If you are not a Democrat in charge of California, you might have noticed the sad decline of the once-great state. Most of the decline can be tied to Democrat policies. If you don't want your state to look like California, don't vote Democrats into office.

That's right. The state of Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Maxine Waters is an unmitigated disaster.

Newsom, Brown and the Democrats

If you listen to Governor Gavin Newsom or former Governor Jerry Brown, you might think that California is the best state in the country.

Brown and Newsom and many Democrats like to crow about all that California is doing to stop climate change. They have taxed gasoline more, established cap and trade, and set goals to make California "carbon-neutral" by 2040. They have pushed for electric cars, wanting 5 million of them on the road by 2030.

But here's a dirty little secret. The electricity used to charge the cars is still being largely produced using fossil fuels. In 2018, Governor Brown signed a bill mandating that 100% of California's electricity grid would be powered by "green"  sources by 2045. And of course, while the state is transitioning to greener sources of energy, the cost of electricity is much higher in most of California than in other states.

High energy costs

Meanwhile, the people in California are bearing the brunt of the pet policies of the Democrat leadership. The governor is a Democrat, and both the Assembly and the Senate are majority Democrat, so these policies are passed even though they hurt the state's economy.

If you don't qualify for home energy subsidies, you are spending a lot of money on electricity. Californians that rely on PGE for their power can spend $400-$500 a month if they are heating or cooling their homes. Price per kWh can be almost $0.40. Gas prices range from $3-$4 throughout the year.

Devastating wildfires and climate change

For all the talk about the dangers of climate change, Gov. Brown and Gov. Schwarzenegger (a Republican and an environmentalist) before him really didn't prepare California for the devastating wildfires that have burned throughout the state the last five years. and it's not like they hadn't been warned.

In 2006, the Western Governors Association proposed that the overgrowth in western forests could be used to produce electricity cheaply at about 8 cents per KWH, and reduce not only carbon emissions but also the undergrowth that could fuel devastating wildfires.

As the vast forests of the Western United States have become overgrown over the past century, dramatic wildfires have become more common, putting vital habitats, watersheds, and communities at risk. The biomass energy industry offers a low environmental impact, productive use for dead wood that would otherwise require open burning or – more likely – serve as fuel for a future wildfire. Use of woody biomass for energy production provides an important economic incentive for fuel treatment.

If only Schwarzenegger and Brown had acted back then.

But, instead of cleaning up the forests, both state and federal, they spent a lot of time getting legislation into place to change our energy production grid. (After the devastating Camp Fire in 2018, Brown, just before leaving office, did sign two bills that address forest management.) The fires have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. It makes one wonder if the Democrats really believed what they were saying about the urgency of climate change.

These recent wildfires have hurt people in the rural areas of California as insurance companies refuse to renew policies and people have to pay thousands more for the California Fair plan to insure their homes. Home values are starting to decline, too, which, for most folks, is their biggest asset.

Power outages

PGE, the state-sponsored utility monopoly,  has been responsible for starting many of the recent wildfires. They have chosen to try to avoid sparking more fires by improving their infrastructure, but while they are doing that, they are also shutting off the power if there is an impending wind event in an area.

This policy has led to many rolling blackouts in the fall of 2019, which has led to many businesses, schools, and households to go without the electricity needed to run pretty much everything. PGE plans on using this policy for several more years.

A laundry list of problems making the state less livable

Many Californians moved into the rural/wildland interface to escape the urban areas of the state which have become intolerably crowded, and more lately, crime-ridden, dirty, dangerous and depressing. The state population continues to grow, but water storage, and housing remain inadequate for the new residents.

California's sanctuary state law SB54, income taxes (top at 13%), energy taxes, gas taxes (47.3 cents/gallon), building restrictions (low growth, no growth policies), criminal justice reform laws, and the homelessness epidemic have combined to make living in the state intolerable for many now.

Small businesses and farms struggling

Small businesses struggle to remain open as new minimum wage laws make labor too expensive. Income taxes take a large chunk of everyone's earnings. Healthcare costs are high.

Farmers in the big valley, the country's most productive farmland, have been struggling over water rights for years, now, as it seems our leaders value wild and free rivers and fish over our agricultural economic engine and the families that farm.

Many farmers have sold their farms and moved to other states or quit farming altogether. A decline in California's agricultural output will affect the whole country as a large majority of the nation's fruit and vegetables are grown there.

Dirty cities

Visiting our once beautiful and desirable cities has become a health hazard as the streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles are littered with human excrement, drug paraphernalia, and mentally unstable and often drunk or high homeless people. Many other cities in the state have the same problems, as California has the highest homeless population in the country.

Big budget small results

California has a huge state budget, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, but our infrastructure continues to crumble, and the state agencies seem powerless and moneyless to fix anything. Californians drive on roads that are so bad that their cars fall apart faster.

California spends hundreds of millions of dollars on the homeless problem, but it continues to grow worse. The press will only run stories lauding the homeless, but first-hand accounts from first responders tell a different story.

Hospitals and first responders are spending a lot of time and resources on the homeless, and they are even putting their lives in danger to aid the homeless, frequently being attacked as they render services.

Don't let your state look like California

Though some people, like Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg, want the rest of the country to look like California, many Californians have read the writing on the wall, so to speak, and are voting with their feet to find states that don't.

WATCH:

Lev Parnas, associate of Rudy Guliani, is the latest Democrat darling on whom the impeachment crowd are pinning their hopes to remove President Trump. The House Democrats want the Senate to allow witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Trump and Parnas is on the list.

Who is Lev Parnas?

Lev Parnas was born in Odessa, Ukraine in 1972 when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. He didn't live there long as his parents brought him to the United States in 1975.  They lived in Detroit and then in New York.

He founded a company called Global Energy Producers, and then in 2013 a company named Fraud Guarantee. The Wall Street Journal reported that the name Fraud Guarantee was chosen to put help Parnas with Google searches.

Apparently, his name was already associated with fraud in a negative way, so he "fixed" that with a company that supposedly helped people who had been defrauded.

Parnas and Igor Fruman were arrested at Dulles Airport back in October 2019 for election finance violations, conspiracy, making false statements and falsifying records.

So it's a legitimate question: is Lev Parnas a credible witness?

Pelosi on Parnas

At the end of her press conference recently, Nancy Pelosi was asked if Lev Parnas would be a credible witness. She quickly brought up the documents that were released and said it seemed that the documents would support what Parnas has been saying about working for the president.

The reporter pressed and asked if Parnas could be credible since he was under a federal indictment? Pelosi said he could be in relation to the impeachment. In other words, she did not say that Parnas was credible.

Watch Pelosi respond to questions about Parnas.

Adam Schiff on Parnas

Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko on Parnas

Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko, familiar with US aid to Ukraine, said that he doesn't trust a word that Parnas is saying. (He also said the withholding of US aid was not unusual.)

Jake Tapper on Parnas

CNN's Jake Tapper had this to say,

We can’t ignore Parnas has a serious credibility problem. He’s under indictment for campaign finance charges. The foreign minister of Ukraine told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that he doesn’t trust a word Parnas is saying. And yet I see people out there on social media — Democrats — acting as if this guy is the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt or something.”

Parnas on Parnas

Last November, Parnas said he spoke with the president in a private meeting about Ukraine. Now, Parnas has said he never spoke privately to President Trump about Ukraine.

"In the interview with The Times, Mr. Parnas said that although he did not speak with Mr. Trump directly about the efforts, he met with the president on several occasions and was told by Mr. Giuliani that Mr. Trump was kept in the loop."

The rest of the usual suspects, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, etc. are absolutely certain that Parnas is credible and that his interviews on their shows have been absolute bombshells, even though Parnas, like all the other Democrat witnesses, has no first-hand knowledge of what the president said about Ukraine.  No surprise there.

But one has to wonder why Pelosi and Schiff want Parnas to testify?

The impeachment of President Donald Trump officially moved to the United States Senate, today. It is reasonable to expect that the antics of the House will be very much present as the lead House manager is Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Democrats continue, with one voice, to verbally bully the president and the Senate and pre-emptively accuse them of a cover-up if the House managers don't get their way. 

Pelosi and Schiff weave a tangled web to deceive

In a stunningly hypocritical moment, Pelosi quoted the familiar "What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive" and applied it to President Trump.

An "infallible, undeniable" case

Pelosi said the House Democrats saw a strong case for impeachment, an "infallible undeniable case." But the House and Senate Republicans have been poking a lot of holes in the "infallible" case even as it was presented on national television. The case that has been sent to the Senate was definitely weak and fallible. That is why Pelosi and her "henchmen and women" want more witnesses and evidence admitted to the Senate trial.

Nancy Pelosi called Senate leader Mitch McConnell the grim reaper. She called AG William Barr "the rogue Attorney General"  who should but wouldn't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the claims made by Lev Parnas. because he, Barr, is implicated in "all of this." She then said he was an example of all the president's "henchmen," and hoped that senators would not become his "henchmen." She then called Barr a puppet!

When asked if Lev Parnas, under federal indictment for campaign finance violations, would be a credible witness, Pelosi wasn't as confident and clear. She did seem to want to believe Parnas as she said that Barr was implicated in Parnas's testimony.

Watch Lindsey Graham respond to Lev Parnas and "new" evidence:

Pelosi accused President Trump of violating the Impowerment [sic]Control Act during her weekly press conference, which makes it seem as if this might be the first time she ever heard of the ICA. But the "I" in ICA stands for Impoundment, not "Impowerment" which is not actually a word.

Did President Trump violate the Impoundment Control Act?

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) violated the law,

"Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.[The Office of Management and Budget] OMB withheld funds for a policy reason ... not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that the OMB violated the ICA [Impoundment Control Act]."

The non-partisan GAO issued an opinion about the deferring of funds for Ukraine, which seems to help the House Democrats at this point.

Did the president violate the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), an act passed by Congress in 1974 during Richard Nixon's administration? One wonders why a president wouldn't veto an act that effectively ties his hands when it comes to funds and foreign policy?

According to the ICA, Congress can appropriate funds and mandate that they be spent in a foreign country and the president has to comply, even if it conflicts with his own foreign policy agenda as in the case of aid to Ukraine. This is obviously a problem for the president now and going forward.

For a full analysis of the Impoundment Control Act, go here. 

How important is the GAO opinion that Trump broke the law?

At first, the GAO opinion seems like the absolute end of Trump, but let's get a little perspective. The GAO issued letters of at least seven violations during President Obama's administration, including one for the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange. Here's what the Washington Post had to say about that back in August, 2014.

The Government Accountability Office released a review Thursday stating that the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap broke a law mandating that Congress be informed of prisoner transfers from Guantanamo. The review handed opponents of President Obama powerful reinforcement of two of their key critiques: that Obama routinely oversteps his executive authority, and that his maneuvers on foreign policy make the country less safe. But the actual effect of the letter from the nonpartisan agency may be only that —  that it becomes a political talking point.

Now, the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap was far more serious in nature as the Taliban 5 (all five had ties to Al Qaeda) that were released are now negotiating the US exit from Afghanistan. But, the press gave President Obama a pass and he was not impeached for not informing Congress that the prisoners from Guantanamo were being released.

Watch Pelosi's press conference:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi named her seven impeachment house managers on Wednesday, January 15 in a signing ceremony. She also handed out special "impeachment" pens to commemorate the occasion.

The White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeted,“Nancy Pelosi’s souvenir pens served up on silver platters to sign the sham articles of impeachment... She was so somber as she gave them away to people like prizes.”

Stateswoman Pelosi

In a sad attempt at statesmanship, Pelosi tried to wax poetic about how the times have charged the House Democrats with the duty of impeaching the President of the United States. I am afraid that history will not find her very statesmanlike.

Talking about time, one cannot help but think about how unimportant time has been the last few weeks as she held the articles of impeachment. Pelosi and the House Democrats seem to be satisfied that President Trump will be "impeached forever."

Pelosi did try to justify the delay by blaming the Senate for not letting her know how the trial would be conducted, although  Senate Leader Mitch McConnell let the world know that the trial would follow the precedent of the Clinton impeachment trial. She also said that"Time has been our friend" as she brought up more things she would like the Senate to incorporate into the trial.

Pelosi still insists that the hold on aid to Ukraine was illegal and wants new evidence admitted to substantiate that. She also wants to bring in new information from John Bolton.

Voters Not Vadimir Plootin

In one particularly cringey moment, Pelosi said that "Voters should decide who the president is, not Vadimir Plootin." She seemed to have trouble enunciating during the announcement.

As far as letting Putin choose our president, apparently, the 63 million people that voted for President Trump the first time had nothing to do with putting Donald Trump in the White House, it was all Putin! Such is the alternate universe Pelosi lives in.

The House Managers

The House managers are all litigators: Adam Schiff (CA), Jerry Nadler (NY), Zoe Lofgren (CA), Jakeem Jeffries (NY), Val Demings (FL), Jason Crow (CO), Silvia Garcia (TX). Pelosi said they were chosen for their courtroom experience and "The emphasis is on comfort in the courtroom."

WATCH:

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Devin Nunes suggests that the latest move by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is a good reason to eliminate FISC.

FISC presiding Judge James E. Boasberg appointed liberal lawyer David Kris as Amicus Curiae (impartial advisor to the court) in order to ensure that the evidence submitted by the FBI for FISA warrants in the future is accurate in order to comply with the Inspector General's report in December 2019.

Is David Kris impartial?

From his "short" blog on the IG report on Crossfire Hurricane, Kris expressed his opinion of AG Barr and Clinton's AG Janet Reno. (Janet Reno of Waco, Texas and Branch Davidians fame.)

In my professional lifetime, Attorney General Janet Reno  probably represents the end of the spectrum closest to pure law enforcement, farthest away from politics. Barr is pretty clearly at the other end, and when his second tour as attorney general is done, we may be able to look back and assess authoritatively (perhaps with the benefit of an inspector general report) whether and to what extent he pushed the edges of the spectrum further (or too far) toward the political.

David Kris criticized the "Nunes Memo" shortly after it was released in February of 2018. The memo was the work of the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, exposing the corrupt Russia Collusion investigation which is called Crossfire Hurricane. Michael Horowitz, in his IG report of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, largely corroborated the Nunes Memo. Kris:

The central irony of the memo prepared by House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes, we now know, is that it tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court. 

This video compilation provides an accurate sampling of Kris's view of the president. He, like the rest of the resistance, makes assertions unsupported by evidence or reality.  Keep in mind that everything he accuses the president of has been debunked by the Mueller Report and the Horowitz report.

The real central irony: the FISC chooses a FISC apologist to reform the FISC

On the appointment of David Kris to oversee reforms at the FBI after the Inspector General's report on FISA warrant abuses, Rep. Devin Nunes commented,

"It's hard to imagine a worse person the FISC could have chosen, outside Comey, McCabe, or Schiff. It’s a ridiculous choice. The FBI lied to the FISC, and to help make sure that doesn’t happen again, the FISC chose an FBI apologist who denied and defended those lies. The FISC is setting its own credibility on fire.”

David Kris is an apologist who has failed to see, even when presented with evidence, that both the FBI and FISC were incompetent or worse.

Kris is a true believer in the FISC

He defended the FISC on the Carter Page FISAs, saying that they were subjected to exacting scrutiny and that FISC is not just a rubber stamp.

In sum, the court’s letter and various public statements, as well as the statistical evidence, show that FISA applications are subjected to exacting scrutiny; the FISA Court is not a rubber stamp. And they show that this scrutiny is effectuated in many ways, most of them informal... The absence of a “hearing” on the Carter Page FISAs does not in any way suggest that the FISA Court treated the applications casually or carelessly.

Congressman Mark Meadows said that Republicans in Congress will be asking Judge Boasberg to remove Kris from the process. He also said if the FBI and FISC do not implement the necessary reforms, the FISC may not be reauthorized in the spring.

In a blog, Kris acknowledges the Horowitz report and the problems in the FBI and FISC, but he also continued to attack the president, AG Barr, and John Durham, suggesting that they are the real problem - which does not come across as impartial.

Go here for more on David Kris.

Watch Devin Nunes explain why David Kris is a bad choice to oversee reforms at the FISC.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy believes that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has withheld from the Senate the articles of impeachment to delay the start of the Senate trial. A late start will keep candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders in the Senate chamber rather than on the campaign in Iowa.

Is this a coincidence? 

Pelosi delays to harm Sanders and help Biden

McCarthy suggested that Pelosi has delayed sending the impeachment articles to the Senate to ensure that Bernie Sanders will be sitting at his desk in the Senate instead of campaigning to win the February 3rd Iowa caucuses.

Once Pelosi sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the trial will begin. Once the trial begins, no other business will be conducted by the Senate, and the senators will be at their desks six days a week until the trial is over.

Even if Pelosi sends the articles to the Senate later this week, McCarthy does not think the trial could start until the next week. Bill Clinton's impeachment trial took five weeks. During the trial, Senators must work six days a week until the trial is completed. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is on February 3rd. On this timetable, four of the Democrat candidates will be sitting in the Senate that day: Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. This gives a big advantage to Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden.

Why doesn't the Democrat leadership want Bernie?

Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and others in Democrat leadership are afraid that Sanders will not be able to win the presidency because he is openly socialist, which may play well with the base, but won't win votes in the campaign against President Trump. His plan to replace private health care insurance with Medicare for all would not do well in swing states.

Emmanuel pointed out that a Sanders candidacy would make it hard to win over the battleground states. “You need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters in battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders's candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.”

But Sanders is now polling in first place in Iowa, replacing Pete Buttigieg who has fallen behind Sanders and Warren but remains ahead of Joe Biden.

If Sanders is stuck in the Senate for weeks, it is likely to hurt his campaign with just over 3 weeks until the Iowa caucuses.

The Democrats rigged the nomination against Sanders in 2016

Would it be out of character for the Democrats to try to harm Sanders' campaign? Oh wait, there is precedent for that from the Democrat party in 2016!

Bernie Sanders accused the DNC of rigging the nomination process to favor Hillary Clinton back in 2016. Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warren said the same thing.

WATCH:

This is not about fairness or love for the Constitution, If Nancy Pelosi's delay to deliver the articles of impeachment has been about harming Bernie Sanders, she is showing herself to be a cynical political hack that puts party and power before country. But we already knew that.

After refusing for days to take responsibility for the missile strike that took Ukrainian Flight 752 down, Iran finally admitted that they shot the Boeing 737 down with an SA-15 anti-ballistic missile. They attributed the tragedy that killed 176 people to operator error, but they are still placing blame on the US, too.

The Victims

The victims of Flight 752 hailed from seven different countries including Iran. The passenger count  was Iran 82, Canada 63, Ukraine 11, Sweden 10, Afghanistan 4, UK 3, Germany 3

Iranian government takes responsibility, sort of

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the missile strike was an unforgivable mistake and that Iran would improve its defense systems to avoid such accidents.

According to the Washington Examiner, "The accident occurred while the Iranian military was on high alert and while Tehran neglected to ground civilian flights that night, a Western intelligence official told the Washington Examiner."

Iran still blames the US

Even after having to finally admit that the missile strike was their fault, Iran is blaming the US for the accident. Iranian Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif cited "human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster."

Iranians protest Supreme Leader

But Iranians are blaming Khameinei's government and the IRGC. They are furious and have poured into the streets to protest the fatal mistake. They hold the IRGC and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responsible for the deaths of 176 people, and are demanding to know why all planes weren't grounded while Iran was attacking Iraq. They want Khameinei out.

President Trump tweets a warning to Tehran

President Trump has been monitoring the protests in Iran. He warned the Iranian government not to shut down the internet or harm the protestors. He warned that the world is watching what they do.

It has been a long time since the Democrats in the House passed two articles of impeachment against President Trump on December 18, 2019.

But now, Nancy Pelosi is finally ready to send the impeachment articles to the Senate

The Speaker of the House announced she will send the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week after holding them for more than 3 weeks. She denies that she was feeling pressure from her own party, but Democrats in the House and Senate have started urging her to send them.

Senate Democrats break ranks

Pelosi held the articles for so long that even some of her Democratic colleagues were questioning her methods. Senator Diane Feinstein told Pelosi this week to send the articles or drop it (Feinstein did walk that back later.) “The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes. So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, both Democrats, said the Senate needs to move ahead with the trial, whether they get their witnesses or not.

Even a House Democrat, Adam Smith, chair of the Armed Services Committee urged Pelosi to send the articles.

WATCH:

Remember when Impeachment was urgent?

Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Jerrold Nadler, and the rest of the Democrats that could get face time with the press spent over 3 months insisting that impeaching President Trump was a matter of national security. They rushed through show hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee in which a lot of "witnesses" testified about their disagreements with President Trump's decisions. Then they spent more time on television telling us how corrupt and criminal this president is, and how urgent it is to get him out of office before he corrupted the 2020 election.

Only Democrats voted to impeach Trump

On a party-line vote, the Democrats voted to impeach the president and then...nothing. The articles were not delivered to the Senate, Pelosi didn't want to talk about impeachment, and for the last 3 weeks, everyone has been wondering if the impeachment is going to happen. It has been so long you might have to refresh your memory on what the articles even were. Something about abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, I think.

Pelosi justified the withholding, saying she was keeping the articles until Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority leader would explain how the trial would work. She also wanted to call more witnesses and subpoena more documents. Translation: Pelosi was making demands and was waiting until McConnell caved into them. But, the Senate has the sole power to try impeachments, so Pelosi can't control the process once the articles are delivered.

What urgency?

When Pelosi refused to send the articles to the Senate, ordinary Americans knew they had been scammed. There was no urgency to remove the president on the part of Pelosi or the Democrats anymore. We had all been manipulated by the Democrats and the mainstream media.

The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments

Meanwhile, McConnell and the Senate are moving forward using the precedents set by the Clinton impeachment, in which there was a briefing, opening arguments, questions from Senators and a vote to dismiss. McConnell has the votes needed to move forward without having to grant concessions to the Democrats, and most likely to vote to dismiss.

McConnell has said that the impeachment is a sham and should be dispensed with as quickly as possible.  Growing the impeachment trial with witnesses and more testimony will certainly tie up the Senate for too long, and as McConnell said, ''they have other things to do."

We can only hope that this will all be over soon.

Ricky Gervais lands more on the left, politically, but that didn't stop him from savagely and hilariously going after the gross and rampant hypocrisy of the Hollywood elite at the 2020 Golden Globes ceremony.

Admittedly, this isn't the first time he has lampooned them, but it may the first time they have been told that they have nothing to say.

Watching the reaction of the crowd is amusing as the beautiful celebrities are not sure how to respond to Gervais's jokes.

Among other things, Gervais told the glitterati that they should not tell other people what to think because they know nothing about the real world.

I am not endorsing Gervais in general as he has the same potty mouth most comedians have, but the video below is free of that, and full of things you always wished you could say to the preachy celebrities, producers, writers, and directors in Hollywood.

WATCH:

Events continue to escalate since a US airstrike in Baghdad killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. It is hard to sort fact from fiction at the moment in the fast and furious debate swirling through Washington, Iraq, Iran and the mainstream media, but let's give it a try.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on his Sunday Fox News program, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo provided some clarity on the president's strategy going forward. In a nutshell, it's to show Iran that there will be consequences if they harm Americans.

Why the urgency to take out Soleimani now?

Iran has been provoking the US for a while now, attacking our drones and attacking ships, but this time President Trump drew a line in the sand, saying that the US would not tolerate the death of another American. An American contractor was killed just a little over a week ago in Iraq in an Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia attack. Then the US embassy in Baghdad was attacked by Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia. As a result the US took out the mastermind, Soleimani, that was behind those attacks.

Many on the left are accusing the president of using the Soleimani killing to distract from impeachment. Wallace asked Pompeo why the US needed to take out Soleimani now. Pompeo responded that the risks associated with inaction on the part of the US were greater than the risks of acting.

Wallace also asked if the American people should have access to all the information in the briefings, but Pompeo pointed out that some intelligence cannot be shared publicly as it would jeopardize further intelligence gathering which will be needed going forward.

Democrats argue that Trump had no authority

Nancy Pelosi has accused the Trump administration of acting without authority, but the administration maintains that their authority derives from the AUMF (authorization to use military force) Congress approved back in 2002. They also delivered a formal notification about the airstrike on Soleimani on Saturday, January 4th, as required by the War Powers Act. That act states that notification has to be delivered within 48 hours of the action.

Democrats accuse Trump of starting a war with Iran

Pelosi also accuses the president of starting a war with Iran, but Soleimani was killed in Iraq, where he had been banned by the UN. The killing of Soleimani was not an act of war, it was the death of a terrorist, one who had killed many Americans, Iraqis, and others. Senator Marco Rubio addressed this argument.

General David Petraeus: Soleimani killing more significant that Bin Laden and Baghdadi

General David Petraeus, commanding general of the MNF (multi-national forces) in Iraq from 2007-2008,  said the death of  Soleimani was more important than Bin Laden or Baghdadi. In an interview with Foreign Affairs, Petraeus said that the killing of Soleimani is a strong message that the US will respond to the aggressive tactics of Iran and the killing of Americans.

David Petraeus: It is impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action. It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi. Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria. So his death is of enormous significance.

Iran is divided

In November, Iranians protested their government. International sanctions and military spending have kept the Iranian people poor and they rose up to protest. The government responded with a brutal crackdown, killing many, and imprisoning thousands. They shut down the internet for days to try to prevent news from getting out and made sharing video of the unrest a criminal offense. Nonetheless, video has trickled out.

According to the BBC, "The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) has spent billions of dollars arming, training and paying militias in the region, saying that if the force does not fight Iran's enemies beyond its borders then it will have to face them on the streets of Tehran."

Iraq is divided along religious lines

What is happening in Iraq and in the Middle East is basically a religious war of Shi'ites against Sunnis.  The Shi'ites are in charge of Iran and almost control Iraq now. But Sunnis may by fighting back.

There is evidence Iraq is anything but united and that many Iraqis want Iranian influence out of their country. In October and November 2019, Iraqis attacked the Iran consulate twice in Karbala and set it on fire. They also tore down the Iranian flag and replaced it with the Iraqi flag. Iran sent Qasem Soleimani to advise on how to handle the protests in Iraq, and 250 people were killed during the protests.

Part of Iraqi Parliament votes to remove all foreign troops from Iraq

On Sunday, the Iraqi Parliament voted to remove foreign troops from Iraq. The vote was one-sided, all Shi'ite lawmakers. The Sunni and Kurdish lawmakers boycotted the vote. They are concerned that an Iran-led insurgency is the likely alternative in the absence of coalition forces.

According to the Jerusalem Post, "One Sunni member of parliament told Reuters that both groups feared that kicking out U.S.-led coalition forces would leave Iraq vulnerable to an insurgency, undermine security and heighten the power of Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias.

Indeed, knowing the power and influence that Iran wields in the region, Iraq could easily become a vassal state in a growing Iranian empire.

Pompeo placed the blame for Iranian aggression and endless war squarely on Obama

President Trump has talked a lot about getting the US military out of the Middle East and has said someone else needs to fight over it.

Wallace asked Pompeo if we were getting out of the Middle East or stepping back in? Pompeo stated,  "Endless wars are the direct result of weakness."

"The Obama administration created enormous risk to the American people in Iran, this administration is working to reduce that risk."

Wallace asked Pompeo if impeachment has emboldened our enemies, to which Pompeo responded, "You should ask Mr. Soleimani."

Copyright© 2025 - Conservative Institute LLC - All Rights Reserved