Iran’s Only Female Olympian Defects, Calls Out Government “Hypocrisy”

Kimia Alizadeh, Iran’s only female Olympian
who won a bronze medal in Taekwondo in 2016, has announced she is defecting from the Country. Her announcement comes a day after Iran admitted
shooting down a Ukranian plane that had 176 civilians on it. U.S. State Department official Morgan Ortagus
reacted to the news on Twitter, writing: #KimiaAlizadeh, Iran’s only female Olympic
medalist, has rejected the regime’s oppression of women. She has defected for a life of security, happiness,
and freedom. #Iran will continue to lose more strong women
unless it learns to empower and support them. — Morgan Ortagus (@statedeptspox) January
12, 2020 FoxNews reports Iran’s only female Olympic
medalist has reportedly defected, posting a goodbye letter to Iran on Saturday, calling
out the government’s “hypocrisy” as she announced she had permanently left the
country. “Should I start with hello, goodbye, or
condolences?” Taekwondo athlete, Kimia Alizadeh, 21, posted
on her Instagram in Farsi, Agence France-Presse reported. Alizadeh did not disclose where she was going,
but Iran’s ISNA news agency reported she had gone to the Netherlands, according to
AFP. The Iranian report quoted Alizadeh’s coach
as saying the athlete was injured and did not show up for trials ahead of the 2020 Summer
Olympics in Tokyo. The Olympian’s announcement came just a
day after Iranian officials admitted to downing a Ukrainian passenger plane, killing 176 people
minutes after takeoff from Tehran’s international airport early Wednesday due to “human error,”
thinking it was a military aircraft. She accused the Iranian government of “lying”
and “injustice” toward Iranian athletes, adding all she wants is “Taekwondo, security
and a happy and healthy life,” according to AFP. Alizadeh won a bronze medal in Taekwondo at
the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. She said she wore everything the government
asked her to wear, referring to the head covering all Iranian female athletes must wear, and
wrote she “repeated everything they told me to say…None of us matter to them.”

Mike Pence STUNS The Nation – End Of An Era

President Donald Trump gave America’s military
the green light last Thursday to take out Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, a known
terrorist supporter who has killed and help plan attacks that killed thousands of Americans
over the years. After Trump took out one of the world’s
most dangerous men, the media rushed to blame the president and accuse him of committing
war crimes. But Vice President Mike Pence confirmed what
we had suspected: Soleimani was preparing imminent attacks against four United States
embassies in the region when Trump ordered the military to take him out. During an interview with NBC’s Savannah
Guthrie, Pence confirmed that that it was the end of the era created by Obama’s administration,
where the United States stands idly by as Iran attacks us and our allies is over. There is now a price to be paid for being
an anti-American terrorist who murders American soldiers. Pence explained why not all of the intelligence
about Soleimani had been revealed and responded directly to one Republican not happy about
the briefing. “Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, left that
briefing and said it was demeaning and insulting, he said it was the worst briefing he ever
heard and that … he didn’t get the information he needed. Why not in a classified setting can our briefers
from this administration share what it was, this threat that you talk about, in a classified
setting?” Guthrie asked. Pence replied, “Well, some of that has to
do with what’s called sources and methods, Savannah, that … if we were to share all
of the intelligence, and in fact, some of the most compelling evidence that Qasem Soleimani
was preparing an imminent attack against American forces and American personnel also represents
some of the most sensitive intelligence that we have. It could compromise those sources and methods.” Pence sought to reassure viewers. “I can assure your viewers that those of
us that have seen all the evidence, that saw the evidence in realtime know that President
Trump made the right decision to take Qasem Soleimani off the battlefield,” he added. “America is safer, the world is safer. Now, even after the Iranian response, no American
casualties and Iran is standing down.” Pence has a great point: the Iranians, realizing
they would have been decimated in any war with the United States, appear to have intentionally
not killed any Americans in “retaliatory” missile strikes. While Democrats and liberals are rushing to
defend the Iranian terrorists — top military officials say Soleimani was planning “imminent
attacks” on Americans that would have most likely killed hundreds. The attacks would have been conducted on American
facilities and workers in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon along with other countries in the region. In fact, an Iranian member of parliament threatened
to launch an attack directly on the White House and Iranian authorities placed an $80
million bounty on assassinating the president. And on the same day drone strikes ordered
by Trump killed two top Iranian military figures in Iraq, what Barack Obama was spotted doing
speaks volumes.

Taiwan 2020 Election: Tsai Ing-wen wins second presidential term

‘S been interpreted as a blow to beijing, as well. It was a landslide victory for Taiwan’s incumbent president. She won re-election. Her party, the dpp won a majority in parliament. On top of that, she broke a record. She won the highest number of votes since the first direct presidential election in Taiwan decades ago. Take a look.>>Triumph in Taiwan for incumbent president in a re-election landslide that seemed unlikely six months ago. The Chinese skeptic president declaring victory winning the highest number of votes since the presidential election in 1996. The results of the election carry an added significance, she says, because they show in our democracy our sovereignty is threatened, Taiwan people will shout our determination back even more loudly. Scenes of jubilation about the president’s supporters. Disappointment for the main rival. The candidate performs greater engagement with beijing and criticized China policy and the economic impact on Taiwan. After they took office in 2016, relations between Taiwan and China deteriorated. Taiwan lost diplomatic ties with a number of foreign governments and China suspended issuing Visas or mainland tourists visiting the island. Thai was down in the polls after her party suffered devastating local election results in 2008. That changed as more and more voters became propelled by the pressure from beijing.>>When we talk about politics, most important issue in Taiwan is the dependency of youification. Beijing by pressuring the world to turn the back on Taiwan, motivates people to return to support her.>>XI jinping declared Taiwan should reunify with China under one country two systems. Something she rejects. In her victory speech, she says I also hope China understands that our democratically elected leader and government will not concede to beijing’s threats. Last year as China flexed its muscle sending the aircraft carrier through the Taiwan straight, she employed her own form of soft power. Using an may-style imagery. A pair of cat ears in campaign posters, and putting her own beloved pet front and center.>>Not just the cat pictures or but her willingness to appear on YouTube shows with younger voters and show she’s trying to make a concerted effort to connect with the youth. Her passing of same-sex marriage in Taiwan helped with the info.>>She has been described as the iron cat lady but, Alisyn, make no mistake, she’s a former academic. She’s a tough, highly experienced tech karat who is

Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration From Enforcing Sensible ‘Public Charge’ Immigration Rule

A clearly activist court has refused to set
aside an injunction that blocks the administration from enforcing a very sensible rule that withholds
green cards from immigrants who would likely need government assistance to survive in this
country, as Reuters reports: “A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused
to set aside an injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that
would withhold green cards from immigrants likely to require government assistance such
as Medicaid or food stamps. In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Manhattan also set an expedited schedule for the White House’s appeal of
a lower court ruling against the rule, with legal papers to be submitted by Feb. 14 and
oral arguments to be held soon afterward. The “public charge” rule unveiled last
year would make it harder for immigrants who are poor or need government help to secure
residency and stay in the country. Critics have said the rule would keep out
disproportionately large numbers of people from Latin American, African and Asian countries. Neither the Department of Justice nor the
Department of Homeland Security responded to requests for comment. The rule had been challenged in this case
by New York state, New York City, Connecticut, Vermont and several nonprofits. President Donald Trump has made immigration
a centerpiece of his administration and 2020 re-election campaign, and the public charge
rule has been among the Republican’s signature policies to curtail immigration. Several other lawsuits challenging the rule
are pending around the country. Two other federal appeals courts previously
ruled for the administration by staying nationwide injunctions ordered by lower courts, while
a third appeals court let stand an injunction covering Illinois. Because the New York case also involved a
nationwide injunction, Wednesday’s order means the rule cannot be enforced anywhere. When U.S. District Judge George Daniels in
Manhattan ordered an injunction on Oct. 11, he called the rule “repugnant to the American
Dream” and a “policy of exclusion in search of a justification.” The case is New York et al v U.S. Department
of Homeland Security et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-3591.” We disagree with this ruling and believe it
will ultimately be overturned at the Supreme Court, as so many anti-Trump activist rulings
have been.

Omar Laughs, Smirks While Lawmaker Details Deaths Of American Soldiers

Radical Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar came under
heavy fire this week after she was seen on camera laughing and smirking while her colleague
detailed the deaths of American soldiers. Omar, one of the members of the so-called
“Squad,” was seen laughing and joking around during a House Progressive Caucus press conference
about Iran at the same time Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee was talking about U.S. casualties in Iraq. “I’m very glad to say that I was part
of the 132 and also the vote for Barbara Lee’s amendment, but I think that the point of that
is that that is the same war that we’re dealing with today,” Lee said. “We never solved any problems with AUMF,
we left four thousand plus, maybe even forty four hundred dead, and over sixty thousand
who came back injured in some form and the war never ended,” Lee added. In addition to laughing, at one point, Omar
can be seen talking to Rep. Rashida Tlaib behind her, and appears to be joking and smiling,
even when she turns back towards the camera. Omar also spoke at the press conference, and
wasted little time trying to make the Iran-U.S. conflict all about herself by claiming she’s
suffering from “PTSD.” “I feel ill a little bit, because of everything
that is taking place and I think every time I hear of conversations around war, I find
myself being stricken with PTSD,” Omar said. “And I find peace knowing that I serve with
great advocates for peace and people who have shown courage against war,” Omar added. Jackson Lee is a far-left lawmaker, but even
she treated the issue of the Iraq war with a level a solemnity that apparently Omar was
incapable of. What was Omar even laughing about? Was she laughing about dead Americans? Republicans wasted little time understandably
calling Omar out for her disgusting and disturbing actions. GOP Rapid Response Director Steve Guest tweeted
that Omar’s actions were “Absolutely disgusting.” “I’m so uncomfortable watching this. What is wrong with these people?” tweeted Erielle Davidson, a staff writer for
the Federalist.

TIDES TURNING: Feinstein Rebukes Pelosi’s Impeachment Delay; ‘Send Them Over’

After claiming President Donald Trump is a
national security threat and “must” be impeached to protect the nation, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi is refusing to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. House Democrats impeached the president almost
one month ago, but Pelosi won’t send the articles to the Senate because she knows Trump will
be fully acquitted. Adding even more hilarity to it all, now top
Senate Democrats are apparently tired of Pelosi’s games and are calling on her to send the articles
to the upper chamber. Bloomberg journalist Laura Litvan reported
on Wednesday that California Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein is ready to end the delay
of impeachment articles, asking that Pelosi “send them over” soon. “If we’re going to do it, she should send
them over,” Feinstein said. “I don’t see what good delay does.” Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
echoed a similar tune, saying, “Now that we have John Bolton saying he wants to testify,
she’s accomplished something.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking
on the Senate floor, criticized House Democrats for “dragging their heels and refusing to
proceed to a Senate trial” and said Pelosi has “no leverage” to influence his chamber’s
trial procedures. “There will be no haggling with the House
over Senate procedures,” McConnell said. “We will not cede our authority “to control
Trump’s impeachment trial, he said. “The Senate is not a creature of the House.” McConnell announced a day earlier that he
has enough Republican votes to set the impeachment trial rules without support from Democrats. A decision on whether to call witnesses won’t
come until after each side presents its case, the majority leader said. “Not all witnesses are people the Democrats
are eager to hear from,” McConnell said. Senate Judiciary Committee Committee Chairman
Lindsey Graham has other ideas, telling Pelosi that if she does not transmit the articles
by the end of the week, the Senate should “take matters in our own hands.” During an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning
Futures,” Graham accused Pelosi of playing political games and trying to exert control
over the Senate trial by keeping it from starting. Graham justified this by claiming Pelosi was
engaging in a “political stunt” by holding off on sending the impeachment articles to
the Senate, weeks after they were approved by a House vote.

The myth of race, debunked in 3 minutes

You may think you know exactly what race you
are, but how would you prove it if somebody disagreed with you? The fact is, even though
race drives a lot of social and political outcomes, race isn’t real. One of the first
people to attempt to categorize humans according to race was a german scientist in around 1776.
He came up with 5 different groups according to physical appearance and geographic origin
of their ancestors. American’s of European descent eagerly bought into this type of thinking
around the same time. Some historians have said the idea that there are different races
helped them resolve the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of
slavery. If whites were their own distinct category, then they could feel a lot better
about denying freedom to people who they labeled black and decided were fundamentally different.
But as political priorities change, definitions of race in America adjust right along with
them. For example, if were of Mexican birth or ancestry in the United States in 1929,
you were considered white. Then, the 1930 census changed that to non-white to limit
immigration. Later, when the US needed to increase its labor force during World War
II, these people were switched back to white. And what it took to be “black” once varied
so widely throughout the country, from one quarter, to one sixteenth, to the infamous
“One drop” of African ancestry, that people could actually change races just by crossing
state lines. Then, suddenly, in 2000, the government decided that Americans could be
more than one race and added a multi-racial category to the census. This has left many
Americans scratching their heads when it comes to selecting who they are. As many as 6.2%
of census respondents selected “Some other race” in the 2010 survey. The idea that someone
might look one way, and identify another way, or that they might be really hard to place
in a racial category, is not new. This is why there was a public debate about whether
MSNBC’s Karen Finney could say she was black, or how we can’t even agree on the racial label
assigned to the President of the United States. Of course many people feel their racial identity
is very clear and very permanent, but the fact that some people have changed theres,
and that nobody can really argue with them, shows how shaky the very idea of race is.
This is all because there isn’t a race chromosome in our DNA that people can point to. It simply
doesn’t exist. When the medical community links race to health outcomes, it’s really
just using race as a substitute for other factors, such as where your ancestors came
from, or the experiences of people who may have been put in the same racial group as
you. Dorothy Roberts explains that sickle-cell anemia is a prime example of this. The disease
is linked to areas with high rates of malaria, which includes some parts of Europe and Asia
in addition to Africa. It’s not actually about race at all. This of course does not mean
that the concept of race isn’t hugely important in our lives. The racial categories to which
we’re assigned can determine real life experiences, they can drive political outcomes, and they
can even make the difference between life and death. But understanding that racial categories
are made up can give us an important perspective on where racism came from in the first place.

MCCAUGHEY: Pelosi’s Impeachment Stunt

Imagine if a district attorney charged you
with wrongdoing, and then let the charges hang over you indefinitely? That’s the stunt Nancy Pelosi has been pulling,
sitting on the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump since Dec. 18. Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham,
R-S.C., accuses House Dems of “trying to hold these articles over the head of the president,”
denying him a chance to be acquitted. Graham says “if we don’t get the articles
this week,” then Senators should deem the impeachment articles “delivered to the Senate”
so the trial can begin. Monday, freshman Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo.,
asked what’s to stop Pelosi from holding the articles indefinitely. “If Americans are sick of this impeachment
saga, this partisan circus now,” think how they’ll feel months, or even a year, from
now. Hawley is proposing a 25-day deadline. If the House fails to deliver the articles
and name a legal team by then, the Senate can vote to dismiss the charges. Hawley and Graham are rightfully fed up, but
Graham’s proposal is the better one. The president and the nation deserve a verdict,
not just a dismissal. To get it done, Senate Majority leader Mitch
McConnell will have to drop the fiction that the Senate is still a place for bipartisan
civility. It’s time for a reality check. In a previous era when senators prided themselves
on bipartisanship, the Senate established a requirement for a 2/3 majority to consider
any rules changes. Republicans and Democrats would have to agree. That can’t happen this time. Republicans have a bare 53 votes, and no Democrat
is likely to support a rules change. McConnell blasted Pelosi on Monday for treating
impeachment like a “frivolous game.” To outmaneuver her, McConnell will have to
resort to a parliamentary device — the “nuclear option” — that requires only a simple majority. He used it before to prevent Democrats from
blocking Trump’s judicial and executive branch nominees. The stakes are higher now: a timely trial
for the president. The trial will begin, according to McConnell,
with House Democrats arguing their case, followed by a rebuttal from White House lawyers. At that point — not before — senators will
decide whether to call witnesses or proceed to a verdict. It’s the same plan unanimously adopted by
the Senate for the trial of President Bill Clinton. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is demanding
an upfront guarantee of White House witnesses, knowing he won’t get it. It’s a public relations stunt to smear Trump’s
expected acquittal as “unfair,” damaging him for his re-election bid. Some Republicans would like to call the Bidens. Reuters reports that, according to a former
member of the Ukrainian parliament, Hunter Biden was hired as a director of Burisma Holdings
to protect the company from investigation, when Vice President Joe Biden was the U.S.
point person on Ukraine. Democrats applauded Monday when former national
security adviser John Bolton announced he would testify if called. Predictably, Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah,
still smarting from Trump’s bypassing him for secretary of state, immediately said he’d
like to hear from Bolton. But centrists Susan Collins, R-Maine, and
Lisa Murkowski, R-Ark., are sticking with McConnell’s plan, which postpones the witnesses
question until after opening arguments. That’s wise because the key issue facing senators
is whether the charges against Trump are impeachable offenses. For the first time in history, the House impeached
a president without accusing him of breaking any law. Democrats insist they can nail Trump for “exercising
power with a corrupt purpose, even if his action would otherwise be permissible” — putting
political advantage above the national interest. By that definition, every politician is guilty. Expect a majority of senators, including some
Democrats, to see the danger of such flimflam charges. By the end of January, the Senate will have
voted to acquit Trump. Pelosi and her party will be the big losers. They impeached a president for partisan gain,
and then tried to delay the trial in a desperate search for evidence to make the charges stick. Voters will judge them harshly in November.