hotair--2020-01-15--Cuba routinely imprisons 'antisocial' government critics, has highest incarceration rate in the worl

Cuba routinely imprisons 'antisocial' government critics, has highest incarceration rate in the world

A former high-ranking Cuban judge named Edel González Jiménez criticized the communist nation saying it routinely manufacturers charges against government critics in proceedings run by state security services .
The NY Times reviewed documents the judge took with and says they reveal Cuba has the highest rate of incarceration in the world .
A former high-ranking judge in Cuba has joined an antigovernment activist in revealing information from secret government documents that show the government is holding thousands of inmates on dubious charges and has the highest incarceration rate in the world… Documents reviewed by The New York Times showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the more than 32,000 cases that go to trial in Cuba every year are found guilty .
Nearly 4,000 people every year are accused of being “ antisocial ” or “ dangerous , ” terms the Cuban government uses to jail people who pose a risk to the status quo , without having a committed a crime… Those accused of being a threat are subjected to summary trials and have no right to a defense or to present evidence , Mr. González said .
The records show that 99.5 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
…dozens of men received sentences between two and four years in prison for offenses falling broadly under the category of “ antisocial ” — a phrase that can be applied to people who are unemployed , do not belonging to civic organizations associated with the state , behave disorderly and harass tourists , and associate with similarly “ antisocial ” people .
The 99.5 percent conviction rate mentioned above ( for the “ antisocial ” ) is on par with the overall conviction rate in communist China .
In 2013 the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times reports that documents created to charge the “ dangerous ” Cubans all use the exact same language , suggesting it is literally being cut and pasted from one dissident show trial to the next .
Despite the evidence he presented , Edel González is still a believer in Cuban communism and still hopes to return home one day .
He argues the incarceration rate is high in Cuba because the regime prosecutes crime to maintain “ social order.
” I suspect if he does attempt to return to Cuba he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to social order himself .
Eloy Viera Cañive , a legal analyst quoted by the Times , says there ’ s a simple explanation for the behavior of the Cuban courts .
“ This is a police state , and the Ministry of Interior has a lot of influence , even on judges , ” Viera said .
He added , “ True independence is impossible.
” Finally , it ’ s worth noting that the government has downplayed the number of people in Cuba ’ s prisons and has outright denied that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2016 Raul Castro was asked about this during a joint press conference with President Obama and challenged the reporter to give him a list of such prisoners .
( The reporter asking the question in that case was CNN ’ s Jim Acosta . )
Here ’ s an ABC News report from March 2016 :

A former high-ranking Cuban judge named Edel González Jiménez criticized the communist nation saying it routinely manufacturers charges against government critics in proceedings run by state security services. The NY Times reviewed documents the judge took with and says they reveal Cuba has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
A former high-ranking judge in Cuba has joined an antigovernment activist in revealing information from secret government documents that show the government is holding thousands of inmates on dubious charges and has the highest incarceration rate in the world… Documents reviewed by The New York Times showed that approximately 92 percent of those accused in the more than 32,000 cases that go to trial in Cuba every year are found guilty. Nearly 4,000 people every year are accused of being “antisocial” or “dangerous,” terms the Cuban government uses to jail people who pose a risk to the status quo, without having a committed a crime… Those accused of being a threat are subjected to summary trials and have no right to a defense or to present evidence, Mr. González said. The records show that 99.5 percent of the people accused of this are found guilty. …dozens of men received sentences between two and four years in prison for offenses falling broadly under the category of “antisocial” — a phrase that can be applied to people who are unemployed, do not belonging to civic organizations associated with the state, behave disorderly and harass tourists, and associate with similarly “antisocial” people.
The 99.5 percent conviction rate mentioned above (for the “antisocial”) is on par with the overall conviction rate in communist China. In 2013 the Chinese conviction rate was 99.93 percent. The Times reports that documents created to charge the “dangerous” Cubans all use the exact same language, suggesting it is literally being cut and pasted from one dissident show trial to the next.
Despite the evidence he presented, Edel González is still a believer in Cuban communism and still hopes to return home one day. He argues the incarceration rate is high in Cuba because the regime prosecutes crime to maintain “social order.” I suspect if he does attempt to return to Cuba he’ll find that he has become a threat to social order himself.
Eloy Viera Cañive, a legal analyst quoted by the Times, says there’s a simple explanation for the behavior of the Cuban courts. “This is a police state, and the Ministry of Interior has a lot of influence, even on judges,” Viera said. He added, “True independence is impossible.”
Finally, it’s worth noting that the government has downplayed the number of people in Cuba’s prisons and has outright denied that there are any political prisoners being held. In 2016 Raul Castro was asked about this during a joint press conference with President Obama and challenged the reporter to give him a list of such prisoners. (The reporter asking the question in that case was CNN’s Jim Acosta.) Here’s an ABC News report from March 2016:


hotair--2020-01-15--The latest brilliant liberal plan to "fix" the Constitution

It ’ s no secret that many liberals are still having a hard time coping with the results of the 2016 election , showing particularly strong disdain for the fact that President Trump didn ’ t garner a majority of the popular vote .
This same crew has also been on a bit of a tear over the “ unfairness ” of how members of the Senate are elected and the power that the GOP majority there is able to use to thwart their legislative agenda .
Well , never fear , you angry mob !
A new savior has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these matters to rights .
Over at Vox ( yes… I know ) , Ian Millhiser covers an unsigned document from the Harvard Law Review laying out what he describes as a modest proposal to save American democracy .
Oh , my !
Sounds ambitious .
So how exactly would we accomplish this daunting task ?
Simple .
Create as many as 127 new states and then call a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the rules so they work better for Democrats .
We have a president who lost the popular vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” represents about 15 million fewer people than the “ minority , ” and a Supreme Court where two justices were nominated by that president and confirmed by that unrepresentative Senate .
An unsigned note , entitled “ Pack the Union : A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation ” and published in the Harvard Law Review , offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma : Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States has an election system “ where every vote counts equally.
” It ’ s not difficult to imagine why the cowardly author of this crock of nonsense didn ’ t sign their work .
It ’ s a pretty embarrassing mess .
But since somebody took the time to write it , I suppose we should look at the details .
As most of you likely know if you stayed awake in high school , you can ’ t just carve out new states from existing states in a willy-nilly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chunk of land that isn ’ t part of any state and it ’ s where you find the White House and Congress .
So the author ’ s simple plan is to have Congress pass legislation shrinking the size of the District of Columbia to encompass only a few key federal buildings .
Then Congress , with simple majority votes , would admit each of the rest of the District ’ s 127 neighborhoods as states .
As shocking as it may sound , this is probably technically legal under the laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also completely insane .
But before going further , let ’ s revisit what the original complaint was as compared to the proposed solution .
Millhiser begins by carping about the fact that the Senate GOP majority represents a group of states with a total population that ’ s lower than the total population of the states held by Democrats .
So that ’ s “ unfair , ” right ?
Now let ’ s look at the Harvard author ’ s “ solution.
” You would create 127 new states carved out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats during every election .
The current population of Washington , D.C. is roughly 633,400 .
If you divide that into 127 new states you would create seats for 254 new Senators , each pair of which would represent about 4,990 people .
You would also generate 127 new members of the House representing the same tiny sliver of voters .
Currently , the smallest congressional district in the country by population is probably Rhode Island ’ s 1st District and they had 526,283 people after the 2010 census .
So you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of disproportionate representation by creating massively more disproportionate districts with the same vote as everyone else , but having literally one hundred times fewer people being represented .
How does something this incredibly assinine manage to get published in the Harvard Law Review ?
Leaving aside this insanity , I will agree that we probably need a better way to balance the population spread of the districts to be more homogenous if that ’ s possible .
There is an inherent issue with having one district like Rhode Island ’ s First having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s single , at-large congressional member represents more than 900,000 citizens .
That means that the votes of people in Montana carry barely half of the same impact as those in Rhode Island .
Of course , the population of the various states shifts on a regular basis and it doesn ’ t always do so homogeneously .
That means that the “ equality ” of representation from district to district begins shifting again as soon as the new lines are drawn every ten years .
But yes , it does seem as @ @ @ @ @ @

It’s no secret that many liberals are still having a hard time coping with the results of the 2016 election, showing particularly strong disdain for the fact that President Trump didn’t garner a majority of the popular vote. This same crew has also been on a bit of a tear over the “unfairness” of how members of the Senate are elected and the power that the GOP majority there is able to use to thwart their legislative agenda. Well, never fear, you angry mob! A new savior has arrived with a crackerjack plan to set all of these matters to rights.
Over at Vox (yes… I know), Ian Millhiser covers an unsigned document from the Harvard Law Review laying out what he describes as a modest proposal to save American democracy. Oh, my! Sounds ambitious. So how exactly would we accomplish this daunting task? Simple. Create as many as 127 new states and then call a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the rules so they work better for Democrats.
American democracy is broken. We have a president who lost the popular vote, a Senate where the “majority” represents about 15 million fewer people than the “minority,” and a Supreme Court where two justices were nominated by that president and confirmed by that unrepresentative Senate. An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”
It’s not difficult to imagine why the cowardly author of this crock of nonsense didn’t sign their work. It’s a pretty embarrassing mess. But since somebody took the time to write it, I suppose we should look at the details.
As most of you likely know if you stayed awake in high school, you can’t just carve out new states from existing states in a willy-nilly fashion. But we do have one chunk of land that isn’t part of any state and it’s where you find the White House and Congress. So the author’s simple plan is to have Congress pass legislation shrinking the size of the District of Columbia to encompass only a few key federal buildings. Then Congress, with simple majority votes, would admit each of the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states.
As shocking as it may sound, this is probably technically legal under the laws of our land. It’s also completely insane.
But before going further, let’s revisit what the original complaint was as compared to the proposed solution. Millhiser begins by carping about the fact that the Senate GOP majority represents a group of states with a total population that’s lower than the total population of the states held by Democrats. So that’s “unfair,” right?
Now let’s look at the Harvard author’s “solution.” You would create 127 new states carved out of an area that votes overwhelmingly with the Democrats during every election. The current population of Washington, D.C. is roughly 633,400. If you divide that into 127 new states you would create seats for 254 new Senators, each pair of which would represent about 4,990 people. You would also generate 127 new members of the House representing the same tiny sliver of voters. Currently, the smallest congressional district in the country by population is probably Rhode Island’s 1st District and they had 526,283 people after the 2010 census.
So you’re going to fix the problem of disproportionate representation by creating massively more disproportionate districts with the same vote as everyone else, but having literally one hundred times fewer people being represented. How does something this incredibly assinine manage to get published in the Harvard Law Review?
Leaving aside this insanity, I will agree that we probably need a better way to balance the population spread of the districts to be more homogenous if that’s possible. There is an inherent issue with having one district like Rhode Island’s First having one member representing them while Montana’s single, at-large congressional member represents more than 900,000 citizens. That means that the votes of people in Montana carry barely half of the same impact as those in Rhode Island.
Of course, the population of the various states shifts on a regular basis and it doesn’t always do so homogeneously. That means that the “equality” of representation from district to district begins shifting again as soon as the new lines are drawn every ten years. But yes, it does seem as though we could do better.


hotair--2020-01-15--Russian government resigns en masse—what is Putin up to?

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and all of his government Ministers resigned today .
When a major figure in the US government resigns it ’ s usually to signal opposition to some action taken by the President .
Not so in this case .
Medvedev resigned hours after President Putin announced plans to make major changes to the Russian constitution .
Those changes are still a bit vague at this point but the general thrust is to reduce the power of future presidents : The Russian leader proposed a national vote on constitutional changes that would push power toward the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the presidency .
It ’ s seen as potentially limiting the power of Putin ’ s successor if he steps down in 2024 .
“ After those amendments are adopted … there will be significant changes not only to a variety of constitution articles , but to the balance of power , namely to the executive , legislative and judicial branches of power , ” Medvedev said , according to Tass .
Why would Putin want to reduce the power of the position he now holds ?
Probably because he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer .
The Russian President is limited by the constitution to two consecutive terms .
When Putin reached that limit in 2008 , he simply swapped jobs with Medvedev , becoming the country ’ s Prime Minister from 2008-2012 .
Then Putin returned as President for a six year term .
He won another six-year term in 2018 which means he will once again have to leave his position in 2024 .
In his annual address to the Federal Assembly earlier Wednesday , Putin said he agreed that no one should serve as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and proposed several constitutional amendments .
His key proposal is to transfer the power to select the prime minister and cabinet from the president to the parliament .
“ I know that a constitutional provision is being discussed in our society that the same person should not be president for more than two consecutive terms , ” Putin said .
“ I don ’ t think this is a fundamental issue , but I agree with that , ” he said .
“ I propose … entrusting the State Duma with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prime minister , and then , per the prime minister ’ s proposal , [ appoint ] all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers , ” Putin said .
“ In this case , the president will be obliged to appoint them , that is , he will not have the right to reject parliament-approved candidacies.
” If Putin won ’ t abolish term limits then he probably plans to move back over to Prime Minister .
He ’ s laying the groundwork to make that position more powerful at the expense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes Putin suggested today was put forward last July by Vyacheslav Volodin , the speaker of Russia ’ s lower house of parliament .
The leading alternative solution to Putin ’ s 2024 problem was for Russia to unite with Belarus which would allow Putin to reset the term limit clock as President of a new entity , but merger talks with Belarus haven ’ t amounted to much .
Putin ’ s real problem is that he ’ s not as popular as he used to be , thanks in part to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor economy is partly the result of sanctions on the country instituted after the annexation of Crimea .
The shake-up announced today not only potentially solves Putin ’ s 2024 problem but could allow him to sell the changes internally and externally as a new , more responsive government : Timothy Ash , senior emerging markets strategist at Bluebay Asset Management , said the changes could be seen as Putin trying to refresh things with a new prime minister and government .
″ ( They ’ ll be ) more focus on reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver growth and improving living standards , ” Ash said in a research note immediately after the news… “ I think all this is a response to opinion polls reflecting popular dissatisfaction with government and their lots in life , and ebbing support even for Putin , ” Ash wrote .
“ In terms of timing , Putin has waited until what he sees as the external risks from sanctions moderating .
He will sell this new , fresh government as part of a fresh start/reach out to the West.
” Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , longer than any leader since Stalin .
Opposition figure Alexei Navalny tells the Guardian that the real message of the proposed changes is that Putin isn ’ t leaving power : “ The main result of Putin ’ s speech : what idiots ( and/or crooks ) are all those who said that Putin would leave in 2024 .
”

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and all of his government Ministers resigned today. When a major figure in the US government resigns it’s usually to signal opposition to some action taken by the President. Not so in this case. Medvedev resigned hours after President Putin announced plans to make major changes to the Russian constitution. Those changes are still a bit vague at this point but the general thrust is to reduce the power of future presidents:
The Russian leader proposed a national vote on constitutional changes that would push power toward the prime minister and the parliament, and away from the presidency. It’s seen as potentially limiting the power of Putin’s successor if he steps down in 2024. “After those amendments are adopted … there will be significant changes not only to a variety of constitution articles, but to the balance of power, namely to the executive, legislative and judicial branches of power,” Medvedev said, according to Tass.
Why would Putin want to reduce the power of the position he now holds? Probably because he can’t remain in that position much longer. The Russian President is limited by the constitution to two consecutive terms. When Putin reached that limit in 2008, he simply swapped jobs with Medvedev, becoming the country’s Prime Minister from 2008-2012. Then Putin returned as President for a six year term. He won another six-year term in 2018 which means he will once again have to leave his position in 2024.
In his annual address to the Federal Assembly earlier Wednesday, Putin said he agreed that no one should serve as president for more than two consecutive terms, and proposed several constitutional amendments. His key proposal is to transfer the power to select the prime minister and cabinet from the president to the parliament. “I know that a constitutional provision is being discussed in our society that the same person should not be president for more than two consecutive terms,” Putin said. “I don’t think this is a fundamental issue, but I agree with that,” he said. “I propose … entrusting the State Duma with the power to approve the candidacy of the prime minister, and then, per the prime minister’s proposal, [appoint] all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers,” Putin said. “In this case, the president will be obliged to appoint them, that is, he will not have the right to reject parliament-approved candidacies.”
If Putin won’t abolish term limits then he probably plans to move back over to Prime Minister. He’s laying the groundwork to make that position more powerful at the expense of the future President. Something like the changes Putin suggested today was put forward last July by Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of Russia’s lower house of parliament.
The leading alternative solution to Putin’s 2024 problem was for Russia to unite with Belarus which would allow Putin to reset the term limit clock as President of a new entity, but merger talks with Belarus haven’t amounted to much.
Putin’s real problem is that he’s not as popular as he used to be, thanks in part to poor economic growth in Russia. The poor economy is partly the result of sanctions on the country instituted after the annexation of Crimea. The shake-up announced today not only potentially solves Putin’s 2024 problem but could allow him to sell the changes internally and externally as a new, more responsive government:
Timothy Ash, senior emerging markets strategist at Bluebay Asset Management, said the changes could be seen as Putin trying to refresh things with a new prime minister and government. ″(They’ll be) more focus on reform, and improving the effectiveness of government to deliver growth and improving living standards,” Ash said in a research note immediately after the news… “I think all this is a response to opinion polls reflecting popular dissatisfaction with government and their lots in life, and ebbing support even for Putin,” Ash wrote. “In terms of timing, Putin has waited until what he sees as the external risks from sanctions moderating. He will sell this new, fresh government as part of a fresh start/reach out to the West.”
Putin has now been in power since 2000, longer than any leader since Stalin. Opposition figure Alexei Navalny tells the Guardian that the real message of the proposed changes is that Putin isn’t leaving power: “The main result of Putin’s speech: what idiots (and/or crooks) are all those who said that Putin would leave in 2024.”


hotair--2020-01-15--Chappelle endorses Andrew Yang for president: "I'm Yang Gang"

Comedian and actor Dave Chappelle endorsed Andrew Yang Tuesday .
It was not a surprise since Chappelle had previously mentioned his support of Yang .
Tuesday ’ s announcement from the campaign just made it official .
Last week , Yang mentioned in an interview that he had been talking to Chappelle about his campaign .
“ Dave ’ s team reached out to our team , and they were thrilled to put the two of us together , ” Yang said .
“ We sat down and talked about his concerns for the country and what we need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dave ’ s a dad like I am .
And then after we met , he said , ‘ Look , I want to help , and what can I do to help ?
’ ” Chappelle said , “ I ’ m Yang Gang !
” He is scheduled to perform two shows in South Carolina – an important early primary state – to raise money for Yang ’ s campaign .
The shows will be in Columbia on January 29 and North Charleston on January 30 .
Yang released a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted a connection between the two men , which is a shared desire to leave the world a better place for their kids .
That ’ s a universal desire of most parents , to be honest , but it is a standard reference for Yang .
He frequently speaks about his family and especially his two young sons .
“ Dave is one of the most important voices in our country today and I ’ m thrilled he has thrown his support behind this campaign , ” Yang said in the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I share similar concerns about the future and hopes for what it could be .
We are also parents who see the world that we are leaving to our kids and believe they deserve better.
” Chappelle is riding a wave of popularity , especially with his more conservative fans , after his last stand-up show on Netflix .
He slammed both conservatives and liberals alike with liberals taking a little more of his heat if you ask me .
It was a very funny show .
The timing of the announcement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media .
Andrew Yang didn ’ t make the cut to be on stage for the Democrat debate Tuesday night in Iowa .
The all-white group of candidates was a sore spot for many Democrat voters – the party of identity politics .
It should be noted , too , that last month Yang received the endorsement of another popular black entertainer and creative artist – Donald Glover – who is now serving as a creative consultant for the Yang campaign .
According to Real Clear Politics , Yang is ranked sixth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is sixth at 3.3 % .
He is even lower in New Hampshire , at 2.3 % , he ’ s ranked in 8th place .
He is in 6th place in Nevada , with 3.0 % support , and in South Carolina he is ranked 7th with 2.7 % support .
So , the early states are not looking good for Yang ’ s survival in the Democrat primary .
If he can ’ t win any of the early states , he ’ ll not be around to compete in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t see where his path to victory lies .
He could be a contender in the vice-presidential derby , though .
Maybe that is what he is hanging in there for now .

Comedian and actor Dave Chappelle endorsed Andrew Yang Tuesday. It was not a surprise since Chappelle had previously mentioned his support of Yang. Tuesday’s announcement from the campaign just made it official.
Last week, Yang mentioned in an interview that he had been talking to Chappelle about his campaign.
“Dave’s team reached out to our team, and they were thrilled to put the two of us together,” Yang said. “We sat down and talked about his concerns for the country and what we need to do to for the next generation. Dave’s a dad like I am. And then after we met, he said, ‘Look, I want to help, and what can I do to help?’”
Chappelle said, “I’m Yang Gang!” He is scheduled to perform two shows in South Carolina – an important early primary state – to raise money for Yang’s campaign. The shows will be in Columbia on January 29 and North Charleston on January 30.
Yang released a statement on Chappelle’s endorsement. He noted a connection between the two men, which is a shared desire to leave the world a better place for their kids. That’s a universal desire of most parents, to be honest, but it is a standard reference for Yang. He frequently speaks about his family and especially his two young sons.
“Dave is one of the most important voices in our country today and I’m thrilled he has thrown his support behind this campaign,” Yang said in the wake of the news. “He and I share similar concerns about the future and hopes for what it could be. We are also parents who see the world that we are leaving to our kids and believe they deserve better.”
Chappelle is riding a wave of popularity, especially with his more conservative fans, after his last stand-up show on Netflix. He slammed both conservatives and liberals alike with liberals taking a little more of his heat if you ask me. It was a very funny show.
The timing of the announcement of Chappelle’s endorsement was noted on social media. Andrew Yang didn’t make the cut to be on stage for the Democrat debate Tuesday night in Iowa. The all-white group of candidates was a sore spot for many Democrat voters – the party of identity politics. It should be noted, too, that last month Yang received the endorsement of another popular black entertainer and creative artist – Donald Glover – who is now serving as a creative consultant for the Yang campaign.
Chappelle joins actor Ken Jeong and actor/singer/rapper Donald Glover, also known as Childish Gambino, as the latest celebrity to express support for Yang. Yang and Glover launched a merchandise collaboration at a one-time-only pop-up store in Los Angeles last month. Glover has also taken on a creative consultant role on the campaign.
Yang getting Chappelle to endorse the same day of a debate where much of the narrative will be on the all-white participants?? pic.twitter.com/mpWTaY3HX5 — BabyYoYang 🧢 (@BabyYoYang1) January 14, 2020
According to Real Clear Politics, Yang is ranked sixth in overall polling. In Iowa, he is sixth at 3.3%. He is even lower in New Hampshire, at 2.3%, he’s ranked in 8th place. He is in 6th place in Nevada, with 3.0% support, and in South Carolina he is ranked 7th with 2.7% support. So, the early states are not looking good for Yang’s survival in the Democrat primary. If he can’t win any of the early states, he’ll not be around to compete in Super Tuesday. Frankly, I don’t see where his path to victory lies. He could be a contender in the vice-presidential derby, though. Maybe that is what he is hanging in there for now.


hotair--2020-01-15--New documents: Uh, were Lev Parnas and an associate stalking Marie Yovanovitch? And if so, why?

If so , why were they stalking her ?
Were they … looking to take her out ?
Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine appointed by Obama in 2016 and held over through the first two years of Trump ’ s administration .
Then Rudy Giuliani took a curious interest in having her ousted from the job , coincidentally right around the time he started leaning on Zelensky to reopen the Burisma probe .
The suspicion is that Rudy knew Yovanovitch wasn ’ t a Trump loyalist and would blow the whistle if she got wind of a quid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government for Biden dirt .
She was a wrench in the works and the wrench had to be removed .
New question , per the documents from Lev Parnas that were released yesterday by Schiff ’ s committee : How far were Rudy ’ s associates prepared to go to “ remove ” her ?
You can read the full text exchange that was recovered from Parnas ’ s phone here , starting on page 14 .
Parnas was texting with a guy named Robert Hyde who runs a government relations firm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress in Connecticut .
How well he knows Trump and Rudy is unclear but he ’ s taken photos with both , for what that ’ s worth .
He was in regular contact with Parnas for at least eight days last March in reference to some unnamed woman who , in context , sure seems to be Marie Yovanovitch .
( Hyde to Parnas on March 23 : “ Can ’ t believe Trump hasn ’ t fired this bitch.
” ) The texts start off innocently enough , with Parnas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ op-eds about backbiting against Trump , etc .
But then Hyde offers “ She ’ s under heavy protection outside Kiev.
” And then things start to get weird .
Two days later : Hmmm .
Then it gets more sinister : A “ price ” for what ?
The next day Hyde contacts Parnas again to ask if he wants the woman in question “ out ” and notes that he ’ ll need security forces for that : Three days later Hyde ’ s talking about having “ a person inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next step ” : The Daily Beast called Hyde last night to put that question to him : What ?
Hyde responded … colorfully , although his answer boiled down to the fact that he was just messing with a buddy .
Maybe he just goofing on Parnas with the text messages , trying to curry favor with a guy whom he knew was connected to Giuliani by convincing him that he had contacts in Ukraine who were surveilling Yovanovitch .
Think of him as the Sean Eckardt figure in this embarrassing international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days is a long time to sustain a prank .
And don ’ t forget that Yovanovitch testified in November that she received a call while stationed in Ukraine that she might be in physical danger and needed to leave right away : Various reporters also remembered last night after the texts were released how Trump had said cryptically to Zelensky during their July 25 phone call that Yovanovitch is “ going to go through some things.
” Huh .
Another interesting data point about Hyde .
Last May , around six weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cops were sent to the Trump National Doral Miami resort to deal with him , as he appeared to be having a mental crisis of some sort .
But the specifics of what he told them are interesting in hindsight : According to an “ incident/investigation ” report filed by the Doral , Florida , police department , on May 16 , 2019 , an officer was dispatched to the Trump National Doral Miami to deal with a “ male in distress fearing for his life.
” That man was Hyde .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police officer that “ he was in fear for his life , was set up and that a hit man was out to get him .
Mr. Hyde spoke about e-mails he sent that may have placed his life in jeopardy .
Mr. Hyde explained several times that he was paranoid that someone was out to get him.
” The report stated that Hyde cited “ a variety of different names , contacts and provided information in reference to why he felt his life was in danger.
” After being taken into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report , “ Mr .
Hyde continued to act paranoid telling us not to stop next to certain vehicles… [ H ] e explained that he was scared due to several painting workers and landscape workers trying to do harm to him because they weren ’ t working .
Additionally Mr. Hyde explained that his computer was being hacked by Secret Service .
And then went on to further explain that the secret service [ sic ] was arrival [ sic ] on the premises watching him.
” Maybe Hyde is dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to run wild .
Or maybe his texts with Parnas were legit and he knew things that were dangerous for him to know .
Is he going to be called at the Senate trial so that we can find out ?
More importantly , is Parnas ?
Parnas is under federal indictment and seems eager to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry in hopes of gaining leniency .
But he ’ s a hugely risky witness for the Susan Collins wing of the GOP to call .
They can call Bolton and feel more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t blow Trump up , and/or that executive privilege will silence him if he tries .
But Parnas is a black box .
His credibility can and will be attacked by the defense , of course , but the issue isn ’ t whether his testimony might convince the Senate to remove Trump .
It won ’ t .
The issue is whether he might raise enough doubt in the minds of the viewing public about Trump ’ s innocence that Collins ’ s and Cory Gardner ’ votes to acquit end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the campaign trail next fall .
There was another revelation in the documents released yesterday , although this one didn ’ t tell us anything we didn ’ t already know : Lots of excitement about that among anti-Trumpers last night , as it seems to confirm some of the key particulars of the quid pro quo theory .
Here ’ s Rudy contacting Zelensky himself in May in order to speak urgently with him about a matter with the president ’ s full knowledge and support .
What ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearing on Trump ’ s personal behalf , which undercuts Trump ’ s claim that he was only interested in the Biden/Burisma matter for reasons of the public interest , i.e .
fighting corruption .
But here ’ s the thing — everything Rudy said in that letter was also said on the record to the New York Times in this story published the day before the letter was sent , May 9 , 2019 .
Read it yourself if you haven ’ t before .
Yes , I want them to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , it may be improper to do so , although it ’ s not illegal .
Yes , I ’ m appearing on behalf of my personal client , not as a government envoy .
Yes , I have Trump ’ s full support in doing it .
( “ He basically knows what I ’ m doing , sure , as his lawyer.
” ) This is the amazing thing about the Ukraine matter — Giuliani has never tried to hide what the goal was .
It ’ s Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to scramble and claim that it was about exposing corruption by Biden , not giving Trump an electoral advantage , and that the Ukraine military aid played no part in it .
Rudy being Rudy , I feel like there ’ s a 50/50 chance he ’ ll call into CNN today and say something like , “ Look , if we wanted Yovanovitch eliminated , she ’ d be long gone , okay ?
” Exit quotation from a handwritten note by Parnas included in the material released yesterday by the @ @

If so, why were they stalking her? Were they … looking to take her out?
Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine appointed by Obama in 2016 and held over through the first two years of Trump’s administration. Then Rudy Giuliani took a curious interest in having her ousted from the job, coincidentally right around the time he started leaning on Zelensky to reopen the Burisma probe. The suspicion is that Rudy knew Yovanovitch wasn’t a Trump loyalist and would blow the whistle if she got wind of a quid pro quo aimed at squeezing the Ukrainian government for Biden dirt. She was a wrench in the works and the wrench had to be removed.
New question, per the documents from Lev Parnas that were released yesterday by Schiff’s committee: How far were Rudy’s associates prepared to go to “remove” her?
You can read the full text exchange that was recovered from Parnas’s phone here, starting on page 14. Parnas was texting with a guy named Robert Hyde who runs a government relations firm in Washington and who’s running for Congress in Connecticut. How well he knows Trump and Rudy is unclear but he’s taken photos with both, for what that’s worth. He was in regular contact with Parnas for at least eight days last March in reference to some unnamed woman who, in context, sure seems to be Marie Yovanovitch. (Hyde to Parnas on March 23: “Can’t believe Trump hasn’t fired this bitch.”) The texts start off innocently enough, with Parnas and Hyde trading links to news stories and op-eds about backbiting against Trump, etc. But then Hyde offers “She’s under heavy protection outside Kiev.”
And then things start to get weird. Two days later:
Hmmm. Then it gets more sinister:
A “price” for what? The next day Hyde contacts Parnas again to ask if he wants the woman in question “out” and notes that he’ll need security forces for that:
Three days later Hyde’s talking about having “a person inside” and wants to know the “next step”:
What?
The Daily Beast called Hyde last night to put that question to him: What? Hyde responded … colorfully, although his answer boiled down to the fact that he was just messing with a buddy.
Asked about his previously undisclosed involvement in Ukraine, Hyde texted The Daily Beast an insult about House Intel chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), writing “Bull Schiff is a giant b*tch.” “Did Pelosi get drunk and lose the impeachment articles?” he added. “Looks like Schiff wants to whistle blow me.”… “How low can liddle Adam Bull Schiff go?” Hyde wrote. “I was never in Kiev. For them to take some texts my buddy’s and I wrote back to some dweeb we were playing with that we met a few times while we had a few drinks is definitely laughable. Schiff is a desperate turd playing with this Lev guy. Have fun with your witch-hunt liddle Schiff.”
Maybe he just goofing on Parnas with the text messages, trying to curry favor with a guy whom he knew was connected to Giuliani by convincing him that he had contacts in Ukraine who were surveilling Yovanovitch. Think of him as the Sean Eckardt figure in this embarrassing international Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan plot. But eight days is a long time to sustain a prank. And don’t forget that Yovanovitch testified in November that she received a call while stationed in Ukraine that she might be in physical danger and needed to leave right away:
From Ambassador Yovanovitch’s testimony. What did the State Department know that made them so concerned for the ambassador’s physical security? Why did the State Department’s senior officials have “a lot of nervousness” about what was going on with Yovanovitch? pic.twitter.com/3Su9Hd87cx — Susan Simpson (@TheViewFromLL2) January 14, 2020
Various reporters also remembered last night after the texts were released how Trump had said cryptically to Zelensky during their July 25 phone call that Yovanovitch is “going to go through some things.” Huh.
Another interesting data point about Hyde. Last May, around six weeks or so after the texts with Parnas, cops were sent to the Trump National Doral Miami resort to deal with him, as he appeared to be having a mental crisis of some sort. But the specifics of what he told them are interesting in hindsight:
According to an “incident/investigation” report filed by the Doral, Florida, police department, on May 16, 2019, an officer was dispatched to the Trump National Doral Miami to deal with a “male in distress fearing for his life.” That man was Hyde. The report noted that Hyde explained to the police officer that “he was in fear for his life, was set up and that a hit man was out to get him. Mr. Hyde spoke about e-mails he sent that may have placed his life in jeopardy. Mr. Hyde explained several times that he was paranoid that someone was out to get him.” The report stated that Hyde cited “a variety of different names, contacts and provided information in reference to why he felt his life was in danger.” After being taken into custody by the police, according to the report, “Mr. Hyde continued to act paranoid telling us not to stop next to certain vehicles…[H]e explained that he was scared due to several painting workers and landscape workers trying to do harm to him because they weren’t working. Additionally Mr. Hyde explained that his computer was being hacked by Secret Service. And then went on to further explain that the secret service [sic] was arrival [sic] on the premises watching him.”
Maybe Hyde is dealing with an illness that causes his imagination to run wild. Or maybe his texts with Parnas were legit and he knew things that were dangerous for him to know.
Is he going to be called at the Senate trial so that we can find out? More importantly, is Parnas? Parnas is under federal indictment and seems eager to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry in hopes of gaining leniency. But he’s a hugely risky witness for the Susan Collins wing of the GOP to call. They can call Bolton and feel more or less confident that he won’t blow Trump up, and/or that executive privilege will silence him if he tries. But Parnas is a black box. His credibility can and will be attacked by the defense, of course, but the issue isn’t whether his testimony might convince the Senate to remove Trump. It won’t. The issue is whether he might raise enough doubt in the minds of the viewing public about Trump’s innocence that Collins’s and Cory Gardner’ votes to acquit end up becoming a bigger political liability to them on the campaign trail next fall.
There was another revelation in the documents released yesterday, although this one didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know:
AMONG THE EVIDENCE: A letter from Giuliani to Zelensky seeking a May meeting which he says has Trump's "knowledge and consent." pic.twitter.com/GLkcP2TOfs — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 14, 2020
Lots of excitement about that among anti-Trumpers last night, as it seems to confirm some of the key particulars of the quid pro quo theory. Here’s Rudy contacting Zelensky himself in May in order to speak urgently with him about a matter with the president’s full knowledge and support. What’s more, notes Rudy, he’s appearing on Trump’s personal behalf, which undercuts Trump’s claim that he was only interested in the Biden/Burisma matter for reasons of the public interest, i.e. fighting corruption. But here’s the thing — everything Rudy said in that letter was also said on the record to the New York Times in this story published the day before the letter was sent, May 9, 2019. Read it yourself if you haven’t before. Yes, I want them to look into Biden and Burisma, Rudy says. Yes, it may be improper to do so, although it’s not illegal. Yes, I’m appearing on behalf of my personal client, not as a government envoy. Yes, I have Trump’s full support in doing it. (“He basically knows what I’m doing, sure, as his lawyer.”) This is the amazing thing about the Ukraine matter — Giuliani has never tried to hide what the goal was. It’s Trump and his savvier defenders who have been left to scramble and claim that it was about exposing corruption by Biden, not giving Trump an electoral advantage, and that the Ukraine military aid played no part in it.
Rudy being Rudy, I feel like there’s a 50/50 chance he’ll call into CNN today and say something like, “Look, if we wanted Yovanovitch eliminated, she’d be long gone, okay?” Exit quotation from a handwritten note by Parnas included in the material released yesterday by the House:


hotair--2020-01-15--Breaking: Pelosi names Schiff lead impeachment manager, six others

No real surprises here , except that the announcement from Nancy Pelosi began with as much coherence as the impeachment itself .
Adam Schiff , who led the rhetorical charge on impeachment for nearly three years over the discredited Russia-collusion hypothesis , will serve as the House ’ s lead impeachment manager on a seven-person team .
As expected , Jerrold Nadler will join him , all but guaranteeing that the two lightning rods over the House process will become part of the Senate ’ s scrutiny .
First , though , Pelosi wanted to talk about time and spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time it takes to settle on timing , and … That certainly was … a waste of time .
The point , presumably , was to explain why Pelosi dragged out the appointment of these managers for so long that the Senate threatened to force an expiration date on transmission of the impeachment articles .
That explanation didn ’ t get much more coherent than her opening : Of course , if the House demands that witnesses be heard and documents be produced , they could have done that themselves as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explaining that going to the courts to enforce subpoenas would have taken years , negating Congress ’ impeachment power .
He cited a dispute over testimony from White House counsel Don McGahn , which had only gone on for a couple of months : It seems very unlikely that it would have taken “ years.
” The federal judiciary is usually inclined to expedite these disputes , especially when it comes to impeachment proceedings .
The reason the McGahn dispute didn ’ t move faster , in fact , is because the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an impeachment process .
Pelosi and Schiff danced around that because of the potential for political damage until almost the time they were ready to produce the articles of impeachment .
Anyway , expect to hear a lot of this nonsense , and for it to have little impact on the Senate .
Politico reports the full list of impeachment managers who will walk the articles to the other side of the Capitol later today or tomorrow : Senate Republicans will take the greatest interest in Schiff and Nadler and in dismantling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
House Democrats still want to be in control of the process , and they ’ re about to find out that they ’ re not .

No real surprises here, except that the announcement from Nancy Pelosi began with as much coherence as the impeachment itself. Adam Schiff, who led the rhetorical charge on impeachment for nearly three years over the discredited Russia-collusion hypothesis, will serve as the House’s lead impeachment manager on a seven-person team. As expected, Jerrold Nadler will join him, all but guaranteeing that the two lightning rods over the House process will become part of the Senate’s scrutiny.
First, though, Pelosi wanted to talk about time and spend time talking about time and timing and the time it takes to settle on timing, and …
WATCH NOW: Speaker Pelosi announces which members of the House will become impeachment managers and serve as prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial. https://t.co/cO5Mz3b8zJ pic.twitter.com/KMtGUrPKwc — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 15, 2020
That certainly was … a waste of time. The point, presumably, was to explain why Pelosi dragged out the appointment of these managers for so long that the Senate threatened to force an expiration date on transmission of the impeachment articles. That explanation didn’t get much more coherent than her opening:
Speaker Pelosi: "So today, I'm very proud to present the managers who will bring the case, which we have great confidence in, in terms of impeaching the president and his removal." https://t.co/cO5Mz3b8zJ pic.twitter.com/JV2krTwLuw — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 15, 2020
Of course, if the House demands that witnesses be heard and documents be produced, they could have done that themselves as part of the impeachment process. Schiff tried explaining that going to the courts to enforce subpoenas would have taken years, negating Congress’ impeachment power. He cited a dispute over testimony from White House counsel Don McGahn, which had only gone on for a couple of months:
Rep. Adam Schiff: Waiting "years" for further testimony "would completely negate the impeachment power—that is, allow the president, by virtue of obstruction, to prevent his own impeachment. That was an unacceptable course." https://t.co/OucyU2lqMj pic.twitter.com/Vrb6TvUtu3 — ABC News (@ABC) January 15, 2020
It seems very unlikely that it would have taken “years.” The federal judiciary is usually inclined to expedite these disputes, especially when it comes to impeachment proceedings. The reason the McGahn dispute didn’t move faster, in fact, is because the House refused to explicitly declare that they were in an impeachment process. Pelosi and Schiff danced around that because of the potential for political damage until almost the time they were ready to produce the articles of impeachment.
Anyway, expect to hear a lot of this nonsense, and for it to have little impact on the Senate. Politico reports the full list of impeachment managers who will walk the articles to the other side of the Capitol later today or tomorrow:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has appointed a team of seven House Democrats to serve as prosecutors in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. She named Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Jason Crow (D-Colo.), Val Demings (D-Fla.) and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) as managers.
Senate Republicans will take the greatest interest in Schiff and Nadler and in dismantling their arguments over the need for witnesses. House Democrats still want to be in control of the process, and they’re about to find out that they’re not.


hotair--2020-01-15--Google throwing Jussie Smollett under the bus

If alleged hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett thought his troubles in Chicago were behind him he is likely mistaken .
This case isn ’ t over yet and a Cook County judge has appointed a special prosecutor to look into the events leading up to the supposed hate crime involving the former Empire actor .
As part of that effort , the judge has ordered Google to turn over all of Smollett ’ s emails , including any drafts and deleted messages , as well as his phone records .
The judge also ordered the release of the same records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alleged witness to the events .
As the Washington Examiner ’ s Eddie Scarry points out , this means that Smollett is probably “ toast ” at this point .
Actor Jussie Smollett , aka “ the gay Tupac , ” almost certainly lied about the assault he claims he experienced last year .
A new order from a judge in Chicago will likely prove it once and for all .
Cook County Judge Michael Toomin , who appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case , is requiring Google to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Smollett ’ s emails , location data , and messages .
He ’ s also ordered the same for Smollett ’ s manager , a witness to the alleged hate crime , wherein Smollett says he was jumped early one morning by two men who confronted him with racist , anti-gay , and pro-Trump comments before beating him .
The Chicago Tribune reported last week that the court orders include that Google hand over “ drafted and deleted messages ; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services ; any Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search and web browsing history.
” The order also requires the surrender of any voice texts , calls and contact list entries .
Assuming that Smollett maintains even a normal amount of email and web activity , that ’ s a ton of data to sift through so we likely won ’ t see much more action in the case for months .
But if the events of the night in question played out in a way even close to what seems obvious to nearly everyone , Smollett is likely going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed “ hate crime ” didn ’ t happen on the spur of the moment .
Something like that needed to be planned out in advance , finding the right people to conspire with , deciding on the perfect time and location and appropriating the necessary materials .
This probably entailed any number of texts , emails and voice messages between Smollett , his manager and the two “ associates ” who allegedly staged the attack .
And if those come to light in the expected fashion , Smollett ’ s goose will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also serve as your periodic reminder that anything and everything you do on the web pretty much lives forever .
If we assume that Smollett uses Gmail as his email platform ( as roughly one-quarter of the people on the planet do ) , Google doesn ’ t just have his currently saved emails tucked away on their servers .
They ’ ve got everything he ever sent or received for a period of years , including drafts that were saved even if they were never sent .
Perhaps even more frightening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that Google ’ s ability to track your location 24/7 is also stored and it ’ s alarmingly specific and accurate .
That information could also reveal if Smollett was fibbing about any of his travels and meetings related to the supposed hate crime .
I can attest to the claims about location tracking .
I was swallowed up by the Goggleplex years ago , for better or worse , and at one point I signed up to be a “ local guide ” since I tend to write Google reviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ll confess to being regularly alarmed when I started receiving unsolicited notifications from Google saying , “ did you want to review your visit to the XYZ bakery last Tuesday afternoon or upload the photos you took there ?
” And it would turn out that I had indeed been to that bakery and taken a couple of pictures to share .
Granted , 99 % of the time there ’ s probably nothing nefarious going on .
It ’ s just Google ’ s automated system hoping to build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people searching for things to do in any given town .
But it ’ s still pretty creepy .
That creepiness factor is going to go through the roof for Smollett , however , assuming he ’ s guilty of what many people suspect he is .

If alleged hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett thought his troubles in Chicago were behind him he is likely mistaken. This case isn’t over yet and a Cook County judge has appointed a special prosecutor to look into the events leading up to the supposed hate crime involving the former Empire actor. As part of that effort, the judge has ordered Google to turn over all of Smollett’s emails, including any drafts and deleted messages, as well as his phone records. The judge also ordered the release of the same records for the actor’s manager, an alleged witness to the events. As the Washington Examiner’s Eddie Scarry points out, this means that Smollett is probably “toast” at this point.
Actor Jussie Smollett, aka “the gay Tupac,” almost certainly lied about the assault he claims he experienced last year. A new order from a judge in Chicago will likely prove it once and for all. Cook County Judge Michael Toomin, who appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case, is requiring Google to turn over a year’s worth of Smollett’s emails, location data, and messages. He’s also ordered the same for Smollett’s manager, a witness to the alleged hate crime, wherein Smollett says he was jumped early one morning by two men who confronted him with racist, anti-gay, and pro-Trump comments before beating him. The Chicago Tribune reported last week that the court orders include that Google hand over “drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history.”
The order also requires the surrender of any voice texts, calls and contact list entries. Assuming that Smollett maintains even a normal amount of email and web activity, that’s a ton of data to sift through so we likely won’t see much more action in the case for months.
But if the events of the night in question played out in a way even close to what seems obvious to nearly everyone, Smollett is likely going to be in a lot of trouble. That supposed “hate crime” didn’t happen on the spur of the moment. Something like that needed to be planned out in advance, finding the right people to conspire with, deciding on the perfect time and location and appropriating the necessary materials.
This probably entailed any number of texts, emails and voice messages between Smollett, his manager and the two “associates” who allegedly staged the attack. And if those come to light in the expected fashion, Smollett’s goose will indeed be cooked.
This story should also serve as your periodic reminder that anything and everything you do on the web pretty much lives forever. If we assume that Smollett uses Gmail as his email platform (as roughly one-quarter of the people on the planet do), Google doesn’t just have his currently saved emails tucked away on their servers. They’ve got everything he ever sent or received for a period of years, including drafts that were saved even if they were never sent.
Perhaps even more frightening, as the Examiner points out, is the fact that Google’s ability to track your location 24/7 is also stored and it’s alarmingly specific and accurate. That information could also reveal if Smollett was fibbing about any of his travels and meetings related to the supposed hate crime.
I can attest to the claims about location tracking. I was swallowed up by the Goggleplex years ago, for better or worse, and at one point I signed up to be a “local guide” since I tend to write Google reviews for most of the places I visit. I’ll confess to being regularly alarmed when I started receiving unsolicited notifications from Google saying, “did you want to review your visit to the XYZ bakery last Tuesday afternoon or upload the photos you took there?” And it would turn out that I had indeed been to that bakery and taken a couple of pictures to share.
Granted, 99% of the time there’s probably nothing nefarious going on. It’s just Google’s automated system hoping to build up user data to share with other people searching for things to do in any given town. But it’s still pretty creepy. That creepiness factor is going to go through the roof for Smollett, however, assuming he’s guilty of what many people suspect he is.


hotair--2020-01-15--Bloomberg on TX Gov Abbott's decision on refugees: "An outrage"

2020 Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg campaigned in Texas last weekend .
His entourage included campaign surrogate Judge Judy .
Bloomberg has some thoughts about Governor Abbott ’ s decision to opt-out of the refugee resettlement program .
During an interview in Dallas Saturday , he called the governor ’ s decision “ an outrage ” .
“ I just think that that ’ s an outrage , ” Bloomberg said Saturday night in an interview with The Dallas Morning News and KXAS-TV ( NBC 5 ) .
“ This is America .
We shouldn ’ t be doing this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas .
It ’ s not good for America .
It ’ s certainly not good for the people who are trying to get here.
” Bloomberg added that America is “ too wealthy ” and “ too caring to let this happen.
” Governor Abbott made news with his decision to opt-out of the refugee resettlement program because he is the first governor to do so .
For Bloomberg to throw the you-just-don ’ t-care-enough card is the very worst kind of political pandering .
As a taxpaying resident of the Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg to prove that any other state is doing more than its fair share for migrants and refugees .
The brutal truth is that the social services resources of Texas are stretched thin due to the demands of massive waves of illegal immigration that have flocked to the Texas border with Mexico .
The billionaire from the failing blue state of New York isn ’ t winning over any Independent voters with such nonsense about the very successful red state of Texas .
The governor ’ s letter to the Trump administration essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the program .
The Trump administration made the change that officials must consent in writing before refugees can be resettled .
Bloomberg called out Governor Abbott by saying “ He ’ s the only governor so far that has taken advantage of the changing of the rules that you can stop people from coming in.
” That ’ s true .
Many of the other governors who have decided to participate in refugee resettlement are Republicans so it isn ’ t a traditional political party issue .
It ’ s not an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it a racist call – Abbott ’ s wife Cecilia is Texas ’ first Hispanic First Lady .
The governor responded through a spokesman .
A spokesman for Abbott said the governor was doing what was best for Texas .
“ Over the past 10 years Texas has taken in more refugees than any other state , ” said spokesman John Wittman .
“ Our resources need to be focused on those who are here right now.
” Wittman said Texas is still resettling refugees from last year .
Religious leaders from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Texas ’ Catholic bishops ( Abbott is Catholic ) issued a joint statement by the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops .
Texas has 15 dioceses .
The bishops called Abbott ’ s decision “ discouraging and disheartening.
” Abbott ’ s message was the same as his initial response .
Texas can not go it alone in taking care of those seeking a life in the United States .
Other states can step up now and later the refugees are welcome to move to Texas with means of their own .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those already here .
Individual bishops issued their own statements , too .
This bishop from Brownsville asked Abbott to reconsider in a tweet .
This isn ’ t the first time religious leaders have criticized Abbott over immigration -related issues .
It likely won ’ t be the last time either .
Those on the left who demand open borders are who Democrat candidates like Michael Bloomberg are trying to appeal to now .
He claims he ’ ll control the border but offers amnesty for all those already here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of statement will outrage law-abiding immigrants and citizens alike .
If he makes it to a debate stage , let ’ s see if he has the cojones to utter that kind of virtue-signaling nonsense .

2020 Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg campaigned in Texas last weekend. His entourage included campaign surrogate Judge Judy. Bloomberg has some thoughts about Governor Abbott’s decision to opt-out of the refugee resettlement program.
During an interview in Dallas Saturday, he called the governor’s decision “an outrage”.
“I just think that that’s an outrage,” Bloomberg said Saturday night in an interview with The Dallas Morning News and KXAS-TV (NBC 5). “This is America. We shouldn’t be doing this. … It’s not good for Texas. It’s not good for America. It’s certainly not good for the people who are trying to get here.” Bloomberg added that America is “too wealthy” and “too caring to let this happen.”
Governor Abbott made news with his decision to opt-out of the refugee resettlement program because he is the first governor to do so. For Bloomberg to throw the you-just-don’t-care-enough card is the very worst kind of political pandering. As a taxpaying resident of the Great State of Texas, I would challenge Bloomberg to prove that any other state is doing more than its fair share for migrants and refugees. The brutal truth is that the social services resources of Texas are stretched thin due to the demands of massive waves of illegal immigration that have flocked to the Texas border with Mexico. The billionaire from the failing blue state of New York isn’t winning over any Independent voters with such nonsense about the very successful red state of Texas.
The governor’s letter to the Trump administration essentially overrides cities like Dallas that opted-in to the program. The Trump administration made the change that officials must consent in writing before refugees can be resettled.
In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Abbott said Texas bears a “disproportionate” burden from illegal immigration and must concentrate the resources it and its nonprofits have on the needy already here — “refugees, migrants and the homeless — indeed, all Texans.”
Bloomberg called out Governor Abbott by saying “He’s the only governor so far that has taken advantage of the changing of the rules that you can stop people from coming in.” That’s true. Many of the other governors who have decided to participate in refugee resettlement are Republicans so it isn’t a traditional political party issue. It’s not an issue of a lack of compassion, nor is it a racist call – Abbott’s wife Cecilia is Texas’ first Hispanic First Lady. The governor responded through a spokesman.
A spokesman for Abbott said the governor was doing what was best for Texas. “Over the past 10 years Texas has taken in more refugees than any other state,” said spokesman John Wittman. “Our resources need to be focused on those who are here right now.” Wittman said Texas is still resettling refugees from last year.
Religious leaders from around the state are weighing in, too. Texas’ Catholic bishops (Abbott is Catholic) issued a joint statement by the
Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops. Texas has 15 dioceses. The bishops called Abbott’s decision “discouraging and disheartening.”
“While the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops respects the governor, this decision is simply misguided,” the group wrote. “It denies people who are fleeing persecution, including religious persecution, from being able to bring their gifts and talents to our state and contribute to the general common good of all Texans.” “As Catholics, an essential aspect of our faith is to welcome the stranger and care for the alien,” the statement said.
Abbott’s message was the same as his initial response. Texas cannot go it alone in taking care of those seeking a life in the United States. Other states can step up now and later the refugees are welcome to move to Texas with means of their own. The state has an obligation to care for those already here.
“No one seeking refugee status in the United States will be denied that status because of the Texas decision,” he stated in an email. “Importantly, the decision by Texas will not prevent any refugee from coming to America. Equally important, the Texas decision doesn’t stop refugees from moving to Texas after initially settling in another state.”
Individual bishops issued their own statements, too. This bishop from Brownsville asked Abbott to reconsider in a tweet.
The Governor’s decision not to allow the Federal refugee resettlement program to operate in Texas affects refugees vetted by the current administration. They flee violence & persecution, and seek a chance to live, work & contribute in peace.
The Governor should reconsider. — Amigo de Frodo (@bpdflores) January 11, 2020
This isn’t the first time religious leaders have criticized Abbott over immigration -related issues.
He was criticized in 2014 when, as attorney general, he filed a lawsuit to stop the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. Religious groups were also opposed to Senate Bill 4, an omnibus, state-based immigration enforcement bill Abbott declared a legislative priority in 2017.
It likely won’t be the last time either. Those on the left who demand open borders are who Democrat candidates like Michael Bloomberg are trying to appeal to now. He claims he’ll control the border but offers amnesty for all those already here. He promises no deportations.
Bloomberg told The News that his immigration policy would control the border, provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants here without authorization and recruit immigrants from all over the world. “We’re not going to deport people,” Bloomberg said of the immigrants in the nation without authorization. “It would be more than an outrage. Even Donald Trump is not going to do that.”
That kind of statement will outrage law-abiding immigrants and citizens alike. If he makes it to a debate stage, let’s see if he has the cojones to utter that kind of virtue-signaling nonsense.


hotair--2020-01-15--CNN to Sanders: When exactly did you stop beating women's dreams of victory?

The BernieBros have # CNNisTrash trending , and after watching this exchange in last night ’ s debate , it ’ s not tough to see why .
Moderator Abby Phillip made sure to press Bernie Sanders on the topic du jour , which was CNN ’ s own scoop that Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman couldn ’ t win the presidency .
Sanders gave a detailed denial to the question , noting that he had been discussing that path to victory for the last thirty years .
And Phillip then turned to Warren with a question that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she hadn ’ t listened to a word he ’ d said : PHILLIP : CNN reported yesterday that , and Senator Sanders — Senator Warren — confirmed in a statement , that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election .
Why did you say that ?
SANDERS : Well , as a matter of fact I didn ’ t say it .
And I don ’ t want to waste a whole lot of time on this , because this is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media want .
Anybody knows me knows that it ’ s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States .
Go to YouTube today , there ’ s some video of it of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States .
In 2015 I deferred , in fact , the Senate Awards was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president .
And you know what I said ?
“ Stay back.
” Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they — I did run afterwards .
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes .
How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States ?
And let me be very clear : if any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that ’ s not the case , I hope it ’ s me — but if they do , I will do everything in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country .
That ’ s a strong , unequivocal denial , right ?
There ’ s no room for misinterpretation .
Having asked Sanders straightforwardly whether he said it and getting a flat-out denial , though , Phillip turned around and asked a question of Warren that presumed Sanders had just lied to her : Come on .
If this was an exercise in journalistic balance , the question should have been phrased to force Warren to say whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , Phillip answered the real question for Warren and threw her the softest of softballs instead .
Even CNN ’ s audience noticed it and began laughing at Phillip .
Having been slow-pitched the softball , Warren swung with a prepared argument about how the men on the stage have lost elections while the women have not .
Warren also claimed that the man she threw under the bus over the last twenty-four hours is her “ friend , ” a point to which we ’ ll return : WARREN : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am not here to try to fight with Bernie , but look .
This question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised , and it ’ s time for us to attack it head-on .
And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people ’ s winning record .
So , can a woman beat Donald Trump ?
Look at the men on this stage .
Collectively they have lost ten elections .
The only people on this stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve been in are the women .
Amy and me .
And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican any time in the past 30 years is me .
And here ’ s what I know — the real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can ’ t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency .
We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party , bring everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe in .
That ’ s my plan and that is why I ’ m going to win .
Ahem .
Warren beat an “ incumbent Republican ” in Massachusetts who won a fluke victory in a special election because Democrats nominated the worst candidate they could find .
It ’ s Massachusetts , for Pete ’ s sake .
If you ’ re not Martha Coakley , you should win by twenty points .
Warren only beat Scott Brown by eight points , and that was with Barack Obama at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who won MA by 23 points .
Amy Klobuchar has dominated her Senate elections , but her father was a well-known journalist whose name recognition gave her a big lift in a state that ’ s gotten very blue over the last decade-plus as well .
Between the two women , they ’ ve won five elections in Democratic bastions , which is half of the number that the men on stage have lost — while winning other elections .
Could Warren beat Trump in Massachusetts ?
Heck , even Tulsi Gabbard could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa ?
After briefly leading the polling there , it ’ s not even clear that she can make it into the top three among Democrats .
Anyway , at least Warren and Sanders still have their friendship , right ?
Right ?
Er … looks like Warren wasn ’ t being completely honest about that , either :

The BernieBros have #CNNisTrash trending, and after watching this exchange in last night’s debate, it’s not tough to see why. Moderator Abby Phillip made sure to press Bernie Sanders on the topic du jour, which was CNN’s own scoop that Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman couldn’t win the presidency. Sanders gave a detailed denial to the question, noting that he had been discussing that path to victory for the last thirty years.
And Phillip then turned to Warren with a question that assumed Sanders’ guilt, as though she hadn’t listened to a word he’d said:
PHILLIP: CNN reported yesterday that, and Senator Sanders — Senator Warren — confirmed in a statement, that in 2018 you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that? SANDERS: Well, as a matter of fact I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be President of the United States. Go to YouTube today, there’s some video of it of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015 I deferred, in fact, the Senate Awards was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what I said? “Stay back.” Senator Warren decided not to run and I — they — I did run afterwards. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear: if any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.
That’s a strong, unequivocal denial, right? There’s no room for misinterpretation. Having asked Sanders straightforwardly whether he said it and getting a flat-out denial, though, Phillip turned around and asked a question of Warren that presumed Sanders had just lied to her:
PHILLIP: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
Come on. If this was an exercise in journalistic balance, the question should have been phrased to force Warren to say whether or not Sanders made the comment. Instead, Phillip answered the real question for Warren and threw her the softest of softballs instead. Even CNN’s audience noticed it and began laughing at Phillip.
Having been slow-pitched the softball, Warren swung with a prepared argument about how the men on the stage have lost elections while the women have not. Warren also claimed that the man she threw under the bus over the last twenty-four hours is her “friend,” a point to which we’ll return:
WARREN: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie, but look. This question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on. And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record. So, can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively they
have lost ten elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. Amy and me. And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican any time in the past 30 years is me. And here’s what I know — the real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can’t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency. We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That’s my plan and that is why I’m going to win.
Ahem. Warren beat an “incumbent Republican” in Massachusetts who won a fluke victory in a special election because Democrats nominated the worst candidate they could find. It’s Massachusetts, for Pete’s sake. If you’re not Martha Coakley, you should win by twenty points. Warren only beat Scott Brown by eight points, and that was with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket in 2012, who won MA by 23 points. Amy Klobuchar has dominated her Senate elections, but her father was a well-known journalist whose name recognition gave her a big lift in a state that’s gotten very blue over the last decade-plus as well. Between the two women, they’ve won five elections in Democratic bastions, which is half of the number that the men on stage have lost — while winning other elections.
Could Warren beat Trump in Massachusetts? Heck, even Tulsi Gabbard could do that much. Can Warren win in Iowa? After briefly leading the polling there, it’s not even clear that she can make it into the top three among Democrats.
Anyway, at least Warren and Sanders still have their friendship, right? Right? Er … looks like Warren wasn’t being completely honest about that, either:


hotair--2020-01-15--Federal judge upholds Trump family separation policy

When the Trump administration ended the family separation policy last year , they didn ’ t entirely end it .
There were still cases where separations took place for a variety of necessary reasons .
This prompted the usual outrage from the ACLU , leading them to challenge the enforcement rules in court and obtain an initial , temporary injunction from a judge in California .
Now the court-ordered review has been completed and the same judge has found that the government is acting within its authority in this matter .
( Reuters ) A federal judge has ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is acting within its authority when it comes to separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border without any violation of the “ rights to family integrity ” .
“ … .
the Court finds Defendants are generally exercising their discretion to separate families at the border consistent with Plaintiffs ’ rights to family integrity and the Court ’ s orders.. ” , U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego said in a 26-page decision .
In July , the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) had claimed that the government was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledge to end the practice .
Judge Sabraw , a Bush 43 appointee , seems to have walked a fine line here in identifying when and how the so-called “ right to family integrity ” can be set aside .
The ACLU didn ’ t put out much in the way of a response to losing the case aside from saying that they are “ examining all options ” available to them .
When families show up at the border , looking to either illegally cross into our country or request asylum , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearings and final determinations in Mexico under this administration ’ s Remain in Mexico policy .
( Which has also been upheld in the courts . )
But there are exceptions , as noted above .
In one of the more common situations that the ACLU objected to , migrants arrive at the border with children who are suspected of not being their own .
These children could be victims of human trafficking or simply kids who were snatched by migrants who are trying to use the family separation policy to their advantage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as saying that the Trump administration “ bears the burden if it attempts to separate families based on an accusation that the adult is not the child ’ s parent.
” Well… obviously .
But who on Earth wouldn ’ t want to see the situation investigated if credible doubt exists about the identity of the child ’ s alleged “ parent ” in such cases ?
That ’ s rather close to arguing in favor of human trafficking , isn ’ t it ?
Other situations where family separation is allowable arise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a criminal record of if any of the family members display symptoms of communicable diseases .
As the judge pointed out , all of these complicated scenarios require the government to exercise discretion as to whether or not the families remain together or are separated .
How many more times are we going to see this drama play out ?
Trump ’ s opponents complain about his immigration policies and shop around to find a court that will agree with them .
The White House appeals the decision and a judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ) eventually lifts the injunction and we return to business as usual .
Of course , there is a way we could cut way down on all of these scenarios if the will existed .
How about we just finish building the darned wall and get control of who is going back and forth across the border in an orderly fashion ?
I know… crazy idea , right ?

When the Trump administration ended the family separation policy last year, they didn’t entirely end it. There were still cases where separations took place for a variety of necessary reasons. This prompted the usual outrage from the ACLU, leading them to challenge the enforcement rules in court and obtain an initial, temporary injunction from a judge in California. Now the court-ordered review has been completed and the same judge has found that the government is acting within its authority in this matter. (Reuters)
A federal judge has ruled that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is acting within its authority when it comes to separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border without any violation of the “rights to family integrity”. “…. the Court finds Defendants are generally exercising their discretion to separate families at the border consistent with Plaintiffs’ rights to family integrity and the Court’s orders..”, U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego said in a 26-page decision. In July, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had claimed that the government was separating families, making exceptions to its pledge to end the practice.
Judge Sabraw, a Bush 43 appointee, seems to have walked a fine line here in identifying when and how the so-called “right to family integrity” can be set aside. The ACLU didn’t put out much in the way of a response to losing the case aside from saying that they are “examining all options” available to them.
When families show up at the border, looking to either illegally cross into our country or request asylum, they are currently supposed to await their hearings and final determinations in Mexico under this administration’s Remain in Mexico policy. (Which has also been upheld in the courts.) But there are exceptions, as noted above.
In one of the more common situations that the ACLU objected to, migrants arrive at the border with children who are suspected of not being their own. These children could be victims of human trafficking or simply kids who were snatched by migrants who are trying to use the family separation policy to their advantage. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt is quoted as saying that the Trump administration “bears the burden if it attempts to separate families based on an accusation that the adult is not the child’s parent.”
Well… obviously. But who on Earth wouldn’t want to see the situation investigated if credible doubt exists about the identity of the child’s alleged “parent” in such cases? That’s rather close to arguing in favor of human trafficking, isn’t it?
Other situations where family separation is allowable arise if one of the adults is found to have a criminal record of if any of the family members display symptoms of communicable diseases. As the judge pointed out, all of these complicated scenarios require the government to exercise discretion as to whether or not the families remain together or are separated.
How many more times are we going to see this drama play out? Trump’s opponents complain about his immigration policies and shop around to find a court that will agree with them. The White House appeals the decision and a judge (or in some cases the Supreme Court) eventually lifts the injunction and we return to business as usual. Of course, there is a way we could cut way down on all of these scenarios if the will existed. How about we just finish building the darned wall and get control of who is going back and forth across the border in an orderly fashion? I know… crazy idea, right?


hotair--2020-01-15--Space Force Bible critics condemn "unadulterated Christian privilege"

A religious freedom group is condemning the blessing of a King James Bible last Sunday in a ceremony at the Washington National Cathedral .
The Bible was used to swear in the commanders of the Space Force .
Some are criticizing the ceremony as a violation of the separation of church and state .
The story goes that a Bible was blessed before Major General John William Raymond was sworn in as the first Chief of Space Operations .
The Bible was then used during Gen. Raymond ’ s swearing-in , officiated by Vice-President Pence .
As we know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. military .
The Bible will be taken into space .
Rev .
Hollerith issued a statement at the time .
Who would expect a request of this nature to be rejected ?
A spokesman for the Cathedral confirmed that the Bible was used during the swearing-in ceremony .
The Bible was donated by the Museum of the Bible in Washington , D.C .
The blessing was pretty standard stuff , to be honest .
It acknowledged space as the final frontier .
“ May this Bible guard and guide all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a place where God will triumph over evil , where love will triumph over hate , and where life will triumph over death , ” said the Right Rev .
Carl Wright , the Episcopal Church ’ s bishop suffragan for the Armed Forces and Federal Ministries , as an Air Force chaplain held the Bible .
After the blessing , Hollerith welcomed visitors and described the cathedral as “ a house of worship for all people.
” So far , so good , right ?
You ’ d think , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Religious Freedom Foundation ( MRFF ) released a statement .
To say that the criticism is harsh is a vast understatement .
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation ( MRFF ) condemns , in as full-throated a manner as is humanly possible , the shocking and repulsive display of only the most vile , exclusivist , fundamentalist Christian supremacy , dominance , triumphalism and exceptionalism which occurred at yesterday ’ s ‘ blessing ’ , at the Washington National Cathedral , of a sectarian Christian bible which will apparently ‘ be used to swear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newest military branch ( ie .
The United States Space Force ) .
” MRFF noted with additional disgust and disdain the willing and all-too visible participation of a senior USAF officer , in formal uniform , during the travesty of this sectarian ceremony which tragically validates the villainy of unadulterated Christian privilege at DoD and its subordinate military branches .
For the record , military commanders are NOT ever “ sworn in ” to their positions let alone with the usage of a Christian bible or other book of faith .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently receiving a multitude of new complaints from outraged DoD military and even civilian DoD personnel , as well as veterans , regarding this unmitigated , unconstitutional horror .
MRFF will be lodging a formal complaint to Mark Esper , the Secretary of Defense .
Further , MRFF will be assiduously assisting its clients to also expeditiously make formal Inspector General ( IG ) and Equal Employment Opportunity ( EEO ) complaints to the DoD chain of command hierarchy to stop this train-wreck disaster in its stinking tracks from ever even leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fervent attempts to exhaust all DoD administrative remedies to eliminate this fundamentalist Christian tyranny and oppression fail , MRFF will plan to stop this matter in Federal court in Northern Virginia .
The utilization of a Christian bible to ’ swear in ’ commanders of the new Space Force or any other DoD branch at ANY level is completely violative of the bedrock Separation of Church and State mandate of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also violates Clause 3 , Article 6 ’ s total prohibition of No Religious Test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Additionally such blatantly scurrilous activity violates a slew of critical DoD directives , instructions and regulations .
Christian tyranny ?
Yikes !
We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles .
Our founding fathers were not Christian tyrants – some were Christians , some were atheists , and some were Christian Deists .
They all worked together and included a separation of church and state in the Constitution .
Does blessing a Bible for a swearing-in ceremony justify the charge of Christian tyranny ?
The Cathedral ’ s history is intertwined in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foundation stone was laid with President Theodore Roosevelt and a crowd of more than 20,000 looking on .
The Cathedral receives no money from the federal government .
There is even a piece of lunar rock in the Space Window on the south aisle of the Cathedral .
President George H.W .
Bush was present in 1990 when the “ final finial ” was placed .
Presidents and most lawmakers use the Bible during their swearing-in ceremonies .
Recently lawmakers have used a Koran .
Did anyone object to any of that ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a uniformed officer was using the Bible and that officers are not typically sworn in .
There are military chaplains , though , so I ’ m not so sure about the uniform in the complaint .
A Princeton professor weighed in on Twitter .
He questioned the alleged exclusion of other religions by using the Bible .
MRFF is entitled to make any objections they wish to make , as are individuals in social media .
It just seems a bit overblown in this instance .

A religious freedom group is condemning the blessing of a King James Bible last Sunday in a ceremony at the Washington National Cathedral. The Bible was used to swear in the commanders of the Space Force. Some are criticizing the ceremony as a violation of the separation of church and state.
The story goes that a Bible was blessed before Major General John William Raymond was sworn in as the first Chief of Space Operations. The Bible was then used during Gen. Raymond’s swearing-in, officiated by Vice-President Pence. As we know, the Space Force is the latest branch of the U.S. military. The Bible will be taken into space.
Rev. Hollerith issued a statement at the time. Who would expect a request of this nature to be rejected? A spokesman for the Cathedral confirmed that the Bible was used during the swearing-in ceremony. The Bible was donated by the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.
“We have been asked to dedicate a new Bible that will be used next week when Major General John William Raymond will be sworn in as the first Chief of Space Operations,” Rev. Randolph Marshall Hollerith, dean of Washington National Cathedral, said during the ceremony. “And, shortly thereafter, this Bible will be taken into space.”
The blessing was pretty standard stuff, to be honest. It acknowledged space as the final frontier.
“May this Bible guard and guide all those who purpose that the final frontier be a place where God will triumph over evil, where love will triumph over hate, and where life will triumph over death,” said the Right Rev. Carl Wright, the Episcopal Church’s bishop suffragan for the Armed Forces and Federal Ministries, as an Air Force chaplain held the Bible. After the blessing, Hollerith welcomed visitors and described the cathedral as “a house of worship for all people.”
https://twitter.com/WNCathedral/status/1216418699898474502?ftag=MSF0951a18
So far, so good, right? You’d think, but no. One group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) released a statement. To say that the criticism is harsh is a vast understatement.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) condemns, in as full-throated a manner as is humanly possible, the shocking and repulsive display of only the most vile, exclusivist, fundamentalist Christian supremacy, dominance, triumphalism and exceptionalism which occurred at yesterday’s ‘blessing’, at the Washington National Cathedral, of a sectarian Christian bible which will apparently ‘be used to swear in all commanders of America’s newest military branch (ie. The United States Space Force).” MRFF noted with additional disgust and disdain the willing and all-too visible participation of a senior USAF officer, in formal uniform, during the travesty of this sectarian ceremony which tragically validates the villainy of unadulterated Christian privilege at DoD and its subordinate military branches. For the record, military commanders are NOT ever “sworn in” to their positions let alone with the usage of a Christian bible or other book of faith. And especially not in 2020!! MRFF is currently receiving a multitude of new complaints from outraged DoD military and even civilian DoD personnel, as well as veterans, regarding this unmitigated, unconstitutional horror. MRFF will be lodging a formal complaint to Mark Esper, the Secretary of Defense. Further, MRFF will be assiduously assisting its clients to also expeditiously make formal Inspector General (IG) and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints to the DoD chain of command hierarchy to stop this train-wreck disaster in its stinking tracks from ever even leaving the station. If MRFF’s fervent attempts to exhaust all DoD administrative remedies to eliminate this fundamentalist Christian tyranny and oppression fail, MRFF will plan to stop this matter in Federal court in Northern Virginia. The utilization of a Christian bible to ’swear in’ commanders of the new Space Force or any other DoD branch at ANY level is completely violative of the bedrock Separation of Church and State mandate of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also violates Clause 3, Article 6’s total prohibition of No Religious Test for any Federal Gov’t position. Additionally such blatantly scurrilous activity violates a slew of critical DoD directives, instructions and regulations. Mikey Weinstein, Founder and President, MRFF
Christian tyranny? Yikes! We are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Our founding fathers were not Christian tyrants – some were Christians, some were atheists, and some were Christian Deists. They all worked together and included a separation of church and state in the Constitution. Does blessing a Bible for a swearing-in ceremony justify the charge of Christian tyranny? The Cathedral’s history is intertwined in American history. In 1907, the foundation stone was laid with President Theodore Roosevelt and a crowd of more than 20,000 looking on. The Cathedral receives no money from the federal government. There is even a piece of lunar rock in the Space Window on the south aisle of the Cathedral. President George H.W. Bush was present in 1990 when the “final finial” was placed.
Presidents and most lawmakers use the Bible during their swearing-in ceremonies. Recently lawmakers have used a Koran. Did anyone object to any of that? The main complaint seems to be that a uniformed officer was using the Bible and that officers are not typically sworn in. There are military chaplains, though, so I’m not so sure about the uniform in the complaint.
A Princeton professor weighed in on Twitter. He questioned the alleged exclusion of other religions by using the Bible.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Strauss/status/1216477925773463554
MRFF is entitled to make any objections they wish to make, as are individuals in social media. It just seems a bit overblown in this instance.