Today In Impeachment News

There were no hearings yet but there was still news on the impeachment front.  Here are three highlights. 

1.  The Republicans on the intelligence committee issued their minority report.  Needless to say, they pointed out that there is no competent evidence of any wrongdoing by the President and certainly no basis for impeachment.  They also criticized the Dems for misusing the extraordinary remedy of impeachment just for political attacks.

2.  The president of Ukraine once again publicly confirmed that there was no quid pro quo between Ukraine and the USA regarding investigations of Biden and US aid.  Zelensky also again confirmed that President Trump never pressured him to do investigations and never linked the investigations to the release of aid by the USA or to a meeting  between Trump and Zelensky.  The Ukrainian also confirmed that no one else on behalf of the USA pressures him to do any of these investigations.  In other words, the supposed victim of Trump's alleged misconduct denies that any of it happened.  Since there seems to be no witness who has testified that Trump actually did any of this stuff, the whole inquiry should end right now.

3.  Adam Schiff who ran the investigation has refused to testify before the Judiciary committee despite being called to do so by the minority.  Schiff doesn't want to be asked about coordinating with the so called whistle blower prior to any complaints being filed.  He also doesn't want to have his personal biases and lies exposed for America to see.

Steve Bullock Exist the Race

In another major development, Steve Bullock has exited from the Democrat race for president.  Okay, so it's not a major development.  Indeed, it's not even a minor development.  Bullock is the Montana governor, but he has no support.  He's averaging 0 in the polls.

Perhaps the best summary of Bullock's campaign appeared on Twitter.  Bullock announced his withdrawal from the race on Twitter.  Ten hours later, someone responded to that tweet with the question "who is this?"

I don't want to be outdone here.  Accordingly, I too am announcing that I am suspending my campaign for the Democrat nomination for president.  Now I can say that I had as much impact as the governor of Montana.

A Minimum Of 208

In true Jeopardy format, here's the clue in the form of an answer:  "A minimum of 208."

The correct response is this:  What is the number of Iranians who were killed by security forces in the protests in the past month according to Amnesty International?

That's right.  Amnesty says that at least 208 Iranians were murdered by the state security forces as they protested against the recent government-imposed increase in gasoline prices.  These are the deaths that Amnesty International could confirm.  The actual number is likely much higher.

Think about that.  Imagine what would happen in the USA if police and federal agents were to kill 208 people during a protest.  There would be no peace for years.  And remember, Iran only has about on quarter as many people as the USA, so the equivalent here would be over 800 dead.

Have you noticed all the upset and outrage in the mainstream media condemning the Iranians for this mass slaughter?  No, neither have I.  The mainstream media are treating this whole matter as if it does not exist.

Iran deserves total condemnation from the international community.  Iran deserves total condemnation from the media.  Somehow, though, very little seems to be said or done to condemn Iran for these brutal murders aside from a few statements by the US (which some other countries actually condemn.)

Playing The Victim Card

Lisa Page, the disgraced former FBI lawyer, who is best known for her texts with her lover, married FBI agent Peter Strzok, is playing the victim card.  Page, you may recall, is the one to whom Strzok bragged about the "insurance policy" that they had regarding how to deal with a president Trump should Trump beat Clinton in 2016.  That insurance policy turned out to be the fake Russian collusion story that was used to attack Trump relentlessly for two years.  Most other presidents would have folded under the pressure, but Trump braved the storm and was vindicated.  Page was part of the alleged conspiracy to bring down the presidency.  Page has basically been in hiding for the last year plus -- making no public statements since she was sacked at the FBI.  During that time, the President has repeatedly pointed out her perfidy and that of her co-conspirators in speeches and comments. 

Now, Page is busy complaining today that each time Trump talks about her misdeeds it is "like being punched in the gut".  How sad!  Poor baby!

Page is lucky that so far she hasn't been indicted.  Some harsh words from the man she worked so hard to destroy is not the cause for anyone to feel sympathy for this disgusting woman.  She deserves everything that she gets.  AND MORE.

Spending A Lot On Nothing

Michael Bloomberg and his multi-billion dollar fortune are running for president.  Bloomberg isn't taking donations; he's totally self funding.  That's fine.  Bloomberg has also now made clear that his two main issues are 1. Climate Change and 2. Gun Control.  That's right.  Bloomie is going to spend a billion dollars pushing two issues that are not very high on the list of concerns of the American people.  The big two issues are the economy and healthcare.  Climate change and gun control are down near the bottom in all the polls.

One does have to wonder how divorced Bloomberg is from reality if he thinks that he can win a race on these two issues.  Tom Steyer has just spent hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money pushing his signature issue of climate change, but he's at 2% or less in all the polls.  Why would Bloomberg think that he would do any better than his fellow billionaire Steyer?

It seems like both are spending a lot on NOTHING.  Of course, it is good for the local TV stations who sell their ad time for higher amounts because of the added demand.

FakenewsWeek

It's a rather bizarre story.  A reporter for NewsWeek who wrote an article lambasting President Trump for spending the holiday "Playing golf" and "tweeting" got fired by the magazine.  Trump, you see, was actually in Afghanistan visiting the troops at the Bagram base in that country.  There was a cover story that Trump had gone to his Florida golf retreat which was put out to keep the trip to the war zone a secret.  The NewsWeek reporter fell for the cover story and then wrote a snarky column attacking Trump for enjoying the holiday just like millions of other Americans.

When news of the President's visit to Afghanistan and the troops was released; NewsWeek changed its story.  It didn't issue a correction or a retraction, but it did change the headline to indicate that Trump spent Thanksgiving tweeting and playing golf and visiting the troops.  The first two items were still wrong, but the NewsWeek editors kept them there anyway.

The NewsWeek story was mocked in a tweet by the President's son and the President retweeted it.  NewsWeek apparently felt that it had to do something, so it fired the reporter.  Pretty strange.  Sure the reporter wrote a nasty anti-Trump story.  That's nothing unusual for NewsWeek.  Something like 99% of the time, that magazine is anti-Trump.  It was the editors who should have taken down the bogus story and put up an accurate one.  Why weren't they fired?

Why Does It Sound Like A Movie Script?

A team of scientists has managed to create a new strain of bacteria that no longer eats organic sugars but instead lives off carbon dioxide in the air.  These bacteria would be used to reduce carbon dioxide in the air and thereby combat global warming.  Sounds nice, right; but what could go wrong?

Here's a thought.  What if the bacteria spread out of the lab and other controlled locations and suddenly got a foothold on the outside?  What if these bacteria spread around the world since the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is everywhere?  What if these bacteria which take their food from the air were able to seriously deplete the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?  Let me put it this way:  most plants on earth would die.  Then, most animals on earth would die.  Meanwhile, most people on earth would die.  And I say "most" because I don't want to be too over the top and say "ALL".

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is needed for nearly every plant on earth to survive.  Reduce levels in a dramatic fashion and plant life will starve.  If plants starve, all the animals that eat those plants will likewise starve.  And guess what happens to people at that point?  No food = no people.

The truth is that higher carbon dioxide levels is very good for plant life.  When the enviro-crazies decide that carbon dioxide is "bad", that is a totally counter-scientific and pseudo - religious point of view. 

I know it sounds like a movie plot, but this is real.  Will life on earth actually be destroyed by the environmental crazies?