27 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-22-20

  1. Repetition and buzzwords don’t make the case.

    It’s just word salad.


    “President Trump must be removed from office “immediately,” Democratic impeachment managers argue in a new brief, because he poses “an immediate threat to the nation and the rule of law.”

    Given that the House majority sat on its impeachment referral for almost a month before taking it to the Senate, the sudden urgency may come as a surprise – though not to students of argument and language. The Democratic case against Trump detailed in the much more extensive House impeachment report shows how language can be used to compensate for shortcomings in the evidence. A careful reading of the report shows that its authors – not unlike those who wrote the Mueller report to suggest guilt they couldn’t prove – are convinced that thin allegations can be bulked up if repeated often enough.

    The repetitions that immediately stand out in the House report are the adjectives that dismiss the president’s defense well before that defense is made. Assertions or questions involving Ukraine made by Trump or his attorney Rudy Giuliani are typically prefaced with the words “debunked” or “discredited,” and usually followed by the characterization “conspiracy theory.” “Debunked” appears 22 times in the report; “discredited” 15 times; “baseless” 16 times and “conspiracy” 56 times. A few of those uses are by Republicans – Giuliani is quoted as saying the impeachment inquiry is “baseless” – but the vast majority are by Democrats to dismiss Trump’s claims.

    For example, arguing that Trump had committed high crimes and misdemeanors, the report accuses the president of pushing a “discredited conspiracy theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States Presidential election.” ”


    ““Baseless” is another of the adjectives authors of the report put to use in extensive question-begging. They might have stated that in his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump made two demands for investigations. Instead they say the president made “two demands for baseless investigations.” The word is also put to work accusing Trump of giving “currency to a baseless allegation that Vice President Biden wanted to remove the corrupt prosecutor because he was investigating Burisma, a company on whose board the Vice President’s son sat at the time.”

    The use of “baseless” in the report is so reflexive as to be redundant. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, for example, is said to have been the target of a “baseless smear campaign.” The very notion of a “smear campaign” is that it is untrue. If the allegations weren’t “baseless” they wouldn’t be a “smear.”

    This is not to say the impeachment report never tries to justify its dismissive adjectives.”


    “The use of the word “baseless” isn’t just reserved for shutting down discussion and debate over disputed facts. It extends to dismissing legal claims as well: Trump’s lawyers, according to the impeachment report, make “baseless arguments.”

    Other repetitions, beyond “baseless,” “discredited,” and “debunked,” are employed in the impeachment report’s jurisprudence. Working overtime is the Constitution’s statement, in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” While invoking this phrase more than 60 times, the report seeks to make “sole” a synonym for carte blanche, arguing that “sole power” means a power unchecked by other branches. That’s the authors’ ace and they play it time and again.

    White House Consel Pat Cipollone called on Congress to afford the president basic procedural safeguards in the impeachment investigation, including “the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections … and to respond to evidence and testimony.” No go.

    Citing its “sole Power of Impeachment,” the House dismissed Trump’s call for “due process,” claiming that “none of these procedures are ‘due’ to him under the Constitution.”

    Let’s accept for the sake of argument that the Constitution does grant the House “sole” impeachment powers, defined as powers that stand unchecked and unquestionable by any other branch of government. Such a jurisprudential quirk stands at odds with the Constitution’s basic structure and spirit of checks and balances. The House is claiming that its sole power of impeachment is an absolute power, and such claims are not attractive: Given the political nature of impeachment, an unseemly grasping at power could well color the House’s entire case.”


    “Even if one accepts the argument that there’s no specifying or cataloguing of impeachable offenses, it would seem that principle creates as much of a problem as it solves for the House impeachment managers. If X is a crime, the managers’ job is to prove that the president committed X; if X is not a crime, the managers must not only prove the president committed X, they have to persuade the Senate – and the public – that X is such an affront to decency and such a threat to the Constitution that it is rightly regarded an impeachable offense. Though the authors of the impeachment report insist that criminal law and impeachment are separate beasts, they grudgingly admit that “the commission of crimes may strengthen a case for removal.”

    It may be in an effort to make its accusations have the appearance of criminality otherwise missing that the impeachment report makes up a faux presidential statement. The false quote is in the style of the fabricated transcript read by Adam Schiff and later explained away as a “parody” of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. “The evidence thus demonstrates that President Trump used the powers of his office to make Ukraine an offer it had no real choice but to accept,” according to the impeachment report: “Help me get re-elected or you will not get the military and security assistance and diplomatic support you desperately need from the United States of America.” But, of course, the president never said any such thing. He never said, “Help me get re-elected,” nor did he condition aid on acquiescence to something he hadn’t said.

    One can choose whether to refer to the House impeachment report’s false quote as debunked, discredited, or baseless.”


    Because they are.


  2. There. Is. No. Crime.


    “President Trump and his legal team are zeroing in on Democrats’ decision to pursue a broad abuse of power charge against him as the reason for the Senate to “speedily” dismiss the impeachment case getting underway in that chamber Tuesday.

    The president’s lawyers on Monday asserted that Trump did “absolutely nothing wrong” regarding military aid for Ukraine, and because he committed no crime, the Democrats’ impeachment articles are both “frivolous” and a “dangerous perversion of the Constitution.” Convicting President Trump would “permanently weaken the presidency and forever alter the balance among the branches of government in a manner that offends the constitutional design established by the founders,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a 110-page defense.

    Trump and his attorneys and allies, including Rudy Giuliani and former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker (pictured), have long said abuse of power — one of two articles of impeachment the House approved on Dec. 18. — isn’t an impeachable offense because it doesn’t fall into the constitutional requirements for removing a president, a point they continued to drive home in their Monday defense.

    “House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way — any way — to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the results of the election to interfere in the 2020 election,” the lawyers wrote in the legal brief. “All of that is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”

    The House Democrats’ case against the president is deeply flawed and breaks historical impeachment precedent, Trump’s lawyers argued, because there is no proof that President Trump tied the security aid to an announcement by Ukraine that it would investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. In fact, no Ukrainian investigation took place and the aid was ultimately delivered, they point out.

    The impeachment case is based on “assumption, presumption and speculation from people who had no first-hand knowledge and were relying on hearsay, or double and triple hearsay, which would never be admitted into evidence in any court in this country,” said a source working with Trump’s legal team.

    “In the history of this country, there has never been an impeachment of the president that did not charge a violation of established law — in fact a criminal violation [of established law],” the source said. “…House Democrats produced a factual record that demonstrated the president did nothing wrong.”


  3. I told you the other day how Mexico stepped up and stopped the latest caravan of illegal criminals. Well they tried to bum rush the river to get around it.

    Bad move. Now Mexico is deporting them.


    “Yesterday a caravan of roughly 2,500 migrants stopped trying to cross Mexico’s southern border by bridge and instead waded across the river and attempted to get past a line of Mexican National Guardsmen waiting on the other side. That led to some rock-throwing by both sides but hundreds of migrants wound up being taken into custody by the Mexican authorities. Today, those migrants are already being deported by bus and by plane:

    …1,000 had tried to enter illegally Monday…and hundreds of them were apparently detained by Mexican National Guardsmen and immigration agents. Immigration officials estimated Monday night that 500 had evaded capture by the security forces.

    Ebrard said Mexico already has begun deporting some back to Honduras, putting 110 on a flight to San Pedro Sula and sending 144 back by bus.

    Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez said Mexico expected to deport 500 Hondurans a day on buses from Wednesday through Friday.

    A few hundred people remained on small sandy islands in the middle of the river, waiting to see what would happen. The Mexican authorities refused to hand out any food or water and soon most of the migrants returned to the Guatemalan side of the border to regroup and find food.”


  4. Thank you President Trump, for actually doing your job, unlike past presidents.


    “Illegal Border Crossings Fall A Staggering Ninety Percent In Arizona Following Trump Policy Change”

    “Illegal border crossings in Arizona “plunged” in December of 2019, according to the Associated Press, dropping a staggering 90% year-over-year following a Trump administration change in policy that has asylum seekers waiting for their adjudication hearings in Mexico and not in the United States.

    Last winter, a “record number” of illegal border crossers were apprehended in the Arizona sector of the United States-Mexico border, with 60,000 migrants taken into United States Border Protection custody in December of 2019 alone, per the Washington Examiner. That was the beginning of a surge migrants crossing the United States’ southern border; by May of 2019, the Border Patrol was recording a record number of apprehensions every month, sometimes topping 100,000.

    “50,753 people were arrested for trespassing from Mexico in December. It marks the third month in a row that more than 50,000 people have illegally crossed into to the U.S. Another 10,000 people who tried to enter through ports were told they lacked the documents to do so,” according to the Examiner. “Illegal immigration apprehensions at the southern border have skyrocketed since Trump’s first few months in office, when 15,000 to 20,000 people were reported being apprehended per month.”

    In Arizona alone, the Border Patrol was registering around 14,000 apprehensions per month by May of 2019, but in October of 2019, there were only 800 apprehensions. In December of 2019, the streak kept up, and apprehensions dropped around 90%.

    The Border Patrol credits the Trump administration’s new “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires those who want to seek refuge from violence and disorder by emigrating to the United States to stay south of the border until their asylum case comes before a judge. Before that policy took effect, asylum seekers were given a piece of paper with a court date and then released into the United States to stay with friends and family until they had to appear before a judge.

    By the time their cases rolled around — sometimes two to three years after apprehension — most asylum-seekers were in the wind, impossible to find, and well-integrated into American life.”


  5. Here’s something that Michelle touched on briefly the other day. She has a strong point.


    “How America’s Woman-Dominant Sexual Dynamic Is Destroying Marriages And Families

    That’s the missing element in the push for the so-called equal marriage. By suggesting men and women are essentially the same, we set them up to fail.”

    “Susan Forray is a 44-year-old divorced actuary who wrote in The New York Times about her relationship with a man unlike all the others she dated in the past, in that he believed in traditional gender roles. This gentleman told Forray flat-out one day, “I’m the man. I should be in charge of the money.”

    Forray felt a “jolt of anxiety.” Here she was, an actuary—someone who analyzes statistics and uses them to calculate insurance risks and premiums—and the man she’s dating tells her managing money is his job, not hers.

    “I found his bluntness surprising but also alluring. He was confident in his desires…I craved a man who sought to take financial responsibility for his family, even if I didn’t need it,” she writes. “The men I’d previously dated thought of themselves as staunch feminists—in hindsight, frustratingly so, at least in the sense that they were too inclined to defer to me (under the guise of respecting me) to ever take charge, either financially or sexually.”

    This sexual dynamic Forray describes is not an anomaly—it is the norm. I’ve heard countless stories of strong and successful women who are dating or married to a man who, in an effort to appear liberated, has either curbed his ambitions or simply follows rather than leads. Just the other day I had yet another conversation with a mother whose 20-something daughter is moving in with a man who lacks the direction and ambition she has, and the daughter told her mother she’s worried he will come to resent her.

    She’s right to be worried. That will happen.

    I’m not alone in recognizing the seismic shift that has occurred since I was on the dating market, but my experience with this phenomenon isn’t relegated to conversations with friends. As an author, speaker, and relationship coach, I deal with this new reality every day. The vast majority of my clients are individuals and couples who are grappling with a new sexual dynamic: one in which the woman, not the man, is the dominant partner.

    You might think this would make women happy. In fact, it makes them miserable.

    How Men Lost Their Mojo
    It makes men miserable, too. But 40 years of feminism has eroded male power to such a degree men no longer recognize their disempowerment, which starts in their very own homes.”


  6. Finally…. some common sense.


    “Idaho Bill Would Ban Males From Female Sports”

    “Out in the state of Idaho, there were rumors of this last year, but it never got off the ground. Now, however, one legislator appears ready to step into the fight to save competitive women’s and girls’ sports. Rep. Barbara Ehardt, a Republican from Idaho Falls, has prepared a bill that would ensure that schools regulate who can compete in both male and female sports based on “DNA and chromosomes.” The bill has been in the works for 18 months and she believes she’s finally helped craft a law that will treat everyone fairly. (East Idaho News)

    A local legislator plans to introduce a bill banning biological males from competing in women’s sports.

    Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, says she will introduce legislation that would prevent a transgender individual from competing in high school sports that do not match the sex they were born with.

    “Boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it’s not fair. We cannot physically compete against boys and men. The inherent biological, scientific advantages that boys and men have over girls and women, even if they were to take hormones, even if they were to spend a couple of years on estrogen, that’s not going to replace the inherent biological advantages that boys and men have,” Ehardt told EastIdahoNews.com.

    Even if this bill passes it will doubtless be challenged and held up in the courts. While we don’t have all the specifics yet, the general description raises a couple of immediate questions.

    The first and likely most obvious one is how they plan to implement a statewide system for aspiring athletes to “qualify” for either sports division. Previous attempts at such legislation in other states were most often based on the gender listed on the student’s birth certificate. That has proven inadequate, however, as some states already allow people – including children – to petition to receive new birth certificates reflecting the gender they “identify” with. Also, some states are allowing parents to mark the gender field as “neutral” on their child’s birth certificate until they “decide” what gender they are later on.

    The Idaho bill sounds as if it will take a more rigorous route, ensuring that the student has both an X and Y chromosome for males and two Xs for females. So the family of every child will need to pay for a DNA test establishing the scientific, medically accurate gender of the applicant? That’s going to be expensive, particularly if the schools have to pay for it as a mandatory program. Also, there will have to be some sort of provision covering the small percentage of students who are born intersex and wouldn’t meet the requirements for either gender.”


  7. A sticky wicket indeed. No one wants them, but if they came from your country, you have an obligation to address the issue. You can’t just dump them on the rest of the world. So try them, convict them, and imprison them for their crimes.



    The Washington Post reports that Norway’s prime minister has lost her parliamentary majority because one of the parties in her coalition withdrew in protest over the repatriation of a suspected ISIS member from a Syrian camp. The Prime Minister, Erna Solberg of the Conservative Party, says she will try to govern with a minority coalition.

    The party in question is the Progress Party which the Post describes as “right wing.” It was on board with repatriating the woman’s children, one of whom is said to require urgent medical treatment, but not the ISIS woman (who denies she was an ISIS member).

    Norway, like other European nations, is under pressure from the Trump administration to repatriate ISIS fighters. President Trump has warned that captured fighters will be released unless European governments are willing to take them back. In this regard, Trump stands with human rights groups, and there are various court proceedings through which these groups hope to force the repatriation of the terrorists.

    Yet, European nations continue to resist. Only a few ISIS fighters have been repatriated.

    Repatriation of a given ISIS member doesn’t mean that the member goes free automatically. The home country can, and presumably will, try to convict the fighter and send him or her to prison.”


  8. Time to revoke her citizenship and repatriate this woman back to the hole she crawled out of.


    “Why Criminal Prosecution Might Be The Least Of Ilhan Omar’s Legal Concerns

    Rep. Ilhan Omar needs competent immigration counsel to ensure that there is no threat of her losing her citizenship, or, worse, deportation.”

    “The Department of Justice has reportedly assigned an FBI special agent to work with Immigration and Customs and Enforcement and the Department of Education Inspector General Charge to investigate Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for alleged criminal violations relating to perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, federal student loan fraud, and bigamy.

    As an immigration lawyer, the very first question that came to mind when I read these reports was what immigration consequences, if any, could attach in the event that any of the above allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. My analysis, unfortunately, has resulted in more unanswerable questions than definitive answers.

    My analysis started with the fact that it is widely known Omar was born in Somalia, and immigrated to the United States as a Somali refugee. At some point after her admission to the country, she obtained U.S. citizenship. The Associated Press reported on November 5, 2009, that Omar fled Somalia to a refugee camp in Kenya with her family in 1991. She ultimately immigrated to the United States as a refugee in 1995.

    If this report is correct, the analysis is fairly straightforward. Generally speaking, U.S. immigration law permits refugees to apply for permanent residence, commonly known as a “green card,” one-year after arrival. Five years after holding a green card, refugees may then apply to become a citizen through a process called naturalization.

    Naturalization applicants must show they meet residency requirements, and have good moral character. It was reported that Omar became a citizen in 2000, five years after her arrival, at the age of 17.

    This last detail is important, and is where things start to get murky. If Omar became a U.S. citizen at the age of 17, she must have obtained it through automatic acquisition after the naturalization of at least one of her parents. Omar would not have been able to apply for citizenship on her own because individuals are ineligible to apply for naturalization until age 18.

    Here is where it gets really complicated. The requirements for automatic acquisition have changed several times throughout the last century. The marital status of Omar’s parents would determine whether she could have acquired citizenship. I have no details about their marital status to be able to determine if these legal requirements were fulfilled.

    However, if Omar did not have to apply for naturalization, it could eliminate one possible crime that she could be charged with: knowingly giving false information in furtherance of an application for citizenship. A conviction for this crime would lead to her denaturalization, resulting in the loss of citizenship, and the institution of removal proceedings to deport her.

    But the analysis doesn’t stop there. For Omar to have automatically acquired citizenship, she must also have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, and there are reports questioning the legality of her admission as a refugee.

    David Steinberg has covered the Omar saga for several years and has openly questioned whether she is who she says she is. Steinberg has alleged that Omar assumed her name from an unrelated family that was being granted refugee status. Although I have no way to independently assess the veracity of this report, there is circumstantial evidence that this type of immigration fraud was rampant in the circumstances under which Omar was admitted to the United States.”


  9. While I agree with Michelle’s limited comment about the job disparity issue, I do not agree with that man’s statement that he should be in charge of the money because he is a man. That is just plain foolishness and that woman had better look long and hard before being married to such a man. They both need some good counseling, IMO.

    Although I do believe a man is called to be head of his family, that does not mean he is like a king or automatically ‘in charge’ with any particular thing. One can only pray they gain some more wisdom.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. I agree ladies.

    I handle the money here, have for years.

    But not because it’s my right, but because it’s what we agreed to do after we both completed the Crown Financial 8 week course. Before then even I wouldn’t have trusted me with the money. I was never taught to do finances well, so guess what? I didn’t!

    But now I have the right priorities and order to things financially, I manage to do it pretty well. And now my wife trusts me to do it the right way, so she leaves that burden to me.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Pass the popcorn!



  12. I agree with Kathaleena at 10:33. If men are supposed to be in charge of the money because they are men, then are women supposed to, say, do all the cooking because they are women? Men are never to prepare meals, no matter how much they love cooking or how good they are at it? The “blame” for that can be laid at the feet of feminism?

    Gee, I guess my grandparents, who married in the 1920s, were the original feminists, with Grandpa seen at the sink washing dishes and Grandma out tinkering in the garage fixing things. What an outrage.

    The woman mentioned in the article would do well to analyze where her “jolt of anxiety” came from after the man said he should be in charge of the finances. He might very well be a narcissist/abuser type — one who thrives in power-over situations, especially when he might know or sense that his victim(s) is (are) allured by his talk and mannerisms, as she is.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Failures who seek their own political power, and not to help the people they supposedly represent.


    “San Francisco. Los Angeles. New York City. These are all places in America where the disparity between rich and poor could not be more visible or painful. All places that once personified the American dream, but places now desperately searching for solutions as many communities governed by the left are now in deep crisis. All are now buckling under the weight of deadly drug and health epidemics, rampant homelessness, illegal immigration, soaring crime rates and the needless loss of life of far too many of our fellow citizens.

    Liberal Democrats – such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, both of California, and Reps. Jerry Nadler, Eliot Engel and Carolyn Maloney of New York – were elected to represent and serve the people of these communities, but it’s increasingly clear that Pelosi and her lieutenants have failed. They’ve effectively abandoned their responsibilities as representatives of their districts to instead advance the supercharged political goals of the increasingly-socialist national Democratic Party.

    These leaders and committee chairs, now joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., all hold extraordinary power, but they’ve all become so blinded by Washington politics and their hatred of Trump that they’ve ignored the raging problems in their own backyards, on our borders and throughout the world.

    Instead, they’ve chosen to focus on an irresponsible and unending political pursuit – attempting to remove a duly elected president of the United States by any means possible – as the impeachment ringleaders overseeing the sham impeachment proceedings in the House. Even though the problems plaguing their own cities and states are visible to all who live and work in them, these members have chosen to retreat to secret basements in the U.S. Capitol, stage pre-ordained Stalinist-style hearings and release cherry-picked information to an abetting liberal media to try to impeach President Trump without due process, fairness, facts or precedent.

    Why? Because they know full well that American families, workers and retirees across country have benefited from Trump’s policies. And compared to the unprecedented new jobs created across all demographics, higher wages and rising household incomes – along with American Main Street small businesses that are thriving, American manufacturers that are hiring, and a stock market delivering ever higher gains for American seniors’ retirement plans – today’s Democratic leaders in Congress simply have no solutions to the problems adversely impacting their own communities, let alone an agenda to improve the lives of Americans outside of them.”


  14. “Furthermore, big city liberals, like much of the Democratic leadership and these committee chairs, cannot escape from the fact that the problems hurting their own constituents back home are largely the result of the failed liberal policies put in place at local and state levels by progressives not unlike like themselves. And these policies are not dissimilar from what Pelosi, Schumer and company now want to impose on all Americans at the federal level.”


  15. My husband handles the finances because, if it was me, we would not have any. My mom did it for my family while I was growing up, though they discussed things. Somehow, I grew up thinking I would be expected to do the same. Fortunately….

    But sometimes people are just dolts and there is nothing nefarious. Maybe he just needs to learn some things and is still doing so. I know I am.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Regarding home finances: we make the budget together. I keep track of the books and the bank account balances, and Cyrus actually pays the bills. He also does most of the grocery shopping, but we often do it together on the weekend when we’re both home.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Agreeing with Kathaleena and 6 Arrows. And I had the same “red flag” reaction as 6 about that guy, that he could be a narcissist or abuser. Reminded me of X.


  18. Re: impeachment TV

    Shakespeare told it best

    “’tis a tale
    told by an idiot.
    Full of sound and fury,
    signifying nothing”

    I turned it off. Even “The Five” comments on it were nonsense.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. And lies Chas…..

    Lot’s of lies…..


  20. Oh man….

    Could you imagine?

    Shouts of “Stop lying Pencilneck” from the gallery is just what this circus needs. Some good, old fashion heckling. 🙂


    Must see even…..


  21. And every circus needs their clowns.

    Joe and Jen, you’re up!


    His fake news got 4000 retweets among the clowns at clown college.


  22. I pay our bills, although I have shown my husband several times how I do that. He balances our check book. We discuss whatever we need to do with our finances. Every couple has to work it out for the best for the family. Sometimes it changes through the years.

    I watch a whole lot of press conferences and government proceedings, but even I find I cannot listen to these people drone on and on about the same thing over and over and over and…

    😦 We pay these people!!!

    Liked by 2 people

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.