Monday, January 6, 2020

December Sets Another New Record for Gun Sale Background Checks


 

Article by Stephen Green in "PJMedia":

Guns really are the gift that keeps on giving, and if December's near-record NICS background checks mean anything, Americans gave a lot this holiday season. Looking back at the year as a whole, 2019 was another record-setter, with over 28 million background checks. That's a 3% jump over the previous record from 2016. December was no slouch, either, with nearly 3 million NICS checks — the second-highest month on record.

The reason for 2016 being such a banner year for gun sales was clear. Barack Obama, as many others have noted, was perhaps the best firearms salesman in human history. Inadvertently, of course, but his constant threats and occasional actions to restrict gun ownership spurred millions to buy more and more guns. And in 2016, when it looked like Hillary Clinton was going to be our next president, American gun buyers stepped up like never before.

If I could, I'd get all 100,000,000 or so of us in a giant circle so we could all pat one another on the back.

But what's driving record gun sales in a year like 2019, with no presidential or congressional election, Donald Trump ensconced in the White House (lame impeachment threat aside), and control of Congress safely divided?

I have a couple ideas.

The first is that as a people we've developed good habits. We seem to have concluded that the more guns you have, the more guns you want. You buy a new pistol or rifle, you take it down to the range to get good with it... and then you see other people with other guns. And you know what the problem is with those other guns, don't you? That's right: They're not yours. And so the next thing you know, you're back at your favorite gun shop filling out yet another NICS form for yet another firearm. Or as Dana Loesch confessed to attendees at the Bullets & Bourbon conference a few years back, "I can't just buy one gun. I buy them two at a time so they don't get lonely." Repeat until really very seriously well-armed.

The other explanation is even more simple: Democrats. Or to be more specific about it: Virginia Democrats. The Dems managed to wrangle control of the governor's mansion and the assembly, and almost immediately went on an anti-gun tear so serious that it's ripping the state apart in ways we haven't seen since West Virginia split off in 1861. It's almost as though Democrats there are trying to throw a one-state Civil War. And unless they stop this nonsense (or get voted out in November -- fingers crossed!) they might just get one.

I look at what's going on in Virginia, and then I remember that Democrats control the entirety of my state government, too... and I start thinking about make a quick drive down to Magnum Shooting Center to see if they have any decent sales on the kinds of firearms Democrats hate most. Maybe I'll even pick myself up a little something.

Multiply my thoughts by millions of gun enthusiasts in several Democrat-controlled states and what do you get? A banner year for gun sales.

Let's remember, though, that NICS checks also include people applying for concealed carry permits. The FBI doesn't break out the numbers of gun sales vs permits, but it's safe to say that more law-abiding Americans are carrying than ever before. And while there might not be a causal relationship between more guns/less crime -- correlation is not causation, after all -- it's demonstrably true that more guns have not meant more crime.

 

And those records only go until 2013, and as we just saw Americans have been on a huge gun-buying spree since then. Crime, despite some tragic headline-generating mass shootings, continues to decline.

So, well done, America. I'll see you at the range.

There Is No Clever Democratic Impeachment Strategy



There is no brilliant plan here, no clever chess move, no ace up Nancy Pelosi’s sleeve. The Democrats’ “strategy” is failing.

We are now approaching three weeks since the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump on December 18. After passing the articles of impeachment that identified no actual crimes, congressional Democrats scattered all over D.C., celebrating in posh restaurants and ritzy bars.

Supposedly “neutral” journalists rejoiced, tweeting out “Impeachmas” cheers to their followers. Hardcore Trotskyists, Socialists, Maoists, Communists, Castroists, Che Guevarists, and other members of the progressive Left, celebrated all over the country. At long last, their three-and-a-half-year quest to impeach Trump, which started in April 2016, was close to fruition. Victory over Trump never seemed closer or more certain.

And then Nancy Pelosi rained on their parade. Looking like an Alzheimer’s patient who escaped from a nursing home, Nancy (who will turn 80 in just two months) went before the cameras, and stuttering and stammering, and informed bewildered journalists (and a half-interested public) that things weren’t as desperately urgent as she, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and 200 other Democrats told us they were.
Trump is probably an existential threat to the Republic, but maybe not this month. And maybe not in January either. And, just maybe, not even in February.

Trump is a destroyer of the guardrails of our democracy (and, granted, he didattack Rosie O’Donnell on Twitter, so he isn’t exactly innocent) but there was no rush to remove him from office. In fact, the Senate trial could wait for quite a while, until the senators agree to do the trial the way Nancy says they should. Her eyes vacant, her lower jaw seeming to move of its own volition, her Botoxed and made-up face looking deader than a Mexican Día de los Muertos paint job, Nancy insisted on—of all things—a “fair trial” in the Senate before she can transmit the articles of impeachment. Or else!

Cocaine Mitch can huff, and Cocaine Mitch can puff, but Nancy simply won’t give him the articles, so he’ll just have to keep the judicial confirmation machine spinning in overdrive in the meantime. Take that, Republicans!

Perhaps we’ll have to wait a few weeks before Nancy finally “transmits” the articles to the Senate. Perhaps a few months. Perhaps we’ll have to wait until after the 2020 election. All of a sudden nobody was in a hurry, least of all Nancy, who fled the scene of the crime, jetting off on a taxpayer-funded all-expenses-paid junket to Spain. This freeze-frame is now known, bizarrely, as an “impasse” between Nancy and Mitch. (The next time I visit a Bugatti dealer, who tells me that a new Bugatti Chiron would set me back $2.3 million, we’ll call it an “impasse” after I tell him that I don’t have the $2.3 million.)

As Many Articles As It Takes

Privately, most Democrats must have been shell-shocked by this turn of events. From a messaging perspective, it was a disaster. How are Democrats going to convince anyone of the desperate urgency of removing Trump from office 10 months before the election, if even Nancy Pelosi lacks confidence in her own work product?

Still, what Republicans took to be bumbling idiocy looked like a brilliant chess move to many on the Left—let impeachment hang over Trump’s head like the Sword of Damocles for years! Trump will never be free of the impeachment taint since we’ll never let the Senate acquit him by never sending the articles there in the first place! Nancy is a genius!
In the meantime, Nadler can work on a few more articles of impeachment. Stormy Daniels is still out there—some campaign finance angle might work! (For anyone who is curious, Stormy has a website, and is busy traveling the country doing “shows.” And if you are really, really into Stormy happenings and Stormy-related news, you can read all about how she was deported from Canada for planning to strip without a Canadian license even though—shocker!—she had no plans to strip in the first place! The unmitigated gall of those Canadians!)

There are always emoluments—who knows, maybe Adam Schiff, that noted constitutional scholar, can find some new and creative interpretations for that arcane word. Somebody in the Southern District of New York is perpetually investigating Trump—you never know, they might find something! Trump’s tax returns for the year 1983 might turn up on MSNBC. It’s always possible he didn’t fill out the depreciation schedule correctly.

For a supposed political genius, Nancy Pelosi’s failure to think all this through is further evidence that she may be a good political tactician, but she’s a mediocre strategist.

The Mueller report can always be mined for more obstruction “evidence”—so perhaps Nancy’s clear directive to keep impeachment short, limited, and simple wasn’t such a good idea, in retrospect. Robert Mueller could be brought back to testify again—with the right medication, he just might mumble something of use.

On the second go-around, Mueller might even remember that he was in charge of the investigation. Some congressional staffer will be ready with a proper dosage of Razadyne, should Mueller forget to take it that morning. Mueller might even recall a thing or two from the Mueller report, and—with a bit of luck—what his own connection (if any) to the eponymously named document is.

Failing all else, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who, judging from his facial expressions, appears perpetually constipated, has his own long list of impeachable offenses committed by Trump, starting with putting ketchup on his steak and ending with criticizing Colin Kaepernick. If Nadler hits a few more dry holes with Stormy, emoluments, and Mueller, he can always pull his pants up a little higher, someplace above his larynx, and consult with his old friend Al.

Winning Hearts and Minds

Except that time is not Nancy’s friend—hypothetical future impeachments don’t help resolve her current dilemma.

The longer she sits on the articles of impeachment, the more ridiculous the entire impeachment effort looks to normal people who don’t obsess over politics on a daily basis. What was the point of all that drama, all those prayers, all that solemnity, and all that supposed sadness, if this is where it ends?

Ultimately, of course, this isn’t about removing Trump from office—as countless other commentators have written, the odds of that happening are between zero and zero. This is about winning the hearts and minds of a small slice of the electorate whose minds are still open—no small feat in this day and age.

Poll after poll has shown that Nancy’s gambit is backfiring. Trump’s popularity is trending upwards. Trump’s rallies are packed. Republican fundraising is at history-making levels, in no small part thanks to impeachment. Impeachment even killed the anti-Trump Republican candidacy of Mark Sanford.

To the extent two other Republican challengers (Joe Walsh and Bill Weld) still have a pulse, there is little evidence of it. In swing state after swing state, Trump is registering solid numbers that put him on track for reelection. Impeachment’s popularity is more or less where it was on day one of his presidency—which suggests that when some people say “I support impeachment,” what they are really saying is “I hate Trump,” just as they’ve been saying since the day he got elected.

Fair enough, but the idea of impeachment was to bring those numbers up—to 50 percent, then 60 percent, then perhaps 70 percent, until wavering Republicans would think they were committing political suicide by siding with Trump. The exact opposite has happened, and I predict further erosion of the “pro-impeachment” numbers, the longer the current “stalemate” drags on. The clock is definitely ticking, and nobody hears it better than Nancy.

Time is not Nancy’s friend for another reason—every vulnerable Democrat wants nothing more than to erase his vote from his constituents’ memories. If there is one thing vulnerable Democrats do not want to talk about for the next 10 months, it’s impeachment.
Every day that impeachment spends in suspended animation is another day that Democrats are forced to defend their impeachment votes in Republican-leaning districts. It might play well with the leftist activist base, but for every activist there is another low-engagement Republican-leaning independent voter who will be certain to vote against them.

This math is bad, and Nancy knows it.

Thoughtful Strategy MIA

But what are the options now? This fight over Senate rules is one that Nancy should have never have engaged, and she has zero leverage over Mitch McConnell. The most logical thing is to capitulate, send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, declare victory, and forget about the whole thing. And the sooner, the better. Yes, Nancy looks stupid for a day or two, but the compliant press can always be counted on to carry water for her, and to spin her surrender as a “statesmanlike” act. Can she do it?

To illustrate just how missing-in-action actual thought-out strategy is, in the Democrats’ flailing efforts, let’s imagine Nancy “wins,” and gets her “fair” trial—meaning Cocaine Mitch makes some kind of deal with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to call witnesses. What exactly has she won? What’s missing from this victory is the inescapable fact that the same executive privilege rules apply to the Senate trial that applied to the House “impeachment inquiry.” Democrats don’t seem to appreciate that the same witnesses who refused to show up before Schiff’s and Nadler’s committees can refuse to show up for the Senate trial. And even if they show up, they can refuse to testify. What then?

The only way to resolve this standoff (to the extent one can call it a standoff, given the political circumstances), would be to litigate the privilege claims in the courts. Would the Senate even go to court? It will take 51 votes—and it will almost certainly require Mitch McConnell’s buy-in—a highly unlikely proposition.

And a court challenge would take months. Will the Senate just sit there and wait while the lawsuits grind on? Unlikely—these litigations would be a direct consequence of the rushed, express-train impeachment in the House, and of the tactical decision by Democrats to avoid litigating the executive privilege claims. But that tactical decision now has strategic consequences—the Democrats’ case is falling apart even before it gets to the Senate, and the ultimate prize—preventing Trump’s reelection and flipping the Senate to Democrat control—is further and further out of reach.

Would stonewalling the Senate on witnesses would mean bad optics for Trump? Perhaps, but I doubt it—how would they be any worse than the fact of the Senate trial in the first place? Democrats will howl about “obstruction”? Let them howl—this is all purely tactical. If they don’t howl about this, they’ll howl about something else—just like they’ve been howling about one thing or another for almost three years. It doesn’t change the ultimate outcome, nor will it change the narrative—everyone already knows that Trump doesn’t want his closest advisors to testify. Everyone knows what happened (or what they think happened)—no minds will be changed. No new facts of any significance are likely to be uncovered—making a shift in the narrative unlikely.

Or Nancy can keep doing what she’s doing—which is waiting out Mitch McConnell. This is laughable, but no more laughable than it was back in December.

For a supposed political genius, Nancy Pelosi’s failure to think all this through is further evidence that she may be a good political tactician, but she’s a mediocre strategist, at best. All of this was entirely foreseeable the day she stumbled out of her office to launch her blackmail gambit against McConnell.

There is no brilliant strategy here, no clever chess move, no ace up Nancy’s sleeve. The Democrats’ “strategy” is failing.

Senator Lindsey Graham -vs- Maria Bartiromo

creditsundance at CTH

Something is ‘off‘ with Senator Graham’s demeanor in this interview segment; there’s a visible lack of confidence.  Perhaps, and this is only a guess, Graham is wondering if President Trump has out-maneuvered the neocon position toward ultimate mid-east failure by applying the: “be careful what you wish for” approach. Ultimately if the Iraqi government asks the U.S. to leave, I doubt President Trump would be adverse to that request.

In the first half of the video Senator Graham discusses his perspective on the current issues in/around Iraq and Iran vis-a-vis the U.S. killing Iranian terrorist Soleimani.



In the second half of the interview Senator Graham discusses the status of the impeachment agenda and his plans, or lack thereof, as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lindsey Graham to Force Pelosi's Hand on Impeachment: Put Up or We Will Shut You Down



Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is warning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Deliver the articles of impeachment by the end of the week or we will “take matters in our own hands.” 

He called Pelosi’s antics a “political stunt” and said neither he nor McConnell would stand for it.
“What I would do, if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Senator McConnell to change the rules of the Senate so we could start the trial without her, if necessary,” Graham proposed.
When asked how long he would wait before taking this step, Graham replied, “Days, not weeks.”
“Well, we’re not going to let Nancy Pelosi use the rules of the Senate to her advantage. This is dangerous to the presidency as an institution,” Graham said. “They impeached the president, but the speaker of the hosue is holding the articles back, trying to extort from the majority leader of the Senate a trial to her liking. They’re trying to hold these articles over the head of the president.”

He can do that as long as he can guarantee at least 51 votes to get him there. They have 53 Republicans so they have to hope for not many defections. Hopefully, enough of them are together at this point, over the ridiculous actions of Pelosi. 

He said that when they move on the articles, they would use the Clinton model of impeachment, take the record from the House, then allow each side, the House and then the President, to present their arguments. Then they would decide if any witnesses were needed. He said that he anticipated that would take about two weeks and would be done by the end of January, assuming they moved around Pelosi. 

He said if she didn’t deliver them given notice, they would deem them delivered and move ahead without her, but invite the House to participate according to the Clinton model. “If they don’t come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country,” he finished.

Good for him. Let’s get this farce out of the way already. But even if that fails, Democrats still lose because they have been exposed for not moving it forward and failing to keep their Constitutional obligation and that point can be hammered away between now and the election, showing what a farce impeachment is.

Peter Navarro Outlines Process for Senate Ratification of USMCA – Grassley Mark-up Next Week


White House economic and manufacturing advisor Peter Navarro appeared on Fox News today to discuss the procedural process anticipated for the USMCA passage as early as the end of next week. Additionally, Navarro highlights the upcoming signing for the U.S-China ‘phase-one’ agreement on January 15th.


(Reuters) – A Chinese trade delegation is planning to travel to Washington on Jan. 13 for the signing of the U.S.-China Phase 1 trade deal, the South China Morning Post reported on Sunday citing a source briefed on the matter.
The Chinese delegation will return on Jan. 16, SCMP said here
The trade delegation, led by Vice Premier Liu He, had originally planned to set off earlier in the month but had to change plans after U.S. President Donald Trump sent a tweet here claiming that he would sign the Phase 1 trade deal with China on Jan. 15. (read more)



US bases on heightened security alert following Soleimani killing


 

 Article by Meghann Myers in "Military Times":

Troops heading to work on Monday morning experienced longer-than-normal wait times at base gates as installations shore up security following strikes and heated rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran over the past week.

Following the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq on Jan. 2, military leadership is preparing for retaliation both abroad and at home
.
“While we will not discuss specifics, U.S. Northern Command is implementing additional force protection condition measures to increase security and awareness for all installations in the U.S. NORTHCOM area of responsibility,” according to a statement.

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, began 100-percent identification checks on Saturday, according to a Facebook post. The base houses U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, Special Operations Command Central and Marine Forces Central Command among other base tenants.

Depending on individual base commanders’ policies, some installations usually allow cars to pass through entry gates with checking only one occupant’s ID, assuming that person is vouching for any other passengers.

The new policy will require checks for all, in addition to standard screening if no one in the car has a common access card.

As of Monday morning, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, Fort Carson, Colorado, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Meade, Maryland, had all posted to their Facebook accounts advising personnel that waits would be longer than normal.

Higher alert
Bases have also announced upgrades of their force protection condition from “Alpha" to “Bravo," which indicates “an increased or more predictable threat of terrorist activity exists.”

All U.S. military bases were last ordered to FPCON Bravo in 2015, when the rise of ISIS prompted the change.

Also on Saturday, the Homeland Security Department issued a National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin lasting until Jan. 18.

“At this time we have no information indicating a specific, credible threat to the Homeland. Iran and its partners, such as Hizballah, have demonstrated the intent and capability to conduct operations in the United States,” it said.

However, past plots have included planning physical attacks on infrastructure, as well as cyber threats.

“Be prepared for cyber disruptions, suspicious emails, and network delays,” according to the bulletin.

Top Iranian official threatens to destroy Israel, target U.S. generals if strikes continue

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:46 AM PT — Monday, January 6, 2020
Another top Iranian official is threatening to destroy Israel if the U.S. carries out more strikes against the Ayatollah regime. While speaking Sunday, the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council vowed to annihilate Haifa, Tel Aviv as well as other cities in Israel.
Secretary Mohsen Rezaei claimed this would happen if the U.S. strikes Iran again. This comes as President Trump said the U.S. has identified 52 potential targets that will be hit if Iran continues its threats. However, the Iranian secretary said his country could target top U.S. military officials.
Iranian Secretary Rezaei had this to say:
“The U.S. has put its soldiers and commander on the edge of the blade of resistance. Where would you want to stay? In Iraq? In Syria? In the region? Mr. Trump should be sure that life for American soldiers will be bitter and more embarrassing, and they will be kicked out of the region embarrassingly.”
 The Pentagon has redeployed additional forces to Iran’s borders that are now on stand-by to prevent any further attacks.
 In this photo provided by U.S. Department of Defense, the Army’s AH-64 Apache helicopter from 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 34th Combat Aviation Brigade, conducts overflights of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2019. The helicopters launched flares as a show of presence while providing additional security and deterrence against protesters. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Khalil Jenkins, CJTF-OIR Public Affairs via AP)
https://www.oann.com/top-iranian-official-threatens-to-destroy-israel-target-u-s-generals-if-strikes-continue/

Rep. Doug Collins Discusses Speaker Pelosi’s “Stalled” Impeachment Strategy


Representative Doug Collins appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the status of the ‘stalled’ impeachment articles and the lack of congressional curiosity toward the DOJ and FBI outcome in the Horowitz investigation.


Rep. John Ratcliffe Discusses Fraudulent Impeachment and Spygate


Congressman John Ratcliffe appears on Sunday Morning Futures to discuss several issues in DC.   On the impeachment front Ratcliffe may, if called-upon, represent the interests of President Trump during a Senate trial on the fraudulent impeachment articles.

On the ‘Spygate’ issues, Ratcliffe again draws attention to the conflicting testimony between former CIA Director John Brennand and former FBI Director James Comey. One of them lied.


Trump Trolls Congress With New Warning; If Iran Strikes a U.S. Person or Target, He Will Hit Back ‘Perhaps in a Disproportionate Manner’



President Trump has just sent the left into overdrive over two issues with one tweet.


Needless to say, liberals are triggered. You might even say their heads are exploding. They’re accusing him of declaring war by twitter. Some are saying he is using this as a diversion from his impeachment. He’s been repeatedly called a “lawless president” and a “war criminal.”

Trump’s message is not a declaration of war. He is notifying Iran, whose provocative actions brought us to where we are today, that if they commit another hostile act against the US, he will use military force to “discourage” further hostile acts in the future. And by the way, his response may be more severe than theirs. It should be.

The President is trolling the Democrats, which has become so easy to do.

He has two reasons for this. First, I think he enjoys getting a rise out of them. He once said that he thrives on their resistance.

Second, it makes them look ridiculous. The President is issuing a warning to a group of terrorists, terrorists who have been chanting, “Death to America” for forty years. Evil men who are responsible for hundreds of American deaths and thousands of foreigners’ deaths throughout the Middle East. Most liberals are far removed from the consequences of Soleimani’s handiwork. But those of us who know veterans who’ve stepped on the wrong patch of earth and had their legs blown off by an Iranian IED understand what the stakes are. When Trump told the press on Friday night that Soleimani’s reign of terror was over, he wasn’t overstating the case.

When Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militiamen and their PMF supporters and sympathizers stormed the US Embassy in Baghdad last week (a U.S. Embassy is considered to be sitting on U.S. soil), they intended to kill the embassy personnel. That was a war crime. The fact that no one inside the embassy died is because President Trump immediately engaged and sent the help they needed, which was the direct opposite of President Obama’s and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response when the American diplomatic compound and the CIA annex were under attack in Benghazi.

(Note: I just looked up some information on Benghazi and noticed that Wikipedia still perpetuates the lie told by the Obama administration in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. It says, “Initial analysis by the CIA, repeated by top government officials, indicated that the attack spontaneously arose from a protest. Subsequent investigations showed that the attack was premeditated.” Wrong: The CIA knew immediately it was a premeditated terrorist attack.)

Of course, we don’t know the precise intelligence Trump received about Soleimani’s plans, but we know he hadn’t traveled to Baghdad to see old friends.
By criticizing the President for putting the safety of Americans first, the Democrats are painting themselves into a corner that may be difficult to explain to voters.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is doing some trolling of his own. He is currently considering a resolution “commending the Trump administration for its mission to take out Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. In doing so he is daring the Senate Democrats to oppose it. It is the perfect antidote to the criticism the left has voiced since the news of Soleimani’s death was announced.”

Trump is not a hawkish President. He does not want war. He knows that failure to act when his nation is attacked will be seen as weakness and will encourage more attacks. The Iranians may have mistaken his previous restraint as weakness. After Iran had shot down an unmanned drone in June, Trump approved strikes on three targets inside the country. Fearing unintended casualties, he called off the strikes ten minutes before they were to begin.

Trump is now proving to them that he is not afraid to act. And he’s also delivering a message, loud and clear, to the King Jong Uns of the world that the US will not be bullied.

Nancy Pelosi to Introduce Resolution Implying Pre-emptive Surrender to Iran


 Nancy Pelosi (Win McNamee / Getty)

 Article by Joel B. Pollack in "Breitbart":

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote a letter to her Democrat colleagues in the House on Sunday to reveal a new “War Powers Resolution” that amounts to a pre-emptive surrender to Iran in ongoing hostilities.

Pelosi’s letter begins with the declaration that President Donald Trump’s airstrike last week targeting Iranian General Qasem Suleimani, leader of the terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC) Quds Force, responsible for the murders of hundreds of Americans and for recent attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, was “provocative and disproportionate,” terms suggesting the attack was illegal under international law and could constitute a war crime.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus (and Democrat) Alan Dershowitz argued in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that the strike was not only lawful, but an “easy call”: “The president has the constitutional authority to take military actions, short of declaring war, that he and his advisers deem necessary to protect American citizens. This authority is extremely broad, especially when the actions must, by their nature, be kept secret from the intended target.”

Nonetheless, Pelosi’s letter indicates that the House will declare the president’s action illegal under international law.

The letter further claims that Trump’s action “endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran” — placing the responsibility for violence not on Iran, which recently attacked a U.S. Navy drone; a Saudi oil field; and, via proxies, Americans soldiers and civilians in Iraq; but on the United States, which had restrained itself until the recent assault by an Iranian-backed militia on the embassy.

The letter goes on to describe a new resolution that would “limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran,” essentially signaling a surrender in the potential conflict before the Iranian regime itself had managed to respond.

Pelosi adds that the resolution “reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.” Under current law, the War Powers Act of 1973 limits the time that a president can lead a military effort, without formal authorization, to 60 days following a required presidential report to Congress when hostilities begin.

The new resolution, which Pelosi says mirrors a similar Senate bill by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), would amount to an effective surrender by signaling that the president had no congressional support for striking back against Iran, and imposing a new deadline for any military action that would give Iran greater freedom of action. Paradoxically, the resolution could force the president to choose more drastic measures of conducting a war effort before the deadline.

By declaring the attack “provocative and disproportionate,” the resolution also invites international prosecution of the president, as well as members of the administration and the military itself, who carry out his orders. The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Americans for war crimes, but the ICC takes a different view, and a future Democratic administration might well side with the ICC instead.

Pelosi’s letter indicates that the new “War Powers Resolution” will be introduced and voted on this week. She has not yet indicated when she will transfer the articles of impeachment passed by the House on Dec. 18 to the Senate, which she claims is a necessary prerequisite to the Senate holding a trial on the president’s removal from office.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/06/nancy-pelosi-surrender-resolution-in-house/

Secretary Mike Pompeo -vs- The Media — 3 videos



Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared on Fox News, CBS, NBC and ABC to discuss the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani and the current status with Iran.  Here’s the roundup:

CBS Margaret Brennan clutches her pearls and sits aghast at the audacity of the United States to kill a terrorist on foreign soil: “what right do you have” she condescendingly snarls, positioning herself as more experienced in the world than Secretary Pompeo.  With dramatic flair and purposeful constitution, Brennan rises to protect the Iranian regime.

ABC George Stephanopoulos is shocked, s.h.o.c.k.e.d, that U.S. policy would mean Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani could be killed.



Fox News Chris Wallace worries “what if Iran responds”? What happens if we end up fighting with Iran? D’oh. Iran has been at war against us for decades.


🇺🇸

Margaret Brennan Hosts a Cocktail Conversation With General Petraeus – Clueless Duo Can’t See What’s Coming

credit: sundance at CTH

Good grief there’s a lot to unpack within this insufferable beltway cocktail party disguised as a high-brow TV review of the U.S-Iraq-Iran conflict. (Video Below)  However, both of them are clueless about what President Trump is about to do.

First, the generous opinion of General Petraeus as a military strategist is massively inflated. As the recently released Afghanistan Papers have revealed the entire premise of the Petraeus’ strategy was based on lies; fundamental falsehoods; and an upper-tier military devoid of anyone willing to say the emperor was naked. It was all BS.


Secondly, and in support for the first point, any General who would commit himself to a career blackmail position by engaging in grossly inappropriate sexual conduct with a pontificating pustule like Paula Broadwell isn’t exactly a smart fella; and that’s without even considering the Kelly sisters leading him by the penis when Petraeus was CentCom Commander.

Internationally espousing a break-through in a mid-east anti-terror strategy while simultaneously positioning himself to be hoodwinked and blackmailed by the political powers in DC does not lend itself to strategically intelligentbona fides.

The outcome of that Broadwell hot-mess was leverage deployed against General Petraeus when he was CIA director and the crisis around the State Department and CIA joint operational station in Benghazi, Libya, erupted. In the aftermath the Panetta/Clinton operation needed an ally, enter interim political ideologue Michael Morell to replace Petraeus after ODNI James Clapper told the General to exit, or else.

Also, don’t overlook that General Petraeus’ wife, Holly Petraeus, went to work for Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; which we all know was a deep state Democrat racketeering operation to gain money from the extortion of banks.  What’s that they say about “birds” and “feathers”? … I digress.

Thirdly, cocktail party host Margaret Brennan is trying way too hard to give the intellectual appearances. This is the kind of third-rate interview to be expected during a DC symposium held just prior to the charity auction where the elitist audience bids thousands for a banana duct-taped to the wall.

The audience oooh’s and aaaahs, meanwhile the kitchen staff -who switched labels on the wine bottles- are laughing hysterically at the participants…. Good grief this is silly.
Notice a sequence Petraeus alluded to:…
  • Iran took out a U.S. drone, and President Trump held-back.
  • Iran attacked ships in the Straights of Hormuz, yet President Trump held back.
  • Iran attacked Saudi oil-fields, and again President Trump held back.
  • However, Iran attacked a U.S. base killing an American, wounding three more, and President Trump then vaporized Iranian terrorist Soleimani.
Yet for some reason both General Petraeus and Margaret Brennan cannot seem to identify the difference in the final attack that drew a response not evident in the prior three?

Tell me again about this “brilliant military strategist” who sits in puzzled amazement pontificating about “strategy” yet cannot identify the difference between smashing machines, robots and equipment and killing an actual living, breathing, American citizen.

Just before you pause to consider what is in this video, remind yourself how the Ukraine government offered Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman the job to become their Minister of Defense.


TRUMP: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me. I would bomb the shit out of them. (Applause) I would just bomb those suckers. And, that’s right, I’d blow up the pipe, I’d blow up the re — I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left. And do you know what? You will get Exxon to come in there in two months. They will rebuild that sucker brand new, it will be beautiful … and then I would take the oil.”…


If Iran retaliates against us, look for that quote to be behind the response.  When President Trump says “important to Iran and the Iranian culture” he is talking about it from an economic perspective.

Our President will destroy Iran’s capacity to sell oil…. that’s the strategy…. It’s always about the economics. That’s what the knucklehead Generals and TV pontificating pundits don’t understand.



Qasem Soleimani: Let British troops stay in Iraq, UK urges

No 10 has urged Iraq to allow UK troops to stay in the country following the US assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, saying their work is vital.
Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike in Iraq on Friday on the orders of President Donald Trump.
Iraqi MPs responded to the strike by passing a non-binding resolution calling for an end to the foreign military presence in their country.
European leaders have called for all sides to show restraint.
Boris Johnson will chair a meeting of senior ministers later to discuss the deepening crisis and spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi by phone on Monday morning.
A Downing Street spokesperson said the leaders discussed the need to "deescalate tensions in the region" and "agreed to work together to find a diplomatic way forward".
"The prime minister underlined the UK's unwavering commitment to Iraq's stability and sovereignty and emphasised the importance of the continued fight against the shared threat from Daesh [the Islamic State group]".

About 400 British troops are stationed in Iraq, while the US has 5,200.
Caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Mr Abdul Mahdi spoke in favour of US and other foreign forces leaving the country, although most Sunni and Kurdish MPs boycotted the vote.
A UK government spokesman said that coalition forces were in Iraq to protect its people and others from the Islamic State group, at the request of the Iraqi government.
Meanwhile, a British frigate and destroyer - HMS Montrose and HMS Defender - are to start accompanying UK-flagged ships through the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf, where a tanker was seized by Iran last July.

In a joint statement issued on Sunday night, Mr Johnson, Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron said the current cycle of violence "must be stopped" and called on Iran to refrain from further violent action and proliferation.
The three leaders said they were concerned by the "negative" role Iran has played in the region but called on "all parties to exercise utmost restraint and responsibility".
With tensions rising in the region, Iran has responded by vowing revenge and announcing it will no longer abide by the restrictions in its 2015 nuclear deal.
The deal limited Iranian nuclear capacities in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
A No 10 spokesman said Iran's announcement was "extremely concerning".
"It's in everyone's interest that the deal remains in place," he said, adding that "it makes the world safer".
"We've always said the nuclear deal is a reciprocal deal and in light of Iran's announcement we are urgently speaking to partners about next steps," the spokesman said.
In their statement, the three European leaders urged the country to "reverse all measures inconsistent with" the deal.

Mr Johnson said he spoke to President Trump on Sunday about the assassination of the Iranian general, who spearheaded the country's military operations in the Middle East as head of the elite Quds Force.
The White House said the two leaders had "reaffirmed the close alliance between the two countries".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51004218

Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globe Monologue Shredded Every Hollywood Sacred Cow and It Was Glorious



The 2020 Golden Globe Awards were held in Hollywood Sunday night and host Ricky Gervais did not disappoint. In his opening monologue the British comedian warned everyone in attendance that nothing was off the table and he had zero flips to give. This was Gervais’ fifth time hosting the awards and he claims it is his last.
You’ll be pleased to know this is the last time I’ll ever host the Golden Globes. I don’t care anymore… I’m joking. I never did.
There are a lot of people who have given up on awards shows and the never-ending stream of tired, self-righteous political rants aimed at the very people who buy their products.

If that’s you and you chose to ignore the show for yet another year, sit down, hold on to your hat and press play on this video of Gervais’ opening monologue. It is everything you ever fantasized about a host saying to a room full of spoiled celebrities. From the culture of vanity to pedophilia to Felicity Huffman and Hollywood’s coziness with Jeffrey Epstein – Gervais tore down every single sacred cow of Tinseltown and dared people not to laugh. He called out every glaring painful hypocrisy and it was glorious.
If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?
And watch to the very end. The last minute makes it all worth it. It will blow your pants off.

Gervais proved that they can’t cancel you if you don’t acknowledge you’re cancelled in the first place.


Iran: ‘Death to America!’ MSM, Democrats and Hollywood: ‘How can we help?’


 
 Beirut U.S. barracks bombing


Article by M. Catharine Evans in "The American Thinker":

The successful U.S. drone strike against a top level Iranian enemy combatant responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans has roused the Democrats, their media mouthpieces and Hollywood haters to defend the terrorist and vilify President Trump. With their responses to the annihilation of  Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the Trump haters have officially joined Iran's "Death to America" war against the United States.

For the record, Soleimani wasn't in Iraq last week to take in the sights or recite his poetry. President Trump made it clear in a post-strike address to the nation, the target was there coordinating a military operation against American troops and diplomats. This didn't stop everyone from Bernie Sanders to CNN to PBS to the New York Times to a mentally disturbed, washed-up actress from declaring their bleeding-heart support for Iran's "most revered military leader."

According to CBS, Soleimani was an "inspirational military genius." CNN's Anderson Cooper compared him to France’s WW II hero, Charles de Gaulle,  while his cohort, Fareed Zakaria,  described the now defunct General Soleimani as "heroic, "brave and "revered." The New Yorker depicted Soleimani as a "flamboyant former construction worker with snowy white hair, a dapper beard and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows" who rose to power in 1998 as the head of the Quds Force, “an Iranian unit of commandos comparable to the U.S. SEALs, Delta Force and Rangers combined."

The air strike that killed Soleimani and several others early on Friday also  prompted Peoples World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, to stand in solidarity with Democrats in their opposition to the military action. In a compilation of various reactions from Democratic presidential hopefuls and their colleagues, the CPUSA writer agrees with the Democrats that Trump is to blame for any impending retaliation, not Iran.


Joe Biden stated Trump "just launched a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox." Senator Bernie Sanders lamented the fact that members of the Democrat Party along with the GOP voted to pass the annual war budget bill last month after anti-Iran war provisions were stripped out of it. "I was right about Vietnam. I was right about Iraq. I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran and I apologize to no one," said Sanders. Pelosi called Trump's decision "disproportionate and provocative.” Senator Tom Udall(D-Utah) said the killing of Soleimani was "a reckless escalation of hostilities" and put us “on the brink of an illegal war with Iran."

In addition to politicians, presidential candidates and media pundits siding with Iran, Hollywood liberals jumped on the Ayatollah train. A 46-year-old impaired looking actress named Rose McGowan tweeted out an apology to Iran saying "the United States is morally corrupt and acts illegally. It is only logical to appeal to Iran's pride by apologizing." Actor John Cusack said Trump's actions were "full fascist 101 mode."

The perpetually race-obsessed Nike spokesperson, Colin Kaepernick, tweeted: "America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad. America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world."

How long before we see Kaepernick peddling Soleimani Nike sneakers?

The traitorous left in this country are openly aiding the enemies of America. Quoting President Trump, “these people are sick.”

Deifying Qassem Soleimani and Cheering on Iran



I’ve been battling an awful cold all week which is why you haven’t heard much from me.  Sorry about that.  And though I haven’t been writing much, I have been paying attention to the news.  Which, frankly, has only made me feel significantly sicker.  The anti-American left is actually deifying Qassem Soleimani and cheering on Iran.

What is wrong with these people?

Under the guise of being “anti-war,” these dregs of society are mourning a man who slaughtered thousands.

Qassem Soleimani wasn’t some peace-loving cleric.  He orchestrated and funded terror proxies in the Middle East, Africa, not to mention Central and South America.

And yet these fools are treating him like he was friggin’ Gandhi.

For Pete’s sake, look at this:


As one guy put it on Twitter, “If you’re memorializing Soleimani, you’re not really anti-war, are you?”

When Elizabeth Warren had the temerity to call Qassem Soleimani a “murderer,” Leftists were furious.

And now, out of fear of upsetting her base, Liz is changing her tune:


I haven’t seen Leftists run this kind of defense for someone since Greta Thunberg – you know, the other person they’ve been deifying.

But at least Greta hasn’t butchered thousands of people in the Middle East.

These fools are weeping for a monster.

And you can bet your by golly wow they never once wept for the Americans he maimed and killed.

But as anti-American Leftists mourn, those who have borne the brunt of Soleimani’s wickedness are celebrating.


Twitter has been an absolute cesspool for the last two days.  I mean more so than usual.
These idiots who are mourning Qassem Soleimani are also cheering on the Iranian regime’s every threatening tweet.

Case in point:

Deifying Qasem Soleimani and Cheering on Iran
Yay!  Do it, Iran! Rock Bad Orange Man’s world!!!

This is an American citizen cheering on Iran hoping they attack the United States just to spite the President.

Naturally, she has #Resist in her Twitter bio.

When your hatred for Trump has you deifying a monster like Qassem Soleimani and cheering the prospect of Americans being killed in retaliatory strikes, you aren’t anti-war.  You’re anti-American.


Honey, it’s been trendy on the Left for more than a generation.

I lived through the Reagan era.  I remember how the American Left sided with the Soviet Union while caterwauling that President Reagan was a war criminal.

I remember Democrat politicians cozying up to the Kremlin in order to undermine Reagan’s foreign policy of “peace through strength.”

As I said the other day, there is nothing new under the sun.

The Left can’t help itself. Their anti-American stance is reflexive — like an involuntary burp.

Only this time instead of siding with the USSR, they’re sucking up to Iran — a tyrannical, theocratic terror state that slaughters its own people. And they’re happily regurgitating and promoting Iranian propaganda.

This goes beyond Trump Derangement.

When you go to such extremes as mourning and deifying a monster like Qassem Soleimani while cheering on Iran, you’re not simply anti-Trump.

You’re a horrible, hateful human being.