Former Socialist, Former Republican, Former Contributor to The American Spectator, Former Resident of Canada, Back in Boston Area After Stints in New York City & Atlanta, Current Mustache Wearer & Aficionado of Baseball, Bowling in All Its Forms, Cats, Music & Healthy Living
While one might disagree with the Biden Administration's set of policies on the southern border, the implementation of those policies or any other set of public policies are not impeachable offenses. If they were then every President and Cabinet member would be subject to impeachment on any policy.
Yet I believe this is precisely the point. In impeaching Mayorkas (and possibly down the road President Biden) Republicans are trying to minimize the two impeachments against defeated, former President Donald Trump. Should Democrats bring up Trump's two impeachments, Republicans can simply say, "Your team is just as bad," or "Everyone is corrupt," even though it couldn't be further from the truth. But the bottom line is both Trump and Mayorkas have been impeached and perhaps President Biden, too. To many voters, an impeachment is an impeachment regardless of the circumstances.
Of course, the Senate will not convict Mayorkas. But the Senate didn't convict Trump either time. Fair or not, Mayorkas will wear the impeachment scarlet letter for the rest of his life.
While defeated, former President Donald Trump is comfortably ahead of Nikki Haley in South Carolina, this does not deter him from personally attacking her family.
Over the weekend, Trump took aim at her husband Michael who is deployed in Africa with the South Carolina Army National Guard. Trump said, “Where’s her husband? Oh, he’s away. He’s away. What happened to her husband? Where is he? He’s gone.”
For her part, Haley responded, "If you mock the service of a combat veteran, you don’t deserve a driver’s license, let alone being President of the United States.”
The Kansas City Chiefs defeated the San Francisco 49ers 25-22 in OT in Super Bowl LVIII to become back-to-back Super Bowl champions and earn their third title in five seasons. The Chiefs previously bested the 49ers in 2020 and defeated the Philadelphia Eagles a year ago.
The Chiefs are the first team to win back-to-back Super Bowls since the New England Patriots did it nearly 20 years ago in 2004 and 2005. It was also only the second ever Super Bowl to go into overtime. It last happened 7 years ago when the Pats earned an improbable comeback victory against the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LVI.
After a scoreless first quarter, the 49ers took a 10-0 lead in the second quarter on a Super Bowl record 55-yard field goal by Jake Moody and a trick touchdown pass by wide receiver Jauan Jennings to running back Christian McCaffrey. The Chiefs got on the board at the end of the second quarter on a field goal by Harrison Butker.
The Chiefs would cut the lead to 10-6 in the 3rd quarter when Butker eclipsed Moody's brief Super Bowl record with a 57-yard field goal. Kansas City took its first lead of the game when Chiefs quarterback Pat Mahomes threw a touchdown pass to wide receiver Marquez Valdes-Scantling to make it 13-10.
The 49ers would regain the lead in the fourth quarter on a touchdown pass by quarterback Brock Purdy to Jennings. However, Moody's attempt to kick an extra point was blocked. The Chiefs would tie the game at 16-16 on Butker's third field goal of the game. Moody would answer with a field goal to give San Francisco a 19-16 lead but Butker would kick his fourth field goal of the game to tie the game at 19-19 and send it into OT.
San Francisco had possession of the ball for nearly half of OT, but it would only result in another field goal from Moody giving the 49ers a 22-19 lead. This gave Mahomes an opportunity to engineer a 14-play 75-yard drive resulting in a touchdown pass to Chiefs wide receiver Mecole Hardman, Jr. to give the Chiefs a 25-22 victory to the delight of Taylor Swift, her entourage and all of Missouri.
Mahomes would earn his third Super Bowl MVP and become the first player to win back-to-back Super Bowl MVPs since Terry Bradshaw did so with the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XIII and XIV in 1979 and 1980.
On a personal note, I was rooting for the 49ers and it had nothing to do with Taylor Swift. The reason for this was because it has been nearly 30 years since they last won a Super Bowl title. I remember their last Super Bowl victory in 1995 because I watched it in London with the game starting at 11:30 p.m. Conversely, when the two teams faced each other four years ago I was pulling for the Chiefs because it had been 50 years since their last Super Bowl triumph. Now the Chiefs are in the midst of a dynasty.
Mr. Trump has previously expressed his belief that support for NATO is overly burdensome on the United States, saying the alliance drains its financial and military resources. His campaign website says that the country must re-evaluate the organization’s purpose.
He has in the past recalled privately telling NATO members that the United States would not defend them from Russian attacks if they were in arrears. Last year, he claimed during a campaign speech that “hundreds of billions of dollars came flowing in” to NATO after he made that threat.
On Saturday, he again brought up that anecdote, saying that he told European leaders they had to “pay up.”
Then, he said, the president of “a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’”
Mr. Trump said he asked the other president if the country was “delinquent” in its payments. The leader responded, “Yes. Let’s say that happened,” Mr. Trump said.
“No, I would not protect you,” Mr. Trump recalled responding. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”
For starters, Trump is acting like a mob boss and is treating NATO as if it were a protection racket. But it is much worse than that. The key word here is "encourage". Not only would Trump not protect a NATO ally from a Russian attack but he would actively "encourage" Russia to attack a NATO ally which displeased him.
The upshot of Trump's encouragement is to give Russia carte blanch do as it pleases where it concerns Europe. It demonstrates Trump has no commitment to a military alliance of Western democracies because he does not believe in democracy.
Then again even if Canada did exceed 2% of its GDP on its defense, I wouldn't count on Trump coming to Canada's defense against Russian aggression. Ditto for Europe. Because in Trump's eyes, his oath isn't to the U.S. Constitution, it is to Vladimir Putin. Trump might be a mob boss, but Putin is the Godfather.
On Thursday night, while addressing the report of the Special Counsel into his handling of classified documents in his personal possession, President Biden was also asked a question about the status of negotiations concerning hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza.
In his first sentence, President Biden declared, "I’m of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza — in the Gaza Strip has been over the top."
The best one can hope for is that Biden won't repeat such remarks again. The fact that White House personnel like John Kirby and Matthew Miller are trying to clean up what Biden said might be an encouraging sign. Indeed, Miller went as far as to say "indiscriminate" "is not an assessment we've made". But Biden did use the word indiscriminate, and the damage has been done. In which case, it probably won't be a last time they'll be called upon as a cleanup crew.
While Hur's language could be described as inflammatory and reflecting a personal opinion rather than a legal one, President Biden did not help his cause during the press conference. Immediately after declaring that Israel's actions in Gaza were over the top, he called Abdel Fattah el-Sisi the President of Mexico. The problem is that el-Sisi is the President of Egypt. With that said, let's not forget that defeated, former President Donald Trump recently referred to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as the "leader of Turkey".
Nevertheless, the fact that President Biden has characterized Israel's response in Gaza as "over the top" warrants questions. Here are 10 of mine.
1. In which way are Israeli military operations "over the top"?
2. Do you believe Israel is deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians or committing war crimes?
3. When Hamas invaded Israel and took its people hostage you likened them to ISIS. Is this still your assessment?
4. If you still believe that Hamas is the equivalent of ISIS, do you agree with Israel's objective of eliminating Hamas?
5. If you agree with Israel's objective of eliminating Hamas while also believing that Israeli military operations are "over the top" what strategies does your administration recommend to Israel regarding its military campaign against Hamas?
7. Regarding humanitarian assistance to Gaza, what evidence do you have that aid is not falling into the hand of Hamas?
8. If U.S. humanitarian assistance does fall into the hands of Hamas, does it stand to reason that Hamas would use these funds to launch another attack against Israeli civilians?
9. You have also said that you are seeking a "sustained pause in fighting". Does this mean you now support a ceasefire?
10. If you do support a ceasefire, do you not recognize the fact Hamas will use the ceasefire as an opportunity to rebuild its military infrastructure and launch another October 7th style attack against Israeli civilians?
"While the Committee for the Republic does not endorse statements made by speakers, we are committed to optimal factual accuracy. In that spirit, we invite you to provide sourced documentation of any Hamas rape of an Israeli woman on October 7," wrote the Committee for the Republic vice chairman Bruce Fein in an email to the Free Beacon. "We invite you to provide us documentation that Hamas killed Israeli babies on Oct. 7."
The group also asked the Free Beacon to "provide documentation that the 'Israel lobby' does not control members of Congress."
Fein, a one-time DOJ official in the Reagan Administration, truly gives the game away when his organization asks for "documentation that the 'Israel-lobby' does not control members of Congress." Well, how about Congress rejecting a $17 billion aid package to Israel? That aside, it is a question only an anti-Semite would pose. Indeed, Fein might as well have asked The Beacon to provide evidence The Holocaust claimed the lives of 6 million Jews.
When questions such as those are posed then there is no amount of evidence one could supply to persuade Fein or his organization to the contrary because their agenda is to render Israel an international pariah while promoting hatred against Jews. Yes, Fein is Jewish but has little affinity for his fellow Jews.
By making demands to provide evidence which Fein knows full well he will not accept demonstrates that he, like all anti-Semites (even if nominally Jewish), operate in bad faith.
Her poster was defaced with two statements, "Israel has murdered 25,000 + in 4 months," and "Are Palestinian lives less valuable?"
The former is a self-serving lie promoted by Hamas. While I do not dispute the fact that Palestinian civilians have been killed, they have not been wantonly removed from their homes taken captive, sexually assaulted and killed. As to the latter question, it is predicated on a false premise. It is Hamas which regards Jews as subhuman. The fact one would deface the poster of a woman held in captivity while posting such a question means that one is condoning Hamas actions while placing no value on the lives of Jews.
Anti-Semitism is the world's most ancient hatred. Thus, it is a given that it has always existed here in Cambridge. The difference now is that it is out in the open and their hatred of Jews is expressed with pride and confidence. All of which means is that life for Jews be it in Cambridge, the United States, Israel and beyond is going to get much worse before it gets better.
