Mediaboss Marketing

There is an awful lot going on in the State Capitol in these waning days of the elongated 2021 session yes kids, we are just over three weeks away from a legislative hard stop and much of it is horrifying to one degree or another, depending on your particular ox and how much of a priority has been made of goring it. Meanwhile, there is also an awful lot going on beyond our shores, and the new administrations reactions to those could ultimately prove at least as consequential, and probably more so, as what transpires under the local dome.

The middle east is as good a place to start as anywhere, given that it cannot quite give up its hold over dominating the center of the world stage.

The primary concern, on the foreign policy front, of a Biden administration was that it adumbrated a return to the chronically feckless foreign policy meandering of the Obama administration. That fear is on the verge of being realized in the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. First, while it is unreasonable to suggest that Biden and his policies were in any way directly responsible for Hamas and Islamic Jihads attack of Israel, the concurrent circumstances cannot be ignored. The Iranian government is nothing if not opportunistic well, brutal too and is fully cognizant of how eager Biden is to resurrect the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Tehran sees the change in administrations as a chance to fray the Abraham Accords struck last year between Israel and several Arab states, gauge the commitment of the United States to Israeli security, and maximize their bargaining position when America comes running back to the table.

So far, the Biden administration hasnt exactly shown the steadfastness of Rolands defense of Roncevaux, but hasnt caved to demands from the left to pressure Israel into an unwise cease-fire either. Those mistakes have come from Congress, where the fringier types have denounced Israel as an undemocratic, apartheid state, betraying a profound confusion over the meaning of both of those words Israel is among the only functioning democracies in the region, one in which Arab-Israelis can and do fully participate; while Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian State, is 15 years into a four-year term and are, among other things, demanding an end to arms sales to Israel and blocking sanctions against foreign supporters of Hamas. So the question is how long the Biden administration can hold off the pressure from the left to condemn Israel for defending herself? If I were living under the Iron Dome in Tel Aviv, I would not place an exorbitant amount of hope in the fortitude of Joe Biden.

Turning north, we see this week a hint of how the Biden administration will interact with Putins Russia. One of the bewildering ironies of the Trump years was the overnight flip-flop by both parties concerning Russia before 2016, the Democrats were the party of Russian (decades earlier, Soviet) appeasement, the Republicans Cold War-nostalgic hardliners. After attempts by Russia to interfere with the 2016 election (which, incidentally, they had been doing since at least 1917), the narrative mysteriously flipped, and Biden tried sounding absolutely Nixonian in his jingoistic denunciations of Putin and Russia.

At least before the election. Now he is again looking as though he is prepared to pick up right where Obama left off. His decision to not levy sanctions against the company running the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will pour Russian natural gas into Europe, is riddled with ironies, not the least of which is that it demonstrates a greater commitment by this administration to a pipeline that would benefit Russia, than to one the Keystone XL that would benefit the U.S. But it also demonstrates a disconcerting weakness and a misunderstanding of the weight of geopolitics.

All of this is compounded by Bidens earlier decision to suspend already weak intellectual property protections for U.S. vaccine makers, which sets a terrifying precedent would the same administration be as willing to share details of, say, the Joint Strike Fighter, in the name of an international security emergency?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the globe, the Chinese Communist Party has all but solidified its takeover of Hong Kong, this week seizing the equity assets of an owner in a publicly traded company under the aegis of the new national security law. One can safely assume that the Chinese rulers are closely watching how the new American administration responds to Iran and Russia as their gaze turns over the South China Sea towards Taiwan.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.

Read the original post:
SLOAN | Will Biden abroad be Obama in redux? - coloradopolitics.com

As recently as May 2019, just two years ago, Texas Republicans and their allies were not at all eager to approve a sweeping abortion ban. It wasn't because they preferred moderation on reproductive rights, but rather, because they didn't think it would work out well -- legally or politically.

Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said at the time that he considered Texas "clearly the most pro-life state in the country," but added that major abortion restrictions simply weren't "the highest priority" for GOP officials. Patrick concluded that other states could take the lead.

A lot can change in two years.

Texas became the largest state Wednesday with a law that bans abortions before many women even know they are pregnant, but with a unique provision that essentially leaves enforcement to private citizens through lawsuits against doctors or anyone who helps a woman get an abortion.

As abortion bans go, this one's a doozy. Texas has approved a so-called "heartbeat" bill, which bans abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. As the Associated Press' report noted, there are real, practical problems with such a timeline: many Texas women, at least those who can't afford to travel to Democratic-led states to terminate unwanted pregnancies, will be required to seek abortions before they know they're pregnant.

But while other Republican-led states have approved related measures, the new abortion ban in the Lone Star State goes a little further.

The Texas Tribune reported, "Instead of having the government enforce the law, the bill turns the reins over to private citizens who are newly empowered to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps someone get an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected. The person would not have to be connected to someone who had an abortion or to a provider to sue."

In other words, if a Texan learns that a neighbor had an abortion seven weeks after getting pregnant, he could file suit against the physician who performed the procedure. And the nurse who was in the room. And the friend who drove the neighbor to the health clinic.

Whether that litigious Texan has anything to do with the neighbor or her family is, under the state's new law, irrelevant. The AP report added, "Critics say that provision would allow abortion opponents to flood the courts with lawsuits to harass doctors, patients, nurses, domestic violence counselors, a friend who drove a woman to a clinic, or even a parent who paid for a procedure."

Critics say that, of course, because it's true.

MSNBC's Laura Bassett noted an ironic twist: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed the abortion ban just one day after the Republican governor signed a measure banning local government entities, including public schools, from enforcing COVID-19 mask mandates.

After signing the executive order, Abbott wrote on twitter, "Texans, not [government], should decide their best health practices."

So much for that idea.

Ordinarily, the state's new abortion ban would face immediate trouble in the courts, but let's not forget that the U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it will hear a Mississippi case that threatens to undo Roe v. Wade protections, and perhaps even allow the kind of abortion ban signed into law in Texas yesterday. Watch this space.

Read more:
Why Texas Republicans' new abortion ban is different than most - MSNBC

Some of the 175 Republicans who voted against establishing an independent commission to investigate the Capitol riot supported a commission in January.

In the days after the Jan. 6 attack, 30 Republicans co-sponsored a commission bill introduced by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.). This week, even more Republicans endorsed the idea Davis was one of the 35 Republicans who broke with party leaders and voted in favor of a commission on Wednesday.

After all, it is common for Congress to establish an advisory commission in the wake of a disaster or to help with some complicated policy problem. Congress has established dozens and dozens of commissions in recent decades.

But 16 of the Republicans who co-sponsored the Davis bill in January voted against the newer bill to establish a commission, which was written by House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the committees top Republican, Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.).

One of them, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), had such a strong change of heart that he urged his colleagues to vote against the commission bill Wednesday during a Republican Study Committee meeting before the vote. Banks refused to speak to HuffPost about the commission.

The Davis bill from January envisioned a similar commission to the one in the Thompson-Katko bill, with five expert members appointed by each party, the same power to issue subpoenas, and a final report with recommendations for corrective measures. Both bills are modeled on the legislation that established the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks commission.

Tom Williams via Getty ImagesRep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) co-sponsored a Republican bill to establish a Jan. 6 commission soon after the Capitol attack, but voted against the bipartisan bill passed by the House this week.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who co-sponsored the Davis bill but voted against the Thompson-Katko bill, insisted the two measures are very different.

Its a whole different situation, Norman told HuffPost. Their intent is just to keep the spotlight on Trump, and thats not right.

The biggest difference about the situation is that when Republicans introduced their commission bill in January, House Democrats had just introduced an impeachment resolution against Donald Trump. At the time, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested a fact-finding commission and a censure resolution as an impeachment alternative.

But Norman said its more than just a different situation today: Its two different bills, two different commissions, two different setups.

There are some small differences between the bills. The one Norman supported would give the commission 18 months to write its report, while the one that passed the House sets a Dec. 31, 2021, deadline. But the shorter deadline is probably advantageous for Republicans, since it means a big commission report wouldnt drop right before the midterm elections next year.

The House-passed bill disallows current officeholders from serving on the panel, but, in a break from the 9/11 commission model, the Republican bill would allow the appointment of two members of Congress, giving Republicans an opportunity for sabotage.

Before Thompson and Katko announced their agreement last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had her own proposal for a commission, one with more Democratic than Republican appointees and unilateral subpoena powers.

But even after she conceded to an even party split, Republican leaders complained that the commission wouldnt also look at Black Lives Matter protests that had no relevance to the Capitol attack.

And this week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) griped that a commission would duplicate ongoing congressional and criminal investigations, even though the same was true of the 9/11 commission. The House bill faces uncertain odds in the Senate.

Normans complaint that a commission would keep the spotlight on Trump points to the real reason most Republicans oppose a special investigation. The events of Jan. 6 reflect poorly on the Republican Party because its leader, Donald Trump, incited the attack on the Capitol with his lies about the election, and most Republicans joined him in telling those lies.

The 16 Republicans who signed on to the Davis bill but voted against the Thompson-Katko bill are: Banks, Norman, James Comer (Ky.), Ashley Hinson (Iowa), Ted Budd (N.C.), Michael McCaul (Texas), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Michelle Steel (Calif.), August Pfluger (Texas), Kat Cammack (Fla.), Jake LaTurner (Kan.), Jeff Van Drew (N.J.), Diana Harshbarger (Tenn.), Beth Van Duyne (Texas), Clay Higgins (La.) and Jackie Walorski (Ind.).

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read more:
Some Republicans Opposed To Capitol Riot Commission Supported One In January - HuffPost

In December, Donald Trump signed the coronavirus relief and government funding bill into law. This meantthat US intelligence services, from the FBI to the CIA, would later be forced to tell Congress everything they know aboutUnidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

Ok, those two sentences don't necessarily follow on from each other if you're unfamiliar with US politics, but stay with us. Within the spending bill wastheIntelligence Authorization Act for 2021, and hidden in the depths of that was a clause that calls for intelligence chiefs to submit a report "to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena(also known as "anomalous aerial vehicles''), includingobserved airborne objects that have not been identified", within 180 days.

They will also be required to identify "potential aerospace or otherthreats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena tonational security, and an assessment of whether thisunidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries," which all sounds quite spicy.

In the run up to the release, expected in just a few short weeks, the US has been going through UFO fever. As well as new leaked footage from the US Navy showing a strange blob moving in an unusual pattern, several high-ranking US officials have been a lot more chatty than usual about objects going whoosh in the sky, including President Obama.

In an interview with theLate Late Show,the former president was asked by band leaderReggie Watts if he had any theories about UFOs or unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAPs).

When it comes to aliens, there are some things I just cant tell you on air, he replied. The truth is that when I came into office, I asked. I was like, Is there a lab somewhere where were keeping the alien specimens and space ships?'

They did a little bit of research and the answer was no."

But what is true, and Im actually being serious here... there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we dont know exactly what they are,we cant explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern.

I think people still take seriouslytrying to investigate and figure out what [UFOs are], but I have nothing to report to you today.

Elsewhere, military intelligence officerLuis Elizondo, who spent time working at the Pentagon'sAdvanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, teased what they had found which will soon be released to congress.

"Imagine a technology that can do 6-to-700 g-forces, that can fly at 13,000 miles an hour, that can evade radar and that can fly through air and water and possibly space," he told CBS, in an interview where he said, for most cases, there are simple explanations.

"And oh, by the way, has no obvious signs of propulsion, no wings, no control surfaces and yet still can defy the natural effects of Earth's gravity. That's precisely what we're seeing."

Receive our biggest science stories to your inbox weekly!

The rest is here:
Obama: 'There's Footage And Records Of Objects In The Skies That We Don't Know Exactly What They Are' - IFLScience

Caroline BrehmanGetty Images

The It-Didnt-Start-With-Trump element of the Republican recalcitrance on a proposed bipartisan (Gawd!) commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection is to recall that George W. Bush did all he could to derail the 9/11 commission that everyone now pretends to adore, and that C-Plus Augustus refused to testify under oath to that commission, and wouldnt even sit for an unrecorded interview except in the White House with Dick Cheney, father of St. Liz of the Holy Soundbite, sitting next to him working the levers. And lets not even get into the government-wide stonewalling of the Iran-Contra investigations before that, and lets also remember that there were 33 investigations into Benghazi, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI!

However, when Mitch McConnell came out on Tuesday as the devious reptile hes always been, and announced that he was joining House Republican honcho Kevin McCarthy over in Cowards Corner, the difference was an order of magnitude. These guys were shirking their constitutional obligation and abandoning their moral compasses because a) they lead a party that is very likely complicit in the events, and b) theyre doing so to cover for a crook and a liar whos in so many crosshairs he looks like Bonnie and Clyde at the end of that movie.

Mitch, my dude, this isnt a job for grown-ups. And let us all wave farewell to Rep. John Katko, the Republican co-sponsor of the bipartisan commission proposal, as he disappears forever under a bus.

Later Wednesday afternoon, debate in the House began on the resolution establishing the commission. The overarching impressions were that, in the debate, the Democrats led with age and the Republicans led with crazy. The first three speakers in defense of the resolutionNancy Pelosi, Bennie Thompson, and Steny Hoyerare a combined 235 years old. The Republican side led off with Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louis Gohmert, and some guy from North Carolina named Sam Bishop, who wanted to make sure everybody knew that what happened on January 6.

Personally, I think the passel of elderly Communist inebriates who tried to overthrow future Pizza Hut spokesman Mikhail Gorbachev back in August of 1991 are still the gold standard for insurrectionist clownery. (They got faced down by Boris Yeltsin, reportedly because, against all possible odds, some of them were drunker than Yeltsin was.) That, however, is beside the point. I would draw your attention to that last sentence in which John Katko returns to his place under the wheels.

Kent NishimuraGetty Images

Watching Katko straddle the crazy to get the resolution he co-sponsored passed made you fear for every hamstring the man owns. Speaker after speaker tried to find polite ways to call Katko either a rube or a sucker. Meanwhile, the Democrats, in the person of co-sponsor Thompson, seem convinced that the fact that the resolution is bipartisan has some ultimate legislative salience in the Congress, and some ultimate political salience in the country, which is something I doubt profoundly. People dont give a fck about bipartisanship. Its neither a dealmaker nor a dealbreaker. Its a green-room amenity, like sodas and a crudit plate. Thankfully, Rep. Tim Ryan showed up to inveigh against the futility of it all.

To which Katko responded in his best hall-monitor voice that things were getting impermissibly partisan and emotional. Because, when you come right down to it, John Katko is a Republican, too. At loose moments, he let that slip through. For example, the regular GOP stance on the commission is that it ought to investigate the disturbances last summer following the murder of George Floyd. (Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene ranted about them in her one minute of debate time.) But Katko tried another tack.

This is a matter of comparing apples and salamanders. The 2017 episode was the work of one man, James Hodgkinson, and he was killed by the officers at the scene. There was a Secret Service investigation almost immediately after the shooting. As far as I know, there havent even been rumors of other people involved in the shooting. Hodgkinson was vocal in his dislike of Republicans and clearly came to the ballfield to attack them that morning, but he did it all on his own. An awful event, certainly, but if Katko thinks a 1/6 commission should examine it, then hes as invested in delay and deflection as Greene is.

And, unless Mitch McConnell is taken off to glory and replaced by Zombie Paul Douglas, this thing is as dead as Kelseys nuts in the Senate anyway. Ten Republicans would have to vote for it and, well, no. Its time for Democrats simply to put together a select committee of their own, issue subpoenas, and let the chips fall.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Go here to read the rest:
Republicans Threw Their Own Guy Deep Under the Bus to Avoid a January 6 Commission - Esquire