John Hinderacker has a post over at PowerLine about war crime hysteria on the Left.
The Democrats hyperventilate endlessly over hypothetical offenses that President Trump hasn’t committed and, I venture to say, won’t commit. Meanwhile, there is no reason to assure the mullahs that anything if off limits if they continue to kill Americans, something about which no prominent Democrat, to my knowledge, is expressing any concern.
There are two important points there. The first is that President Trump hasn’t ordered any further actions yet, and I doubt he will unless the Iranians are foolish enough to invite such an attack.
The second is the warning to the Iranians that we won’t be deterred from attacking one of their military assets if it has been placed at a cultural site. IANAL, but my training in the laws of war that I received as an Army officer was that it a war crime to place a military asset at such a cultural site—or a school, hospital, or place of worship—but that it was legal to attack such a target. If the Iranians have illegally hidden assets where they shouldn’t be, they have now been given fair warning to move them or risk the consequences. (I suspect that Trump is not so subtilely reminding the Iranians of how good our targeting intelligence has been and that we have reasonably good knowledge of where many of their assets are hidden.)
Wouldn’t it be great if the Democrats were pro-America, rather than pro-Iran and pro-terrorist? That is a world that we once knew, but is now hard even to imagine. I don’t expect we will see it again in our lifetimes, unless the Democrats are dealt electoral defeats so crushing as to dictate a total realignment of their party.
Just so. Read the whole thing.
Last week, a must-count indictment was unsealed against Ahmad Khawaja, the CEO of an online payment processing company. He and several others were charged with making and concealing improper and excessive campaign contributions, most related to the 2016 election cycle. Specifically, Khawaja is charged with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of making conduit contributions, three counts of causing excessive contributions, 13 counts of making false statements, 13 counts of causing false records to be filed, and one count of obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation.
There’s a list of his contributions here. I found these to be … um … interesting.Hmmmm.
Reaction in Virginia to gun control proposals from members of the incoming Democrat majority in the state legislature has been swift and decisive. Over 90 % of Virginia’s counties and many of its independent cities are now Second Amendment sanctuaries. However, they aren’t the only sanctuary jurisdictions in the state. Arlington, Chesterfield, and Fairfax Counties are immigration sanctuaries.
BTW, there is exactly no overlap between counties protecting gun rights and those protecting illegal immigration. No one has bothered to bring the 2A sanctuary question before the supervisors in the DC suburban counties. When it was brought up on 11 December in Chesterfield (just south of Richmond) by a large crowd of voters, the supervisor deferred the subject to a later meeting.
John Hinderacker has a post over at PowerLine about the Democrat’s cockiness and overreach that led to the rapid growth of the 2A sanctuary movement in Virginia.
The Democrats have died on this hill more than once before. It seems obvious that, to stick with the case at hand, their riling up Virginia’s gun owners will hurt them politically and will serve no tangible goal. So why do they do it?
Maybe they are true believers. Maybe they honestly think that if we add two or three more gun regulations to the thousands that already exist, violence will magically wither away, despite all evidence to the contrary. But despite my low opinion of liberals, I don’t think they are that dumb. I think, rather, that most of them hate the sort of people who own firearms, and simply want to harass and delegitimize them. I don’t think there is any more noble objective in view, which is why the gun sanctuary movement has taken off with lightning speed.
Yep. They’re not that dumb. They want us deplorables humiliated and brought to heel.
None of the Democrats running for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination are without some serious defect. Kamala Harris has thrown in the towel after never being able to overcome having her corrupt record as a prosecutor exposed by Tulsi Gabbard. Rep. Gabbard has offered the least insane platform positions, and that’s a serious defect for attracting votes from the Democrat base. Mayor Pete’s gayness is intersectionally insufficient with many minority voters. Fauxcahontas comes off as a scold who reminds too many voters of their mothers-in-law. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is based on envy and has nothing positive to offer. And Joe Biden is Joe Biden.
So who will be the next to drop out?
Ed Morrissey has a post over at Hot Air suggesting that Warren is next. He takes note of polling that shows Warren’s appeal declining. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows her at 9 percent.
The nine percent result includes independents likely to vote in a Democratic primary, and that’s where Warren’s biggest trouble lies. Among those independents, Warren only scored 3% — which puts her behind Biden (12%), Buttigieg (6%), Sanders (5%), and even Michael Bloomberg (4%). Warren’s tied with Andrew Yang among Democrat-voting independents. Among only Democrats, Warren comes in third at 13%, but that’s thirteen points below Joe Biden.
Warren also scores third overall as a second choice candidate, but fourth among independents. Who comes in third? Bloomberg. Warren appears to have a major problem with independent voters, and that’s going to be a yuuuuge problem if she ends up winning the nomination.
Behind Bloomberg? The guy who wants to outlaw Big Gulps?
It’s being reported that the Baby Yoda character on the new Disney series The Mandalorian is generating twice as much social media buzz as any of the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates.
It seems The Force is more powerful than The Farce.
IANAL, but no rational rules of evidence allow for hearsay when the direct testimony of actual witnesses is available.
Oh, this is from the Democrats’ House Impeachment Hoax hearing. My bad.
My podcasting partner Stacy McCain has been writing (here and here) about Rep. Katie Hill and her current difficulty handling the PR fallout from matters related to her husband’s filing for divorce. I’ve stayed away from the story because I didn’t have anything to add to coverage.
However, I will make these observations:
Rep. Hill is not the only female Democrat involved in a campaign/office related divorce.
We were told by our betters that women would be different.
Whether one believes that we are an evolved species or a specially created one, long-term monogamous sexual partnerships really do seem to be the best way to structure our lives.