49 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-12-19

  1. Ignore the drama queens.

    A little sense on the matter.


    Liberals’ foreign policy views are inconsistent, but entirely predictable: whatever a Republican president does, they oppose. Thus, Democrats applauded when President Obama prematurely withdrew American troops from Iraq, enabling the rise of ISIS. But when President Trump pulled a few hundred out of Syria, it was: OMG! The Kurds!

    James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation and the Institute of World Politics gave an interview to the Daily Signal that gives the best take I have seen on Trump’s recent Syria move. You really should read it all, but here are some highlights:

    When President Trump came in office, he actually expanded the U.S. footprint in Syria, because military advisers made the argument that … you couldn’t take down the caliphate—in other words, destroy the physical state that the terrorist had—if we didn’t actually have forces in there working with indigenous groups that were fighting ISIS, chief among them, the YPG, which is a armed Kurdish group.

    And so President Trump actually increased the U.S. footprint in Syria. Then subsequent to that, after the caliphate was destroyed, the president wanted to withdraw U.S. troops. The military advisers and several allies, including Israel, said, “Well, look, there’s still concerns that need to be addressed.” So we’ve maintained a small footprint in Syria for the last year or so.
    [W]e estimate it’s a relatively small print of a few hundred Americans in uniform that are spread around the areas that are not controlled by the Syrian government.
    Let’s start by what the Turks are doing. They’re not invading Syria. There is a portion of Syria which borders Turkey, which right now is kind of uncontrolled. Nobody really controls the port. The Syrian government doesn’t control the border. There are Kurdish groups in that area and the Turks wanted to control that area. It’s several kilometers wide, so it’s really a small chunk of Syria.

    Why do they want to control it? Well, one, they don’t want it to be a platform for Kurdish terrorist groups, not the Kurdish people. There’s a difference, right? There are Kurds all over the region. There are Kurds in Iran. There are Kurds in Iraq. There are Kurds in Syria. There are Kurds in other places. So when you say the Kurds, that’s a lot of people spread all over the Middle East, but there are Kurdish groups which are affiliated with specific terrorist groups, like the PKK, which is a terrorist group [that] … focuses on attacking Turkey.

    So they don’t want terrorist groups to use that area as a platform to attack Turkey. They want to control their border and they would like to create a space because they have probably a million refugees or more from Syria that are living in Turkey. The Turks would like to create a space so those people can move back into Syria. It’s a relatively limited objective that the Turks have outlined.
    What did the U.S. do? Well, if you actually read the statement of the Department of Defense, which actually explains this, we didn’t give permission for the Turks to do this. They didn’t ask permission. And the reality is we can’t stop them from doing this. We have a couple of hundred soldiers in the entire country. We don’t have enough … to prevent the Turks from doing anything unless we’re going to start bombing the Turkish military, which I don’t think we’re going to do.

    So they didn’t ask our permission. They said they were going to do this and what we did, which was actually probably appropriate, [was] we made sure that Americans weren’t in harm’s way, so if things went bad, our guys wouldn’t get hurt.

    We should be really clear here, because what the U.S. government did [is] they said, “Look, you’re going in here. You are responsible for what you do. There are civilians in there. Protecting those civilians … that’s your job now.”

    There are thousands of ISIS fighters detained in that area. If you wind up taking control of them, you’re responsible for them. If those guys … get out and they’re running around the country, you have to capture them and then detain them because if those guys, bad guys, spill out, that’s your fault. …

    I don’t think we left the Turks off the hook at all.”


  2. And more winning. 🙂


    “The U.S. and China have reached a partial trade pause.

    President Trump, speaking at the White House, said: “We’ve come to a very substantial phase one deal”…adding it will take three to five weeks to get written. The deal includes intellectual property, financial services and $40-$50 billion related to agriculture products. It is unclear what the U.S will give up in return and a comprehensive trade deal will have two or three phases.

    The U.S. will not be raising tariffs on the Chinese next week to the 30 percent level as part of this agreement.

    U.S. stocks spiked to the highs of the session, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising by nearly 500 points, before pulling back slightly at the close. The move signals the third major trade deal President Trump has sealed.”


  3. And a little more common sense and reality, sans the hysterics of those seeking only to score political points.


    “What You Need to Know About Trump’s Syria Move”

    “Heritage Foundation foreign policy expert Jim Carafano weighs in on President Donald Trump’s decision to move troops around in Syria, after talking with the Turkish president. Carafano explains how this will affect the Kurds, whether it could boost ISIS, and why we’re in Syria in the first place. Read the lightly edited interview transcript, posted below, or listen on the podcast:”


    “The United States has spent a lot of time and effort helping the Kurdish people, and as you know, Iraq is a fragmented country. There’s Shias, there’s Sunnis, there are Kurds. We’ve done an awful lot to help those groups get along with each other and we’ve invested enormous resources and had great success in having the Iraqi Kurds establish a productive working relationship with the Turkish Kurds. So there’s a significant Kurdish population in Syria, which is similar.

    Now, among that, there are political groups and there are armed groups. … The one we’re talking about specifically is called the YPG, which is a subset of a group called the SDF. They are an armed militia that we partnered with to help fight ISIS and to track down ISIS guys and detain them. And indeed, they’re detaining many of these guys. They’re not an ally. … They’re very, very good fighters. That doesn’t make them nice guys.

    To be fair, defeating the caliphate as rapidly as we did under President Trump would not have been possible without arming them. Having said that, they’re not an ally of the United States. We don’t really owe them anything, other than we made a transactional deal to work with them to defeat the caliphate. And we have transactional deals to help them when they do [things that are] helpful to us. As long as we’re fulfilling that obligation, that transactional obligation, I think we’re OK.

    People always say, “Well, the Turks are going to kill these guys.” Well, if the YPG … has a war with the Turkish military, yeah, they probably will shoot each other. One of the things that the United States could do is help broker that because they shouldn’t be fighting each other. And the Turks have legitimate concerns about terrorists.

    So I think the United States does have a positive political role to play in kind of brokering relations between Kurdish groups in Syria and the Turks, and we have a good track record of that.

    Again, I think the presumption that this is doom and gloom and we’ve left our allies to die—I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence for that. I think there are fair, legitimate concerns that this could not go well. There are things the United States can do to help talk to both sides, to mitigate some of that. And there’s a lot the United States can do to put a spotlight on the Turks to hold them accountable for what they do in Syria.

    If you go back to the first question, what are we there for? That’s actually the best way to protect our interests.

    We have limited interest in Syria, we have limited capabilities, and we have limited influence. The question is how to use that best? These people that talk about a couple of hundred soldiers—which to be honest, are a speed bump to bad actors in that country—they’re not going to end the war in Syria. They’re not going to solve the problem. They’re not going to protect the Kurds.

    The U.S. can be a limited force for good, and the question is, how do we do that? How do we best leverage our footprint to be a limited force for good?

    And I would just add to that, the one thing the president never said is, “I’m pulling every American troop out of Syria.” He offered to do that before and people convinced him it was a bad idea. He’s agreed that … if there were things that U.S. troops in Syria need to do to be helpful, they should stay and do that. That policy that our president annunciated, that policy has not changed.


  4. Make no mistake, it’s Trump, or some version of this. It’s something all the Dem candidates agree on.


    “Elizabeth Warren Slams “Old-Fashioned” Religion At CNN’s LGBTQ Forum”

    “CNN held a forum for the single purpose of allowing the Democrat candidates running for the party’s presidential nomination to pander to the LGBTQ community. Elizabeth Warren was even able to score a twofer as she bashed people of faith and the patriarchy all in one answer.

    Lest you think otherwise, the party of identity politics really doesn’t like conservatives. Or religious people. Or men, for that matter. When moderator Chris Cuomo called on Morgan Cox, chair of the Human Rights Campaign board of directors, to ask his question, Warren was really feeling her oats. His question: What if “a supporter approaches you and says, senator, I’m old-fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response?”

    Warren’s response was about as intolerant as one can get. She replied, “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m going to say, then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that. Assuming you can find one.”

    See, Mr. Cox is from Dallas and has a very soft southern accent. Elizabeth Warren went right for the stereotype of people in the South. Surely Cox must be referring to dumb white guys. Mind you, he didn’t specify if the supporter was male or female in the hypothetical question. She just assumed it was a man. So, in that one response, she slammed the patriarchy with “I going to assume it’s a guy…”

    Does she think religious women would be more flexible than men in their religious beliefs? Feminists often make the mistake of expressing opinions that lessen the dignity of men in order to prop up women. It’s a wrong-headed approach to equality but it’s a common move. Her little dig at the end – “Assuming you can find one.” – implies the man must be a cretin unworthy of finding a mate.

    The response is a disgusting pander all the way around. The audience loved it. A CNN reporter openly gushed over Warren on Twitter during her segment of the forum.”


  5. They are the fascists they claim the right is.

    These are today’s Democrats people, egged on by Omar, of course. The choice is an easy one.


    Lot’s of video too.


    “Protesters Attacked Trump Supporters, Threw Urine Outside Trump Minnesota Rally

    Video shows Trump supporter being attacked after being followed by protesters, who shouted at him: “There’s a Nazi over here.”

    “The protests outside of President Donald Trump’s Minnesota rally took a violent turn as supporters left the Target Center.

    I guess the supporters triggered the anti-Trump people just by their presence because they then burned Trump memorabilia like the MAGA hats, confronted the police, and threw urine.

    The police “formed a protective line in front of the arena” to help the supporters leave the arena. They had to move through the crowd of protesters “with batons and shields” to protect themselves.”


  6. It’s a set-up, baked into a scam, wrapped in a hoax, then boxed in a farce, and shipped via clown car.


    “Adam Schiff has 2 aides who worked with whistleblower at White House”

    “House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff recruited two former National Security Council aides who worked alongside the CIA whistleblower at the NSC during the Obama and Trump administrations, the Washington Examiner has learned.

    Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff’s committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint.

    The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported.

    A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a phone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff’s staff. He had previously informed the CIA’s legal counsel’s office.

    Schiff initially denied he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on Sep. 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.”

    But it later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false.”

    Grace, 36, was hired to help Schiff’s committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump accused Schiff of “stealing people who work at White House.” Grace worked at the NSC from 2016 to 2018 in U.S.-China relations and then briefly at the Center for a New American Security think tank, which was founded by two former senior Obama administration officials.”


  7. Meanwhile the wildfires continue. 😦


    “Terrifying footage shows more than 1,000 firefighters battling to contain wildfires in Southern California as 100,000 are forced to flee their homes

    The Saddleridge Fire broke out after 9pm on Thursday in Sylmar, California along the 210 Freeway

    Mandatory evacuation orders were issued for at least 25,000 homes in the Granada Hills, Porter Ranch and Oakridge Estates neighborhoods of Los Angeles

    As of 8am Friday, 4,700 acres of land were scorched with zero containment, according to fire department

    Meanwhile nearby Sandalwood Fire burned after a garbage truck threw burning trash on the side of the road

    Two people have died so far: a man in his late 50s who went into cardiac arrest and Lois Arvickson, 89, after the Sandalwood Fire swept through her mobile home park

    A firefighter suffered a ‘minor’ eye injury but has been taken to the hospital for treatment

    California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the state has secured federal grant from FEMA to ensure available resources to fight the Saddleridge Fire”


  8. Like

  9. My son informed me this morning during golf that contrary to what I have always believed, the best way to help people escape from a cult is not to make fun of them for being in a cult.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I couldn’t open the link to “Solar panels don’t work in blackouts”. But it stands to reason that there has to be electricity for fans to spread the heat.
    I don’t know if that’s the reason, but it’s logical.


  11. You mean Yovanvitch, the deep stater that Trump allowed to testify and didn’t claim executive privilege on?


    Some cracks ya’ got there……. 🙄


  12. And like 3 people in the whole world, including you, still care about what those 2 clown car losers think. They’re irrelevant, and like all NTers they’ve become whiny little traitors. You’re a joke. It’s why we point and laugh. 🙂

    Trump 2020!


  13. Nice. 🙂


    Liked by 1 person

  14. It’s Trump or this Ricky. 🙂

    Which will it be? Put up or shut up time. There’s only 2 sides here. Your vte, or lack of one, will aid one side or the other either way. Do you really hold the values you claim, or will you side with the baby killing, Christian haters, just to spite that mean orange man?


    “Beto Threatens to Strip Tax Exempt Status of Churches That Don’t Support Same Sex Marriage

    “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”

    “When the former Texas congressman was asked if religious institutions — “colleges, churches, charities” — should be stripped of tax-exempt status Thursday night by CNN anchor Don Lemon during the LGBTQ town hall, he immediately responded, “Yes.”

    “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us,” he said. “So as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

    In O’Rourke’s “Plan to Pursue Equality for LGBTQ+ People and Ensure They Can Live Openly Without Fear of Discrimination or Violence,” he lists reversing the Trump administration’s “attempt to expand religious exemptions in order to enable discrimination or harm others.”

    He adds, “Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, but it should not be used to discriminate.”

    Matt Lewis, CNN political commentator, tweeted out, “This isn’t going to help win the electoral college. If you wonder why so many Christians are willing to hold their nose and support someone as horrible as Donald Trump, this helps explain it.”

    Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty law firm, called it “blatantly unconstitutional,” adding “it’s also foolish because those groups provide billions of dollars in essential social services to their communities. Churches and ministries should be allowed to hold centuries-old beliefs without fear of government retribution.”


    It’s Trump, or some version of this. It should be an easy call,


  15. Like I said, they are the fascists they claim we are.



    “But outside the arena, things were quite different. Thousands of lawless, violent Democrats “protested” Trump’s appearance by committing assault, among other crimes. They battled police officers. They attacked Republicans leaving Target Center. They set bonfires and burned patriotic regalia. They carried the flag of the defunct Soviet Union.

    They spat on peaceful Trump supporters. They assaulted an uncounted number of normal citizens leaving the Target Center. They struck a woman across the head with a piece of lumber. They waved a sign that said, “Blue Lives Don’t F@$king Matter.” The Minneapolis Chief of Police reported, “Objects containing liquid believed to be urine were hurled at some of my officers along with bottles and rocks. Police horses were also assaulted by protesters striking them with sticks.”

    These leftists are identical to the Nazi Brownshirts of the 1930s. But make no mistake–they represent today’s Democratic Party. A sitting Democratic State Representative, Aisha Gomez (DFL-Minneapolis), was seen among the fascists, dressed in black like an Antifa hoodlum. And Minneapolis’s boy Mayor, Jacob Frey, who expressed regret that he could not legally prevent President Trump from visiting Minneapolis, and then tried to do it anyway, issued an order to the Minneapolis Police Department not to use chemical irritants on the mob of criminal Democrats. [UPDATE: We have a disagreement between Boy Mayor Frey and the mob: Frey denies issuing such an order, putting him at odds with fellow Democrat Gomez.] And not a single local Democrat has condemned the violence and disorder that took place last night.”


    Lots of video of Dems behaving badly at this link.



  16. Of NeverChumps and Megaphones….. 🙂


    “It’s time for some new additions to our political vocabulary. Who are the “NeverChumpers” and “Magaphobes”?”

    “Two suggested additions to our political taxonomy.

    We’re familiar with the “NeverTrumper.” He’s a public person on the Right whose principles are ever-so-refined. Somehow, though, in the refining process, those principles finally coalesced around blind resentment of a single individual. The NeverTrumper is a curiosity of the current moment in time. One day he’ll end up as a possible wrong answer on multiple-choice quizzes about defunct political movements. (“Mugwump” will likely be the correct selection.)

    Of lasting importance, by contrast, is another less-prominent figure. I propose that we christen him the “NeverChumper.” “NeverTrumpers” have some prominence, but I believe the “NeverChumper” is far more common—indeed, almost ubiquitous—and far more influential.

    The NeverChumper may or may not be a classic conservative in his beliefs. If he is, he may be more social than economic—or vice versa. In any case, though, he’s an opponent of the progressive agenda. In fact, being a sincere opponent of the progressive agenda is precisely what has made him a skeptic of the oldline GOP leadership and conservative intellectuals.

    If he’s old enough to have voted for McCain in 2008, a NeverChumper is an American who’s been disappointed repeatedly. He’s cheered for eloquent opponents of the Left, only to find that their passion, so strong when fundraising or campaigning, swiftly fades when any opportunity for decisive action arises. He has invested votes, donations, and hope, in a party which showed no reciprocal commitment. Somewhere along the way, he tired of being taken for granted. Perhaps he voted for Trump in 2016 merely as an act of defiance.

    If so, he’s been pleasantly surprised—even joyously shocked—at the president’s actual achievements. He’s seen the GOP pontificate about, then neglect, the same issues in the past. He looks back with chagrin at his own former naiveté—and when Trump has left the stage, he’ll demand a successor with similar commitment to opposing the Left and counterpunching against the media.

    If he’s a younger voter, though, it’s likely the NeverChumper has never been a “chump” at all. He’s grown up in an educational environment openly hostile to him, and doesn’t remember a Left any milder or more civil than today’s. He has no fond memories of former collegiality, whether at college (where conservatives now often fear to voice their opinions) or anywhere else. He was exposed to Leftist indoctrination. It failed and instead became inoculation against the credulousness previous generations had concerning the media and the rest of the opposition.

    NeverChumpers of either variety are pragmatic folks. They’re distinctive on the current political scene because they do not romanticize racial identity—neither their own, or that of any other. A NeverChumper considers the race card to be the Joker in the deck; it’s not part of any game he’s playing and he ignores it.

    We can only hope the NeverChumper will shape our politics for decades to come.

    Now, for his counterpart on the Left. There is much talk of “TDS,” or “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” but I predict that TDS will turn out to have been a misnomer. In the post-Trump era, the derangement of the Left will not fade. Thus I propose, using their own style of locution and rename the opponents currently obsessed with the destruction of Trump “Magaphobes.”

    A “phobia,” of course, is an irrational, paralyzing fear. A phobia might simply be explained as “the kind of intense fear which so-called ‘ homophobes’ do not feel regarding gays, nor ‘Islamophobes’ regarding Moslems.”

    A “Magaphobe,” on the other hand, really does have a paralyzing fear. It’s the fear of “making America great again.”

    Greatness of any distinctly American sort instantly maddens him. That’s true whether it’s carved in the marble of a heroic statue, enshrined in a record of historical achievement, reluctantly admitted in a news report about a current trend—or worst of all, radiating from the brilliance and truth of any of our Republic’s founding ideals.

    Magaphobes will prove, in five years, that Trump wasn’t that big a deal after all, because they aren’t going to calm down. No single bogeyman drives them to distraction. Instead, it’s the reality of our great nation they struggle to repudiate, and undo.”


  17. Like

  18. From the Dreher piece:


    Even at this late date, we hear from many liberals that orthodox Christians are “obsessed” with homosexuality. They can’t grasp why, aside from bigotry, that we are so concerned about the issue. It’s largely because the march of LGBT ideology to conquer our culture tramples over the rights of orthodox/traditionalist religious people, and indeed of anybody who objects to whatever claim LGBTs make.

    It’s not just Christians. A reader this morning sent this:

    Not sure how plugged-in you are to tech world, but Stack Exchange, a giant Q&A resource for programmers, has just implemented a new policy on the use of preferred gender pronouns for its members:


    Notice especially items 9 and 11:

    Q9: Do I have to use pronouns I’m unfamiliar or uncomfortable with (e.g., neopronouns like xe, zir, ne… )?

    Yes, if those are stated by the individual.

    Q11: If I’m uncomfortable with a particular pronoun, can I just avoid using it?

    We are asking everyone to use all stated pronouns as you would naturally write. Explicitly avoiding using someone’s pronouns because you are uncomfortable is a way of refusing to recognize their identity and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

    Active affirmation is thus now a requirement to participate on Stack Exchange. This article has a score of -370, indicating general discontent, but that probably doesn’t mean much — programmers are an ornery bunch under the best of circumstances.

    You cannot simply be tolerant. You must affirm, or you, as a programmer, cannot participate on a key resource for your profession. Whatever crazy thing genderqueer programmers demand to be called, you must do it. There is no option. You cannot even use their given name as a way to avoid the bizarre pronoun. The programmers — programmers! — will be policing language closely.

    You may not be a Christian, or any kind of religious believer, but if you don’t see the transgender movement as a threat to your job and livelihood, you have your head in the sand.

    What Beto O’Rourke said last night is a perfect example of why many orthodox Christians who despise Donald Trump will vote for him anyway. The survival of our institutions depends on keeping the Democrats out of the White House (and Congress) for as long as we can. Commenting on Beto’s remark, Denny Burk is a theologian and a pastor:

    …. ‘This could bankrupt many churches and religious institutions … It means an entire political party is arrayed against Christian churches that remain faithful to Christ … for now, I do not foreclose the possibility that the other party could eventually go the same route … For now, though, we are dealing with one political party’s mainstreaming of this opposition to churches that remain faithful to Christ’s teaching about marriage and sexuality.’ …

    Christian readers, take this seriously! You may reckon, in the end, that Trump is such a danger that getting rid of him is a more important task than protecting religious liberty. If that is what you believe, then make that conclusion with clear eyes about what you are opening the door to for traditional churches and religious institutions. …

    … We all need to understand that these people are driving the Democratic Party. You watch: not a single Democratic candidate will ever tell these activists no. They own the media too; see how quickly Chris Cuomo denounced himself for making a petty, lame joke.

    … Christians need to understand that as America secularizes, and as those who still call themselves Christian accept anti-biblical views on LGBT, it will increasingly become possible for a future president to impose this punishment on churches and religious organizations without paying a significant political price. …



  19. Like

  20. So if we stick with their record and drop the 10 points worth of bias, none of your numbers are good enough.




  21. 👍👍👍


  22. Trump is the childish imbecile who is directly responsible for the tragedy, but the educated public will blame the Republican Party for a long, long time.


  23. Like

  24. Most rational Republicans would agree that all of the Democrat candidates are at least as bad as Dreher described them in the article which DJ posted yesterday. Rational Republicans who have not tasted the Kool-Aid also understand exactly what we have in Trump. But it is not yet that horrible binary choice. There is a last exit ramp:


    All that is needed is 20 Republican Senators with more brains than the Scarecrow and more courage than the Cowardly Lion.


  25. Our reminder today in the sermon about the state of the nation and world and how important it is to keep a divine perspective of it all:

    Isa. 40:15: Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance …

    Anxious about politics? Our pastor also cautioned us to be careful while listening to radio or television commentators with whom we agree — as it has a tendency to appeal to our flesh.

    I suspect there will be many moments in the coming months in which it will be good for all of us to just take a deep breath, step back a bit from all the uproar — and remember that God is still God.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Like

  27. Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.