Shared posts

17 Apr 15:30

Famed War Reporter Robert Fisk Reaches Syrian 'Chemical Attack' Site, Concludes "They Were Not Gassed"

by Tyler Durden

Robert Fisk's bombshell first-hand account for the UK Independent runs contrary to nearly every claim circulating in major international press concerning what happened just over week ago on April 7th in an embattled suburb outside Damascus: not only has the veteran British journalist found no evidence of a mass chemical attack, but he's encountered multiple local eyewitnesses who experienced the chaos of that night, but who say the gas attack never happened.

Fisk is the first Western journalist to reach and report from the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack widely blamed on Assad's forces. Writing from Douma in eastern Ghouta, Fisk has interviewed a Syrian doctor who works at the hospital shown in one of the well-known videos which purports to depict victims of a chemical attack. 

The Independent: "Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk in one of the miles of tunnels hacked beneath Douma by prisoners of Syrian rebels." (source: Yara Ismail via the Independent)

Importantly, the report, published late in the day Monday, is causing a stir among mainstream journalists whominutes after the Saudi-sponsored jihadist group Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam) accused the Syrian Army of gassing civiliansbegan uncritically promoting the "Assad gassed his own people" narrative as an already cemented and "proven" fact based on the mere word a notoriously brutal armed group who itself has admitted to using chemical weapons on the Syrian battlefield in prior years. Also notable is that no journalist or international observer was anywhere near Douma when the purported chemical attack took place. 

Controversy ensued immediately after Fisk's report, especially as he is among the most recognizable names in the past four decades of Middle East war reporting, having twice won the British Press Awards' Journalist of the Year prize and as seven time winner of the British Press Awards' Foreign Correspondent of the Year (the NY Times has referred to him as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain" while The Guardian has called him "one of the most famous journalists in the world"). An Arabic speaker, Fisk became famous for being among the few reporters in history to conduct face-to-face interviews with Osama bin Laden, which he did on three occasions between 1993 and 1997.

Fisk says he was able to walk around and investigate newly liberated Douma without Syrian government or Russian minders (in part this is likely because he has reported from inside Syria going back decades, in war-torn 1982 Hama, for example), and he begins his account as follows:

This is the story of a town called Douma, a ravaged, stinking place of smashed apartment blocks–and of an underground clinic whose images of suffering allowed three of the Western world’s most powerful nations to bomb Syria last week. There’s even a friendly doctor in a green coat who, when I track him down in the very same clinic, cheerfully tells me that the “gas” videotape which horrified the world– despite all the doubters–is perfectly genuine.

War stories, however, have a habit of growing darker. For the same 58-year old senior Syrian doctor then adds something profoundly uncomfortable: the patients, he says, were overcome not by gas but by oxygen starvation in the rubbish-filled tunnels and basements in which they lived, on a night of wind and heavy shelling that stirred up a dust storm.

Fisk goes on to identify the doctor by name - Dr. Assim Rahaibani - which is notable given the fact that all early reporting from Douma typically relied on "unnamed doctors" and anonymous opposition sources for early claims of a chlorine gas attack (lately morphed into an unverified "mixed" chlorine-and-sarin attack).

The doctor's testimony is consistent with that of the well-known Syrian opposition group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR)which initially reported based on its own pro-rebel sourcing that heavy government bombardment of Douma city resulted in the collapse of homes and underground shelters, causing civilians in hiding to suffocate.

According to SOHR, which has long been a key go-to source for mainstream media over the course of the war, "70 of them [women and children] have suffered suffocation as a result of the demolition of home basements over them due to the heavy and intense shelling."

Though outlets from The Guardian to The Washington Post to The New York Times have quoted SOHR on a near daily basis throughout the past six years of war, the anti-Assad opposition outlet's reporting of mass asphyxiation due to collapse of shelters has been notably absent from the same publications.

Fisk to Spirit Radio: "The video is real, but they are not suffering from gas poisoning..."

Fisk details the Syrian doctor's testimony, who is adamant in his emphasis that civilians were suffocating en masse, and were not gassed:

It was a short walk to Dr Rahaibani. From the door of his subterranean clinic–“Point 200”, it is called, in the weird geology of this partly-underground city–is a corridor leading downhill where he showed me his lowly hospital and the few beds where a small girl was crying as nurses treated a cut above her eye.

“I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night–but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia–not gas poisoning.”

In addition to interviewing a doctor while standing in the very hospital featured in White Helmets footage of the events, Fisk cites the testimonies of multiple locals in the following:

Before we go any further, readers should be aware that this is not the only story in Douma. There are the many people I talked to amid the ruins of the town who said they had “never believed in” gas stories–which were usually put about, they claimed, by the armed Islamist groups. 

These particular jihadis survived under a blizzard of shellfire by living in other’s people’s homes and in vast, wide tunnels with underground roads carved through the living rock by prisoners with pick-axes on three levels beneath the town. I walked through three of them yesterday, vast corridors of living rock which still contained Russian–yes, Russian–rockets and burned-out cars.

And further fascinating is that the veteran British war correspondent comes upon local Douma residents who have so long been trapped in an isolated 'fog of war' battlefield environment, that they are not even aware of the international importance that the town has played in the US coalition decision to bomb Syria:

So the story of Douma is thus not just a story of gas–or no gas, as the case may be. It’s about thousands of people who did not opt for evacuation from Douma on buses that left last week, alongside the gunmen with whom they had to live like troglodytes for months in order to survive.

I walked across this town quite freely yesterday without soldier, policeman or minder to haunt my footsteps, just two Syrian friends, a camera and a notebook. I sometimes had to clamber across 20-foot-high ramparts, up and down almost sheer walls of earth. Happy to see foreigners among them, happier still that the siege is finally over, they are mostly smiling; those whose faces you can see, of course, because a surprising number of Douma’s women wear full-length black hijab.

...Oddly, after chatting to more than 20 people, I couldn’t find one who showed the slightest interest in Douma’s role in bringing about the Western air attacks. Two actually told me they didn’t know about the connection.

But it was a strange world I walked into. Two men, Hussam and Nazir Abu Aishe, said they were unaware how many people had been killed in Douma, although the latter admitted he had a cousin “executed by Jaish el-Islam [the Army of Islam] for allegedly being “close to the regime”. They shrugged when I asked about the 43 people said to have died in the infamous Douma attack.

Evidence? ...A video montage of the Pentagon and State Department's awkward attempts to dodge the question of evidence. 

Concerning the White Helmets, who have played a dubious role throughout the war while presenting themselves as "impartial" and "neutral" rescue workers and film-makers, though known to operate exclusively in al-Qaeda and other jihadist-controlled areas of Syria, Fisk reports the following

The White Helmets–the medical first responders already legendary in the West but with some interesting corners to their own story–played a familiar role during the battles. They are partly funded by the [British] Foreign Office and most of the local offices were staffed by Douma men. 

I found their wrecked offices not far from Dr Rahaibani’s clinic. A gas mask had been left outside a food container with one eye-piece pierced and a pile of dirty military camouflage uniforms lay inside one room. Planted, I asked myself? I doubt it. The place was heaped with capsules, broken medical equipment and files, bedding and mattresses.

Of course we must hear their side of the story, but it will not happen here: a woman told us that every member of the White Helmets in Douma abandoned their main headquarters and chose to take the government-organised and Russian-protected buses to the rebel province of Idlib with the armed groups when the final truce was agreed.

And Fisk further narrates the strangeness of some of the reporting now happening far outside of Douma which flatly contradicts the testimonies of civilians still inside Douma that he encounters: 

How could it be that Douma refugees who had reached camps in Turkey were already describing a gas attack which no-one in Douma today seemed to recall? It did occur to me, once I was walking for more than a mile through these wretched prisoner-groined tunnels, that the citizens of Douma lived so isolated from each other for so long that “news” in our sense of the word simply had no meaning to them. 

Syria doesn’t cut it as Jeffersonian democracy–as I cynically like to tell my Arab colleagues–and it is indeed a ruthless dictatorship, but that couldn’t cow these people, happy to see foreigners among them, from reacting with a few words of truth. So what were they telling me?

They talked about the Islamists under whom they had lived. They talked about how the armed groups had stolen civilian homes to avoid the Syrian government and Russian bombing. The Jaish el-Islam had burned their offices before they left, but the massive buildings inside the security zones they created had almost all been sandwiched to the ground by air strikes. A Syrian colonel I came across behind one of these buildings asked if I wanted to see how deep the tunnels were. I stopped after well over a mile when he cryptically observed that “this tunnel might reach as far as Britain”. Ah yes, Ms May, I remembered, whose air strikes had been so intimately connected to this place of tunnels and dust. And gas?

For a prime example of what Fisk references as refugees in Turkey "already describing a gas attack which no-one in Douma seemed to recall..." CNN aired a segment from one such refugee camp which is absolutely bizarre and stunning in its claims. 

During the segment which aired "hours after" the US-led airstrikes on Damascus, CNN's Arwa Damon began sniffing a 7-year-old Syrian girl's backpack while concluding, "I mean there's definitely something that stings..." - with the implication that empirical proof had been found of government chemical weapons use against the little girl and her family. 

And in the full segment, Damon attempts to subtly introduce the idea of a nerve agent used against the family (though initial claims were widely reported to be chlorine) by awkwardly including the account of the girl's escape from Douma: "She could barely breath... she felt as if her entire nerves basically released." 

Though it's unclear what the strange phrasing of "her entire nerves basically released" actually means, CNN's Arwa Damon is ultimately claiming to be able to safely and comfortably handle and sniff a backpack which contains residual sarin and chlorine agents, while simultaneously presenting the backpack as "proof" of a chemical attack which happened a week prior (to say nothing the clearly unscientific and bogus nature all of the above). 

Notably, in addition to Fisk's bombshell report filed from ground zero of the claimed chemical attack in Douma, cable network One America News has also issued a report from on the ground in the newly liberated town, finding "no evidence" - in its words - that a chemical attack took place there. 

Robert Fisk's report for The Independent and the One America News segment constitute the first major international media reports from the location of the alleged chemical attack. But it will be interesting to see the extent to which international chemical and weapons experts either validate or refute their conclusions once the site is inspected. 

Meanwhile, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team arrived in Damascus on Saturday, April 14th - after the US-led overnight strikes which primarily hit government buildings in the capital. 

17 Apr 15:29

Israel planning for direct attack from Iran...


Israel planning for direct attack from Iran...


(Second column, 15th story, link)


17 Apr 15:29

Syria bombing has troubling echoes of Vietnam

The latest bombing campaign in Syria bears a worrying resemblance to one of history's most flawed military interventions: Vietnam's Operation Rolling Thunder.
17 Apr 15:24

FBI agents quit over acrimony from DOJ, report says

by -NO AUTHOR-

(Washington Times) Acrimony between the FBI and the Justice Department was so bad in the waning days of the Obama administration that some agents quit the bureau in frustration, a former G-man says.

Fractures which began during the tenure of former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. deepened in the later years, and particularly in the run-up to the 2016 president election.

The depths of the antagonism were exposed in an inspector general’s report last week looking into former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI earlier this year for misleading multiple investigations. While saying Mr. McCabe lacked candor in questioning, some of it under oath, the report went much deeper, describing the rift between the bureau and its political masters at the department.

16 Apr 13:03

Canada considers decriminalization of ALL illicit drugs...


Canada considers decriminalization of ALL illicit drugs...


(First column, 20th story, link)


16 Apr 13:02

U.S. to hit Russia with new sanctions over Syria chemical weapons attack

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley has indicated new economic sanctions will be announced Monday against Russia for enabling the government of Syrian leader Bashar Assad to continue using chemical weapons.
16 Apr 13:02

SoCal’s Bratz Doll Founder Bids $900M for Toys ‘R’ Us

by Chriss W. Street
Bratz (Saffy / Flickr / CC / Cropped)
MGA Entertainment, Inc., which made billions of dollars from the fashion forward "Bratz" dolls and Little Tykes toys, has bid $900 million for the failing Toys “R” Us brand and its 1,700 remaining stores.
16 Apr 13:01

Inspectors push to visit suspected Syria gas attack site after Western strikes

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - International inspectors were to try on Monday to visit the site of a suspected gas attack which brought U.S.-led missile strikes on Syria and heightened the diplomatic confrontation between the West and President Bashar al-Assad's main ally Russia.
16 Apr 13:00

Philippines complains Facebook fact-checkers are biased

MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines government criticized on Monday Facebook's choice of two independent online news platforms to help fight the spread of fake news, saying they are biased against President Rodrigo Duterte.
16 Apr 13:00

Hannity Rips Comey in Live Tweetstorm: ‘The Worst Interview I Have Ever Watched in My Life’

by Aidan McLaughlin

Sean Hannity, an ardent critic of James Comey, live-tweeted the former FBI director’s first interview since his unceremonious firing last year — and slammed George Stephanopoulos for conducting “the worst interview I have ever watched in my life.”

Last week Hannity made a few headlines after he ripped Comey for comparing Trump to a mafia boss in snippets from his ABC interview, the full episode of which aired Sunday night.

Hannity took to Twitter to live-tweet the event, first taking Stephanopoulos to task for asking Comey about Trump’s “Hands size, tanning bed, Ties, hookers in Moscow,” but not the Steele dossier, much of which remains unverified.

Hannity also trained his sights on Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, and asked who Stephanopoulos voted for:

“Beat the shit out of blackberries with hammers” is a new one.

And, in conclusion, Hannity declares the sit-down “the worst interview I have ever watched in my life.”

[image via screengrab]

Follow Aidan McLaughlin (@aidnmclaughlin) on Twitter

16 Apr 12:57

Pioneering work allows drug dealer to be convicted from WhatsApp photo of ecstasy tablets in his palm

by Ben Lovejoy

Police investigations are often aided by the fact that most criminals are dumb, but one drug dealer who helpfully posted a partial photo of his fingerprint in a WhatsApp message still set a challenge for police …

more…

16 Apr 12:56

Not Only Did Paul Ryan Not Fix Entitlements, He Made Them Worse

by Christopher Jacobs

Upon news of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s retirement Wednesday, liberals knew to attack him, but didn’t know exactly why. Liberal Politico columnist Michael Grunwald skewered Ryan’s hypocrisy on fiscal discipline:

Ryan’s support for higher spending has not been limited to defense and homeland security. He supported Bush’s expansion of prescription drug benefits, as well as the auto bailout and Wall Street bailout during the financial crisis…Ryan does talk a lot about reining in Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, for which he’s routinely praised as a courageous truth-teller. But he’s never actually made entitlement reform happen. Congress did pass one law during his tenure that reduced Medicare spending by more than $700 billion, but that law was Obamacare, and Ryan bitterly opposed it.

For the record, Ryan opposed Obamacare because, as he repeatedly noted during the 2012 campaign, the law “raided” Medicare to pay for Obamacare. (Kathleen Sebelius, a member of President Obama’s cabinet, admitted the law used Medicare spending reductions to both “save Medicare” and “fund health care reform.”)

That said, as I noted last March, he and other Republicans made exactly zero attempt to undo Obamacare’s “raid” on Medicare as part of “repeal-and-replace” legislation. Regardless, the Politico article, titled “Paul Ryan’s Legacy of Red Ink,” generally labeled him as ineffective, or worse, hypocritical, at reducing spending.

Compare that with a Vox article, titled “Paul Ryan’s Most Important Legacy is Trump’s War on Medicaid”: “[Paul] Ryan’s dreams are alive and well. Through work requirements and other restrictions, President Donald Trump could eventually oversee the most significant rollback of Medicaid benefits in the program’s 50-year history.” It goes on to talk about how the administration “is carrying on Ryan’s Medicaid-gutting agenda.”

Which is it? On fiscal discipline, is Ryan an incompetent hypocrite, or a slash-and-burn maniac throwing poor people out on the streets? As in most cases, reality contains nuance. Several caveats are in order.

First, Ryan’s budgets always contained “magic asterisks.” As the Los Angeles Times noted in 2012, “the budget resolutions he wrote would have left that Medicare ‘raid’ in place”—because Republicans could only achieve the political goal of a balanced budget within ten years by retaining Obamacare’s tax increases and Medicare reductions.” The budgets generally repealed the Obamacare entitlements, thus allowing the Medicare reductions to bolster that program rather than financing Obamacare. The budgets served as messaging documents, but generally lacked many of the critical details to transform them from visions into actual policy.

Second, to the best of my recollections, Ryan never took on the leadership of his party on a major policy issue. Former GOP House Speaker John Boehner famously never requested an earmark during a quarter-century in Congress. Sen. John McCain’s “Maverick” image came from his fight against fellow Republicans on campaign finance reform.

But whether as a backbencher or a committee chair, Ryan rarely bucked the party line. That meant voting for the Bush administration’s big-spending bills like the Medicare Modernization Act and TARP—both of which the current vice president, Mike Pence, voted against while a backbench member of Congress.

Third, particularly under this president, Republicans do not want to reform entitlements. As I noted during the 2016 election, neither presidential candidate made an issue of entitlement reform, or Medicare’s impending insolvency. In fact, both went out of their way to avoid the issue. Any House speaker would have difficulty convincing this president to embrace substantive entitlement reforms.

In general, one can argue that, contrary to his image as a leader on fiscal issues, Ryan too readily followed. Other Republicans would support his austere budgets, which never had the force of law, but he would support their big-spending bills, many of which made it to the statute books.

On one issue, however, Ryan did lead—and in the worst possible way. As I wrote last fall, Ryan brought to the House floor legislation repealing Obamacare’s cap on Medicare spending. This past February, that repeal became law.

Ryan could have sought to retain that cap while discarding the unelected, unaccountable board Obamacare created to enforce it. As a result, Ryan’s “legacy” on entitlement reform will consist of his role as the first speaker to repeal a cap on entitlement spending.

Primum non nocere—first, do no harm. Ryan may not have had the power to compel Republicans to reform entitlements, but he did have the power—if he had had the courage—to prevent his own party from making the problem any worse. He did not.

16 Apr 12:56

New Yorker To Christians: We Don’t Want Your Kind Around Here

by John Ehrett

Chick-fil-A, that alluring purveyor of delicious chicken sandwiches and waffle fries, has long been a target in certain quarters. These criticisms have nothing to do with the addictiveness of the chain’s food (a shame, really, because this is a real problem), but its perceived political stances. Most such attacks have stemmed from the chain’s indirect donations to groups that oppose same-sex marriage, and from CEO Dan Cathy’s comments on the subject.

Conservatives are certainly no strangers to boycott campaigns, and consumers have every right to register their values through market activity. Indeed, shortly after this blowup, Chick-fil-A largely stopped making such donations. You’d be forgiven for thinking the storm had passed.

That makes this recent New Yorker article by Dan Piepenbring—memorably entitled “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City”—all the more incoherent. According to Piepenbring’s screed, which lacks content beyond Ewww-These-People-Aren’t-Like-Me, Chick-fil-A’s arrival in the Big Apple “raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.” Evidently, Piepenbring can’t understand why the restaurant is so popular with NYC residents, given the city’s progressive political and social leanings. How can this be?

Why People Keep Buying Chick-fil-A

Since he’s having trouble grasping this, I’ll help him out. First of all, Chick-fil-A food is delicious, as anyone who’s ever tasted an Original Chicken Sandwich or a Chicken Biscuit well knows. Second, Chick-fil-A is beneficial to communities because it treats its workers well and screens its franchisees rigorously, ensuring a high standard of quality across all the chain’s restaurants.

Third, Chick-fil-A is a pleasant environment because its employees are friendly and respectful and its facilities are spotless. Also, for what it’s worth, when pressed about perceived “anti-LGBT” stances, the restaurant focused its donations elsewhere. So, by any sensible standard, Chick-fil-A should be a model company for any progressive interested in workers’ rights and community reinvestment. What more could Chick-fil-A do to be one of the “good guys”?

But Piepenbring is having none of it. In perhaps the article’s most ludicrous segment, he criticizes Chick-fil-A’s cow-driven advertising campaigns by “asking why Americans fell in love with an ad in which one farm animal begs us to kill another in its place. Most restaurants take pains to distance themselves from the brutalities of the slaughterhouse; Chick-fil-A invites us to go along with the Cows’ Schadenfreude.”

Two can play at this game, Dan. The fast-food world is indeed full of problematic content: Burger King reinforces norms of patriarchy and feudalism, Wendy’s teaches that a woman’s place really ought to be in the kitchen, Arby’s denigrates veganism and celebrates animal slaughter, and Taco Bell’s chihuahuas perpetuate harmful stereotypes. (I could go on.)

Surely There Aren’t Christians in Manhattan!

The rest of Piepenbring’s “argument” fares no better, although it’s certainly an illuminating look at its author’s unjustified neuroses. He writes that “the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet.” It must surprise the Christians of New York (or, for that matter, to erstwhile residents of the American South) that they are “infiltrators” in their own community. But in Piepenbring’s world, any outsiders must be shunned.

Not content with the language of “infiltration,” Piepenbring further claims “there’s something especially distasteful about Chick-fil-A, which has sought to portray itself as better than other fast food: cleaner, gentler, and more ethical, with its poultry slightly healthier than the mystery meat of burgers. Its politics, its décor, and its commercial-evangelical messaging are inflected with this suburban piety.” Elsewhere, he’s scandalized by the fact that “[t]he restaurant’s corporate purpose still begins with the words ‘to glorify God,’ and that proselytism thrums below the surface of the Fulton Street restaurant, which has the ersatz homespun ambiance of a megachurch.”

Contempt drips from every word of these sentences. None of this amounts to a substantive criticism of the restaurant’s treatment of animals, labor practices, products’ nutritional value, or anything else. It’s merely Piepenbring’s bleating admission that he cannot handle anything reminiscent of the great bugbear of our time: American evangelicalism.

I think this a staggeringly overused accusation and thus rarely use it, but Piepenbring’s article reflects flat-out bigotry—that is, “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” Judging by the tenor of his article, his decisive pronouncement—“Chick-fil-A, too, does not quite belong here. Its arrival in the city augurs worse than a load of manure on the F train.”—has nothing to do with Chick-fil-A’s actual behavior, and everything to do with the chain’s perceived religiosity.

In other words: get out of town, you religious yokels, and stop doing such a good job selling chicken. For sheer self-righteous toxicity, this take is hard to beat.

Guys, Your Smug Is Showing

Beyond the glaring deficiencies of Piepenbring’s piece, the appearance of this article in The New Yorker tends to corroborate a particular criticism frequently raised against “elite culture”: it often reflects a smugly unwavering belief in their moral superiority.

It has become de rigueur among progressive writers charged with this “smugness” to allege they’re simply stating facts, that we can’t normalize the status quo, that their ideological opponents are really just that stupid. What’s perceived as smug, the argument runs, is simply the truth, and that’s the end of it. The alleged problem of smugness is just a smokescreen.

Well, for those still curious, this is exactly what smug looks like.

When all’s said and done, though, if Piepenbring wants to run in terror from the Chick-fil-A juggernaut, maybe that’s all right. Let him have his Ben and Jerry’s. It just means more chicken sandwiches for me.

16 Apr 12:56

This American Life’s Reporters Don’t Understand This American Government

by Christopher Jacobs

The most recent episode of NPR’s “This American Life” continues a line of liberal laments that the legislative process does not work, and blames most of that ineffectiveness on a single source: Donald Trump. (Shocker there.)

But the idea of removing Trump to Make Congress Great Again doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Even if it did, such a development would not comport with the Framers’ design of our government, which put the “deliberative” in “deliberative process” far more than the modern-day Left would prefer.

The episode follows the trials and travails of retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) as he seeks to pass legislation codifying privileges for participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. President Trump announced last fall that he would end Barack Obama’s executive action on DACA, leaving Congress to find a solution through legislative means. Flake and his colleagues want to enact legislation replacing Obama’s unilateral declaration that his administration would not apply current law to DACA recipients living in the country illegally.

“This American Life” correspondent Zoe Chace laments that the popularity of DACA—which covers individuals brought to the United States illegally as children—has impeded its enactment into law. She thinks lawmakers have used its popularity

as a spoonful of sugar to make tougher immigration measures easier to swallow—stuff like border security, restricting visas, or on the Democrat side, legalizing even more immigrants. That’s the curse of DACA. The most valuable thing about it, on Capitol Hill anyway, is the possibility that it could be used to pass other stuff. So even though we’re a democracy, even though 80% of the country wants DACA, the country doesn’t get what it wants because there’s no incentive for Congress to just put it to a straight up or down vote.

Having castigated Congress for using DACA “to pass other stuff,” Chace spends much of the episode highlighting Flake’s attempts to use “other stuff”—namely, tax reform—to pass DACA.

Looks Can Be Deceiving

Chace calls Flake “the most powerful senator in Congress right now.” Having announced his retirement, Flake has no political constituency to appease. That dynamic, combined with the current Senate split of 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats—Republican John McCain is recovering from cancer treatment in his home state of Arizona—at first blush gives Flake significant leverage.

But the old saying how looks can be deceiving applies on several levels. First, if Flake has enormous leverage due to the 50-49 Senate split, so does every other Republican senator. In fact, Chace discusses efforts by Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins to enact Obamacare “stability” legislation in conjunction with the tax bill, another attempt to shoehorn tangential measures on to a moving piece of legislation.

Second, to pass the Senate, DACA requires not 50 votes, but 60, as most legislation needs a three-fifths majority to overcome a potential filibuster. The tax legislation, enacted under special budget reconciliation procedures, stands as an exception that proves the general rule that would apply to any DACA bill.

Third, by favorably viewing Flake’s attempt (which he privately admits to Chace is a bluff) to tie his tax reform vote to a commitment from leadership to take up DACA legislation, Chace supports the very problem she criticizes—namely, lawmakers using one bill or issue to “pass other stuff.”

Chace’s criticism of the legislative process therefore comes across as inherently self-serving. She doesn’t object to senators using unrelated matters as leverage. For example, she applauds Flake for threatening to hijack the tax bill over immigration, so much as she objects to senators using other matters as leverage on her issue: passing DACA. That double standard, coupled with an ignorance of basic constitutional principles, leads to some naïve misunderstandings.

Let’s Review Some of Those

Contra Chace, the United States is not a democracy. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees “to every state in this union a republican form of government.” The American people do not make laws—their representatives do.

That principle leads to the “other stuff” dynamic Chace described, because lawmakers have other competing priorities to navigate. Some might support DACA, but only if they receive something they perceive as more valuable in exchange—border security, for instance, or a broader immigration deal.

Occasionally lawmakers take this concept too far, but the system tends to self-correct. As the episode notes, Democrats’ tactics led to a partial government shutdown in January, as Senate Democrats refused to pass spending bills keeping the federal government operating unless Republicans committed to enact a DACA measure with it—“other stuff,” in other words.

But although most Democrats support DACA, they divided over the hardball, hostage-taking tactics that tied passing spending bills to enacting an immigration measure. That division and public pressure over the shutdown led them to beat a hasty retreat.

But in general, a process requiring agreement among co-equal branches—and with a supermajority required in one chamber of one branch—makes legislation hard to enact, as the immigration debate demonstrates. Even though “This American Life” argues that “Congress’ dysfunction has changed in ways that are very specific to Donald Trump,” Chace admits that “Flake’s worked on immigration bills practically every year—2003, 2004, 2005, 2006”—well before Donald Trump entered political life—and all of which failed due to lack of support.

In 2007, under President George W. Bush an immigration bill famously failed on the Senate floor, in part because then-senator Obama and other liberals voted to restrict the number of guest workers permitted into the United States—a key provision necessary to win Republican votes.

Consider a Case Study in Virginia

To view the immigration debate in a nutshell, one need look no further than Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). Or, to be more precise, former Rep. Eric Cantor. In June 2014, Cantor lost his Republican primary to an upstart challenger in Dave Brat. Outrage over the possibility that the House might pass an immigration bill the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” muscled through in 2013 helped Cantor go down to primary defeat, and ended any debate on immigration in the 113th Congress (again, well before most people thought Trump would run for president, let alone win).

A geographically diverse country would make it difficult for any one faction to command a majority, and impose its will on others.

The way Cantor’s 2014 defeat changed the landscape on immigration in Congress illustrates that, while not a direct democracy, the American system remains responsive to democratic principles, even if they resulted in an outcome (i.e., inaction on immigration) Chace would decry. Chace might argue that a June primary election where only 65,017 Virginia residents voted—only about one-sixth the number who voted in that district’s November 2016 general election—should not determine the fate of immigration legislation nationwide.

But by making it difficult to enact legislation, the American system of government accounts for intensity of opinion as well as breadth of opinion. In the case of Cantor, a group of 36,105 Virginia residents who voted for Brat—many of whom cared strongly about stopping an immigration bill—sent a message on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Virginia residents who didn’t care enough to vote in the Republican primary election. (Virginia conducts open primaries, in which voters can choose either party’s ballot, so any resident could have voted for or against Cantor in the Republican primary.)

That outcome might resonate with a former resident of Cantor’s district, Virginia’s own James Madison. In Federalist 10, Madison wrote of how a geographically diverse country would make it difficult for any one faction to command a majority, and impose its will on others. In Federalist 51, Madison returned to the topic of limiting government’s power by separating its responsibilities among co-equal branches: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The stalemate on immigration and DACA would likely prove quite satisfactory to Framers like Madison, who feared government’s powers and purposefully looked to circumscribe them. To the modern Left, however, a constitutional government with limited authority seems an antiquated and inconvenient trifle.

‘Slow Government’ Complaints Are Way Older than Trump

Although Chace’s report claims that congressional dysfunction “has changed in ways that are very specific to Donald Trump,” liberals have criticized government inaction for decades. In “The System: The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point,” Haynes Johnson and David Broder use their seminal analysis of the rise and fall of “HillaryCare” to decry a Washington “incapable as a nation of addressing the major long-term problems facing the society:”

At no point, we believe, has the cumulative assault on the idea of responsible government been so destructive of the very faith in the democratic system as now. A thoroughly cynical society, deeply distrustful of its institutions and leaders and the reliability of information it receives, is a society in peril of breaking apart. [Emphasis original.]

Again, these words far precede any Trump administration. Broder and Johnson wrote them in 1996, while the tycoon looked to rebuild his empire following several corporate bankruptcies.

As “This American Life” notes, Trump has proved more indecisive legislatively than most presidents did. The episode highlights how Trump went from supporting any immigration bill Congress would send him to imposing major new conditions on same in the matter of hours. That series of events illustrated but one of Trump’s many reverses on legislation.

Presidents prior to Trump have also engaged in legislative U-turns or ill-conceived maneuvers.

For instance, Trump famously called the American Health Care Act “mean” in a closed-door meeting weeks after Republican representatives voted to approve the legislation, and Trump publicly praised them for doing so. But presidents prior to Trump have also engaged in legislative U-turns or ill-conceived maneuvers.

In his 1994 State of the Union message, Bill Clinton threatened to veto any health-care bill that did not achieve universal coverage. As Johnson and Broder recount, that was a major tactical mistake that Clinton later attempted to undo, but ultimately contributed to the downfall of “HillaryCare.” And of course, Clinton himself might not have become president had his predecessor, George H.W. Bush, not made then violated his infamous “Read my lips—no new taxes!” pledge—the “six most destructive words in the history of presidential politics.”

While Trump undoubtedly has introduced more foibles into the legislative process, he has not changed its fundamental dynamic—a dynamic “This American Life” criticizes yet does not understand. Chace says “we’re a democracy,” but she means that she wants a Democratic—capital “D”—form of government, one in which Congress passes lots of legislation, enacts big programs (more funding for NPR, anyone?), and plays a major role in the lives of the American people.

Yet Madison and the Constitution’s Framers deliberately designed a lower-case “r” republican form of government, one with limited powers and a deliberative process designed to make enacting major legislation difficult. That reality might not suit the liberal dreams of “This American Life,” but it represents how American democratic principles actually live and work.

16 Apr 12:56

Trump’s Syria Strategy: For One Night Only!

by Robert Tracinski

President Trump has announced American air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria, in partnership with Britain and France. The airstrikes are for one night only, supposedly targeting the “heart” of Syria’s chemical weapons program, though the Department of Defense “acknowledged that the Syrian government most likely retained some ability to again attack its own people with chemical agents.”

Deterring chemical weapons use seems to be the one and only strategic purpose of the strike: “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.” So the United States and its allies are just enforcing the Geneva Convention prohibition against chemical weapons.

But this runs us up against the whole “win and go home” dilemma. In wanting to keep our mission in Syria very narrow—so he can authorize a single night of air strikes and declare “mission accomplished“—Trump is avoiding the task of forming the kind of larger, sustained strategy that actually produces results. Sen. Lindsey Graham gets it right on the short-range focus of this current effort.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), an influential member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Saturday that the strikes reflected an overt policy decision to be ‘the chemical weapons police’ and no more.

‘The administration does have a strategy—and it’s to withdraw from Syria as quickly as possible,’ he said in a statement, critiquing a hands-off policy that he said would strengthen the hands of Russia and Iran, both key Syrian allies. ‘Ignoring the situation in Syria, simply saying—Not Our Problem—was a losing strategy when President Obama adopted it five years ago. And it’s a losing strategy still today.’

The reason we need a carefully chosen long-term strategy is that we’re trying to undo the consequences of the previous administration’s stubborn neglect of American interests. As President Trump noted, “In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. Assad’s recent attack—and today’s response—are the direct result of Russia’s failure to keep that promise.”

Actually, it’s worse than that. The 2013 deal Obama made gave Russia a green light to become deeply involved in Syria, which it has done as an ally and sponsor of the brutal regime, giving it a foothold in the Middle East that Russia had never had before, even during the Cold War. Here’s why that’s going to be a problem.

In the days after the attack on Douma, the Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian allies got what they wanted—the rebel group that had been holding out there agreed to be evacuated. After its departure, Syrian and Russian troops arrived. It is unusual for Russian troops to take such a publicly visible role in patrolling Syrian government territory, and their presence can be seen as a warning to Washington against making a retaliatory attack in Douma….

Assad’s regime spent the week letting the world know that, in response to President Trump’s initial tweets about what a military response would entail, it had moved many of its assets to bases where Russian troops and planes are also located. Past attacks have avoided targeting Russians—and resulted in limited damages to facilities that are not as difficult to repair or replace.’

President Obama got us into this mess because he was always seeking an “off-ramp deal,” supposedly a deal designed to let everyone decrease the tensions, but actually a deal designed to allow him to pretend the crisis had passed and go back to ignoring Syria. Until the next crisis. Trump’s airstrike will prove inadequate if it is intended to accomplish the same thing.

A solution to the crisis in Syria—and its many negative effects on the United States, Europe, and the rest of the Middle East—will require a longer engagement than one night only.

Robert Tracinski is a senior writer for The Federalist. His work can also be found at The Tracinski Letter.

16 Apr 12:54

Accused shoplifter dies after store employees sit on him

The medical examiner is working to determine the man’s cause of death.
16 Apr 12:54

Man shot to death in B.W. Cooper area of New Orleans

by Chris Finch
New Orleans police are investigating a homicide in the B.W. Cooper area of New Orleans.
16 Apr 12:54

Richard Haass Hits ‘Intellectually Unmoored’ Comey on Morning Joe: He’s ‘Just Talking to Himself’

by Rachel Dicker

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass was unimpressed with former FBI Director James Comey‘s interview with George Stephanopoulos.

Joe Scarborough teed Haass up: “All he does is to feed into Donald Trump’s narrative and, it seems to me, make Robert Mueller’s job that much more difficult.”

“Indeed, that’s one of the unfortunate things is that it’s happening,” Haass replied. “This is enough of a circus now… without adding to it. This was self interest, not national interest.”

“I thought the most useful thing last night, Joe, was his distinction between the legal grounds for challenging the president and the fitness grounds. I think that’s a useful distinction,” he continued. “I thought his weakest thing last night was… he did nothing to persuade us that his various interventions in the run-up to the election were justified.”

Then Haass delivered the one-two punch: “This seemed to me a guy who was just talking to himself, was intellectually unmoored, almost without a compass. And here he is trying to justify what he did, when he did it, what he didn’t do. Who was he acting for? It just seemed to me he took on a disproportionate role in American politics without the mandate to do it.”

Knockout.

Watch above, via MSNBC.

[image via screengrab]

16 Apr 12:53

German President Calls for End of Demonizing Russia

by RT
We cannot declare Russia and its people to be an enemy, he says
16 Apr 12:52

'Bracott' at high school after student told to cover nipples...


'Bracott' at high school after student told to cover nipples...


(First column, 24th story, link)


16 Apr 12:50

No, Wendy Vitter is not going to overturn Brown v. Board of Education | Opinion

by Tim Morris, Columnist
Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana came under attack last week after her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
16 Apr 12:50

Attkisson: Trump Was Right To Fire Comey; Here Are 12 Reasons Why

by Tyler Durden

Authored by Sheryl Attkisson, op-ed via The Hill,

A lot of new information has come out in the year since President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.

No matter whether you admire Trump, Comey, both or neither - it’s now difficult to argue that Trump made the wrong move in removing Comey.

Even many of Trump’s detractors would agree that no president should keep in place the head of a crucial division who - along with some of his top staff — apparently worked to undermine or control the president, and exercised poor judgment in important matters. 

Here are 12 ways Comey has proven Trump was right to fire him.

1. Comey testified that it gave him a “queasy feeling” when then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directed him to publicly refer to the Hillary Clintonclassified email investigation as a “matter.” Yet, he did so anyway and did not raise objections.

2. Comey’s FBI, including allegedly his general counsel, was responsible for multiple leaks to the press with the apparent goal of politically helping Clinton or harming Trump. On the other hand, the FBI kept a closely-held secret any information that was favorable to Trump — such as the fact that Comey repeatedly told Trump he wasn’t under investigation.

3. Top FBI officials working under Comey conspired to develop an “insurance plan” in the event Trump were to be  elected. (One possible implication is that they could not afford to have Trump officials poking around into what they or other U.S. intel agencies had been doing over the years.)

4. We now know that Comey apparently delayed notifying Congress that the FBI had discovered Hillary Clinton emails on the personal computer of soon-to-be convicted sexter Anthony Weiner (then husband of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin), prior to the election.

5. Comey demonstrated bias or questionable judgment in selecting the man he trusted as his number two in February 2016: Andrew McCabe. Comey allowed McCabe to be involved in the FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton classified emails even though McCabe’s wife had received large sums of donor money from Clinton interests, including those of then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who also was under FBI investigation at the time. (The FBI granted top Clinton staff immunity from prosecution, didn’t record her interview, drafted an exoneration letter in advance, and ultimately excused Clinton’s mishandling of classified information as not being willful.)

6. Comey allowed McCabe’s involvement in the Clinton-related investigations to continue until the week before the 2016 election. Only then did McCabe “recuse himself” after a Wall Street Journal article about the donations to McCabe’s wife. (McCabe has said he followed proper procedures and did nothing wrong.)

7. McCabe says he told Comey in October 2016 that he — McCabe — had authorized a leak of sensitive information to the Wall Street Journal shortly before the election. The Department of Justice’s Inspector General has since found the leak was to advance McCabe’s own interests and was in violation of FBI policy. (Comey says he doesn’t recall McCabe telling him this.)

8. After the election, Comey informed President-elect Trump about the lurid allegations against him in the so-called “Steele dossier,” but admitted in an interview this week that he withheld from Trump the fact that it was opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton. 

9. While acknowledging the “Steele dossier” contained “salacious and unverified” material, knowing it was produced with help from an ex-foreign spy and understanding that it relied on primary sources who were said to be close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Comey apparently did not open an investigation into this effort to impact the U.S. election and undermine the American president.

10. Comey’s FBI used the “Steele dossier” to justify wiretaps before and after the election on an American citizen who was a Trump associate without disclosing that the “evidence” was political opposition research paid for by Trump’s opponent. This appears to be a violation of the FBI’s “Woods Procedures,” and possibly other policies.

11. Comey testified that after he was fired from the FBI, he secretly engineered a leak of FBI material to the New York Times for the political goal of prompting appointment of a special counsel to investigate Trump.

12. Comey has publicly disclosed content of private, personal conversations with President Trump, such as discussions about Trump’s wife’s feelings.

Trump may not have had the benefit of all of this information at the time he removed Comey, but in terms of whether Comey was the right person to serve as head of the FBI under the new administration, Trump’s instincts proved to be correct.

16 Apr 12:50

New foes emerge against Halifax’s Cornwallis statue: Highlanders descendants

Cornwallis led 320 soldiers to "pacify" an area of northwestern Scotland. Properties were looted and burned, livestock was driven off, crops were destroyed and some Jacobite families were burned alive in their homes.
16 Apr 12:50

New US Strikes in Syria Will Provoke a Tougher Response - Moscow

by Sputnik
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has refuted claims of the UK delegation to the OPCW that Russia and Syria denied access to t...
16 Apr 12:49

Injured East Baton Rouge deputy Nick Tullier in ICU with pneumonia, family says

by Advocate staff report
Injured East Baton Rouge sheriff’s deputy Nick Tullier was admitted into an intensive care unit over the weekend with pneumonia, his family said.
16 Apr 12:49

U.S. pastor stands trial in Turkey on charges he aided 2016 coup attempt

A U.S. pastor began trial in Turkey Monday on charges he aided in the military coup attempt nearly two years ago.
16 Apr 12:49

The billion-dollar question: How does the Clipper mission get to Europa?

by Eric Berger

Enlarge / The politics of getting to Europa are anything but straightforward. (credit: NASA)

LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Calif.—At one end of the conference room, four large window panes framed a view of the San Gabriel Mountains. Outside, ribbons of greenery snaked across the hills, a vestige of spring before the dry summer season descends upon Los Angeles.

Inside, deep in discussion, a dozen men and women sat around a long, oval-shaped wooden conference table. They were debating how best to send a daring mission, known as Europa Clipper, to Jupiter’s mysterious, icy moon Europa. Although hundreds of scientists and engineers were already planning and designing this spacecraft, the key decisions were being made in this room on the top floor of the administrative building at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

It will not be cheap or easy to reach Europa, which lies within the complicated gravitational tangle of Jupiter and its dozens of moons, 600 million kilometers from Earth. But the payoff, scientists feel, is potentially incalculable. Beneath Europa’s ice, perhaps just a few kilometers down in some areas, lies the most vast ocean known to humans. With abundant energy emanating from the moon’s interior into the ocean, scientists speculate life might exist—probably just microbes, but why not something krill-like, too?

Read 42 remaining paragraphs | Comments

16 Apr 12:49

Russian reporter who investigated Syria mercenaries dies in 'balcony fall'

by NEWS WIRES
A Russian journalist who wrote on Moscow's "shadow army" in Syria has died after falling from the balcony of his fifth-floor flat, but investigators said Monday they were not treating the death as suspicious.
16 Apr 12:48

Judge Napolitano Says Government Will Try To Strip Michael Cohen Of Attorney-Client Privilege With Trump

by Nick Givas
'The attorney-client privilege is an ancient privilege'
16 Apr 12:48

Prison riot in South Carolina leaves 7 inmates dead, 17 injured

by The Associated Press
Agents helped secure the prison around 3 a.m. Monday.