Tag Archives: Ed Morrissey

Be Wary When The Lobster Shows Up

Posted on by

On Saturday, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the rising tensions with Iran.

The article notes:

What will happen next in the standoff with Iran? Donald Trump drew a red line nearly two months ago, and the regime brutally crossed it. Trump acknowledged this yesterday, announcing that US intelligence estimates the mullahs murdered more than 32,000 Iranian protesters last month:

…Since those massacres, Trump has assembled one of the largest naval and air armadas the Middle East has ever seen. He has demanded that Ali Khamenei stop all uranium enrichment activities, put serious limits on its ballistic-missile systems, and end support for terror proxies Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Iran keeps trying to offer a sequel to the deal the mullahs cut with Barack Obama, a JCPOA-Lite that only addresses their nuclear-weapons development – and that only for the next three to five years. 

The article notes:

Taking Khamenei and his princeling off the chessboard would be satisfying, but it would change very little. They are not the only mullahs in the clique that runs the theocracy in Iran. The other mullahs are almost certainly not living in close connection to each other, either, likely housed in residential districts where civilian collateral deaths would be almost a certainty. A decapitation strike would have to be timed for a plenary meeting of the mullahs, and the Iranian regime would be idiotic to call one at this time. This option might take the Khameneis out, but another mullah will take their place, and so on. It would end nothing. 

So what’s next? Whatever it is, it may come quickly. The Times of Israel reports today that an “unbridgeable impasse” has emerged in the indirect talks between the US and Iran, likely over Trump’s demand for a full-spectrum retreat by Iran. It’s bad enough that the Iranians are refusing to read US proposals on missile limits:

On Sunday, MSN reported the following:

While there is no official confirmation, a common belief suggests the US military serves its troops a ‘last meal’ with a fancy menu including steak, lobster, and pie, before sending them on a war front. Some link the hearty meal to a dangerous deployment or an extended mission. The theory has circulated on social media for years and often resurfaces during periods of geopolitical tensions. …

Last year, in June, similar reports surfaced on social media on June 18 after military soldier Antonia Lopez posted a lavish meal video that went viral on social media. The day also coincided with the US Army’s birthday. In the clip, Lopez showed that she was given steak, lobster, caprese salad, asparagus, hush puppies, a baked potato, shrimp cocktail, fruit salad, garlic bread, cake, and pecan pie in the meal.

Days after the video was posted, the United States carried out military strikes on Iranian targets on June 22.

Hang on to your hats–the road ahead is going to be bumpy for a little while!

Pulling An Ace Out Of A Hole

Posted on by

The one thing that the Congressional Democrats are really great at doing is not understanding the consequences of their actions. They do not understand that many of today’s Republicans are not as willing to roll over and play dead as their former Congressional members. The attempt to blackmail Americans by planning to shut down the government if budget cuts are not restored may not work out the way Senator Schumer wants it to.

On Thursday, Ed Morrissey posted the following at Hot Air:

The deadline for a government shutdown is fast approaching, and Schumer tried to play hardball this week. He and Hakeem Jeffries demanded a meeting with Trump to negotiate, which Trump initially accepted, but canceled after the pair demanded a massive list of concessions before the meeting took place. Schumer then told the press that Trump was “chicken” and that any shutdown would be his fault — even though the House had already passed the clean CR that Schumer had demanded when Joe Biden was president-ish.

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal reported:

The White House’s budget office directed federal agencies to draw up plans to permanently reduce their workforces if there is a government shutdown next week, raising the specter of mass firings on top of the customary furloughs during a lapse in funding. 

The new memo sent by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought sharply raises the stakes for funding talks and increases the pressure on Senate Democrats, who are demanding that Republicans restore hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare spending as a condition of their support for keeping the government funded.

…The OMB memo instructs agencies to design reduction-in-force plans for employees who work for programs that have no current funding and have no outside funding source, and that are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” This would be in addition to any temporary furloughs that happen during a government shutdown. 

The memo from Vought says that any cuts made after the funding deadline would be permanent.

Never play checkers with someone who plays three-dimensional chess!

What Exactly Are You For?

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the loss of Democrat party supporters and members.

The article reports:

…The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher did a deep dive into the trends of partisan affiliation, partnering with data firm L2 to determine those ebbs and flows. (Full disclosure: L2 partnered with me on my book Going Red gratis and allowed me to use their powerful database.) If Goldmacher’s data is accurate, the census may be the least of Democrat worries.

They are in the middle of a bleed-out that may have no end in sight. They are losing ground in literally every corner of the country:

…In fact, for the first time since 2018, more new voters nationwide chose to be Republicans than Democrats last year.

All told, Democrats lost about 2.1 million registered voters between the 2020 and 2024 elections in the 30 states, along with Washington, D.C., that allow people to register with a political party. (In the remaining 20 states, voters do not register with a political party.) Republicans gained 2.4 million.

On Thursday, Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at American Greatness that might partially explain what is happening to the Democrats.

The article at American Greatness notes:

The Pavlovian Left goes berserk at the mere prospect of each new Trump initiative.

Its escalating reactive venom and hysteria are calibrated to the success of Trump’s latest policy.

Yet the new hard-left Democratic Party offers no counter-agenda to explain its furor.

Still less do Democrats attempt bipartisan efforts to craft shared legislation.

Take foreign policy.

Democrat senators trashed the recent Trump-Putin Alaskan summit as a failure. Then they became depressed when, just days later, an entourage of European leaders and President Zelensky of Ukraine suddenly flew to the White House.

The Euros praised Trump for offering some sort of negotiated pathway to peace after over three years of war and some 1.5 million dead, wounded, missing, and captured on both sides—on Europe’s doorstep.

So why did Democrats object to such negotiations by Trump?

Was the reason that no such thing occurred during the Biden administration, when Putin invaded Ukraine, after his earlier invasions during the Obama era?

What is the left’s alternate plan? The old Biden idea of supplying Ukraine with enough money and arms to keep fighting and dying, but with no path to either victory or a negotiated peace?

Would they prefer a fourth, fifth, or sixth year of war, or an additional one million casualties?

That is just one of many examples listed in the article. We know what the Democrats are against (anything President Trump is for), but what are their policies? Until Americans see solutions rather than griping from the Democrats, they will continue to lose support. We need action, not complaining.

A Definite Step In The Right Direction

Posted on by

On Thursday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about Health and Human Services using the rule-making process to prevent the federal government from directly funding sex-altering procedures on minors. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), National Review currently fund these procedures.

The article quotes The National Review:

The Department of Health and Human Services will soon begin the rule-making process to prohibit the federal government from directly funding sex-trait modifications for minors through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), National Review has learned.

The White House is in “the final stage of review for a new rule that would make it a condition of hospitals participating in Medicare or Medicaid that they not provide sex trait modifications to minors,” according to an administration official. The prohibition will apply to hospitals that provide puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries to minors.

The groundbreaking decision by the White House to use the power of the executive to ban federally funded gender-transition services for minors follows an unsuccessful attempt by congressional Republicans to ban federal funding for such practices through the budget reconciliation process. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that the legislative language included in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” did not clear the Byrd rule, prompting GOP lawmakers to spike the language from the final bill that passed earlier this month.

The article explains the significance of using the rules process for this item:

How do we know this will happen? Using the rules process practically ensures it. Most administrations make the mistake of skipping over these steps in haste to make their point, but courts take the Administrative Procedure Act very seriously. An executive order does not overcome the APA in matters such as these. The use of the rulemaking process will slow this down, but it will also ensure that the changes will be legally bulletproof, or as bulletproof as activist district courts allow them to be. 

The article concludes:

…If providers are defrauding Medicare and Medicaid to get paid directly for pediatric sex-change therapies, their CMS funding can stop immediately. HHS has the authority to enforce its rules by suspending or excluding providers engaged in fraud from federal repayments, and the DoJ can and often does take up those cases on a criminal basis as well. 

The best part of this will be the rethinking it will require. The UK has already cut its support for pediatric sex-change therapies after the Cass Review determined that puberty blockers did nothing to address pediatric gender dysphoria while essentially sterilizing children. Another major study on the issue here in the US got suppressed last year for allegedly coming to the same conclusion. Both HHS and the DoJ are already investigating several cases of detransitioners who claim now to have gotten pressured into life-changing surgeries and therapies by providers who also receive CMS funding.

HHS sent a warning signal in May over the lack of sound scientific or medical evidence for pediatric sex-change therapies. This is just the next shoe dropping on radicalized providers pushing fad medicine and maiming children for virtue signaling. It won’t be the last. 

This is child abuse and needs to be stopped. Cutting off the federal funding is a good first step in that direction.

A Prelude To The End Of The War?

Posted on by

On Thursday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the rapid changes happening in the war in Gaza. Hamas is in an awkward position now that a lot of the leadership in Iran has been removed. It is not clear how much funding Hamas continues to get from Iran. Evidently other countries in the Middle East have taken note of the recent actions against Iran.

The article reports:

Symbolic? Maybe, maybe not. If true, Hamas leaders didn’t just get a soft ultimatum from Donald Trump this week. 

Yesterday, Trump warned Hamas that the final deal for a cease-fire in Gaza was on the table, and that all other options would get “MUCH WORSE.” Qatar may have decided to raise the stakes to something more personal for Hamas’ billionaire clique in Doha:

Doha-based senior Hamas leaders have been told to lay down their arms as part of the efforts to reach a ceasefire deal with Israel, according to a Thursday morning report from The Times newspaper. …

The Times stated that those told to lay down their weapons were “the most senior Hamas leaders outside Gaza,  including the lead negotiator Khalil al-Hayya and other key figures.”

One of the key figures reportedly included Hamas political ­bureau member Zaher Jabareen, “a founder of the group’s military wing in the West Bank.”

An additional bureau member told to lay down weapons was Muhammad Ismail Darwish, who had “met the leaders of Iran and Turkey this year while shuttling between Cairo and Doha for indirect negotiations with Israel,” the report said.

The Times credits this as a “symbolic reflection of Hamas’ interest in the ceasefire proposal,” but that doesn’t make much sense. If Hamas wanted to send that kind of signal, their Qatar contingent would have voluntarily and unilaterally disarmed. They wouldn’t have needed the Qataris to order them to disarm.

That makes this sound like a much different kind of signal. The Qataris are likely as tired of playing the Hamas Hokey Pokey as everyone else, for one thing, while their leadership fattens up on “aid” meant for Palestinians. However, it may mean more than that, especially after the strike on Fordow by Trump and the B-2 bombers. That didn’t just send a signal to Tehran, but to Doha as well — and the rocket fire on Qatar afterward probably didn’t help, either.

This is definitely a wait-and-see moment. It is very possible that the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities may have had a larger impact than initially realized.

Authoritarian?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about some of the antics of the Biden administration that have been recently exposed. It seems that there were a lot of Americans whose privacy was invaded during the four years of President Biden.

The article reports:

Gavin Newsom and leading Democrats have spent the last few days fulminating about “authoritarianism” by Donald Trump for sending National Guard and Marine units to protect federal law enforcement agents and sites. What will they have to say when they discover that the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice spied on an industrialist supporter of the opposition party?

Oh, wait, Trump didn’t do that. Joe Biden did that. For two years, according to the Wall Street Journal, Merrick Garland and Alejandro Mayorkas surveilled Elon Musk and his contacts to check out “influence.” This seems to have started around the time that Musk bought Twitter and refused to participate in the Biden administration’s Big Tech-Big Government Censorship Complex:

Several U.S. government agencies in 2022 and 2023 tracked foreign nationals coming and going to Elon Musk’s properties, according to people familiar with the matter.

The investigation included the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. It focused on people visiting the tech billionaire, from countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, who might have been trying to influence him. Until last week, Musk was one of President Trump’s closest advisers. …

The probe, predating the current Trump administration, highlights concerns about the number of foreign nationals in Musk’s orbit. Musk runs five companies, including SpaceX, with sensitive government contracts, and has had unprecedented access to top government officials.

Not to change the subject, but where was the surveillance (or the consequences under the Logan Act) when former President Obama visited 10 Downing Street in March 2024? (link here)

The article at Hot Air concludes:

This was nothing less than the weaponization of government against the political opponents of Biden Regency. Congress needs to issue subpoenas to everyone in that chain of command to explain the espionage directed at Musk, the timing of when it began, and what they were trying to do with it. House Oversight chair James Comer had better launch that ASAP, and demand testimony under oath from Garland, Mayorkas, and Becerra at the very least. It is an utter disgrace.

Finally, it might remind Elon Musk that while he may have differences with Trump at times, the two of them have far more in common than those differences. That includes political opponents who have no scruples at all about leveraging power to ruin those they see as enemies. 

It would be nice to see some results from these investigations. I am very tired of accusations and proof of wrongdoing followed by no action.

A Very Logical Argument

Posted on by

On Sunday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the Continuing Resolution (CR) now working its way through Congress.

The article reports:

What’s the argument for opposing the new CR being introduced by Speaker Mike Johnson this week? Other than being a continuing resolution, of course, which stink on ice. Congress has gotten into a bad habit over the past 20 years of failing to budget normally and properly. This year is no different, but in that same sense, this CR is both a necessity and better than all of the alternatives. This has been dysfunctional all along, but this isn’t a time to amplify it.

First off, we’re stuck with the CR process. That ship sailed last year, when Democrats controlled the Senate, Joe Biden was president (ostensibly), and House Republicans spent the year forming circular firing squads. Yes, we could write an entirely new budget instead of a CR for FY2024-25, but we’re nearly halfway through that fiscal year already. We’d have to start that process nearly from scratch too, which means we’d still need a CR to get enough time to work on it. That would take another couple of months at least under regular order — meaning the proper committee process, etc — by which time the rest of the fiscal year would be closer to a fiscal quarter. 

What would we gain from that process? We’d be unlikely to move the needle much at all on spending, and create even more time for splits to emerge in the House Republican caucus with less time to resolve them. That effort is better applied to the FY2025-26 budget, where real opportunities exist for capturing significant spending cuts through DOGE. 

He makes a very good point. Let’s get past the CR and get on with the work of finding fraud and waste in government spending. Let’s end the foreign campaign contributions funded through ActBlue, and let’s end the campaign donations and other donations made to Congressmen (and women) from companies who have legislation before Congress. Let’s look at how much the pharmaceutical industry has donated to Congress in recent years and see how that relates to legislation passed.

Let’s be done with the CR and move on to better things.

Help That Is Neither Needed Or Appreciated

Posted on by

On Friday, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the Senate Democrats’ offer of bipartisanship on the border. They wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune that they would be glad to provide input on any border security bill under consideration by the Republicans. Really?!!? I would love to know what the Democrats’ definition of border security is. The last bill the Democrats proposed for border security allowed for 2500 illegal entries per day in exchange for a gauzy promise to maybe build the wall at some point in the future. Somehow I don’t think they are serious about border security.

The article reports:

The push came in a Jan. 22 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., which was led by Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and signed by 12 other Democrats, mostly from politically competitive states.

“We understand that Senate Republicans have discussed using the budget reconciliation process to advance border security budget measures without any Democratic input. While that’s your right, in working together on a bipartisan basis, we can achieve the best outcome for the American people,” the Democrats wrote. “We remain ready to work with you in good faith to craft legislation that can achieve bipartisan support and 60 votes in the Senate.”

…Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., laughed out loud when asked about the letter and whether Republicans might accept their overture.

“That’s a letter we will ignore,” Johnson said in an interview. “We’re not going to wait for them. If they want to secure the border, they could have done that,” he added. “That’s not what they want.”

…Republicans have gotten burned on this issue repeatedly. Democrats spent years playing them as racists for wanting the border secured and illegals deported, but Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office made it clear that Donald Trump and the GOP are the mainstream point of view on illegal immigration, and that voters consider Democrats incompetent or worse on the issue. That’s why several Democrats rejected their leadership to vote for the Laken Riley Act, after having attempted to hijack it last year to push for relaxing asylum rules and enshrining stampede-levels of illegal border crossings as thresholds for “emergency” treatment. 

NBC also notes why Democrats have suddenly found an interest in getting on the right side of immigration enforcement:

Democrats in battleground states and districts are breaking with the bulk of their party on immigration, as they believe that the positions of progressives and leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are out of touch with their voters. The rightward shift comes after Democrats got clobbered on the issue of immigration in the 2024 election, and lost Latino men to Trump.

Asking the Democrats for help with the border would be like asking a fox to help design the hen house.

The Biden Administration Continues To Get It Wrong On Israel

Posted on by

Israel was brutally attacked on October 7th, 2023. At that time, Gaza was independently governed, Israelis were not present in Gaza, and many residents of Gaza were commuting to Israel for better-paying jobs. There was essentially a two-state solution. Obviously, Hamas was not satisfied with the status quo–they want control of Jerusalem. The Biden administration’s actions and policies toward Israel since that day have been a disgrace to our nation. Recently Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke out against the bad judgement of the Biden administration.

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported:

Speaking to the Knesset today, Netanyahu ripped the guidance and pressure from Biden and Antony Blinken over the last thirteen months in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attacks. Every single strategic demand made by Biden and Blinken during that time turned out to be wrong, which echoes a warning made by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates about Biden’s supposed foreign-policy expertise.

…For those who don’t recall, Gates served both George W. Bush and Barack Obama as Defense Secretary. In his memoir Duty, Gates wrote that then-VP Biden has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” Biden has spent the last three-plus years proving Gates’ point, especially in his disgraceful rout out of Kabul and abandonment of 14,000 Americans to the Taliban. But Biden’s attempts to play general in Israel’s war against Iran and its proxies since the October 7 massacres provides ample proof of Gates’ insight as well. 

The article notes:

The Biden-Harris administration on Monday unveiled sweeping new sanctions on Israeli Jews, just days after it awarded another $230 million in taxpayer funds to the Palestinians. The back-to-back announcements signal that diplomatic relations between Israel and the outgoing White House will continue to sour until President-elect Donald Trump retakes office next year.

The new sanctions are the broadest to date, imposing unprecedented punitive measures on three Israeli organizations the administration accuses of fomenting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. They were leveled just days after a coalition of nearly 90 congressional Democrats petitioned the Biden administration to ramp up sanctions on Israel before leaving the White House.

The sanctions were announced just three days after the Biden-Harris administration awarded another $230 million in funding for humanitarian projects in the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. The American government has now sent more than $2 billion in taxpayer funds to the Palestinians since Hamas’s Oct. 7 terror spree on Israel—even as critics warn this cash is keeping Hamas on life support.

The Biden administration is currently on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the God of Israel. That’s not a good place to be, and hopefully the Trump administration will change things quickly in January.

Confirming What We Already Knew

Posted on by

On Saturday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about some recent Hamas documents captured by Israel in the war against Hamas.

The article reports.

German magazine Bild reports on a Hamas strategy document captured in Gaza that comes from the poisoned pen and mind of Yahya Sinwar himself. The document, if authentic, lays out the full hostaging strategy Hamas planned to employ in this war. It will come as no surprise to anyone at this point — outside the White House, anyway — that Sinwar has no interest in cease-fires or a two-state solution.

His real interests? Psychological torture and the annihilation of Israel, with his own survival somewhere in between. This comes from a Google translation of the original German:

Now a previously unknown document from Hamas’ military intelligence service shows how the terrorists are manipulating the international community, torturing the hostage families and seeking to rearm. And also that they are just as indifferent to a quick end to the war as they are to the suffering of Palestinian civilians.

▶︎ The document in which Hamas sets out its negotiating strategy was found on a computer that is said to belong to the terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar (61). He is said to have personally approved the content. The letter dates from spring 2024 and is available exclusively to BILD. … 

What is particularly perfidious is that Hamas is abusing the kidnapped hostages to improve its negotiating position. The document states frankly:

“Continue to exert psychological pressure on the families of the prisoners, both now and during the first phase (of the ceasefire, ed.) , so that public pressure on the enemy government increases.”

The recent protests in Israel illustrate the possible success of Sinwar’s plan. Unless the country unites behind Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is quite possible that the war will drag on unnecessarily and significantly weaken Israel. Obviously that is what Sinwar wants. Unfortunately,  America, knowingly or unknowingly, has helped Sinwar in this effort.

A change in personnel in Washington is the solution to the unrest in the Middle East. America needs to elect a President and a Congress that will support Israel in its battle against the forces of terrorism. The Biden administration’s desire to make a deal with Iran has destabilized the Middle East and undone the work of the Abraham Accords. If Americans want peace in the Middle East, they need to consider the move toward war in the Biden administration versus the move toward peace in the Trump administration.

Betraying An Ally For Political Gain

Posted on by

On Monday, PJ Media posted an article about the Biden administration’s attempts to free the American hostages held captive in Gaza. While I agree that the American hostages should be freed, I also believe that the effort to free them should also be part of a larger effort to solve the problem of Hamas terrorism. Unfortunately, that is not the path the Biden administration has chosen.

The article reports:

It’s a line we’ve heard in countless movies and TV shows. Get the picture: a terrorist group hijacks a plane, kidnaps an American, or otherwise takes over something on U.S. soil, and the country’s leaders are discussing what to do. Usually, the president or someone else in the administration says that inevitable line: “We do not negotiate with terrorists!”

If we are to believe a report from NBC, that’s not the case anymore. Or, as my colleague Ed Morrissey put it: “Old and busted: America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. New hotness: We’d rather cut a deal with terrorists than support our ally.”

NBC is reporting that the White House is ready to work on a deal to get five hostages back from Hamas along with the remains of three dead hostages while leaving Israel out of the loop:

The article also includes a screenshot of a Tweet illustrating another way the Biden administration is trying to undermine the Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The article also notes:

“Not only is this effort from Biden and Antony Blinken despicable, it’s incredibly stupid,” Ed Morrissey wrote. “They want to reward Hamas for the October 7 massacre and want to punish the Israelis for grasping its existential import.”

Add this to the growing list of Biden’s foreign policy failures. “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said of Biden 10 years ago. Make that five decades because his treatment of Israel is shameful and wrong.

Genesis 12:3 states:

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (KJV)

The Biden administration might want to keep this in mind.

 

The Perversion Of Justice Continues

Posted on by

When something is called a crime but has no victim and the people who were supposedly injured by the ‘crime’ say that they were not injured, what is the appropriate punishment? In New York the punishment is to destroy the person who didn’t commit the crime because you dislike his politics and he might become President.

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted the following screenshot and commentary:

So this is a pre-emptive penalty because no actual fraud occurred?

This quirk in New York’s appellate procedure certainly offers one explanation. Engoron and AG Letitia James want to use the process as the punishment, and want to denude Trump of his legitimate wealth right in the middle of a political campaign they oppose. The massive fine will force Trump to either leverage these properties — and with banks outside of New York, thanks to Engoron — or to sell them off and put a large chunk of his wealth into the hands of New York for years. 

Did Engoron deliberately scale up the judgment to put Trump in this position? Let’s just say that New York’s system incentivizes it — and based on his deportment in the trial, it’s a reasonable conclusion.

It’s tough to overstate the absurdity of this situation. Appellate courts exist to allow citizens to seek redress for injustices in trials, both criminal and civil, that would result in ruination otherwise. This stands that process on its head. To seek redress for an injustice in a New York courtroom, the citizen must participate in his ruination just to knock on the door — even if an injustice has truly occurred. 

Please follow the link to the article to see exactly what is going on. I firmly believe that this verdict will have a chilling effect on business growth in New York in the coming years.

 

Things That Stand In The Way Of Freeing The Israeli Hostages

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about another planned terrorist attack on Israel that was stopped because of good intelligence and military action.

The article reports:

Perhaps Hamas has not received the memo. Using hospitals as cover and human-shield strategies while plotting terrorist attacks no longer works, at least according to the IDF and Shin Bet. Acting on intelligence that Hamas’ leadership abroad had coordinated weapons distribution from a cell embedded in a Jenin hospital, the IDF conducted a raid and killed its leader and two other operatives.

Hamas had planned to run another October 7-style massacre out of the West Bank using the Ibn Sina hospital as its command center, Israel claims:

According to the Jerusalem Post:

According to a joint statement by the IDF, Israel Police’s YAMAM counterterrorism forces, and the Shin Bet, Hamas terrorist Mohammad Jalamna was killed during the operation, along with two fellow terrorists who hid alongside him at the hospital.

27-year-old Jalamna, a resident of the Jenin refugee camp, held direct communications with Hamas leadership abroad. According to the statement, he was responsible for transferring weaponry and ammunition to Hamas terrorists across the West Bank for shooting attacks targeting Israelis. …

Furthermore, Jalamna used the Jenin hospital as a secret base of operations as he was planning an infiltration attack akin to and inspired by the October 7 massacre, it added.

At some point, we have to admit that the only solution to terrorism is to kill all of the terrorists.

The Times of Israel reported:

“This is not another round, not another exchange of strikes, not another operation – a complete victory,” he tells the Bnei David military academy in Eli. “Nothing less than that. I am committed to it, our fighters are committed to it, and the absolute majority of the people are committed to it. We will not settle for less than total victory.”

Turning to reports of a hostage deal, Netanyahu says that Israel “will not end this war with less than the achievement of all its goals. This means the elimination of Hamas, the return of all our hostages, and the promise that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel.”

“We will not remove the IDF from the Gaza Strip and we will not release thousands of terrorists,” he pledges. “None of this will happen. What will happen? Absolute victory!”

Most Israelis understand that they live in a dangerous neighborhood. They need to let the Netanyahu government finish what Hamas started on October 7.

Even Hamas Opposes A Two-State Solution!

Posted on by

On Monday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about a recent comment by Hamas Leader Abroad Khaled Mashal.

The article reports:

For Khaled Mashal, it marked the first time that Hamas successfully turned the West into cheerleaders for their genocide, which fuels their fight in Gaza to this day. “From the river to the sea” means exactly what it states, Mashal asserts in this interview caught by MEMRI — and that is a radical-Islamist Palestinian state replacing Israel entirely:

…“I believe that the dream and the hope for Palestine from the River to the Sea and from the north to the south has been renewed. This has also become a slogan chanted in the U.S. and in Western capital cities, by the American and Western public,” he said.

“Palestine is free from the River to the Sea—that’s the slogan of the American students and the [students] in European capital cities.

“The Palestinian consensus—or almost a consensus—is that we will not give up on our right to Palestinian in its entirety, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea and from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat or the Gulf of Aqaba,” he continued.

The Charter of Hamas has always said that its goal was to drive Israel into the sea. Why are we still surprised when their actions support this goal? I wonder if the Americans chanting “from the river to the sea” understand the meaning of what they are chanting.

As Americans, we need to remember that Hamas’ sponsors in Tehran routinely promise “death to America.” Only Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and their Obama-administration minders refuse to take that either seriously or literally.

 

 

Only Some Immigrants Are Really Welcome

Posted on by

On September 25th, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the Romeike family. This family fled Germany in 2008 because the German government would not allow them to home-school their children.

The article reports:

The Romeike family fled Germany in 2008 after authorities cracked down on the practice of home-schooling, and applied for asylum in the US. Initially, a judge granted their asylum request, but when the Obama administration appealed the decision, that started a long legal odyssey that may have come to an end late last week:

The family moved to the U.S. from Germany in 2008. Their application for asylum said they were fined by the German government roughly $9,000 after homeschooling their children, court documents show.

An immigration judge initially granted the family’s application for asylum. The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the decision, and the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals revoked the family’s asylum status, documents show.

The family, with the help of the U.S. Home School Defense Association, appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled against the family.

“They have not shown that Germany’s enforcement of its general school-attendance law amounts to persecution against them,” Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.

Did the Biden administration find out that they might be conservative Christians?

Please follow the link to read the rest of the article.

This is ridiculous. We have an open southern border that is letting in murderers, terrorists, cartel members, gang members, etc., and the government had decided to deport a family that includes American citizens. What level of insanity is this?

Holding People Accountable

Posted on by

On Thursday, Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about a recent common-sense ruling by the Supreme Court.

The article reports:

Alternate headline: Pottery Barn rules apply to walkouts. In an 8-1 decision in which only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson fully dissented, the Supreme Court ruled today that unions have to reimburse employers for damages caused by striking workers. The National Labor Relations Act does not confer immunity to unions or workers — the latest ruling from a court that has stiffened the boundaries for labor activities in the last few years:

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability.

The majority found that if accusations by an employer are true, actions during a strike by a local Teamsters union were not even arguably protected by federal law because the union took “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property “rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” It asked the state court to decide the merits of the accusations.

The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Three conservative justices backed more sweeping concurring opinions. A single justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

The case involved Teamsters who created truckloads of cement and then walked off the job–leaving the trucks full and no one to offload the trucks. Obviously, if the cement was left in the trucks, it would ruin the trucks. The Supreme Court (with the exception of one Justice) held the Teamsters liable for the damage they had caused. Striking is legal–damaging property is not.

The article also notes two important aspects of the case:

The Teamsters argued that they can’t be responsible for hypothetical risks to employer property in the absence of workers. Barrett emphatically rejects that, and concludes that the union organized the walkout specifically to create the highest potential risk of catastrophic damage when they had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it…

…Congress created the National Labor Relations Board to deal with labor disputes, not property torts. The latter are matters for civil litigation separate from labor-management negotiations. It’s this argument from KBJ that has Thomas call for an end to the Garmon precedent, and which Alito et al expressly reject in their concurrence. To think otherwise would be to create an Open Season on employers’ property under the guise of ‘negotiations.’

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes some very interesting arguments.

At Least Some Of Our Constitution Still Works

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about a recent ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The article reports:

A U.S. appeals court on Monday said the White House could not require federal contractors to ensure that their workers are vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of government contracts.

The U.S. government has contracts with thousands of companies, and courts have said the issue could affect up to 20% of U.S. workers.

A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold a lower court decision that blocked President Joe Biden’s September 2021 contractor vaccine executive order in those states after Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi brought suit to seek invalidation of the mandate.

The article also notes:

It’s important to remember that this case deals with private sector employees, not federal government workers. The executive branch does have the authority to set working conditions in its own workplaces, limited by the obvious laws (the Constitution especially) and the need to work within collective-bargaining contracts. In this mandate, Biden attempted to force private-sector companies that provide goods and services to the federal government to impose vaccination requirements on their own workforces, and claimed that the Procurement Act provided Biden with that authority and jurisdiction.

The article concludes:

By the way, the court never does get to one of the core issues in this mandate — the fact that the extant vaccines neither stop transmission nor uptake. They do have a demonstrated positive effect in minimizing acute and severe cases of COVID, but that’s not the issue in workplace vaccine requirements. The only reason to impose such an order would be to stop transmission of an infectious disease, which none of the vaccines actually do. The only effect is personal and individual, and so the choice should be personal as well — just as with the tobacco analogy the Fifth Circuit wisely uses for demonstration.

The administration is fighting a battle they will lose on multiple fronts, in other words. They can appeal this to the Supreme Court, but that’s likely to deliver the same result in an ironclad historical precedent. Unlike the Academia bailout, Biden has no real political interest in fighting this out with the Supreme Court, and thus we may have seen the last of this battle.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The arguments made on both sides are very interesting.

The Coming Increase In Gasoline Prices

Posted on by

On Monday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is planning a major decrease in oil production in order to get the price of oil back to $100 a barrel.

The article quotes a CNBC article:

An influential alliance of some of the world’s most powerful oil producers is reportedly considering their largest output cut since the start of the coronavirus pandemic this week, a historic move that energy analysts say could push oil prices back toward triple digits.

OPEC and non-OPEC producers, a group often referred to as OPEC+, will meet in Vienna, Austria, on Wednesday to decide on the next phase of production policy.

The oil cartel and its allies are considering an output cut of more than a million barrels per day, according to OPEC+ sources who spoke to Reuters.

“The OPEC ministers are not going to come to Austria for the first time in two years to do nothing. So there’s going to be a cut of some historic kind,” Dan Pickering, CIO of Pickering Energy Partners, said, referring to the group’s first in-person meeting since 2020.

This is the cost of America giving up its energy dependence. I can’t emphasize often enough that we were energy independent under President Trump and were able to help the American economy and the American consumer by the domestic production of oil. The election of Joe Biden changed all of that. Even if the Republicans take Congress this year and a Republican becomes President in 2024, it will take a while to bring American energy back to what it was under President Trump. Hopefully the American economy can hold out that long without collapsing.

The article concludes:

Of course, Biden could put the US on a footing that would allow us to dictate not just production levels but also heavily influence oil prices to deny Vladimir Putin his excess revenue stream. Rather than choke off exploration and extraction, Biden could cancel his EO 13990 and reverse his lease-sales policies to encourage more investment in oil and natural gas production. That would unleash massive new resources for both domestic use and export, and even the initial steps would shock oil futures markets into accounting for sudden new production levels from the US. Biden won’t do it, however, because he’s more in thrall of his progressive-environmental Left than he is focused on economic and strategic national-security concerns.

So once again, we’ll be dancing to any tune that OPEC+ plays. It’s yet another reminder of Joe Biden’s 1970s revival in all the wrong ways.

I could have dealt with leisure suits and platform shoes coming back–but I can’t deal with gas lines and ultra-expensive gasoline again.

The Globalists Have Hit A Snag

Posted on by

On Monday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the recent Italian elections.

The article reports:

Voters in yet another EU nation turned away from the leftward tilt of Brussels and more toward self-determination. Italy has elected its first right-wing coalition government in decades, and will almost certainly have its first female prime minister. Georgia Meloni led her Brothers of Italy into a dominant role in the coalition, as both CNN and Reuters describe this as “the most right-wing government since World War II”:

The mainstream media is in panic mode.

CNN reported:

Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni has claimed victory in a general election that seems set to install her as Italy’s first female prime minister, leading the most far-right government since the fascist era of Benito Mussolini.

Addressing the media and supporters in the early hours of Monday morning, Meloni said it was “a night of pride for many and a night of redemption.”

“It’s a victory I want to dedicate to everyone who is no longer with us and wanted this night,” she said. “Starting tomorrow we have to show our value … Italians chose us, and we will not betray it, as we never have,” she said.

Preliminary results put an alliance of far-right parties, led by Meloni’s ultraconservative Brothers of Italy party, on track to win at least 44% of the vote, according to the Italian Interior Ministry.

Ed Morrissey notes:

Ahem. If Italy had elected Mitt Romney, that would also be “the most far-right government” since Mussolini. In American terms, Italy’s politics has ranged from the CPUSA to, say, Bill Clinton since World War II. Even Silvio Berlusconi fit within the left-of-center EU salons while dabbling in populism and narcissism.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

Frankly, from this description, Meloni appears to be a business-as-usual politician. If Draghi finds her mainstream enough to maintain a political engagement with Meloni, and if Meloni has already set in place the relationships that will make coalition-building and consensus possible, that doesn’t sound very “fascist” to me — and not even very “far right,” for that matter. Time will tell, but this looks like yet another media freak-out over not very much except something that doesn’t suit their tastes.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It’s fun to watch the media go crazy because someone got elected who might actually understand that they work for the people.

Has This Lady Read The U.S. Constitution?

Posted on by

On Friday, The Hill posted an article about a recent comment by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

The article reports:

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said on Thursday at a conference that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is tied to its conformity to public opinion, Reuters first reported.

“I’m not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that’s a dangerous thing for a democracy,” Kagan said at a judicial conference in Montana.

…Kagan said at the conference that the court earns its legitimacy by remaining impartial and nonpartisan.

“Overall, the way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court, is by doing the kinds of things that do not seem to people political or partisan,” she said.

Kagan referenced times in history when Supreme Court justices failed to discipline themselves and instead “attempted to basically enact their own policy or political or social preferences,” saying that this puts court legitimacy at risk.

This is an amazing statement. The only thing the Supreme Court is required to be tied to is the U.S. Constitution.

On Saturday, Ed Morrissey posted the following at Hot Air:

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said on Thursday that it would be a “dangerous thing for a democracy” if the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court loses the confidence of the American public.

Speaking in public for the first time since the court’s momentous ruling last month that overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, Kagan stressed the importance of the justices staying in their proper roles as judges and not dictating public policy.

The problem with Roe v. Wade actually had very little to do with abortion. The problem with Roe v. Wade was the Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Abortion is an issue that needs to be determined by every state–by legislators voted in by the people of that state and answerable to the people of that state. The Supreme Court simply overturned a decision that was unconstitutional. They did not end abortion–they simply left it up to each state to make the laws that the people in that state want.

This Is Where We Are

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air detailing some of the players and events in recent days in Afghanistan.

The article quotes one of President Biden’s recent statements about Afghanistan:

Look, let’s put this thing in perspective here. What interest do we have in Afghanistan at this point with al Qaeda gone? We went to Afghanistan for the express purpose of getting rid of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as well as — as well as getting Osama bin Laden. And we did.

Well, not so fast.

The article reports:

Say, remember when Joe Biden assured us that al-Qaeda was “gone” from Afghanistan? Ten days later, the security chief for Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora returned to his home province in Nangarhar, amid adulation — and Taliban protection. Amin ul-Haq even flashed a thumbs-up to his admirers out an open window as Taliban troops waved his car through a checkpoint.

In FDD’s Long War Journal, Bill Roggio reports:

Dr. Amin al Haq, the former head of bin Laden’s Black Guard, was captured on video in a large convoy as it traveled through a checkpoint in Nangarhar province. Haq was accompanied by a large convoy of heavily armed Taliban fighters in brand new SUVs. A small crowd flocked to Haq to shake his hand and take selfies with him.

The video of al Haq is evidence that Al Qaeda commanders now feel secure enough to appear publicly in a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The article at Hot Air includes a screenshot of the Taliban’s new arsenal:

I don’t care how much the media spins this–it is not good news.

 

We Need To Add The Concept Of Ethics Back Into Our Scientific Work

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today related to the origins of the coronavirus. However, there is some very troubling information about some other research carried out by the Chinese in the article. It is quite possible that the coronavirus pandemic was the result of a laboratory leak at the Wuhan Laboratory, but the question remains as to exactly what was being studied during the time of the leak.

The article reports:

Ed (Morrissey)  grabbed the big takeaway from the splashy new Vanity Fair piece this morning, that federal efforts to investigate the lab-leak theory were hamstrung by numerous conflicts of interest within the public-health bureaucracy.

But here’s a provocative bit of news buried deeper in the story that’s worth some attention.

There’s no smoking gun of wrongdoing, just an … interesting coincidence.

As the NSC tracked these disparate clues, U.S. government virologists advising them flagged one study first submitted in April 2020. Eleven of its 23 coauthors worked for the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, the Chinese army’s medical research institute. Using the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR, the researchers had engineered mice with humanized lungs, then studied their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. As the NSC officials worked backward from the date of publication to establish a timeline for the study, it became clear that the mice had been engineered sometime in the summer of 2019, before the pandemic even started. The NSC officials were left wondering: Had the Chinese military been running viruses through humanized mouse models, to see which might be infectious to humans?

Believing they had uncovered important evidence in favor of the lab-leak hypothesis, the NSC investigators began reaching out to other agencies. That’s when the hammer came down. “We were dismissed,” said Anthony Ruggiero, the NSC’s senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense. “The response was very negative.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article and the related article. There seems to be a lot more to Chinese gain-of-function research than previously noted. Hopefully the truth of what was going on will be  uncovered in the near future.

Another Misnamed Bill

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill. Just as the Covid Relief Bill was not about Covid relief, the infrastructure bill is not about infrastructure.

The article quotes The Wall Street Journals description of the bill:

Most Americans think of infrastructure as roads, highways, bridges and other traditional public works. That’s why it polls well, and every President has supported more of it.

Yet this accounts for a mere $115 billion of Mr. Biden’s proposal. There’s another $25 billion for airports and $17 billion for ports and waterways that also fill a public purpose. The rest of the $620 billion earmarked for “transportation” are subsidies for green energy and payouts to unions for the jobs his climate regulation will kill. This is really a plan to build government back bigger than it has ever been.

The magnitude of spending is something to behold. There’s $85 billion for mass transit plus $80 billion for Amtrak, which is on top of the $70 billion that Congress appropriated for mass transit in three Covid spending bills. The money is essentially a bailout for unions, whose generous pay and benefits have captured funds meant for subway and rail repairs. …

Note the political irony of all this. Mr. Biden says “public investment” has fallen as a share of the economy since the 1960s, and he has a point. But the main reason is that government spending on social welfare, entitlements and public unions have squeezed out public works. Now he’s redefining social welfare as public works to drive more social-welfare spending, which will further crowd out money for public works and government R&D to compete against China.

Essentially the bill is a place to park all of the legislation the Democrats want passed, but know won’t pass if correctly named.

The article concludes:

That’s not an accident. That’s by design. Rather than stick to real infrastructure needs, Biden wants to use this bait-and-switch to aggrandize power within the Beltway and make everyone more dependent on grants from lawmakers. It is precisely on the same curve as Biden’s entire political career, including his record on honesty and transparency.

Never read the titles of bills–they never tell the truth!

False Claims To Calm The Masses

Posted on by

Yesterday Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about some recent claims made by John Kerry, President Biden’s special presidential envoy for climate. For the moment I am going to overlook the irony of a special presidential envoy for climate with a private jet and a yacht and focus on recent statements John Kerry made.

The article notes that The Washington Post gave John Kerry two Pinocchios for his recent claims about the new jobs that will be created in the solar industry.

The Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted some of John Kerry’s recent remarks:

“You look at the consequences of black lung for a miner, for instance, and measure that against the fastest-growing job in the United States before covid was solar power technician. The same people can do those jobs, but the choice of doing the solar power one now is a better choice. And similarly, you have the second-fastest-growing job pre-covid was wind turbine technician.”

— John F. Kerry, special presidential envoy for climate, in remarks at the White House, Jan. 27, 2021

“Before covid, the fastest-growing job in the United States of America was solar panel technician, and the second-fastest-growing job was wind turbine technician.”

— Kerry, remarks on MSNBC, Jan. 28

However, Mr. Kessler points out that the numbers just don’t add up:

Wind turbine jobs are projected to go up by 4,300, from 7,000 to 11,300 in 10 years. The solar installer jobs are projected to go up 6,100, from 12,000 to 18,100. That’s a total increase of just 10,400 jobs — leaving 40,000 coal workers still toiling in the mines.

…BLS has a convenient list of the 30 occupations with the most projected job growth. No. 1 is home health and personal-care aides — with a projected gain of nearly 1.2 million jobs. Nurse practitioners show up in 13th place. But wind and solar jobs don’t make the cut at all.

In fact, when we tried to find solar and wind on another BLS list — jobs ranked by projected annual openings through 2029 — we had to scroll past about 600 occupations before we landed on solar installers, with an average of 2,300 openings a year. Wind turbine jobs, with a projected average of 1,300 openings a year, was even further down the list.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

Obama, Kerry, and Biden had eight years to prove the assertion that massive government subsidies in renewable energy would pay off with “millions” of green-tech jobs.  Remind us again how many wind and solar installer jobs America currently has 12 years after the massive Porkulus bill?

The most significant lie here isn’t Kerry’s statistical claims. It’s that this administration cares one whit about energy-sector jobs while they take every step they can to destroy them without viable employment or energy options.

That’s where we are, folks!

Just Amazing

Posted on by

We heard a lot from Congressional Democrats that President Trump did not act fast enough to provide the coronavirus relief that was needed to save small businesses. That means that now that Democrats have control of all three branches of government, we can expect swift action, right? Well, not so fast.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article with the following headline, “Wait, what happened to “no time to waste” on “immediate relief”? Dems to send Biden a COVID relief bill in … March.”

The article reports:

…The Biden administration has already sent its proposal to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Supposedly, that’s part of their ready on Day One agenda. Not that it had to be, since we just passed a trillion-dollar relief package less than four weeks ago. However, Democrats ever since have complained that it was insufficient, and those insufficiencies amounted to a crisis.

CNet followed up this morning by reading tea leaves in Schumer’s floor speech yesterday. What has become a “little clearer,” as CNet puts it, are Schumer’s priorities — and right now Donald Trump is Priority One:

Now that Joe Biden has been officially sworn in as US president, his framework for a $1.9 trillion stimulus package has taken on a new, official gravity. When could it pass, and when could the IRS send the third stimulus check, which Biden has proposed for up to $1,400 per qualified adult? The answers became a little clearer on Tuesday, after incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reaffirmed his agenda for the new Senate.

“Over the next several weeks, the Senate must accomplish three essential items: A second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. The confirmation of President Biden’s cabinet and other key officials. And legislation to provide much-needed, almost desperately needed COVID relief,” Schumer said from the Senate floor. …

Right now, Biden’s stimulus proposal is just that — a framework. It will have to begin to transforming into a law, with all the legal language that can come under extraordinary scrutiny and debate. We know that Biden’s first 10 days in office will focus on a raft of executive actions. Biden can’t send stimulus checks by executive order.

According to a Jan. 19 newsletter from Punchbowl News, a Capitol Hill-based publication founded in January by former Politico journalists: “House Democrats now tell us they are aiming to pass Joe Biden’s massive Covid relief package by late February or early March, according to multiple sources involved in the effort.”

So it’s more important to impeach a President who is no longer in office than to provide relief for Americans dealing with the coronavirus. Way to go, Democrats. If 2022 is an honest election, many of you may be looking for jobs in 2023.