Conservatives Flee California

I'd bail out right now if I could. I've got a decade until retirement, that is, unless I get a golden parachute early retirement package from my college.

Not sure where we'll move, but out of state is a definite destination when the time comes.

At LAT, "California conservatives leaving the state for ‘redder pastures’":

California conservatives leaving the state for ‘redder pastures’https://t.co/1s1xmtcm0l

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 9, 2019

The Volkswagen SUV whizzed past the Texas state line, a U-Haul trailer in tow, as it made its way toward Amarillo.

“Yay!” Judy Stark cried out to her husband, Richard, as they officially left California. The pair bobbed their heads to ’50s music playing on the radio.

Like many voters who lean to the right in California, the retired couple have decided to leave the state. A major reason, Stark and her spouse say, is their disenchantment with deep-blue California’s liberal political culture.

Despite spending most of their lives in the Golden State, they were fed up with high taxes, lukewarm support for local law enforcement, and policies they believe have thrown open the doors to illegal immigration.

Just over half of California’s registered voters have considered leaving the state, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times. Republicans were nearly three times as likely as their Democratic counterparts to seriously have considered moving — 40% compared with 14%, the poll found. Conservatives mentioned taxes and California’s political culture as a reason for leaving more frequently than they cited the state’s soaring housing costs.

Stark and her husband decided it was time to put their Modesto home up for sale about six months ago. After doing some research online, she came across the website Conservative Move, which, as its name suggests, helps conservatives in California relocate from liberal states to redder ones, such as Texas and Idaho.

Pulled over at a Pilot truck stop just outside Amarillo, Stark said she was excited to be hours from their final destination, Collin County, near Dallas. The pair purchased a newly constructed three-bedroom home in McKinney for about $300,000. In much of California, Stark said, a similar home would run about twice as much.
“We’re moving to redder pastures,” Stark, 71, said by phone. “We’re getting with people who believe in the same political agenda that we do: America first, Americans first, law and order.”

Keep reading.

Alex Biston's Saturday Forecast

It's nice and mild this weekend, and not windy so far.

Here's the lovely Ms. Alex, for CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

House Republicans Plan to Call Hunter Biden in Upcoming Public Impeachment Hearings

Well, this oughta be good.

At the Epoch Times, "Republicans Request Hunter Biden, Whistleblower, DNC Consultant Testify in Impeachment Inquiry."

More at Memeorandum.

Jojo Levesque

At Taxi Driver, "Jojo Levesque in White Top."

u have my heart 💞🍀 https://t.co/4udPQjvkwk

— JoJo. (@iamjojo) November 6, 2019

Cindy Crawford in Black and White

At Taxi Driver:

Cindy Crawford Posing Topless but covered In B&W - https://t.co/hpszjvHaJD - pic.twitter.com/pmlL0Gj8t7

— Taxi Driver (@TaxiDriverMovie) November 7, 2019

Germany's Unsettled Identity

At the New York Times, "Germany Has Been Unified for 30 Years. Its Identity Still Is Not":

Germans mark 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall on Saturday. But while unification fixed German borders for the first time in the country’s history, it did little to settle the neuralgic issue of German identity. https://t.co/5bDLoXzt4v

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) November 8, 2019

BERLIN — Abenaa Adomako remembers the night the Berlin Wall fell. Joyous and curious like so many of her fellow West Germans, she had gone to the city center to greet East Germans who were pouring across the border for a first taste of freedom.

“Welcome,” she beamed at a disoriented-looking couple in the crowd, offering them sparkling wine.

But they would not take it.

“They spat at me and called me names,” recalled Ms. Adomako, whose family has been in Germany since the 1890s. “They were the foreigners in my country. But to them, as a black woman, I was the foreigner.’’

Three decades later, as Germans mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, the question of what makes a German — who belongs and who does not — is as unsettled as ever.

The integration of East and West has in many ways been a success. Germany is an economic and political powerhouse, its reunification central to its dominant place in Europe.

But while unification fixed German borders for the first time in the country’s history, it did little to settle the neuralgic issue of German identity. Thirty years later, it seems, it has even exacerbated it.

Ethnic hatred and violence are on the rise. A far-right party thrives in the former East. Ms. Adomako says she is still afraid to go there. But she is not the only one who feels like a stranger in her own land.

Germany’s current effort to integrate more than a million asylum seekers welcomed by Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015 is just the most immediate challenge. It is compounded by past failures in a country that opened a regular path to citizenship for the children of immigrants only in 2000.

In the decades since the wall fell, Germany’s immigrant population has become the second largest in the world, behind the United States. One in four people now living in Germany has an immigrant background.

But that is not the story Germans have been telling themselves.

Two decades after the country stopped defining citizenship exclusively by ancestral bloodline, the far right and others have started distinguishing between “passport Germans” and “bio-Germans.”

The descendants of Turkish guest workers who arrived after World War II still struggle for acceptance. Jews, most of whom arrived from the former Soviet Union, are wary after a synagogue attack in the eastern city of Halle last month shocked the country that had made ‘‘Never Again’’ a pillar of its postwar identity.

Not least, many East Germans feel like second-class citizens after a reunification that Dr. Hans-Joachim Maaz, a psychoanalyst in the eastern city of Halle, calls a “cultural takeover.”

Across the former Iron Curtain, a new eastern identity is taking root, undermining the joyful narrative that dominated the reunification story on past anniversaries.

“It’s an existential moment for the country,” said Yury Kharchenko, a Berlin-based artist who defiantly identifies as a German Jew despite — and because of — the armed guards outside his son’s nursery in Berlin. “Everyone is searching for their identity.”’

Overcoming the past, especially the Nazi ideology that gave rise to the Holocaust, has been a guiding precept of German identity since World War II. In West and East alike, the ambition was to create a different, better Germany.

The West resolved to become a model liberal democracy, atoning for Nazi crimes and subjugating national interests to those of a post-nationalist Europe.

The East defined itself in the tradition of communists who had resisted fascism, giving rise to a state doctrine of remembrance that effectively exculpated it from wartime atrocities.

Behind the wall, the East was frozen in time, a largely homogeneous white country where nationalism was allowed to live on...

Still more.

'Well, that’s just because they’re horrible people. And Democratic Party operatives with bylines...'

At Instapundit, "#JOURNALISM: The media protected Jeffrey Epstein and crucified Brett Kavanaugh."

Tulsi Gabbard on 'The View' (VIDEO)

At Memeorandum, "Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard fights back against Clinton's remarks, calls them ‘demeaning’."

She calls out Joy Behar for her vicious and dishonest smear campaign.

Demi Rose Shares Svelt Throwback Snap

At Daily Mail and Twitter:

Demi Rose shares incredibly svelte throwback snap https://t.co/Jq9eK86qkT

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) November 6, 2019

🥰✨ pic.twitter.com/4lLBsM0sNi

— Demi Rose (@DemiRoseMawby) November 5, 2019

Special edition 💓 pic.twitter.com/kHq3FdwlY6

— Demi Rose (@DemiRoseMawby) November 1, 2019

Trump's Campaign Says Election Is His to Lose

A great piece, at McClatchy, "Trump’s well-oiled campaign has everything planned — except Trump":

“He’s no Mr. Nice Guy” but sometimes it takes a Donald Trump to get the job done.@realDonaldTrump’s campaign is ready for battle. https://t.co/4YFnFBpX3z

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) November 5, 2019

President Donald Trump fiddled for months with a 2020 election message that would be ready for primetime. His top two campaign aides — Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale — sought a message that would resonate with the president’s core political base and also reach skeptical independents.

Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and most trusted adviser devising the campaign’s strategy, and Parscale, his campaign manager, turned to Larry Weitzner, a top political advertising consultant behind many of Trump’s 2016 ads.

Weitzner produced a spot with a new slogan: “He’s no Mr. Nice Guy.”

Trump loved it. He called Parscale and told him to air it during the World Series.

One year away from a referendum on his presidency, Trump and his campaign are embracing elements of his political identity that have sharply divided the nation. The same instinctive, mercurial president remains at the helm. But this time he sits atop a campaign infrastructure fueled by an unprecedented war chest, a sophisticated digital operation and a disciplined staff.

“We’re going to be attacked. We don’t care. But we’re not going to be nice about it,” said Katrina Pierson, a senior advisor to Trump’s reelection campaign, about the slogan her bosses loved so much.

But Trump’s senior aides have a slogan of their own that reminds them of their task: Only Trump can beat Trump. The race, in their minds, is his to lose.

Trump’s allies worry those same political instincts that won him the presidency also led to the impeachment inquiry — a strategy to collect opposition research on a political opponent gone too far, involving foreign powers, that might have circumvented the official campaign.

Some aides fear that Trump’s effort to compel Ukraine, and possibly China, to investigate and release information on former Vice President Joe Biden and his family is just one example of his unpredictability.

Indeed, it is the first time in modern political history that a president has been subject to an impeachment inquiry during his first term.

“On issue after issue the president has accomplished the things that he ran on despite the most devastating headwinds that any president has ever faced with a Democrat Party doing everything they can to nullify the election of 2016 since day one,” said Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, who participates in daily calls with Kushner and Parscale on strategy.

Matt Schlapp, American Conservative Union chairman and a White House ally, said the president is favored to win — if he can stay focused on his agenda and good news on the economy while fighting the impeachment inquiry.

“Are you asking me if I wish the president would stay on message? My answer would be one word: Yes,” he said...

More.

Kendall Jenner Pool Photos

At Celeb Jihad, "Kendall Jenner Pool Pics."

'Brain Stew'

From yesterday's drive-time, Green Day, via Jack F.M.

Thats All
Genesis
9:55am

Broken
lovelytheband
9:51am

Desire
U2
9:48am

American Girl
Tom Petty
9:45am

Brain Stew
Green Day
9:41am

Sweet Dreams
EURYTHMICS
9:38am

Legs
ZZ Top
9:34am

Jumper
Third Eye Blind
9:21am

Sweet Emotion
Aerosmith
9:17am

Jennifer Delacruz's Sunday Forecast

I mentioned the nippy mornings we're having. It's warm in the daytime, cool in the evenings, and downright chilly early A.M.

Here's the spectacular Ms. Jennifer, for ABC News 10 San Diego:

One Year Out, a Nation Divided

It's one year until election 2020, and we're divided as a nation, as divided as ever.

At the Associated Press, "1 Year Out: A divided nation lurches toward 2020 election":

One year to go: A divided nation lurches toward the 2020 election, a contest that will be a referendum on Trump’s vision for American culture and the nation’s role in the world, reports @jpaceDC: https://t.co/chgFu10xTq

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) November 3, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) — One year from Sunday, voters will decide whether to grant President Donald Trump a second term in office, an election that will be a referendum on Trump’s vision for America’s culture and role in the world.

Much is unknown about how the United States and its politics will look on Nov. 3, 2020.

Who will Trump’s opponent be? How will Democrats resolve the ideological, generational and demographic questions roiling their primary? Will a strong economy shore up Trump’s support or will recession warning signs turn into a reality? Will Trump face voters as just the third American president to have been impeached by the House of Representatives?

“It seems like Republicans and Democrats are intractable,” said Mark Updegrove, a presidential historian and chairman of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation. “They are both adhering to their own versions of reality, whether they’re based in truth or not.”

The political divisions today reflect societal and economic schisms between more rural, largely white communities where the economy depends on industries being depleted by outsourcing and automation, and more urban, racially diverse areas dominated by a service economy and where technology booms are increasing wealth.

Many of those divisions existed before Trump, but his presidency has exacerbated them. Trump has panned his political opponents as “human scum,” while Democrats view his vision for America’s future as anathema to the country’s founding values.

Indeed, no president in the history of public opinion polling has faced such deep and consistent partisan polarization.

Polling conducted by Gallup shows that an average of 86% of Republicans have approved of Trump over the course of his time in office, and no less than 79% have approved in any individual poll. That’s compared with just 7% of Democrats who have approved on average, including no more than 12% in any individual poll.

One thing that does unite the parties: voters’ widespread interest in the presidential campaign, even at this early phase. A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 82% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans are already interested in the election.

To win, Trump’s campaign needs to recreate the enthusiasm among his core supporters, a task that isn’t always easy for an incumbent burdened with a four-year record in office. But Trump is already leaning hard into the strict immigration policies that enlivened his supporters in 2016, while trying to convince more skeptical Republicans that Democrats are moving so far left as to be outside of the mainstream...

Keep reading.

Halloween Celebrity Babes

At London's Daily Mail, below, and Drunken Stepfather.

See, "SLUTTY HALLOWEEN OF THE DAY," and "HALLOWEEN ROUND UP PART 2 OF THE DAY."

Kylie Jenner showcases her VERY ample assets as she transforms into The Little Mermaid for Halloween https://t.co/b0tRjilFiE

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) October 31, 2019

William Jacobson on Shannon Bream's Show on Fox News (VIDEO)

I was watching, which is unusual, because I've been tuning out cable news this year for the most part. I happened to have Fox News on when William appeared.

At Legal Insurrection, "Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-All tax plan is as credible as her claim to be Native American."

Michele Margolis, From Politics to the Pews

At Amazon, Michele Margolis, From Politics to the Pews: How Partisanship and the Political Environment Shape Religious Identity.

Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, Prius or Pickup?

At Amazon, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America’s Great Divide.

Can California Save Itself?

I hope we see lots more articles like this in national publications.

The news is getting out that the Dems' one-party dictatorship is destroying the once-Golden State.

At the Atlantic, "California Is Becoming Unlivable":

"California’s housing crisis has exacerbated its wildfire crisis, and its wildfire crisis has exacerbated its housing crisis," writes @AnnieLowrey. "And that vicious cycle is nowhere near ending." https://t.co/L3lhzZHocm

— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) October 30, 2019

Right now, wildfires are scorching tens of thousands of acres in California, choking the air with smoke, spurring widespread prophylactic blackouts, and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people. Right now, roughly 130,000 Californians are homeless, and millions more are shelling out far more in rent than they can afford, commuting into expensive cities from faraway suburbs and towns, or doubling up in houses and apartments.

Wildfires and lack of affordable housing—these are two of the most visible and urgent crises facing California, raising the question of whether the country’s dreamiest, most optimistic state is fast becoming unlivable. Climate change is turning it into a tinderbox; the soaring cost of living is forcing even wealthy families into financial precarity. And, in some ways, the two crises are one: The housing crunch in urban centers has pushed construction to cheaper, more peripheral areas, where wildfire risk is greater.

California’s housing crisis and its fire crisis often collide in what’s known as the wildland-urban interface, or WUI, where trailer parks and exurban culs-de-sac and cabins have sprung up amid the state’s scrublands and pine forests and grassy ridges. Roughly half of the housing units built in California between 1990 and 2010 are in the WUI, which has expanded by roughly 1,000 square miles. As a result, 2 million homes, or one in seven in the state, are at high or extreme risk for wildfire, according to one estimate from the Center for Insurance Policy and Research. That’s three times as many as in any other state.

The bulk of wildfire destruction in California happens in the WUI. The Kincade Fire has burned more than 75,000 acres—roughly five times the size of Manhattan—in rural areas and the WUI north of Santa Rosa. Last year’s Camp Fire killed 85 people and eliminated more than 10,000 homes in Paradise, a town situated in the WUI. The year before that, the Tubbs Fire killed 22 people and destroyed more than 5,000 structures, some in Santa Rosa proper and some in the WUI around it.

Although much of the WUI is naturally vulnerable to fire, human behavior is primarily to blame for the destruction. People start more than nine in 10 fires, according to reliable estimates. Dry trees and dry brush in the WUI might act as natural kindling, but built structures—houses, cars, hospitals, utility poles, barns—act as the most potent fuel, researchers have found. A house burns a lot hotter than a bush does; a propane tank is far more combustible than a patch of grass.

If building in the WUI is so dangerous, why do it? In part because building new housing is so very difficult in many urban regions in California, due to opposition from existing homeowners and strict building codes. The number of people living on the streets in San Francisco and Los Angeles is related to the extreme cost of rent in those cities is related to the statewide housing shortage is related to the pressure to sprawl into the periphery.

So housing sprawls into the periphery...

More.

Lauren Summers World Series Flasher

Seen on Twitter, the flasher:

World Series Flasher Lauren Summers in a Wet White T-Shirt - https://t.co/WC8r0Rff6t - pic.twitter.com/9kh91jsf3M

— Taxi Driver (@TaxiDriverMovie) October 30, 2019

Meet the models who were 'banned indefinitely' for World Series flashing https://t.co/seujBrfjXV pic.twitter.com/1RMhT0a43U

— New York Post (@nypost) October 29, 2019

Whoops 🤷🏻‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/hoVRnFGHFw

— Lauren Summer (@HeyLaurenSummer) October 28, 2019

Beto Drops Out

At the New York Times, via Memeorandum, "Beto O'Rourke Drops Out of the Presidential Race."

“We’re all a little crazy to be doing this,” Beto O’Rourke told one supporter quietly, consoling all comers after announcing that he was dropping out of the 2020 race. “In a good way.” https://t.co/sG8fRoU58y

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) November 2, 2019

And at Fox News:

California Utilities Are Calling the Shots on Power Outages

This is a mind-blowing essay on the nature of infrastructure power in California. These energy utilities are basically unaccountable. Past legislation has transferred the authority to shut off power to the utilities, not the state government. Perhaps that's why Governor Newsom is threatening to seize the utilities rather than endure potentially endless power outages.

At LAT, "California utilities — not lawmakers — are calling the shots on power outages to prevent wildfires":

California power outages: Utilities call the shots, not lawmakers https://t.co/kHg9h1a8mR

— Sammy Roth (@Sammy_Roth) October 27, 2019

SACRAMENTO —  The money wouldn’t have gone far to help Californians who needed to replace spoiled food, those who fled to hotels or shopkeepers forced to buy generators and fuel during the power shut-off by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. earlier this month.
Still, Gov. Gavin Newsom urged PG&E to do something symbolic: Give a $100 rebate to each of its frustrated residential customers and $250 to every business with no electricity.

“Lives and commerce were interrupted,” Newsom wrote on Oct. 14 to William Johnson, the utility‘s president and chief executive. “Too much hardship was caused.”

But last week, PG&E refused. And in doing so, what could have been a goodwill gesture became a symbol of defiance and futility: California’s investor-owned utilities may be criticized for their efforts at wildfire prevention, but they’re also calling the shots.

For a variety of reasons — the limits of existing regulations, the off-season for lawmaking in Sacramento, challenges in finding political consensus on policy — the status quo isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Millions of Californians can do little more than watch as the lights go off, then on and maybe back off again during the blustery autumn of 2019.

“This is simply unacceptable,” a visibly angry Newsom told reporters in Los Angeles on Thursday. “It is infuriating beyond words to live in a state as innovative and extraordinarily entrepreneurial and capable as the state of California, to be living in an environment where we are seeing this kind of disruption and these kinds of blackouts.”

In some ways, the disruption is by design. State officials have long known that in the otherwise highly regulated world of utilities, they have little control over what is known as a “public safety power shut-off.”

Existing rules state that utility companies have broad discretion over when and where power outages will be imposed. Neither the California Public Utilities Commission nor local governments have a formal role in the decision-making process. CPUC officials can only weigh in after power is restored.

The events Wednesday in Sonoma County, where an energized PG&E transmission line failed near what’s believed to be the origin of the Kincade fire, offer a glimpse at how subjective the decision-making can be. Company officials said Thursday that PG&E’s own forecasters believed wind speeds in the area would require turning off only distribution systems, not transmission lines. Johnson, who became chairman of PG&E six months ago, told reporters only that the utility uses “a formula or an algorithm” to evaluate historical data on winds and fire danger, but did not offer further details.

State regulators have established guidelines for the types of anticipated weather conditions that should prompt utilities to turn off electricity service and the warnings that should be issued before an outage. But many actions are left to the discretion of the companies, an opaque process criticized by state Public Utilities Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma during an Oct. 18 meeting.

“I keep coming back to the Wizard of Oz, where smoke and mirrors and this and that,” Shiroma told PG&E officials.

California’s other large utilities, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co., have the same relative autonomy over when and where to turn off power. Within 10 business days of an outage, a company must submit a report to CPUC officials explaining its decision to shut off power, including information on weather conditions in the outage area.

The report must include details on the types of customers affected and the advance notice they were provided, the location and duration of the shut-offs and an accounting of any wind-related damage to company equipment.

Regulators are supposed to use the report to determine whether the outage was reasonable. But the documents often provide only summary information, making their value unclear. Though CPUC officials can penalize companies for how they carry out wildfire-prevention blackouts, they never have. Even then, an administrative law judge would decide such a case under a process that could take several months.

Only the California Legislature can strengthen the CPUC’s power over utilities. And reaching consensus on expanding the agency’s operations could be tough — it has struggled with oversight of a vast and varied portion of the state’s economy, including electricity, telephone service, ride-hailing and limousine companies.

Even if lawmakers want to do something now, they can’t. The Legislature has adjourned for the year and isn’t scheduled to reconvene until January. The only way to engage more quickly is to convene a special legislative session.

History offers a lesson from California’s last energy crisis of almost two decades ago. In December 2000, then-Gov. Gray Davis promised to convene a special session to draft plans to help the state’s utilities. One key proposal — requiring the state to sign long-term energy purchase contracts with major utilities — went from introduction to law in just a month. Additional efforts to address the causes of the widespread blackouts were put in place that spring.

Laws passed in a special legislative session, even those requiring a simple majority vote, take effect 90 days after the end of the proceedings. Similar bills in a regular session don’t become law until the next calendar year. And unlike in 2000, when an election had just taken place and lawmakers had yet to take the oath of office, California legislators this year are in the middle of their terms and appear more inclined to act. Varying ideas have been floated, including incentives for clean energy that can be locally stored for broader outages and a broad investment in “microgrid” technology to better isolate power shut-offs to communities where fire danger is most extreme.

Action could be swift at the state Capitol, but only if Newsom convenes a special session...

Keep reading.

Evelyn Taft's Saturday Forecast

November.

The early mornings are in the 40s and the afternoons in the 80s. I head out to work with a jacket and take it off later.

Here's the fabulous Ms. Evelyn, for CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Whites Without College Degrees Are the Reserve Army of the GOP

From Matthew Continetti, at Free Beacon, "The Reserve Army of the GOP":

The Democratic difficulty has a name: the Electoral College. Twice in the twenty-first century, the level of the presidential vote has mattered less than its distribution. Trump's people are spread much more evenly across the country than his opponents are. His base of white voters without college degrees, say Teixeira and Halpin, "make up more than half of all eligible voters in critical Electoral College states he won in 2016—including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—and in key target states for 2020 such as New Hampshire."

Non-college white voters comprised the largest part of the electorate in 2016. Trump won them 63 percent to 31 percent. That margin more than compensated for his 7-point loss among whites with college degrees. Teixeira and Halpin predict that the number of white voters without college degrees will drop next year. But they also recognize that Trump can still win. "If he increased his support across states among these voters by 10 margin points, he would in fact carry the popular vote, albeit by just 1 percentage point."

Keep reading.

New York Times Upshot / Siena College 2020 Battleground Polls: Across 6 Battleground States Voters Oppose Impeaching & Removing Trump 52-44 Percent

Democrats are going to hate themselves in the morning.

At AoSHQ, "Poll: Across Six Swing States, Voters Oppose Removing Trump From Office."

House Votes for Impeachment

Along strict party lines.

At the New York Times, "A Divided House Endorses Impeachment Inquiry Into Trump":

The U.S. House has voted to endorse the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Here's what happened:
– The final vote was 232 to 196
– All 194 Republicans voted against the measure
– 2 Democrats voted against it

See how each member voted here: https://t.co/sXjbFXSyEW pic.twitter.com/4WXJZToZ6c

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 31, 2019

WASHINGTON — A bitterly divided House of Representatives voted Thursday to endorse the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry into President Trump, in a historic action that set up a critical new public phase of the process and underscored the toxic political polarization that serves as its backdrop.

The vote was 232-196 to approve a resolution that sets out rules for an impeachment process for which there are few precedents, and which promises to consume the country a little more than a year before the 2020 elections. It was only the third time in modern history that the House had taken a vote on an impeachment inquiry into a sitting president.

Two Democrats broke with their party to vote against the measure, while Republicans — under immense pressure from Mr. Trump to shut down the impeachment inquiry altogether — unanimously opposed it.

Minutes after the vote, the White House press secretary denounced the process as “a sham impeachment” and “a blatantly partisan attempt to destroy the president.”

Practically speaking, the resolution outlines the rights and procedures that will guide the process from here on out, including the public presentation of evidence and how Mr. Trump and his legal team will be able to eventually mount a defense.

But its significance was more profound: After five weeks of private fact-finding, an almost completely unified Democratic caucus signaled that, despite Republican opposition, they now have enough confidence in the severity of the underlying facts about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine to start making their case for impeachment in public...

Right.

Nobody really thinks Trump's going to be impeached AND removed from office. Democrats don't even believe that. It's a scam, sham, wam-bam.

See HuffPo:

New HuffPost/YouGov impeachment polling: Just 30% of Americans think it's even somewhat likely that Trump will be impeached and removed. https://t.co/5PRvT3mG89

— Ariel Edwards-Levy (@aedwardslevy) October 31, 2019

'House Democrats may be thinking that the argument against executive privilege is stronger if the whole House has voted or that by demonstrating a better standard of procedural regularity, they may influence the judge to avoid the case without reaching the merits...'

A great piece, at Althouse, "Maybe they hope it will be voted down! Suddenly, House Democrats want a formal vote on impeachment."

And ICYMI: "Unconstitutional Impeachment."

The Strike Against Islamic State's Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Complicated Leftist Efforts to Destroy President Trump

From Mollie Hemingway, at the Federalist:

Here Are The Real Reasons Media Lost Their Minds When Baghdadi Died https://t.co/J2U5xEVSB2

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 28, 2019

Mobility of Newcomers to America: Poor Immigrants Rise?

Lost in the debate about "build the wall," and so forth, is the basic fact that a majority of Americans embraces immigration as a "net plus" to society and our future. Frankly, the debate today is not about legal or illegal immigration or the appropriate levels of newcomers to our country. The debate now, on the left in particularly, is whether to have any meaningful control of our national sovereignty at all. Leftists literally want open borders, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out over the summer.

Putting that to the side, it's fascinating that newcomers to the country, regardless of the country of origin, succeed economically at a rate consistent to patterns of immigration going back over a century. This should be a confirmation of our pride as a "land of opportunity." People come here to seek a better life, to escape political and religious tyranny, and to have a better material life for themselves and for their families.

But, are the sending their best lately? I'm skeptical.

At the New York Times, "Children of Poor Immigrants Rise, Regardless of Where They Come From":

Data on millions of father-son pairs going back to the 1880 census shows the kids of poor immigrants have consistently had higher upward mobility than kids of native-born parents: https://t.co/fg00VD9tm2

— Emily Badger (@emilymbadger) October 28, 2019

Immigration to the United States has consistently offered a route to escape poverty — if not for poor immigrants themselves, then for their sons.

New research linking millions of fathers and sons dating to the 1880s shows that children of poor immigrants in America have had greater success climbing the economic ladder than children of similarly poor fathers born in the United States. That pattern has been remarkably stable for more than a century, even as immigration laws have shifted and as the countries most likely to send immigrants to the United States have changed.

The adult children of poor Mexican and Dominican immigrants in the country legally today achieve about the same relative economic success as children of poor immigrants from Finland or Scotland did a century ago. All of them, in their respective eras, have fared better than the children of poor native-born Americans. If the American dream is to give the next generation a better life, it appears that poor immigrants have more reliably achieved that dream than native-born Americans have.

The findings, published in a working paper by a team of economic historians at Princeton, Stanford and the University of California, Davis, challenge several arguments central to the debate over immigration in America today. The Trump administration has moved to reorient the country’s legal immigration toward wealthier immigrants and away from poorer ones, arguing that the nation can’t afford to welcome families who will burden public programs like Medicaid. This research suggests that immigrants who arrive in poverty often escape it, if not in the first generation then the second.

“The short-term perspective on immigrant assimilation that politicians tend to take might underestimate the long-run success of immigrants,” said Ran Abramitzky, a professor at Stanford and one of the paper’s authors, along with Leah Platt Boustan, Elisa Jácome and Santiago Pérez. “By the second generation, they are doing quite well.” Keep reading.

President Trump and other proponents of tighter immigration have also suggested that today’s immigrants, predominantly from Latin America and Asia, are less likely to assimilate into the economy than earlier immigrant waves from Europe. This data suggests that is not true. It also shows that Norwegians, whom President Trump has held up as model immigrants, were in fact among the least successful after they arrived.

More.

And then don't forget to read Michelle Malkin's book, Open Borders Inc.: Who's Funding America's Destruction?

Unconstitutional Impeachment

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley, at WSJ, "This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution":

This is a very nice piece. https://t.co/Wn3B419Qdp

— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) October 27, 2019

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense. Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.

The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority vote, not by a press conference called by the Speaker. Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.

The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 vote. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.

Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret. Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.

Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context. Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.

House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they hate Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by voting on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process.

The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further. If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.

The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited.

Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a presidential “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.

Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power. One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter was unlawful “interference with an election.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). Election-related offenses involve specific actions such as voting by aliens, fraudulent voting, buying votes and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.

Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns.

Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery...

More.

The Final Humiliation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

It's Graeme Wood, at the Atlantic:

My thoughts on the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the hirsute rapist who was the absentee Caliph of the Islamic State: https://t.co/f27Vwi7hkW (in @TheAtlantic/@TheAtlIdeas)

— Graeme Wood (@gcaw) October 27, 2019

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, thanks for the memories https://t.co/KkVHW6753S

— Graeme Wood (@gcaw) October 27, 2019

Lindsey Pelas Leaked on Instagram

At the Inquisitr, "Lindsey Pelas’ Nudes Reportedly Leaked on Instagram By Same People Who Posted Nudes of Demi Lovato."

And Perez Hilton, "Demi Lovato Hackers at It Again, Posting Nude Photos of Model Lindsey Pelas!":

At least she got some press out of this! Most of you probably have no idea who Lindsey Pelas is! Why target HER? https://t.co/URlNsvYepg

— Perez (@ThePerezHilton) October 26, 2019

If you’re not familiar with Lindsey’s work, she’s actually an incredibly popular IG model and social media influencer with over NINE MILLION followers. Yeah.

Raw photo here.

Ariel Winter in Tiny Top

At Celeb Jihad, "ARIEL WINTER TIT SLIP PICS."

And Taxi Driver:

Ariel Winter Areola Peek in a Tiny Little Top - https://t.co/N20pvngV23 - pic.twitter.com/KY6cZxgIh0

— Taxi Driver (@TaxiDriverMovie) October 25, 2019

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Killed

President Trump teased the news last night, and this morning he's got the far-left media in a psychotic tizzy.

At the Other McCain, "Al-Baghdadi ‘Died Like a Coward’."

And the New York Times, via Memeorandum, "Special Operations Raid Said to Kill Senior Terrorist Leader in Syria."

Katie Hill Nude Three-Way With Bong and Tattoos (PHOTOS)

This is the obligatory Katie Hill nude scandal entry. I've held off on posting this, mostly to see if it's all true. But it turns out Red State indeed got a huge scoop, which MSM outlets only reluctantly followed up, lest they damage the career of one of their own far-left partisans.

See the Other McCain, "UPDATE: Naked Bisexual Democrat’s Scandal Just Got Worse, Believe It or Not."

Also, "UPDATE: Naked Bisexual Democrat Is Also a Mentally Ill Drunk (Allegedly)."

Plus, "Naked Bisexual Democrat Update," and "‘Naked Democratic Congresswoman’."

In the end, this is what matters, at KTLA News 5 Los Angeles, "Scandal Brings Election Risk to Rising Democrat Rep. Katie Hill in Deeply Divided L.A. District."

Also, at ABC 7 News Los Angeles:



The photos are at Celeb Jihad, "U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN KATIE HILL NUDE LESBIAN SEX SCANDAL PHOTOS LEAKED."

Mexico Releases El Chapo's Son After Deadly Cartel Gunfight (VIDEO)

A great piece at Instapundit, "CLAIRE BERLINSKI PRESENTS: On Mexican State Collapse: a Guest Post by El Anti-Pozolero."

Tulsi Gabbard Won't Seek Reelection

Well, not only will we be seeing a Tulsi third party presidential bid, we'll be also seeing continuing endless radical left allegations of Tulsi and everyone else as "Russian assets."

At Hot Air, "Tulsi Gabbard: I’m Not Running for Reelection."

Today I’m officially announcing that I will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2020. Throughout my life, I’ve always made my decisions based on where I felt I could do the most good. In light of the challenges we face, I believe I can … pic.twitter.com/F0StYoA66n

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 25, 2019

Mass Power Outages Planned as Wildfires Threaten (VIDEO)

California, our own Third World country.

At LAT, "Huge swaths of California could go dark with widest power outages yet expected this weekend."

Also, "As Kincade fire rages, Northern California faces biggest blackouts ever this weekend."

'Diablo' Winds Fuel Southland Fires (VIDEO)

It's the Santa Ana winds, which come every October, but now called the "Diablo" winds, for some reason.

At LAT, "Two destructive fires. Hundreds of miles apart. One culprit: Winds."



Also, "Tick fire explodes overnight: 14 Freeway closed, six homes destroyed as battle intensifies."

Megan Parry's Friday Forecast

Here's the lovely Ms. Megan, for ABC News 10 San Diego:

Bella Thorne Panties and Reefer

At Taxi Driver below.

And Drunken Stepfather, "BELLA THORNE SLUTTY CHEERLEADER OF THE DAY."

Bella Thorne Striped Panties Upskirt - https://t.co/KliJ5eAo6D - pic.twitter.com/IyPQQAAkPB

— Taxi Driver (@TaxiDriverMovie) October 24, 2019

Thirty-Nine "Chinese Nationals' Dead in Truck Container-Trailer in Grays, Essex (VIDEO)

Terrible, terrible awful story.

At the Telegraph U.K., "Detectives focus in on Irish gang after 39 migrants froze to death in lorry."

'Interstate Love Song'

I haven't posted this one in a while.

Heard during yesterday morning's drive-time at 93.1 Jack FM, Stone Temple Pilots.

Dead or Alive
9:13am

WALK THIS WAY
AEROSMITH
9:09am


The Impression That I Get
Mighty Mighty Bosstones
9:06am

In The Air Tonight
Phil Collins/Genesis
8:53am

It's Time
Imagine Dragons
8:50am


Old Time Rock & Roll
Bob Seger
8:46am

True Faith
New Order
8:42am

Interstate Love Song
Stone Temple Pilots
8:39am


Broken Wings
Mr. Mister
8:26am

The Warrior
SCANDAL
8:23am

Walking on a Dream
Empire of the Sun
8:19am

Hotel California
Eagles/Don Henley
8:13am

Enjoy The Silence
Depeche Mode
8:09am

Growing Numbers of Immigrants Getting Naturalized So They Can Vote

For Democrats, this is what it's all about. Flood the country with immigrant, who vote for the far-left Dems at a rate of about 5-1.

At LAT, "As Trump seeks reelection, immigrant voters stand in his path":

New: As Trump seeks reelection, a growing army of immigrant voters stands in his path.

Naturalized citizens cast more than 8% of the ballots in 2018 — double their share since 1996 — helping put Texas, Georgia and Arizona closer in reach for Democrats. https://t.co/EREYnajTjj

— Matt Pearce bargained a fair contract 🦅 (@mattdpearce) October 23, 2019

HOUSTON —  This is where a nation changes: a public school auditorium that moonlights as a veritable citizenship factory.

At the M.O. Campbell Educational Center, where murals honoring the arts and sciences adorn the walls, U.S. immigration officials routinely hold packed naturalization ceremonies. Immigrants approved for citizenship walk in, take the oath of allegiance, and walk out as Americans — and as a small army of new voters.

“It will never, ever be easier to register than it is this morning,” U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison, who presided over a ceremony last month, told the 2,155 immigrants from more than 100 countries who had just taken their citizenship oaths. “The record for registrations is 89% of those who are sworn in.... Let’s see if we can break that record today.”

Amish Soni, a 34-year-old radiologist from India holding a small American flag, was one of the 85% who registered to vote that morning, aided by a volunteer from the League of Women Voters. He “definitely” plans to vote in 2020, partly because he thinks the healthcare system should be fixed, but also: “I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump.” And he’s far from the only one.

At ceremonies like these across the country, hundreds of thousands of immigrants are expected to receive their U.S. citizenship and become eligible to vote before November 2020, gently reshaping — and threatening — the electoral path that President Trump must thread to win reelection.

Over the last two decades, naturalized immigrants have grown into a force at the ballot box, with the United States recently swearing in more than 700,000 foreign-born U.S. citizens each year.

Naturalized citizens — who share the full legal rights of natural-born citizens, except for the ability to become president — cast more than 8% of the ballots in the 2018 midterm elections, almost double their share in the 1996 presidential contest, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

Surveys show that many of the new citizens are liberal-leaning, which is one of several demographic trends helping put some historically red states such as Texas, Arizona and Georgia closer to Democrats’ reach.

The gains in immigrants’ electoral strength have been gradual. But Trump’s anti-immigration policies may be accelerating the trend by spurring even more people to naturalize and to vote, worrying some moderate Republican experts.

“It’s not ‘bad-ish’ news. It’s extremely bad,” said Mike Madrid, a Sacramento-based GOP consultant who studies Latino voters. He thinks the party’s use of anti-immigrant rhetoric to mobilize non-college-educated white voters will come at a steep electoral price. “This is a five-alarm fire.”

Keep reading.

'One has to wonder whether the dismissal of the entire field isn't just a machination to generate a late draft-Hillary movement...'

Following up, "Is There Anybody Else?"

Interesting. I hadn't thought of a "draft Hillary late" movement, but then, I don't think the country --- much less the Democrats --- could stand a third attempt by Crooked Hillary to win the presidency.

See Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "“Anxiety Rises”: Biden Opens Up Biggest Lead As Dems Fret Over 2020 Options."

Is There Anybody Else?

For the Democrats, the leading candidates are not inspiring.

At the New York Times, "Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’":

Does it really matter when they all sound the same?

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ - The New York Times https://t.co/n5pXKJSHwi

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 22, 2019

WASHINGTON — When a half-dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked. But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who was not in the race — but could be lured in.

Would Hillary Clinton get in, the contributors wondered, and how about Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor? One person even mused whether Michelle Obama would consider a late entry, according to two people who attended the event, which was hosted by the progressive group American Bridge.

It’s that time of the election season for Democrats.

“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” said Leah Daughtry, a longtime Democrat who has run two of the party’s recent conventions.

With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race and longing for a white knight to enter the contest at the last minute.

It is a regular, if not quite quadrennial, tradition for a party that can be fatalistic about its prospects and recalls similar Maalox moments Democrats endured in 1992, 2004 and in the last primary, when it was Mr. Biden who nearly entered the race in October. But the mood of alarm is even more intense because of the party’s hunger to defeat President Trump and — with just over three months to go before voting starts in Iowa — their impatience with finding Mr. or Mrs. Right among the current crop of candidates.

“There’s more anxiety than ever,” said Connie Schultz, a journalist who is married to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, another Democrat who some in the party would like to see join the race. “We’re both getting the calls. I’ve been surprised by some who’ve called me.”

“I can see it, I can feel it, I can hear it,” Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, said of the unease within the party. He said he thinks Mr. Biden is best positioned to defeat Mr. Trump but called the former vice president’s fund-raising “a real concern.”

Mr. Biden’s lackluster debate performances and alarmingly low cash flow — he has less than $9 million on hand, not even half of some of his rivals — has fueled the Democratic disquiet. But if the causes of the concern are plain to see, what exactly can be done about it is less clear.

And even some of those being wooed acknowledge that it can be hard to discern between people just being nice and those who genuinely want them in the race.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them.

Former Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who associates say has wondered aloud about whether he should have run and has found it hard to watch Mr. Biden’s missteps, has also been urged to get in. But he still thinks the former vice president, who was once his longtime Senate colleague, is the party’s best nominee.

Another Obama administration official who weighed a campaign at the start of the year, former Attorney General Eric Holder, is considering a last-minute entry but has conceded it may be too late, according to a Democrat familiar with his thinking.

Mr. Brown, who nearly entered the race earlier this year, said the pressure on him to reconsider from labor leaders, Democratic officials and donors has “become more frequent.” And Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor, who also weighed a campaign run before deciding not to, said he too has been nudged by friends to reconsider. “It’s nice to be rumored about,” he said, before notably refusing to rule out a last-minute entry. “Don’t ask me that question,” he said.

But Mr. Patrick suggested an 11th-hour bid was highly unlikely and had a message for increasingly angst-ridden Democrats: “Everybody needs to calm down, it’s early. It’s so early.”

More.

Small Share of U.S. Adults Dominate Politics on Twitter

Seen earlier:

This is what I say about Twitter not being representative of real life...at all. Especially regarding politics. https://t.co/7gQGBbfMPG

— Melissa Mackenzie 🌐 (@MelissaTweets) October 23, 2019

Jake Tapper Insinuates Rep. Josh Hawley as Anti-Semitic

This is something else.

Click through at the links and read all the tweets. Tapper got torched.

Here, "Facts First: CNN’s Jake Tapper Dishonestly Insinuated Josh Hawley Is An Anti-Semite And It Did Not Go Well."

Via Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, "This is CNN."

Leonardo DiCaprio's Ex-Girlfriend Kendal Schuler

When's Leo going to actually marry one of these women? He's dated some gorgeous babes, dang.

At Drunken Stepfather, "KENDAL SCHULER OF THE DAY":

KENDAL SCHULER is one of Leo’s ex beards. You can tell by her tits. You know that prose she had tattooed onto her tit like the underwire of a bra – you know because she’s deep like Leo thinks he’s deep cuz no one wants to admit they are vapid cunts…and in Leo’s case he doesn’t want to admit he fucks his guy friends cuz chicks are boring…and he gets those guy friends to fuck by baiting them with environmentally friendly jets and coke fueled parties with trash like this who think it’s their big break. God. People are dumb…

Huge Rhian Sugden

At Taxi Driver:

Rhian Sugden Huge Boobs in Black Lace Lingerie Selfie - https://t.co/yDd5pP0n7L - pic.twitter.com/7LKKKEPbYV

— Taxi Driver (@TaxiDriverMovie) October 17, 2019

Emily Agnes

At Drunken Stepfather, "EMILY AGNES OF THE DAY."

Jennifer Delacruz's Monday Forecast

Very warm late-October weather, with real fire danger from the winds.

Here's the spectacular Ms. Jennifer, for ABC News 10 San Diego:

Searing Moment in the Middle East

For the record, I'm not pleased with President Trump's handling of Syria and Turkey this past week or so. Not pleased at all. Yeah, I can dig the current public sentiment to wind things down, and end "regime change wars," but previous commitments should be honored and our dealings with allies should be respectful and up and up. It's especially disgraceful to cough up territory and control in places Americans have shed blood, to say nothing of fierce fighters like the Kurds.

Oh well.

At WaPo, "The hasty U.S. pullback from Syria is a searing moment in America’s withdrawal from the Middle East":

The hasty U.S. pullback from Syria is a searing moment in America’s withdrawal from the Middle East https://t.co/Gk8dYbpM2N

— Claire Berlinski (@ClaireBerlinski) October 17, 2019

BEIRUT — The blow to America’s standing in the Middle East was sudden and unexpectedly swift. Within the space of a few hours, advances by Turkish troops in Syria this week had compelled the U.S. military’s Syrian Kurdish allies to switch sides, unraveled years of U.S. Syria policy and recalibrated the balance of power in the Middle East.

As Russian and Syrian troops roll into vacated towns and U.S. bases, the winners are counting the spoils.

The withdrawal delivered a huge victory to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who won back control of an area roughly amounting to a third of the country almost overnight. It affirmed Moscow as the arbiter of Syria’s fate and the rising power in the Middle East. It sent another signal to Iran that Washington has no appetite for the kind of confrontation that its rhetoric suggests and that Iran’s expanded influence in Syria is now likely to go unchallenged.

It sent a message to the wider world that the United States is in the process of a disengagement that could resonate beyond the Middle East, said Hussein Ibish of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

“There’s a sense that the long goodbye has begun and that the long goodbye from the Middle East could become a long goodbye from Asia and everywhere else,” he said.

Images shared on social media underscored the indignity of the retreat. Departing U.S. troops in sophisticated armored vehicles passed Syrian army soldiers riding in open-top trucks on a desert highway. An embedded Russian journalist took selfies on the abandoned U.S. base in Manbij, where U.S. forces had fought alongside their Kurdish allies to drive out the Islamic State in 2015.

“Only yesterday they were here, and now we are here,” said the journalist, panning the camera around the intact infrastructure, including a radio tower and a button-powered traffic-control gate that he showed was still functioning.

“Let’s see how they lived and what they ate,” he said, before ducking into one of the tents and filming the soldiers’ discarded snacks.

On Arab news channels, coverage switched from footage of jubilant Syrian troops to scenes of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s lavish receptions by the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Washington’s most vital Arab allies in the Persian Gulf. The visits had been long planned, but the timing gave them the feel of a victory lap.

“This has left a bad taste for all of America’s friends and allies in the region, not only among the Kurds,” said a former regional minister who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to not embarrass his government, an American ally. “Many will now be looking for new friends. The Russians don’t abandon their allies. They fight for them. And so do the Iranians.”

It was the manner of the withdrawal, hastily called amid chaos on the battlefield as Turkish forces pushed deep into Syria, that gave the event such impact in the region, analysts said. Few had anticipated that the most advanced military in the world would make such a scrambled and hasty departure, even after President Trump signaled he would not endorse a war on behalf of the Kurds against a U.S. NATO ally.

Less than 48 hours before the withdrawal announcement, U.S. Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had given assurances that the troops would remain indefinitely, standing by their Kurdish partners to continue to hunt down the Islamic State.

 But the Turks’ capture Sunday of a key highway that served as the U.S. troops’ main supply line revealed the fragility of a mission that had narrowly focused on the Islamic State fight while neglecting regional dynamics, including the depth of Turkish animosity to the Kurdish militia with which the United States had teamed up...

More.

Tulsi Gabbard Slams Hillary Clinton, the 'Queen of Warmongers'

Just beautiful.

At Epoch Times, "Gabbard: Clinton Smeared Me Because ‘She Won’t be Able to Control Me’ If I’m Elected President."

And on Tucker's below:

Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a ...

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.

It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 18, 2019

Lindsey Pelas

She's a cool tweep, responding frequently to her followers.

rawr pic.twitter.com/47Helb4W63

— Lindsey Pelas (@LindseyPelas) September 10, 2019

😚😚 pic.twitter.com/8etINdrtoV

— Lindsey Pelas (@LindseyPelas) September 24, 2019

my twins big like tia tamera 👯‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/GMRsKqQl8y

— Lindsey Pelas (@LindseyPelas) October 4, 2019

Hillary Clinton Asked to Leave Costco

From Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, "I’m so old, I can remember when the Babylon Bee was still a satiric Website, before morphing into America’s Paper of Record..."

Hillary Clinton Asked To Leave Costco After Repeatedly Accusing Sample Lady Of Being A Russian Assethttps://t.co/G6UAE7bhSW

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) October 18, 2019

Alex Biston's Saturday Forecast

Here's the lovely Ms. Alex, at CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Kimberley Strassel on the Eric Metaxas Radio Show (VIDEO)

She's on tour to promote her book, Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America.

And with Eric Metaxas:

Demi Lovato Leaked Photos

At LAT, "Demi Lovato’s nude photos leak after her Snapchat is hacked."

And Drunken Stepfather, "DEMI LOVATO SKINNY NUDES BEFORE THE OD OF THE DAY," and Celeb Jihad, "DEMI LOVATO LEAKS NEW SET OF NUDE PHOTOS."

Detroit Couple Hoped to Make It Big in Hollywood, Now They're Homeless

Dashed hopes on the hard streets of L.A.

At the Los Angeles Times, "They came to L.A. to chase a Hollywood dream. Two weeks later, they were homeless":

YES, LA DREAM ISN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE. They came to L.A. to chase a Hollywood dream. Two weeks later, they were homeless. Powerful ⁦@LATimescitybeat⁩ column https://t.co/nQp8jIbvYu

— Shelby Grad (@shelbygrad) October 19, 2019

So many people come to L.A. carrying little else but big dreams. One misstep, one con, one stroke of bad luck can be all it takes to derail them.

I recently met a young couple from Detroit whose journey here started with great hope.

They arrived last spring in possession of a promise, $800, two backpacks and two duffel bags.

The promise was what had prompted them to leave home. But it was broken that first day, before they left LAX.

Their interactions in our city then began to fray so fast that two weeks later they were sleeping on our sidewalks.

I asked them if I could tell their story in part to remind us all how swiftly disaster can strike, but also as a nudge to contemplate how we treat others — our newcomers, our most vulnerable, those we routinely write off.

Why tell a person you’ll help them if really you won’t? Some people like to toy, cats pawing at mice.

In Detroit, Loxk Calhoun (pronounced Lock, born DaShawn), had been scraping by for two years on his own since his mother kicked him out at 18. He was thrilled when someone in the music business encouraged him to come to L.A. He describes himself as an audio engineer who also writes music and raps and performs. He wants to be better known. The guy from L.A. said if Loxk just flew out here, he’d put him up and help make that happen.

But Loxk got here and he didn’t. He offered no help at all. When Loxk called from LAX, he said he’d be out of town for a long time.

Loxk and his girlfriend, Bri Meilbeck, who just turned 24, suddenly had only each other. They were novice travelers. They’d been together just one month. In a giant city, they had no one else whose support they knew they could count on.

In a fix, Loxk called another contact on his phone — a music producer he hadn’t yet met. He was relieved when this virtual stranger said that he and Bri could come stay. But the West Hollywood house they arrived at, which looked like a mansion on the outside, turned out to have bedroom after bedroom crammed with bunk beds. Bri and Loxk didn’t know how many there were or even whose house it was.

They also didn’t know that the producer to whom they had given some money owed rent — until one night after dark they got the word that the landlord wanted them gone at once.

This was the moment when they slipped into homelessness and slipped out of the world as they’d known it. They were the only ones who noticed. They had just $50 left.

As they strained to lug all they owned out the door, they knew that they would have to own less. At a dumpster, they shed a lot of favorite clothes, including Bri’s pink Adidas track suit.

Where to go was a problem. They didn’t know L.A.

But there had been a moment during those early days when they were feeling so overwhelmed by the strangeness of it all that they needed to get away and be alone. So they’d splurged on a cheap room at the Las Palmas Hotel in Hollywood, which in “Pretty Woman” is where Julia Roberts lived in the tough times before Richard Gere.

They’d liked that little brush with fame, though there’d be no fairy-tale rescue for them. Now pushed out of the house, they went back to the Las Palmas and scaled the fence of the park next door. Trying not to be seen, they avoided the playground’s rubber mats and lay down on pavement under Bri’s faux fur coat. All that night, she kept her eyes open.

A couple of years earlier, Bri had gotten very close to finishing college. She’d had her act together. She’d never imagined this.

“I was very scared. You could hear people yelling and screaming. I thought someone was going to rob us,” she told me. On her phone, she searched the discussions on the social news website Reddit, typing in phrases: “I just became homeless,” “Where do homeless people go in L.A.?”

Early the next morning on Venice Beach, the two bummed a smoke from a homeless man with a dog. He offered up tips for their new life.

Wear fresh socks to avoid infections. Go to St. Joseph Center for help. He walked around with them looking for a tarp and pieces of cardboard for their bedding.

That night and for a few nights to come, until they could get their own, he let them sleep in his little tent, squeezed in with him and his German shepherd, in front of the Public Storage at 4th and Rose avenues...

More.

Saddleridge Fire, Porter Ranch, Los Angeles (VIDEO)

At the Los Angeles Times, "For Porter Ranch, Saddleridge fire is the latest disaster on a growing list."

And, "Saddleridge fire’s rapid spread left residents little time to get out," and "City and state declare emergencies as Saddleridge fire burns homes in the Valley."

Classic Rock Show, 'All Along the Watchtower' (VIDEO)

I literally listen to this every day. Mindbogglingly good.

The band's website is here. I wish they'd tour the U.S., man.

Jennifer Delacruz's Saturday Forecast

I haven't seen Ms. Jennifer in a while --- she's spectacular!

It's hot and fiery weather, though. Take it easy out there if you're in California.

At ABC News 10 San Diego:

Fred Anderson, Crucible of War

At Amazon, Fred Anderson, Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766.

Ronan Farrow, Catch and Kill

At NPR, "In 'Catch and Kill,' Ronan Farrow Offers a Damning Portrait of a Conflicted NBC."

And at Amazon, Ronan Farrow, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators.