17 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-15-20

  1. Anyone shocked?

    Me neither.


    “Democrats Block A Vote To Support Iran Protesters”

    “Democrats in the House of Representatives blocked a vote Tuesday to support the protesters in Iran who are demonstrating against the regime.

    Consideration and a vote on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s resolution was blocked because Democrats advanced the previous question, by a vote of 226-191. The resolution would have condemned the Government of Iran for killing 1,500 Iranian citizens who were protesting their government, as well as condemned the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, killing 176 people.

    In addition, the resolution; “(3) condemns the Government of Iran for repeatedly lying to its people and to the world about its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752; (4) calls on the Government of Iran to— (A) refrain from the use of violence; and (B) protect the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; and (5) supports the protestors in Iran, their demands for accountability, and their desire for the Government of Iran to respect freedom and human rights.”

    “What a disappointment —Democrats just blocked a vote on a resolution supporting the Iranian protestors. This is not the time for partisan politics. This should be a time for the US Congress to speak with one voice to condemn an Iranian regime that kills its own people,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a tweet.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. They dare not own their pro-regime stand on the record, so they sit quietly like cowards.


    Liked by 1 person

  3. Same goes for the national media.


    “It’s hard enough watching journalists blaming the United States for the Islamic Republic’s perniciousness or exaggerating the importance of “revered leader” Qasem Soleimani while minimizing the actions of the courageous Iranians who oppose the mullahs. Even before a pro-Iranian regime bias infected much of the institutional media, conservatives were reading outlets like the New York Times through a prism of skepticism. In general, though, one could trust that the underlying facts and framing were basically correct. The past four years have made even that impossible.

    Take the Soleimani killing, for example.

    In the newest iteration of the story from NBC News, we learn that after Iran shot down a U.S. drone this summer, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, Trump’s then-national security adviser, tried to persuade Donald Trump to kill the Iranian terrorist leader. Trump, instinctively uneasy about escalating Middle East conflict, resisted the pressure. According to “current and former senior administration officials,” NBC News states, the president instead drew a red line: He would authorize the killing of Soleimani only “if Iran’s increased aggression resulted in the death of an American.”

    Trump even tweeted, warning the mullahs that further violence would have repercussions.

    Well, after subsequent escalations by Iran, and proxies attacked the United States embassy and murdered an American contractor, Trump followed through on his threat to take out Soleimani. Apparently Ali Khamenei did not take Trump literally or seriously.

    The big problem with the NBC News account of the killing is that it conflicts almost entirely with the premise and tone of much of the earlier coverage, most notably an adjective-laden New York Times story published the day after Soleimani was killed, which claimed that Trump’s decision was extreme and impulsive:

    In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.

    The Times asserts that the plan to kill of Soleimani was objectionable, only placed in front of the president to make the other options more palatable. Trump, however, went for it, shocking everyone. (If eliminating a mass murderer and leader of a group designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization is the radical choice, one wonders what the moderate option looked like. Maybe it entailed sending John Kerry to Paris with a bag of Swiss francs to hand Quds Force commanders?)”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Another leftist coward who just can’t bring himself to blame those responsible. You know, the ones who started it all by attacking our embassy, and the same ones who shot down the plane.


    “Trudeau: If Not For Escalation Between The U.S. And Iran, Those Jet Passengers Would Still Be Alive”

    “We shouldn’t be surprised. This position is shared by North American liberals of all stripes, after all.

    The defense will be that Trudeau was making a statement of straightforward fact. “I think if there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families,” he tells a reporter from the Global Post in the clip below. True enough. As a matter of basic causation, if there’s no assault by Iranian militias on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad then there’s no strike on Soleimani. If there’s no strike on Soleimani then there’s no Iranian missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq. If there’s no Iranian missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq then Iranian missile defenses don’t end up on high alert for a U.S. counterattack. And if Iranian missile defenses don’t end up on high alert for a U.S. counterattack then there’s no mistaken shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger jet.

    But watch the clip. Trudeau is asked (twice) whether the U.S. specifically bears some blame before giving that answer. This isn’t a banal statement about the sequence of events in Iran to the effect of “bad things happen in war (or near-war),” it’s an attribution of moral culpability, clearly. And so we return to the question that neither Pete Buttigieg nor Tulsi Gabbard nor every other lefty who’s laid the shootdown at the feet of the U.S. has had to answer. Is there any action America could have taken after the embassy assault and the various rocket attacks by Iranian-backed militias, one of which killed an American contractor, that would have absolved it from blame for Iran’s catastrophic fark-up with a jet in its own airspace? If we bear blame for their recklessness for the simple reason that it takes two to escalate, presumably any response by the U.S. that led to a shootdown would have left us partially culpable for that disaster.

    Or is culpability triggered only if, as lefties believe, the act of killing Soleimani was disproportionate as a reprisal to Iran’s actions?

    It’s hard to shake the suspicion that any act of self-defense by the U.S. would allegedly put us on the hook morally for whatever insane thing Iran chose to do in response, especially coming from someone with Gabbard’s views on foreign policy. The subtext of this debate, after all, is whether America should be aggressive in responding to Iran and run an increased risk of war or whether it should be passive about Iranian provocations and run an increased risk of Iran thinking it can push the envelope with impunity. If you believe any risk of war is unacceptable, even as part of a strategy of deterrence, then naturally any U.S. response to Iran is unacceptable. And one way to try to discourage those responses is to make Trump and the administration morally culpable not just for what we do but for what Iran does too, even if what Iran did in this case happens to be “not taking rudimentary precautions against blowing up passenger jets.””


  5. The left loves to provide cover and justification for Muslim crimes. Canada and the US left aren’t the only ones.


    “Manchester Police Knew A Ring Of Pakistani Men Were Abusing Young Girls And Did Nothing (Update)”

    “In 2017 Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham commissioned a report on the police response to the abuse of young girls in the early 2000s. Mayor Burnham was inspired by a BBC special called The Betrayed Girls (see below) which focused, in part, on the death of 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia. Victoria had died of a drug overdose in 2003 after complaining that she was being abused and drugged by a group of Pakistani men. The report, which was released today, found that Manchester police launched an investigation into the situation. The investigation identified dozens of other victims and nearly 100 suspects but funding for the effort was pulled and almost no one involved was ever punished.

    After Victoria’s death, [Greater Manchester Police] launched Operation Augusta, which subsequently identified at least 57 children “as potential victims” and up to 97 “persons of interest” involved in the crimes against them.

    The report found the operation was ultimately “prematurely closed down… before it could complete its work”, a decision that was driven by a desire to “remove the resources”, rather than by having “a sound understanding that all lines of inquiry had been successfully completed or exhausted”.

    “The authorities knew that many [children] were being subjected to the most profound abuse and exploitation but did not protect them from the perpetrators,” it said.

    The report’s authors, childcare expert Malcolm Newsam and former Det Supt Gary Ridgeway, considered a “sample” of cases from Operation Augusta and in each, found that they “cannot offer any assurance” that alleged offences were “appropriately addressed by either GMP or MCC”.

    They also found eight men identified in the investigation had gone on to commit serious sexual offences, including rapes of girls aged both under and over 16, after the operation was ended and that one suspect vehicle uncovered in the initial investigation was linked to a GMP officer, who was later dismissed from the force.

    So why didn’t the police and social workers do more to stop this? Because the crimes were considered racially sensitive. Local Labour MP Ann Cryer did try to do something after a group of mothers came to beg her help. She went first to a local Pakistani community leader but her concerns were brushed off. She then tried to bring attention to the story by going directly to the media.”

    Andrew Malcolm, a reporter for the London Times, saw the press release written by Cryer but ultimately decided not to write about the story because he didn’t want to provide fodder for the British National Party, which was gaining support at the time. “To my shame I allowed my liberal fear about giving succor and credence to the British National Party to act as a break on actually doing my job,” Malcolm told the BBC.”


    And once again, the press willfully plays along.


  6. This is getting interesting.

    General Flynn is withdrawing his guilty plea.


  7. A tale of 2 whistleblowers…..


    “Unequal Fates: A Real Obama Era Whistleblower vs. the Trump ‘Whistleblower’

    As the Trump impeachment drama continues to unfold on Capitol Hill, the so-called whistleblower in that case enjoys hero-martyr status on the Left and in the news media. Lt. General Michael Flynn has enjoyed no such treatment.”

    “The whistleblower, speaking to internal investigators, pulled no punches in his assessment of the government’s mishandling of the war in Afghanistan.

    “As intelligence makes its way up higher, it gets consolidated and really watered down, it gets politicized,” he explained. “It gets politicized because once policymakers get their hands on it . . . they put their twist on it. The policy decisions and the operational decisions, I don’t think matched what the intelligence was saying.”

    The 33-year decorated Army officer—with a lengthy career in military intelligence and service in both Afghanistan and Iraq—blasted the “rosy” scenarios promoted by top officials, including the White House, that contradicted what was actually happening on the ground.

    “This sense that we are doing great permeates all the way up to the top,” he continued. “As a senior intel officer for many years, my assessments were not good. [I] said it was not at all going well. Never. We are basically fighting the wrong way. We are participating in conflict, we are not really here to win.”

    The three-star general described rampant corruption that involved the allied coalition and American officials, including the U.S. embassy in Kabul; a narcotics racket that was “the worst it has ever been”; and a rotating U.S. command structure that refused to concede failure.

    But the whistleblower reserved his harshest criticism for the government’s intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the agency he left the year before.

    “What I learned was that the CIA was not sharing all of their information . . . the CIA has operational cables that don’t make it into intelligence reporting, which is incredibly irresponsible,” he told the interviewer. “I wanted to know about that disconnect.”

    When he confronted an unidentified CIA official, the whistleblower was brushed off. “This is where the intelligence leadership is irresponsible for not sharing intelligence in and among themselves. There is a huge, huge political [bias] in this. The reason is that there is a political bias and the reason is there is a lack of courage in senior government officials to tell the truth.”

    This whistleblower, however, is not some anonymous partisan operative now cheered by the Left and the media as a patriot. He is not the unnamed driving force to take down the president of the United States.

    The person I just described is Lt. General Michael Flynn, Trump’s short-lived national security advisor who faces jail time for his plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Bernie’s boy is at it again.

    This time threatening to kill any who resist their planned socialist takeover.


    CONTENT WARNING!!!! for more foul language.


  9. Trump wins again.


    “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 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?”


    Yes, it is.


  10. An update on the Flynn case.

    It seems prosecutors wanted Flynn to lie in his testimony.

    Tsk, tsk…. a clear no-no.


    “That’s not the only new claim from Flynn’s legal team. The filing also claims that prosecutors pressured Flynn to provide “false” testimony in the prosecution of Flynn’s former partner Bijan Kian:

    In a court document filed Tuesday evening, Flynn’s legal team wrote that the government demanded Flynn, who was expected to to be called as a government witness last July in the separate case of his former business associate Bijan Kian, to provide a “false” testimony and say that he “knew and intended” to sign false filings in his Turkish lobbying work, which would lead him to breach his plea agreement by not telling the truth.

    Flynn’s legal team argued in the court document that the government made such demands for the first time after Flynn changed his legal team.

    “The prosecution has shown abject bad faith in pure retaliation against Mr. Flynn since he retained new counsel,” Flynn’s defense wrote in the filing. “This can only be because with new, unconflicted counsel, Mr. Flynn refused to lie for the prosecution.”

    That’s no trifling addendum. Subornation of perjury is a serious charge, one that could land prosecutors in prison if it can be proven. At the very least, the allegation will give Kian’s attorneys something new for their appeals after his conviction last July. Prosecutorial misconduct will always interest appellate courts, if the petitioners can establish that it took place.

    Flynn changed lawyers a few months ago, and the new team led by Sidney Powell has taken a more confrontational approach to the DoJ, which took over the case after Mueller completed the investigation last year. That led prosecutors to revise their sentencing recommendation, a move Powell calls “vindictive” in this court filing. Prosecutors argue that they didn’t specifically ask for jail time, even though their revision to the recommendation allows for that possibility:”


  11. Infuriating to view the Breaking News this morning. Local news stations flash a photo of the President with hugely lettered IMPEACHED caption. So the house voted to impeach our President but he isn’t I preached…right? I did watch Collins and McCarthy give their address and both were stellar. Then that short heavy guy name?got up and introduces the “distinguished “ speaker. She was immature, sophomoric , childish in her words and I had to turn it off as my blood pressure climbed. What in the world has this nation come to? 😡

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I don’t know, NancyJill

    He was impeached (via the House vote). But conviction — removal from office — comes as an additional step from the Senate. Clinton also was impeached but was not convicted (or removed from office).

    The entire thing is just so politically motivated. I really don’t think most people are paying much attention (thus they aren’t taking it all that seriously). I haven’t seen recent public opinion polls on the issue, but that’s just my overall sense.

    It’s all a mess.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Somebody, some time ago, said:
    “A conviction looking for a crime”
    I think most people think that’s what it is.
    And the first prid quo pro was made by George Washington.

    I think it’s a huge waste of time and money.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Just a reminder, CNN and the rest of the leftist press had this guy as a contender for the Dem nomination.

    Time to own it. 🙂

    “A beast”

    “The savior of the republic”

    “A hero”


    Nope, just another scum bag criminal.


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.