now seen as the Democratic front-runner, has taken aim at Bloomberg for his support of a policing policy known as stop-and-frisk that often targeted black and Latino people. People within the Bloomberg campaign are also discussing whether to have surrogates and supporters write op-eds and show up on TV to speak out against Sanders, these people added.
I’d love to see a data analysis of the impact of digital ads versus TV ads on Bloomberg’s campaign. My hunch is that digital audiences skew younger while TV audiences skew older, in which case there’s a certain logic to Bloomy focusing on digital. Older Democrats already seem open to centrists like Biden and Bloomberg; it’s the younger ones who skew heavily towards Bernie that need to be convinced otherwise.
But the wrinkle is that those younger Sanders voters also seem to accept no substitutes, including Elizabeth Warren. How many Berniebros in the cult are going to be deprogrammed by a Wall Street billionaire’s attack ads?
Yashar Ali makes a fair point:
The remarkable thing about this is Bloomberg could have done all of this without running for president. But by running for president, he's helping Sanders. https://t.co/L1QG7UxTiA — Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) February 24, 2020
It has worked out that way. But as I said in an earlier post, Bloomberg’s strategy to leapfrog the field and become the nominee was surprisingly viable in hindsight. All he needed was for Bernie to be a little bit weaker in the early states than he ended up being. If Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina split among two or more candidates (especially “or more”) we’d be looking at a mess on Super Tuesday in which no one was likely to win big. There’d be a multi-car pile-up at the top of the polls; a contested convention would be all but certain. Enter Mike Bloomberg, willing to spend a few billion to take, say, 30 percent of the vote on Super Tuesday and beyond thanks to support from Democrats who abhorred the stalemate in the race and were open to a guy who was prepared to nuke Trump with advertising. Bloomy would have had a shot. All he needed was for the Not Bernie candidates in the early states to win a couple.
Instead Bernie ran the table in the first three and has a real shot at SC. Bloomberg’s ad blitz, which was supposed to be an irresistible force, is now in the position of having to be an immovable object.
Am I underestimating the potential impact of an anti-Bernie messaging offensive, though? Via Newsbusters, watch Chris Christie draw a distinction between Trump in 2016 and Bernie in 2020. Trump was at least being vetted by the press, he notes. Who’s vetting Bernie? How many times has Sanders faced a hard question at the debates on a subject other than Medicare for All?
The media has begun looking at Bernie’s long disgusting history of useful idiocy for left-wing authoritarians but only now that it’s too late, when he’s already essentially the presumptive nominee. Bloomberg’s going to try to do their job for them belatedly, for his own benefit. Convince me that it’ll work, though, given that Trump has been saying disgusting things minimizing the sins of fascist authoritarians for years and has never seemed to pay a political price for it. Why will Democratic voters have more of a gag reflex about Bernie than the right had about Trump? They like his vision for the country, they’re attracted to the enthusiasm he generates among his core supporters — everything else is gravy. At least in the primary.
But Bloomberg, and others, can try. It’ll be fun.


hotair--2020-02-24--Florida Democrats not thrilled with Bernie's defense of Castro

This morning Ed wrote about Bernie Sanders ’ comments on Fidel Castro during an interview with 60 Minutes .
“ When Fidel Castro came into office , you know what he did ?
He had a massive literacy program .
Is that a bad thing ?
” Sanders told Anderson Cooper .
It will come as a surprise to no one except possibly Bernie Sanders that this did not go over well with Florida Democrats many of whom represent Cuban expats .
“ I ’ m totally disgusted and insulted , ” said Lourdes Diaz , the president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is Cuban-American .
“ Maybe this will open people ’ s eyes to how super , super liberal and radical Bernie is .
I ’ m not going to defend him anymore .
I ’ m over it.
” … The comments ricocheted across Miami , a bastion of Cuban exiles where any defense of Mr. Castro is seen as disqualifying to hold public office .
Many Cuban-Americans are Republicans , but those who are Democrats have been increasingly worried that Mr. Sanders ’ s views on Cuba and other authoritarian leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support among Hispanic voters .
“ Donald Trump wins Florida if Bernie is our nominee , ” said state Rep. Javier Fernandez , a Democratic candidate in a majority-Hispanic state Senate district .
“ If Bernie Sanders is atop the ticket , it ’ s going to make it tougher for all of us to win in Florida , ” said Fernandez , who has endorsed Sanders ’ s rival , Joe Biden .
“ No one really sees Sanders winning Florida and I don ’ t think his campaign does either.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead a “ revolution , ” it sounds like “ revolución !
” to many in South Florida who fled Castro and other leftist regimes .
Sanders ’ s supporters have even earned the nickname “ Sandernistas , ” a play on Sandinistas , the socialist guerillas who overthrew the right-wing Samoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979 .
Democratic consultant Christian Ulvert conducted a poll which found 65 percent of Hispanics in Miami-Dade County said they would be less likely to support a candidate who was aligned with Bernie Sanders or Rep. Alexandria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ past support of socialist regimes is toxic .
Rep. Donna Shalala posted this last night when the 60 Minutes interview ran : The Sanders camp was on the defensive this morning .
Campaign manager Faiz Shakir appeared on MSNBC and host Stephanie Ruhle asked how Sanders ’ comments would play in Florida .
Shakir repeated what Sanders had said , i.e .
Castro is a human rights abuser but “ you can also acknowledge that there may have been good things happening in Cuban society.
” He added , “ People try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and then what ends up being translated to the American public is ‘ Oh , there ’ s a person of honesty and conviction who doesn ’ t play politics , he ’ s just telling me truly what he believes . '
” If that defense sounds familiar it ’ s because that ’ s exactly what people have said about Donald Trump since at least 2016 , i.e .
he ’ s just telling it straight even if it ’ s not politically correct .
It really is something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this to defend Bernie .
Here ’ s the clip :

This morning Ed wrote about Bernie Sanders’ comments on Fidel Castro during an interview with 60 Minutes. “When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing?” Sanders told Anderson Cooper. It will come as a surprise to no one except possibly Bernie Sanders that this did not go over well with Florida Democrats many of whom represent Cuban expats.
“I’m totally disgusted and insulted,” said Lourdes Diaz, the president of the Democratic Hispanic Caucus in Broward County, who is Cuban-American. “Maybe this will open people’s eyes to how super, super liberal and radical Bernie is. I’m not going to defend him anymore. I’m over it.”… The comments ricocheted across Miami, a bastion of Cuban exiles where any defense of Mr. Castro is seen as disqualifying to hold public office. Many Cuban-Americans are Republicans, but those who are Democrats have been increasingly worried that Mr. Sanders’s views on Cuba and other authoritarian leaders in Latin America could cost the party support among Hispanic voters.
Politico has more:
“Donald Trump wins Florida if Bernie is our nominee,” said state Rep. Javier Fernandez, a Democratic candidate in a majority-Hispanic state Senate district. “If Bernie Sanders is atop the ticket, it’s going to make it tougher for all of us to win in Florida,” said Fernandez, who has endorsed Sanders’s rival, Joe Biden. “No one really sees Sanders winning Florida and I don’t think his campaign does either.”… When Sanders says he wants to lead a “revolution,” it sounds like “revolución!” to many in South Florida who fled Castro and other leftist regimes. Sanders’s supporters have even earned the nickname “Sandernistas,” a play on Sandinistas, the socialist guerillas who overthrew the right-wing Samoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979.
Democratic consultant Christian Ulvert conducted a poll which found 65 percent of Hispanics in Miami-Dade County said they would be less likely to support a candidate who was aligned with Bernie Sanders or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. For many expats, Sanders’ past support of socialist regimes is toxic.
“I can’t even talk about Bernie Sanders around my family,” Ulvert, who isn’t backing another candidate, said. “My family was literally chased out of Nicaragua by Daniel Ortega. They think someone who embraces a thug who chased out democracy from Nicaragua is appalling, and that’s putting it lightly.”
Rep. Donna Shalala posted this last night when the 60 Minutes interview ran:
I'm hoping that in the future, Senator Sanders will take time to speak to some of my constituents before he decides to sing the praises of a murderous tyrant like Fidel Castro. https://t.co/Iwvmay9LOH pic.twitter.com/KT9sQ0pfkh — Donna E. Shalala (@DonnaShalala) February 24, 2020
The Sanders camp was on the defensive this morning. Campaign manager Faiz Shakir appeared on MSNBC and host Stephanie Ruhle asked how Sanders’ comments would play in Florida. Shakir repeated what Sanders had said, i.e. Castro is a human rights abuser but “you can also acknowledge that there may have been good things happening in Cuban society.” He added, “People try to throw these political barbs at Bernie Sanders and then what ends up being translated to the American public is ‘Oh, there’s a person of honesty and conviction who doesn’t play politics, he’s just telling me truly what he believes.'”
If that defense sounds familiar it’s because that’s exactly what people have said about Donald Trump since at least 2016, i.e. he’s just telling it straight even if it’s not politically correct. It really is something that Sanders’ campaign manager is now echoing this to defend Bernie. Here’s the clip:
https://youtu.be/MT73VSSwiaw?t=61


hotair--2020-02-24--Lesbian activist: I'm coming out

Lesbian activist: I'm coming out -- of the "insane progressive Left"

Meet Arielle Scarcella , a blue-checked Twitter and YouTube activist for lesbian issues , which normally would put her square in the middle of the modern progressive Left .
Or at least that might have been true a few years ago , but Scarcella declared this weekend that she ’ s had enough of the insanity on her side of the political spectrum .
“ The LGBT community has become a safe haven for the mentally unstable , ” Scarcella declares in a short manifesto that fair-use excerpts quite can ’ t capture ( via Twitchy ) : The full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scarcella ’ s declaration : “ Some of you have noticed this change coming onto my channel over the past two years , ” Scarcella says , “ as I ’ ve gotten what some people would say more conservative.
” She then pauses and adds , “ And yeah , I have , haven ’ t I ?
” Scarcella doesn ’ t declare herself as a conservative per se , but she does appear delighted with her new conservative followers on Twitter .
She also discovered that speaking out isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems : That ’ s usually the main quality in bullies , so yeah , probably .
It ’ s still somewhat amazing , because Scarcella skewers a lot of the progressive Left ’ s sacred cows of the moment .
She revolts against their extreme views on : • gender as a “ social construct … or that there are 97 genders ” • accusations of bigotry for any dissent • “ children drag queens , ” and demanding approval when they “ perform sexually for adults ” By golly , Arielle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway .
Just a few years ago , all of the above wouldn ’ t have been classified as conservative ; it would have been called common sense .
“ I don ’ t think like these people , ” Scarcella declares , “ and I no longer want to be associated with them.
” Welcome to the club .

Meet Arielle Scarcella, a blue-checked Twitter and YouTube activist for lesbian issues, which normally would put her square in the middle of the modern progressive Left. Or at least that might have been true a few years ago, but Scarcella declared this weekend that she’s had enough of the insanity on her side of the political spectrum. “The LGBT community has become a safe haven for the mentally unstable,” Scarcella declares in a short manifesto that fair-use excerpts quite can’t capture (via Twitchy):
I'm A Lesbian Woman & I'm Leaving The "Progressive" Left…
(More content coming soon) https://t.co/DjANIyfDnb pic.twitter.com/awvS0sKC0H — Arielle Scarcella (@ArielleScarcell) February 23, 2020
The full video captures the final 35 seconds of Scarcella’s declaration:
“Some of you have noticed this change coming onto my channel over the past two years,” Scarcella says, “as I’ve gotten what some people would say more conservative.” She then pauses and adds, “And yeah, I have, haven’t I?” Scarcella doesn’t declare herself as a conservative per se, but she does appear delighted with her new conservative followers on Twitter. She also discovered that speaking out isn’t necessarily as fraught as it first seems:
Also, (& I’m not lying) barely any “woke” people in my mentions or in video comments. I wonder why…is it because now that I have a backing they are too afraid to bully? — Arielle Scarcella (@ArielleScarcell) February 24, 2020
That’s usually the main quality in bullies, so yeah, probably. It’s still somewhat amazing, because Scarcella skewers a lot of the progressive Left’s sacred cows of the moment. She revolts against their extreme views on:
“cis” men
the “transphobic” nature of “genital preferences” (ie, sexual orientation)
gender as a “social construct … or that there are 97 genders”
accusations of bigotry for any dissent
the “ridiculously woke cult”
“children drag queens,” and demanding approval when they “perform sexually for adults”
By golly, Arielle does sound conservative! These days, anyway. Just a few years ago, all of the above wouldn’t have been classified as conservative; it would have been called common sense.
“I don’t think like these people,” Scarcella declares, “and I no longer want to be associated with them.” Welcome to the club.


hotair--2020-02-24--Jussie Smollett pleads not guilty as his attorneys claim the new charges are double jeopardy

Earlier this month Jussie Smollett was indicted on six charges of disorderly conduct related to his claim he was the victim of a hate crime .
Today , Smollett made an appearance in court where his attorney pleaded not guilty to the charges .
A somber looking Smollett , 37 , entered a Cook County courthouse wearing sunglasses and sporting a beard , flanked by his legal teams and surrounded by reporters .
His lawyer , Tina Glandian , entered the not guilty pleas on his behalf to six counts of felony disorderly conduct .
She also told Judge James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Illinois Supreme Court to halt the case .
Smollett ’ s lawyers are arguing that the new charges amount to double jeopardy for their client .
They are attempting to have the case dismissed but Judge Linn refused to grant a delay of the arraignment : Smollett ’ s lawyers had requested a delay in the arraignment , saying they were filing paperwork with the state ’ s high court and a motion in Linn ’ s courtroom to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds .
Linn did not delay the proceedings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , releasing Smollett on his own recognizance , and ordered him to return to court March 18 .
Smollett ’ s lawyers filed motions with the state ’ s high court Monday seeking a stay in the criminal case in Chicago , and asking that a prior court order establishing lawyer Dan Webb as special prosecutor be vacated .
The order “ vested the special prosecutor with overly broad duties that have now resulted in a second prosecution of Mr. Smollett , on identical charges that were previously nolle prossed by the duly-elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion states .
Also present at court today were the Osundairo brothers .
Their attorney briefly spoke to the media and said her clients were dedicated to the truth coming out and to demonstrating regret for their involvement in the hoax .
That didn ’ t sit well with Smollett ’ s attorney Tina Glandian who told the media later , “ I was surprised .
I ’ ll leave it to you to wonder why they bothered to appear here with their attorney .
There was obviously no reason for them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend there was a debate between State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx , who dismissed the charges against Smollett one year ago , and her three challengers .
Foxx was on the defensive over her handling of the case .
She has previously compared the announcement of new charges against Smollett just weeks before the election to James Comey ’ s announcement that the Clinton email case had been reopened .
Finally , here ’ s a local news report on the scene today .
As you ’ ll see , a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered court today tripped over one another and hit the pavement .
Maybe that ’ s a good metaphor for the media ’ s initial coverage of this case .

Earlier this month Jussie Smollett was indicted on six charges of disorderly conduct related to his claim he was the victim of a hate crime. Today, Smollett made an appearance in court where his attorney pleaded not guilty to the charges.
A somber looking Smollett, 37, entered a Cook County courthouse wearing sunglasses and sporting a beard, flanked by his legal teams and surrounded by reporters. His lawyer, Tina Glandian, entered the not guilty pleas on his behalf to six counts of felony disorderly conduct. She also told Judge James B. Linn that she has asked the Illinois Supreme Court to halt the case.
Smollett’s lawyers are arguing that the new charges amount to double jeopardy for their client. They are attempting to have the case dismissed but Judge Linn refused to grant a delay of the arraignment:
Smollett’s lawyers had requested a delay in the arraignment, saying they were filing paperwork with the state’s high court and a motion in Linn’s courtroom to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds. Linn did not delay the proceedings and instead set a $20,000 individual bond, releasing Smollett on his own recognizance, and ordered him to return to court March 18. Smollett’s lawyers filed motions with the state’s high court Monday seeking a stay in the criminal case in Chicago, and asking that a prior court order establishing lawyer Dan Webb as special prosecutor be vacated. The order “vested the special prosecutor with overly broad duties that have now resulted in a second prosecution of Mr. Smollett, on identical charges that were previously nolle prossed by the duly-elected State’s Attorney,” the motion states.
Also present at court today were the Osundairo brothers.
Their attorney briefly spoke to the media and said her clients were dedicated to the truth coming out and to demonstrating regret for their involvement in the hoax. That didn’t sit well with Smollett’s attorney Tina Glandian who told the media later, “I was surprised. I’ll leave it to you to wonder why they bothered to appear here with their attorney. There was obviously no reason for them to be present in court.”
Over the weekend there was a debate between State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who dismissed the charges against Smollett one year ago, and her three challengers. Foxx was on the defensive over her handling of the case. She has previously compared the announcement of new charges against Smollett just weeks before the election to James Comey’s announcement that the Clinton email case had been reopened.

Finally, here’s a local news report on the scene today. As you’ll see, a few reporters who were taking pictures as Smollett entered court today tripped over one another and hit the pavement. Maybe that’s a good metaphor for the media’s initial coverage of this case.


hotair--2020-02-24--America continues to lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions

If you listen to the mainstream media , you probably think that the Bad Orange Man is boosting pollution and destroying the climate because we withdrew from the Paris climate agreement .
( It ’ s not a “ treaty ” as defined in the United States because Congress never approved it . )
The reality , however , is very different .
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has quietly released yet another report saying that America once again reduced greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 and they project that such emissions will be going down even further this year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the airwaves with this good news so everyone can celebrate the progress ?
( Washington Examiner ) Increased natural gas consumption helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 , according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
Chances are you haven ’ t heard .
That ’ s because the mainstream media and environmentalists insist on condemning the Trump administration for championing fossil fuels even though the United States is doing a better job at reducing emissions than many other countries that signed the 2015 Paris Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this success to the fracking boom , which has made natural gas much more plentiful .
Cheap , abundant natural gas has gradually been displacing coal , which emits about twice as much carbon dioxide .
A recent Rhodium Group study found that coal-fired power generation dropped by 18 % last year , the lowest level since 1975 .
As the Examiner points out , the reason you don ’ t hear about this is that most cable news outlets prefer to use rankings generated by something called the Climate Action Tracker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that CAT doesn ’ t really pay attention to how much actual greenhouse gas is being dumped into the atmosphere .
It instead ranks countries on how fully they are in compliance with the Paris accord .
Since we are in the process of pulling out of that fiasco of a deal , America is automatically given a poor score .
This makes for a much better headline for liberals because the Bad Orange Man is Bad .
Got it ?
Meanwhile , thanks to a huge abundance of cheap natural gas ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its greenhouse gas emissions by 2 % in 2019 after previously cutting them by the same amount the prior year .
In fact , U.S. emissions went down by 12 % between 2005 and 2017 .
By next year , American emissions are projected to be the lowest they have been since 1991 , a time when the population was much lower than it is now .
By comparison , how are the “ good ” countries who signed on to the Paris accord doing ?
As it turns out , France Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions reduction goals last year .
Germany ’ s emissions actually increased after they started gutting their nuclear power program and were forced to restart some coal-fired plants to keep the lights turned on .
The only countries that are given high marks for meeting the climate agreement ’ s objectives are very small nations with low populations and not very much economic or industrial activity .
So who are the real bad guys in this story ?
Before any global consortium starts trying to dictate to us how to handle our greenhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own houses in order and follow our example .
Rather than just talking about reducing emissions , we ’ re actually doing it .
And we didn ’ t need a treaty with anyone else to get the job done .

If you listen to the mainstream media, you probably think that the Bad Orange Man is boosting pollution and destroying the climate because we withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. (It’s not a “treaty” as defined in the United States because Congress never approved it.) The reality, however, is very different. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has quietly released yet another report saying that America once again reduced greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 and they project that such emissions will be going down even further this year. So why isn’t CNN blanketing the airwaves with this good news so everyone can celebrate the progress? (Washington Examiner)
Increased natural gas consumption helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Chances are you haven’t heard. That’s because the mainstream media and environmentalists insist on condemning the Trump administration for championing fossil fuels even though the United States is doing a better job at reducing emissions than many other countries that signed the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The public can credit much of this success to the fracking boom, which has made natural gas much more plentiful. Cheap, abundant natural gas has gradually been displacing coal, which emits about twice as much carbon dioxide. A recent Rhodium Group study found that coal-fired power generation dropped by 18% last year, the lowest level since 1975.
As the Examiner points out, the reason you don’t hear about this is that most cable news outlets prefer to use rankings generated by something called the Climate Action Tracker, or CAT. The problem is that CAT doesn’t really pay attention to how much actual greenhouse gas is being dumped into the atmosphere. It instead ranks countries on how fully they are in compliance with the Paris accord.
Since we are in the process of pulling out of that fiasco of a deal, America is automatically given a poor score. This makes for a much better headline for liberals because the Bad Orange Man is Bad. Got it?
Meanwhile, thanks to a huge abundance of cheap natural gas (generated via fracking), America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2% in 2019 after previously cutting them by the same amount the prior year. In fact, U.S. emissions went down by 12% between 2005 and 2017. By next year, American emissions are projected to be the lowest they have been since 1991, a time when the population was much lower than it is now.
By comparison, how are the “good” countries who signed on to the Paris accord doing? As it turns out, France Germany and the United Kingdom all missed their emissions reduction goals last year. Germany’s emissions actually increased after they started gutting their nuclear power program and were forced to restart some coal-fired plants to keep the lights turned on.
The only countries that are given high marks for meeting the climate agreement’s objectives are very small nations with low populations and not very much economic or industrial activity. So who are the real bad guys in this story? Before any global consortium starts trying to dictate to us how to handle our greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they should get their own houses in order and follow our example. Rather than just talking about reducing emissions, we’re actually doing it. And we didn’t need a treaty with anyone else to get the job done.