#yeah that's every greenberg mention in the show
Text
TEEN WOLF APPRECIATION WEEK
▸DAY 3 ◎ SIDE CHARACTER(S)
▸COACH BOBBY FINSTOCK, #1 ALLY AND GREENBERG HATER
#*cc edits#twaw2022#i need a greenberg mention in the movie#it won't happen but it'd be fun#teenwolflegacy#teenwolfedit#twedit#tvedit#teen wolf#tusermere#userjesslynn#useremary#tusercatherine#coach finstock#bobby finstock#greenberg#scott mccall#stiles stilinski#yeah that's every greenberg mention in the show#these would be better as gifs but i can't gif so :)
479 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hey, I don’t know much about Jews but I would like to know if Ashkenazi Jews are open to homosexuality?
Ummmm there’s no real way to answer this question, and I’m going to break down why:
1. ‘Ashkenazi’ just refers to Jews who can trace their familial roots to Eastern Europe. It has no bearing on where an individual falls, politically or religiously. There are Haredi (“Ultra” Orthodox) Ashkenazim, secular Ashkenazim, hard-right Ashkenazim, socialist Ashkenazim, Ashkenazim who live in the United States, Israel, Poland, South Africa, Mexico. Ashkenazim who identify as white, black, Middle Eastern, Asian, so on and so forth. It’s an ethnic identity.
2. It makes… a little bit more sense if you were asking about specific Jewish movements, because Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, who trace their familial roots to Spain and the Middle East, respectively, typically don’t break their observance down like that. There may be variations in how they practice Judaism, and there are Sephardim and Mizrahim who attend majority-Ashkenazi synagogues that fall under different labels, but most of the major Jewish movements (Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Modern Orthodox) really emerged in the United States among Ashkenazim.
(If you’re reading this and thinking “that’s a major oversimplification,” I know, I’m just trying not to resist my instinct to dive into four hundred years of Jewish history at the moment.)
In that case, my answer would be that the Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative movements have all released official statements affirming their acceptance of LGBTQ Jews. They ordain LGBTQ rabbis, accept LGBTQ converts, and perform same-sex marriages. The term “Orthodox” encompasses a looooot more ideological variation and is harder to sum up. I think one example of how complex it can get is the life of Steven Greenberg, who became the first openly gay Orthodox rabbi about fifteen years ago. He is gay, has talked publicly about it, has written books about it… and doesn’t believe that same-sex marriage is compatible with Orthodox Judaism. He has performed at least one secular wedding for two Orthodox men, but didn’t perform the Jewish religious marriage rites.
I’m not Orthodox and I’m not going to delve into this topic more, because honestly I think it’s really unfair how often Orthodox LGBTQ people are attacked from both sides of the debate, which brings me to point 3!
3. I’m going to be honest–I’m not answering this question from a place of anger, and I’m only over-explaining because I’m a rambling person. It’s not to bash anon or to show off my own superiority. But… I wonder if people realize that, when they ask “are Jews accepting of homosexuality?” they’re really asking “are straight Jews accepting of homosexuality?”
Because I’ve gotten this question a lot, always from non-Jews and often, in personal life, from straight people. And they’re always surprised when I mentioned that there are LGBTQ organizations for Haredi, Hasidic, and Modern Orthodox Jews, because they haven’t considered that they exist. And they do! LGBTQ Jews exist in every movement and every ethnicity, and even if we aren’t always out to the entire community, we are often out to each other. I think that’s especially important to say when we’re talking about a community that is often demonized as backward and repressive.
And to be clear, I don’t blame LGBTQ people who want to know if they can visit a synagogue or learn about Judaism while feeling safe. That’s understandable! But I would be remiss if I erased the existence of LGBTQ Jews from this conversation. Especially because I’m a Jewish lesbian myself. And our last point:
4. It varies. A lot. Within synagogues, between synagogues, geographically, individually. I used to attend a Conservative synagogue in a town colloquially known as Lesbianville, USA, so yeah, that synagogue was GAY AS SHIT. The rabbi and the members were in favor of same-sex marriage LONG before the movement as a whole was, and the majority of the straight members are queer-competent. A Conservative synagogue located in a smaller or more rural area, or a town that was more politically conservative and homophobic? Probably not as accepting.
It goes both ways. Statistically speaking, Jews tend to be more liberal than the average American, but there are some right-wing Jews who are homophobic regardless of their movement or ethnic background. On the other hand, there are right-wing people who don’t have a problem with gay people. I’ve met individuals who were Modern Orthodox and totally out and happy with it, and individuals who were Reform and had homophobic parents and were closeted. There are a lot of different factors and it can be hard to parse them out.
All in all, I think the best way to determine whether a particular community is homophobic or accepting is to look at: A) organizations like Keshet that promote LGBTQ acceptance in Jewish communities and keep lists of LGBTQ-friendly synagogues, B) resources and statements put out by synagogues/organizations, C) what members themselves have said and whether there are social justice or LGBTQ groups, D) the political background/demographics of the local population in general.
There are also strictly-religious interpretations of this question but this is a very long ask so I’m not going to go into that just yet. Short answer: like all of Jewish law, it’s complicated.
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
I don’t care what they say, it doesn’t mean shit
I received the prompt “I don’t care what they say, it doesn’t mean shit!” by an anon and it resulted in a Hogwarts AU! Hope you like it, anon! Read on AO3.
For such an enormous place, rumors spread like wildfire at Hogwarts. Sometimes, most often actually, they’re mere whispers pushing through cracks in the thick stone walls, fluttering through long hallways and settling in front of the warm fires in the common rooms. Sometimes they’re a giant, unavoidable roar shattering the windows and leaving absolutely no one out of the loop. Which is how Stiles finds out that Derek Hale is a werewolf.
It’s all that people are talking about. It’s either You know that they have to chain him up every full moon, right? Which means they totally knew about this and put us all in danger or You know Kate used to date him? Well, she said that one time when they were, you know, he like, scratched her. Can you turn from a scratch? Either way, I don’t think we should sit with her anymore and even You know, Greenberg said that one time when he was out after dark, he totally met a werewolf that had murdered a rabbit. I bet that was Derek.
Ridiculous. Greenberg has never been out after dark.
Stiles finds Derek in his usual hideout, a secluded section of trees down by the lake. They’re mostly out there during spring, when the grass is green and the sunlight warm, but now it’s late January and the ground is buried in a thick cover of snow and the lake is frozen solid. Derek sits in the snow as if the chill doesn’t even bother him. Meanwhile Stiles feels as if his pink nose is seconds from falling off completely and he pulls his woollen hat further down over his ears.
“Do you realize it’s freezing? Because it’s totally freezing,” Stiles calls out as he trudges the last couple of feet through the snow.
Derek doesn’t even look at him, he just keeps on glaring out into nothing.
“You don’t even have a hat on, idiot,” Stiles grumbles and plops down next to him. “And I’m totally gonna get frostbite on my ass. And then it’s gonna turn blue and black and fall off. Who’s gonna love me then, huh? Buttless Stiles, that’s what they’ll call me.”
Derek sighs.
“Go away, Stiles.”
“Eh, no.”
“You shouldn’t be here.”
“Why not? I’m always here. This is like, our place.”
“You know why.”
“Uhm, no, I really don’t.”
Derek sighs again. It’s his stop-being-difficult-Stiles sigh, but like, times a hundred.
“There’s no way you haven’t heard.”
“Heard what?”
Derek looks heavenward, probably begging for strength. Stiles can’t help smiling.
“What they’re saying. That I’m dangerous. That I’m out of control, that I’m turning people, that I’m murdering rabbits.” Derek’s head drops between his knees. “That I’m a monster.”
“Well… are you?” Stiles wonders.
“Am I what?”
“A monster.”
Derek turns his head and finally looks at Stiles, a confused frown marring his face. It feels like an eternity before he speaks.
“No.”
“Then I don’t care what they say, it doesn’t mean shit,” Stiles replies matter of factly, raising his eyebrows as if daring Derek to argue.
Derek looks tempted for a couple of seconds. Stiles can only imagine the idiotic arguments Derek is concocting and disregarding as they stare at each other. Probably something along the lines of you’ll be an outcast if you hang around me or I’ll get you into trouble. Well, newsflash dipshit, Stiles is already an outcast and perfectly capable of getting himself into trouble, thank you very much. All of this Derek seems to be able to read through eye contact alone, because his shoulders drop in defeat.
“You’re a nuisance, you know that?” He asks, but he can’t fool Stiles. Nope, Stiles can totally see that little smile tugging at the corner of his mouth.
“So I’ve been told,” Stiles answers with a nonchalant shrug. “Can we like, get out of the snow now? Before previously mentioned butt related frostbite becomes reality?”
“Sure. I can’t be seen hanging around Buttless Stiles, it’ll ruin my reputation.”
Stiles snorts with amusement as he clambers to his feet, reaching out a hand to help Derek off the ground.
“Yeah, we can’t have that.”
Derek gets this super intense look about him sometimes. When he’s not busy brooding or showing off, but actually gets serious. It has always made Stiles’ stomach turn into knots and he’s never been sure if it’s a good feeling or not. Derek looks at him like that now, as they’re standing close and Derek still hasn’t let go of Stiles’ hand.
“Thanks, Stiles,” he says softly.
Stiles remains on his feet through sheer power of will, even though his knees feel like giving out on him.
“Don’t mention it.”
Derek smiles then, small and private and only for Stiles to see. Stiles smiles in return. Derek drops his hand, but they walk close enough to bump shoulders all the way to the castle.
Send me a prompt!
231 notes
·
View notes
Text
Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama
New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/
Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama
Obama A Republican Congress And Impeachment
GOP Faithful Want Obama Impeached, Why? He’s Obama, That’s Why
Some Republicans are eager to impeach the President. Some are so eager that they go on the record saying that impeachment would probably pass the House. Representatives Barletta , Farenthold , and Senator Cruz say that the only obstacle is the Democratic Senate, which would not convict the President. The Washington Posts Jonathan Capehart took this a step further and argued Republican control of the Senate could result in President Obamas impeachment.
Regardless of who controls the Senate, the rationale presented by Cruz, Barletta, and Farenthold makes no sense. In no immediate future will Republicans control enough votes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the president from office. In order to reach the 66 vote threshold, Republicans need to win every single Senate election in November. Democrats may lose the Senate majority. However, no one believes Democrats will lose every single Senate race. More reasonable forecasts suggest Republicans will gain 5-6 seats. That is enough for a majority but not close to the amount necessary to remove Obama from office. In sum, there is no situation in which not having the votes is the reason impeachment has not been pursued.
There is a reasonable argument that the Republican Party, with a House majority insulated from electoral pain through a combination of safe districts packed with conservative constituents, would not hesitate to impeach Obama. He has been enemy number one since he stepped into office.
Efforts To Impeach Barack Obama
This article is part of a series about
e
During Barack Obama‘s tenure as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain Republican members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, stated that Obama had engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office. Rationales offered for possible impeachment ranged from Obama allowing people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, to the 2012 Benghazi attack, to Obama’s enforcement of immigration laws, and false claims that he was born outside the United States.
Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that a near supermajority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, though a bit more than a simple majority of Republicans did support such efforts. For example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported impeachment, but in general, 65% of American adults, disagreed with impeachment with only 33% supporting such efforts.
How President Obama Will Be Impeached
Writing about Rep. Eric Cantors stunning primary defeat last week, I warned Democrats that the House majority leaders loss was as much a wake-up call for them as it was for the GOP. Well, now I want to warn them about a very real possibility: President Obama will be impeached if the Democrats lose control of the U.S. Senate.
Yeah, yeah, I read Aaron Blakes astute piece in The Post on the impeachment process. He says probably not to the question of whether the House could impeach Obama. But probably is not definitely. And with the way the impeachment talk has gone, probably not could become absolutely if the Senate flips to the Republicans.
Rep. Lou Barletta became the latest to openly discuss impeaching the president. In response to a question from a radio host on Monday, the two-term congressman who was swept in during the tea party wave of 2010, said, Obama is just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances. Articles of impeachment, he added, probably could pass in the House.
In a later interview, Barletta said one of the reasons he wouldnt vote for impeachment was because a Democrat-controlled Senate would never convict the Democrat president. Blake also mentions this parenthetically in his piece. Others who have talked about impeachment point to this as the reason not to pursue the extraordinary political rebuke.
Follow Jonathan on Twitter:
Recommended Reading: What Is The Pin The Republicans Are Wearing
Reasons John Boehner Opted To Sue Obama Rather Than Impeach
While most Republicans favor impeachment, John Boehner recalls the losses that Republicans sustained in 1998 midterm elections, during the Clinton impeachment.
Loading…
In a near party-line vote, House Republicans on Wednesday approved 225 to 201 a resolution to sue President Obama or other administration officials for actions inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.
Translation: Republicans accuse the president of executive overreach exceeding his constitutional powers and unlawfully going around Congress.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calls the lawsuit “perilous and meritless.” President Obama dismissed it as a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. “Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hating all the time. Come on,” the president said during a speech in Kansas City, Mo., earlier in the day.
Some Republicans, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, want the House to go further and impeach the president. A CNN poll last week shows that the majority of Republicans favor impeachment. So why would House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio opt for a lawsuit instead of impeachment?
Here are three reasons why:
Republican Voters Want To Impeach The President Good Luck With That
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and other Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama might want to take a look at the history books and the U.S. Constitution before getting too excited about the idea.
Congress rarely uses its power to impeach, and when it has, impeachment has only infrequently — and in the case of a president, never — resulted in removal from office. Congress has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times in the history of the United States. Just 19 of those cases have been tried by the Senate, and only eight federal judges have ever been convicted and removed from office.
Although House Speaker John Boehner has maintained he is not interested in pursuing impeachment, a top White House aide said Friday that he expected House Republicans to do just that. And a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that one-third of Americans and two-thirds of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached. These numbers reflect an increasingly popular view in conservative circles, which Palin gave voice to earlier this month when she claimed the recent surge of undocumented immigrants at the border was an example of the president’s “rewarding of lawlessness.”
So, why do some conservatives appear to think this would be more of a Nixon than a Clinton situation?
Rep. Bob Goodlatte , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, earlier this month offered perhaps the most sober rebuke to the calls for impeachment.
Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are Against Trump
Hundreds Of Historians Join A Call For Trumps Impeachment
More than 300 historians and constitutional scholars have signed an open letter calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump. They say his continuation in office after encouraging supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol posed a clear and present danger to American democracy and the national security of the United States.
Those who signed the letter, released on Medium on Monday, include best-selling authors like Ron Chernow, Taylor Branch, Garry Wills and Stacy Schiff, as well as many leading academic historians. A number of the signatories had joined a previous letter in December 2019, calling for the presidents impeachment because of numerous and flagrant abuses of power including failure to protect the integrity of the impending 2020 election.
Since November 2020, the new letter says, Trump has refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, something no president before him has ever done.
Politically, the condemnation by historians may carry less weight than the presidents loss of support in recent days from business groups that once supported him or his policies. But David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers who drafted the new letter, said that historical expertise mattered.
In September, the American Historical Association issued a statement condemning the first White House History Conference, held at the National Archives .
Public Debate Over Impeachment Demands
In terms of background, U.S. public opinion widely opposed efforts made to impeach previous Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland has stated that their organization found that 69% opposed impeaching President Bush in 2006.
According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached, including 68% of Republicans. Later that month, a CNN survey found that about two thirds of adult Americans disagreed with impeachment efforts. The data showed intense partisan divides, with 57% of Republicans supporting the efforts compared to only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats.
On July 8, 2014, the former Governor of Alaska and 2008 RepublicanVice Presidential nomineeSarah Palin publicly called for Obama’s impeachment for “purposeful dereliction of duty”. In a full statement, she said: “Itâs time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.”
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review wrote the book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case For Obama’s Impeachment, which argued that threatening impeachment was a good way to limit executive action by Obama .
Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There
Is The Supreme Court Likely To Save Obamacare
The Supreme Court is likely to leave in place the bulk of Obamacare, including key protections for pre-existing health conditions.
Conservative justices John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared in two hours of arguments to be unwilling to strike down the entire law a long-held Republican goal.
The courts three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety and presumably would form a majority by joining a decision that cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it.
Leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, California and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place.
A decision is expected by late spring.
Meet The Impeachment Crowd: 6 Republicans Who Want Obama Out
Trump Asks Why GOP Didn’t Impeach Obama for IRS Scandal, Obamacare Promise, Iran Cash Payment
From Sarah Palin to Tom Coburn, several Republicans are calling for impeachment.
— intro: Has President Obamas use of the pen and phone to circumvent Congress gotten out of hand?
Some members of the GOP seem to think so.
Even as the embattled president fights criticism over the escalating humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, the release of Arm. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in return for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a mounting chorus of Republicans are calling for impeachment.
Heres a list of the high-profile Republicans who want to kick the president out of office:
quicklist: 1category: title: Sarah Palin url: text: Who Is She: 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, former governor of Alaska, sometime reality show host.
What She Said: Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, No mas. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. Its time to impeach.
When She Said It: July 8, 2014
media: 21159508caption: related:
quicklist: 2category: title: Tom Tancredo url: text: Who Is He: Former candidate for Colorado governor, 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, former congressman representing Colorados 6th Congressional District.
When He Said It: Valentines Day 2014
media: 24494513caption: related:
When He Said It: June 4, 2014
media: 24494378caption: related:
Recommended Reading: How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall
Clyburn: Gop Will Try To Impeach Obama
Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn is predicting that Republicans will try to impeach Barack Obama so that they can put an asterisk next to the name of the first black president.
There will be some reason found to introduce an impeachment resolution, the South Carolina congressman said Tuesday on MSNBCs The Ed Show. These Republicans have decided that this president must have an asterisk by his name after he leaves office, irrespective of whether or not he gets convicted. It is their plan to introduce an impeachment resolution.
He continued, is to put an asterisk next to this first African-American president in the history of the country to put an asterisk next to his name when the history books are written.
Clyburn, a high-ranking member of Democratic leadership in the House, argued that Republicans are aiming for impeachment as a way to keep the country focused on foolishness rather than on what we need to do in order to move an agenda forward.
As far as what will spur the call to impeach, Clyburn pointed to the heated debate on immigration reform.
Obama has warned Republican leaders in Congress that if they do not act quickly on a plan to reform immigration laws, he will issue executive orders aimed at changing the system. Speaker John Boehner has said that executive actions will poison the well on any attempts to reform the laws.
Obama Administration Immigration Policy
In June 2012, Senator Jon Kyl mentioned impeachment when discussing the Obama Administration policy on immigration. He said on the Bill Bennettradio show, “if itâs bad enough and if shenanigans involved in it, then of course impeachment is always a possibility. But I donât think at this point anybody is talking about that”.
In August 2013, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma responded to a questioner in a town hall meeting, who had asserted that Obama was failing to carry out his constitutional responsibilities, by saying that “you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president… and that’s called impeachment”. Coburn added, “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, but I think you’re getting perilously close”. Coburn did not specify what grounds he felt would support impeachment, but NBC News noted that Coburn “mentioned that he believes Department of Homeland Security officials have told career USCIS employees to ‘ignore’ background checks for immigrants”. Coburn mentioned no evidence that substantiated his belief.
Also Check: Did Republicans Block Funding For Election Security
Trumps Former Secretary Of Veterans Affairs Says He Would Vote To Remove The President From Office
David J. Shulkin, the former secretary of veterans affairs under President Trump, said on Monday that he would vote to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office if he were still in the cabinet, saying that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he is a threat to the nation.
Theres no doubt I believe that this is the time to put the countrys interest first, and I do not believe the president should any longer be serving, Dr. Shulkin said in an interview. I believe that this is an extraordinary time of danger and challenge to the country, and I would support removal from office.
Dr. Shulkin, who said he would also support impeachment but worried it was not an efficient enough mechanism, went further than most other former Trump cabinet secretaries have gone in calling for the presidents removal from office. John F. Kelly, who served as Mr. Trumps secretary of homeland security before becoming White House chief of staff, has also said he would support invoking the 25th Amendment while other Trump cabinet veterans like former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and former Attorney General William P. Barr have offered scathing criticism without explicitly calling for Mr. Trumps removal.
Trump’s Former Chief Of Staff Is On Capitol Hill To Meet With The Impeachment Team
From CNN’s Kristin Wilson
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told reporters that the Democrats opening argument was pretty much what I was expecting and that its hard to make a good case when you have an unconstitutional process.
He said hes spoken with former President Trump on a regular basis but had not spoken with him about the opening arguments at the Senate trial.
When asked why he was on Capitol Hill, he said, I’m just coming over to meet with the impeachment team and said that he will be with them sporadically over the course of the trial.
Recommended Reading: Why Did Republicans Lose The Election
But It Would Be A Boneheaded Move For Numerous Reasons
When Congress heads off on its upcoming five-week recess, some Republicans, at town halls with constituents, will bring up the “I” word: impeachment. Barack Obama, they’ll say, needs to be removed from office. The reasons, in their view, are many: Benghazi. The IRS. An inability to control the Mexican border, to name but three. The constitutional standard for removal from office in Article II, Section 4 is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and to the far right, Obama more than qualifies.
Talking tough about impeachment is what constituents in gerrymandered Republican districts want to hear. It’s good red-meat politics. But back here on planet Earth, the reality is this: There’s about as much chance of Obama being removed from office as there is of Nancy Pelosi throwing the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl. It’s just not going to happen. The probability is literally zero.
Here are some numbers: A CNN poll last week said one third of Americans want Obama impeached. Just a liberal media poll, you say? Well, a Fox News survey last week said the same thing. And that one third just happens to coincide more or less with the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans. Fact is, vast majorities of independent voters and Democrats oppose removing the president from office.
So the Republican dream of Obama being forced from office making Joe Biden the 45th president simply isn’t going to happen.
President’s Constitutional Duty To Faithfully Execute The Laws
On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”, which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. Asked if the hearing was about impeachment, the committee chairman responded that it was not, adding, “I didn’t mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing.” Contrary to his claims however, a witness did mention impeachment rather blatantly. Partisan Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said, âA check on executive lawlessness is impeachmentâ as he accused Obama of âclaim the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.â
Recommended Reading: How Many Seats Do Republicans Hold In Congress
The State Department Labels Cuba A State Sponsor Of Terrorism In A Last
The State Department has designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, a last-minute foreign policy stroke that will complicate the incoming Biden administrations plans for dealing with Havana.
With this action, we will once again hold Cubas government accountable and send a clear message: The Castro regime must end its support for international terrorism and subversion of U.S. justice, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.
The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Pompeo was weighing the move and had a plan to do so on his desk. The action, announced with just over a week left in the Trump administration, reverses a step taken in 2015 after President Barack Obama restored U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba, calling its decades of isolation an archaic relic of the Cold War.
Once in office, President Trump acted swiftly to undermine Mr. Obamas policy of openness, which Republicans said Havana forfeited by failing to implement promised reforms and continuing to crack down on political dissent. The designation requires a finding that a country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, according to the State Department. The move automatically triggers U.S. sanctions against Cuba, including limits on U.S. foreign assistance, export controls and financial restrictions.
What Did Trump Say About Obamacare
Why Republicans want Hunter Biden to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial
President Trump has been actively trying to repeal the healthcare law since he campaigned for the 2016 presidential election.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to revoke Obamacare because it’s been an “unlawful failure.”
A brief filed in June asked the court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, arguing it became invalid after Congress axed parts of it.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “President Trump and the Republicans campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty.
“If President Trump gets his way, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the ACAs lifesaving protections and 23 million Americans will lose their health coverage entirely.
“There is no legal justification and no moral excuse for the Trump Administrations disastrous efforts to take away Americans health care.”
Republicans also argue that some people are better off without Obamacare due to the fact that it does not cover those who need it most.
According to the provisions, people who earn just slightly too much to qualify for federal premium subsidies, particularly early retirees and people in their 50s and early 60s who are self-employed are not covered.
Trump endorsed a replacement to Obamacare in 2017 but fell short of passing the Republican-controlled Congress.
You May Like: Are Republicans More Wealthy Than Democrats
Trump’s Rhetoric On Impeachment In 2014 Becomes Relevant Anew
In his unhinged letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, Donald Trump told the congressional leader, “You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” The president went on to suggest via Twitter this morning that he’s concerned about impeachment being made “trivial.”
He appears to have arrived at these concerns quite recently.
It wasn’t long ago, for example, that Trump wanted Pelosi to impeach George W. Bush for having launched the Iraq war. “He got us into the war with lies!” Trump said in 2008.
His attitude toward impeaching Barack Obama was even more cavalier. “Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?” Trump wrote on Twitter in June 2014.
Several months later, after Republicans took complete control over both houses of Congress, Trump appeared on Fox & Friends and was asked what he’d like to see the new GOP majorities do. Trump replied that he wanted Republicans to impeach the Democratic president.
“Do you think Obama seriously wants to be impeached and go through what Bill Clinton did? He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”
It wasn’t altogether clear what it was Obama did that Trump saw as worthy of impeachment; Trump simply seemed to like the idea of trying to rattle Obama on a personal level.
Does this sound like anyone else you know?
Donald Trump Claims Republicans ‘never Even Thought Of Impeaching’ Barack Obama History Tells A Different Story
President Donald Trump claimed that Republicans “never even thought of impeaching” Barack Obama, despite the record showing that many spoke of doing so over multiple issues.
In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump called on Republicans to get tougher and said that while he thinks Democrats are bad politicians with lousy policies he respects that they stick together. And, Trump said, Democrats are vicious.
“They’re much more vicious. We would never do a thing like this,” Trump told Hannity of the current House impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine affair in which the president is accused of soliciting the help of a foreign government in the 2020 election.
” could’ve impeached Obama for the IRS scandal, they could’ve impeached him for the guns or whatever, where guns went all over the place and people got killed with guns, Fast and Furious. They could’ve impeached him for many different things. They didn’t impeach him. They never even thought of impeaching him.”
In fact, Republicans in Congress did raise the impeachment of Obama multiple times.
Ex-GOP Congressman Predicts Republicans Could Flip on Trump Over Doral
In 2010, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called the alleged White House job offer to ex-Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak if he dropped out of a Senate primary “a crime, and could be impeachable” for Obama, Fox News reported.
Read Also: What Republicans Are Running For President
0 notes
Text
Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama
Obama A Republican Congress And Impeachment
GOP Faithful Want Obama Impeached, Why? He’s Obama, That’s Why
Some Republicans are eager to impeach the President. Some are so eager that they go on the record saying that impeachment would probably pass the House. Representatives Barletta , Farenthold , and Senator Cruz say that the only obstacle is the Democratic Senate, which would not convict the President. The Washington Posts Jonathan Capehart took this a step further and argued Republican control of the Senate could result in President Obamas impeachment.
Regardless of who controls the Senate, the rationale presented by Cruz, Barletta, and Farenthold makes no sense. In no immediate future will Republicans control enough votes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the president from office. In order to reach the 66 vote threshold, Republicans need to win every single Senate election in November. Democrats may lose the Senate majority. However, no one believes Democrats will lose every single Senate race. More reasonable forecasts suggest Republicans will gain 5-6 seats. That is enough for a majority but not close to the amount necessary to remove Obama from office. In sum, there is no situation in which not having the votes is the reason impeachment has not been pursued.
There is a reasonable argument that the Republican Party, with a House majority insulated from electoral pain through a combination of safe districts packed with conservative constituents, would not hesitate to impeach Obama. He has been enemy number one since he stepped into office.
Efforts To Impeach Barack Obama
This article is part of a series about
e
During Barack Obama‘s tenure as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain Republican members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, stated that Obama had engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office. Rationales offered for possible impeachment ranged from Obama allowing people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, to the 2012 Benghazi attack, to Obama’s enforcement of immigration laws, and false claims that he was born outside the United States.
Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that a near supermajority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, though a bit more than a simple majority of Republicans did support such efforts. For example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported impeachment, but in general, 65% of American adults, disagreed with impeachment with only 33% supporting such efforts.
How President Obama Will Be Impeached
Writing about Rep. Eric Cantors stunning primary defeat last week, I warned Democrats that the House majority leaders loss was as much a wake-up call for them as it was for the GOP. Well, now I want to warn them about a very real possibility: President Obama will be impeached if the Democrats lose control of the U.S. Senate.
Yeah, yeah, I read Aaron Blakes astute piece in The Post on the impeachment process. He says probably not to the question of whether the House could impeach Obama. But probably is not definitely. And with the way the impeachment talk has gone, probably not could become absolutely if the Senate flips to the Republicans.
Rep. Lou Barletta became the latest to openly discuss impeaching the president. In response to a question from a radio host on Monday, the two-term congressman who was swept in during the tea party wave of 2010, said, Obama is just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances. Articles of impeachment, he added, probably could pass in the House.
In a later interview, Barletta said one of the reasons he wouldnt vote for impeachment was because a Democrat-controlled Senate would never convict the Democrat president. Blake also mentions this parenthetically in his piece. Others who have talked about impeachment point to this as the reason not to pursue the extraordinary political rebuke.
Follow Jonathan on Twitter:
Recommended Reading: What Is The Pin The Republicans Are Wearing
Reasons John Boehner Opted To Sue Obama Rather Than Impeach
While most Republicans favor impeachment, John Boehner recalls the losses that Republicans sustained in 1998 midterm elections, during the Clinton impeachment.
Loading…
In a near party-line vote, House Republicans on Wednesday approved 225 to 201 a resolution to sue President Obama or other administration officials for actions inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.
Translation: Republicans accuse the president of executive overreach exceeding his constitutional powers and unlawfully going around Congress.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calls the lawsuit “perilous and meritless.” President Obama dismissed it as a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. “Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hating all the time. Come on,” the president said during a speech in Kansas City, Mo., earlier in the day.
Some Republicans, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, want the House to go further and impeach the president. A CNN poll last week shows that the majority of Republicans favor impeachment. So why would House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio opt for a lawsuit instead of impeachment?
Here are three reasons why:
Republican Voters Want To Impeach The President Good Luck With That
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and other Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama might want to take a look at the history books and the U.S. Constitution before getting too excited about the idea.
Congress rarely uses its power to impeach, and when it has, impeachment has only infrequently — and in the case of a president, never — resulted in removal from office. Congress has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times in the history of the United States. Just 19 of those cases have been tried by the Senate, and only eight federal judges have ever been convicted and removed from office.
Although House Speaker John Boehner has maintained he is not interested in pursuing impeachment, a top White House aide said Friday that he expected House Republicans to do just that. And a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that one-third of Americans and two-thirds of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached. These numbers reflect an increasingly popular view in conservative circles, which Palin gave voice to earlier this month when she claimed the recent surge of undocumented immigrants at the border was an example of the president’s “rewarding of lawlessness.”
So, why do some conservatives appear to think this would be more of a Nixon than a Clinton situation?
Rep. Bob Goodlatte , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, earlier this month offered perhaps the most sober rebuke to the calls for impeachment.
Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are Against Trump
Hundreds Of Historians Join A Call For Trumps Impeachment
More than 300 historians and constitutional scholars have signed an open letter calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump. They say his continuation in office after encouraging supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol posed a clear and present danger to American democracy and the national security of the United States.
Those who signed the letter, released on Medium on Monday, include best-selling authors like Ron Chernow, Taylor Branch, Garry Wills and Stacy Schiff, as well as many leading academic historians. A number of the signatories had joined a previous letter in December 2019, calling for the presidents impeachment because of numerous and flagrant abuses of power including failure to protect the integrity of the impending 2020 election.
Since November 2020, the new letter says, Trump has refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, something no president before him has ever done.
Politically, the condemnation by historians may carry less weight than the presidents loss of support in recent days from business groups that once supported him or his policies. But David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers who drafted the new letter, said that historical expertise mattered.
In September, the American Historical Association issued a statement condemning the first White House History Conference, held at the National Archives .
Public Debate Over Impeachment Demands
In terms of background, U.S. public opinion widely opposed efforts made to impeach previous Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland has stated that their organization found that 69% opposed impeaching President Bush in 2006.
According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached, including 68% of Republicans. Later that month, a CNN survey found that about two thirds of adult Americans disagreed with impeachment efforts. The data showed intense partisan divides, with 57% of Republicans supporting the efforts compared to only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats.
On July 8, 2014, the former Governor of Alaska and 2008 RepublicanVice Presidential nomineeSarah Palin publicly called for Obama’s impeachment for “purposeful dereliction of duty”. In a full statement, she said: “Itâs time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.”
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review wrote the book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case For Obama’s Impeachment, which argued that threatening impeachment was a good way to limit executive action by Obama .
Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There
Is The Supreme Court Likely To Save Obamacare
The Supreme Court is likely to leave in place the bulk of Obamacare, including key protections for pre-existing health conditions.
Conservative justices John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared in two hours of arguments to be unwilling to strike down the entire law a long-held Republican goal.
The courts three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety and presumably would form a majority by joining a decision that cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it.
Leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, California and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place.
A decision is expected by late spring.
Meet The Impeachment Crowd: 6 Republicans Who Want Obama Out
Trump Asks Why GOP Didn’t Impeach Obama for IRS Scandal, Obamacare Promise, Iran Cash Payment
From Sarah Palin to Tom Coburn, several Republicans are calling for impeachment.
— intro: Has President Obamas use of the pen and phone to circumvent Congress gotten out of hand?
Some members of the GOP seem to think so.
Even as the embattled president fights criticism over the escalating humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, the release of Arm. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in return for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a mounting chorus of Republicans are calling for impeachment.
Heres a list of the high-profile Republicans who want to kick the president out of office:
quicklist: 1category: title: Sarah Palin url: text: Who Is She: 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, former governor of Alaska, sometime reality show host.
What She Said: Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, No mas. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. Its time to impeach.
When She Said It: July 8, 2014
media: 21159508caption: related:
quicklist: 2category: title: Tom Tancredo url: text: Who Is He: Former candidate for Colorado governor, 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, former congressman representing Colorados 6th Congressional District.
When He Said It: Valentines Day 2014
media: 24494513caption: related:
When He Said It: June 4, 2014
media: 24494378caption: related:
Recommended Reading: How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall
Clyburn: Gop Will Try To Impeach Obama
Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn is predicting that Republicans will try to impeach Barack Obama so that they can put an asterisk next to the name of the first black president.
There will be some reason found to introduce an impeachment resolution, the South Carolina congressman said Tuesday on MSNBCs The Ed Show. These Republicans have decided that this president must have an asterisk by his name after he leaves office, irrespective of whether or not he gets convicted. It is their plan to introduce an impeachment resolution.
He continued, is to put an asterisk next to this first African-American president in the history of the country to put an asterisk next to his name when the history books are written.
Clyburn, a high-ranking member of Democratic leadership in the House, argued that Republicans are aiming for impeachment as a way to keep the country focused on foolishness rather than on what we need to do in order to move an agenda forward.
As far as what will spur the call to impeach, Clyburn pointed to the heated debate on immigration reform.
Obama has warned Republican leaders in Congress that if they do not act quickly on a plan to reform immigration laws, he will issue executive orders aimed at changing the system. Speaker John Boehner has said that executive actions will poison the well on any attempts to reform the laws.
Obama Administration Immigration Policy
In June 2012, Senator Jon Kyl mentioned impeachment when discussing the Obama Administration policy on immigration. He said on the Bill Bennettradio show, “if itâs bad enough and if shenanigans involved in it, then of course impeachment is always a possibility. But I donât think at this point anybody is talking about that”.
In August 2013, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma responded to a questioner in a town hall meeting, who had asserted that Obama was failing to carry out his constitutional responsibilities, by saying that “you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president… and that’s called impeachment”. Coburn added, “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, but I think you’re getting perilously close”. Coburn did not specify what grounds he felt would support impeachment, but NBC News noted that Coburn “mentioned that he believes Department of Homeland Security officials have told career USCIS employees to ‘ignore’ background checks for immigrants”. Coburn mentioned no evidence that substantiated his belief.
Also Check: Did Republicans Block Funding For Election Security
Trumps Former Secretary Of Veterans Affairs Says He Would Vote To Remove The President From Office
David J. Shulkin, the former secretary of veterans affairs under President Trump, said on Monday that he would vote to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office if he were still in the cabinet, saying that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he is a threat to the nation.
Theres no doubt I believe that this is the time to put the countrys interest first, and I do not believe the president should any longer be serving, Dr. Shulkin said in an interview. I believe that this is an extraordinary time of danger and challenge to the country, and I would support removal from office.
Dr. Shulkin, who said he would also support impeachment but worried it was not an efficient enough mechanism, went further than most other former Trump cabinet secretaries have gone in calling for the presidents removal from office. John F. Kelly, who served as Mr. Trumps secretary of homeland security before becoming White House chief of staff, has also said he would support invoking the 25th Amendment while other Trump cabinet veterans like former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and former Attorney General William P. Barr have offered scathing criticism without explicitly calling for Mr. Trumps removal.
Trump’s Former Chief Of Staff Is On Capitol Hill To Meet With The Impeachment Team
From CNN’s Kristin Wilson
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told reporters that the Democrats opening argument was pretty much what I was expecting and that its hard to make a good case when you have an unconstitutional process.
He said hes spoken with former President Trump on a regular basis but had not spoken with him about the opening arguments at the Senate trial.
When asked why he was on Capitol Hill, he said, I’m just coming over to meet with the impeachment team and said that he will be with them sporadically over the course of the trial.
Recommended Reading: Why Did Republicans Lose The Election
But It Would Be A Boneheaded Move For Numerous Reasons
When Congress heads off on its upcoming five-week recess, some Republicans, at town halls with constituents, will bring up the “I” word: impeachment. Barack Obama, they’ll say, needs to be removed from office. The reasons, in their view, are many: Benghazi. The IRS. An inability to control the Mexican border, to name but three. The constitutional standard for removal from office in Article II, Section 4 is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and to the far right, Obama more than qualifies.
Talking tough about impeachment is what constituents in gerrymandered Republican districts want to hear. It’s good red-meat politics. But back here on planet Earth, the reality is this: There’s about as much chance of Obama being removed from office as there is of Nancy Pelosi throwing the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl. It’s just not going to happen. The probability is literally zero.
Here are some numbers: A CNN poll last week said one third of Americans want Obama impeached. Just a liberal media poll, you say? Well, a Fox News survey last week said the same thing. And that one third just happens to coincide more or less with the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans. Fact is, vast majorities of independent voters and Democrats oppose removing the president from office.
So the Republican dream of Obama being forced from office making Joe Biden the 45th president simply isn’t going to happen.
President’s Constitutional Duty To Faithfully Execute The Laws
On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”, which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. Asked if the hearing was about impeachment, the committee chairman responded that it was not, adding, “I didn’t mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing.” Contrary to his claims however, a witness did mention impeachment rather blatantly. Partisan Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said, âA check on executive lawlessness is impeachmentâ as he accused Obama of âclaim the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.â
Recommended Reading: How Many Seats Do Republicans Hold In Congress
The State Department Labels Cuba A State Sponsor Of Terrorism In A Last
The State Department has designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, a last-minute foreign policy stroke that will complicate the incoming Biden administrations plans for dealing with Havana.
With this action, we will once again hold Cubas government accountable and send a clear message: The Castro regime must end its support for international terrorism and subversion of U.S. justice, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.
The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Pompeo was weighing the move and had a plan to do so on his desk. The action, announced with just over a week left in the Trump administration, reverses a step taken in 2015 after President Barack Obama restored U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba, calling its decades of isolation an archaic relic of the Cold War.
Once in office, President Trump acted swiftly to undermine Mr. Obamas policy of openness, which Republicans said Havana forfeited by failing to implement promised reforms and continuing to crack down on political dissent. The designation requires a finding that a country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, according to the State Department. The move automatically triggers U.S. sanctions against Cuba, including limits on U.S. foreign assistance, export controls and financial restrictions.
What Did Trump Say About Obamacare
Why Republicans want Hunter Biden to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial
President Trump has been actively trying to repeal the healthcare law since he campaigned for the 2016 presidential election.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to revoke Obamacare because it’s been an “unlawful failure.”
A brief filed in June asked the court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, arguing it became invalid after Congress axed parts of it.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “President Trump and the Republicans campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty.
“If President Trump gets his way, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the ACAs lifesaving protections and 23 million Americans will lose their health coverage entirely.
“There is no legal justification and no moral excuse for the Trump Administrations disastrous efforts to take away Americans health care.”
Republicans also argue that some people are better off without Obamacare due to the fact that it does not cover those who need it most.
According to the provisions, people who earn just slightly too much to qualify for federal premium subsidies, particularly early retirees and people in their 50s and early 60s who are self-employed are not covered.
Trump endorsed a replacement to Obamacare in 2017 but fell short of passing the Republican-controlled Congress.
You May Like: Are Republicans More Wealthy Than Democrats
Trump’s Rhetoric On Impeachment In 2014 Becomes Relevant Anew
In his unhinged letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, Donald Trump told the congressional leader, “You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” The president went on to suggest via Twitter this morning that he’s concerned about impeachment being made “trivial.”
He appears to have arrived at these concerns quite recently.
It wasn’t long ago, for example, that Trump wanted Pelosi to impeach George W. Bush for having launched the Iraq war. “He got us into the war with lies!” Trump said in 2008.
His attitude toward impeaching Barack Obama was even more cavalier. “Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?” Trump wrote on Twitter in June 2014.
Several months later, after Republicans took complete control over both houses of Congress, Trump appeared on Fox & Friends and was asked what he’d like to see the new GOP majorities do. Trump replied that he wanted Republicans to impeach the Democratic president.
“Do you think Obama seriously wants to be impeached and go through what Bill Clinton did? He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”
It wasn’t altogether clear what it was Obama did that Trump saw as worthy of impeachment; Trump simply seemed to like the idea of trying to rattle Obama on a personal level.
Does this sound like anyone else you know?
Donald Trump Claims Republicans ‘never Even Thought Of Impeaching’ Barack Obama History Tells A Different Story
President Donald Trump claimed that Republicans “never even thought of impeaching” Barack Obama, despite the record showing that many spoke of doing so over multiple issues.
In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump called on Republicans to get tougher and said that while he thinks Democrats are bad politicians with lousy policies he respects that they stick together. And, Trump said, Democrats are vicious.
“They’re much more vicious. We would never do a thing like this,” Trump told Hannity of the current House impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine affair in which the president is accused of soliciting the help of a foreign government in the 2020 election.
” could’ve impeached Obama for the IRS scandal, they could’ve impeached him for the guns or whatever, where guns went all over the place and people got killed with guns, Fast and Furious. They could’ve impeached him for many different things. They didn’t impeach him. They never even thought of impeaching him.”
In fact, Republicans in Congress did raise the impeachment of Obama multiple times.
Ex-GOP Congressman Predicts Republicans Could Flip on Trump Over Doral
In 2010, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called the alleged White House job offer to ex-Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak if he dropped out of a Senate primary “a crime, and could be impeachable” for Obama, Fox News reported.
Read Also: What Republicans Are Running For President
source https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/
0 notes
Text
Same Time, Next Christmas
Original Air Date: December 5, 2019 (ABC)
Where to Watch?: Freeform will re-air it several times this season, and it’s also available right now on Hulu, and ABC On Demand.
Same Time, Next Christmas is the first network made-for-TV Christmas movie since 2016’s Christmas of Many Colors on NBC. As such, it had a far larger budget than a Lifetime or Hallmark joint and spent about a month shooting at the Turtle Bay Resort on O’ahu, so expectations were fairly high.
The first thing my husband said when he saw this starred, “The Glee Girl,” also known as Lea Michele, is, “Does she sing?” And the answer is…Kinda? They play a couple of her Christmas songs over the opening and closing credits, and there’s a bit of caroling, where you can tell she’s struggling mightily to restrain her Broadway voice. (Or, not really trying at all, depending on how you feel about Lea Michele.)
The movie opens with flashback scenes of little kids battling for beach chairs in Hawaii. This continues for years, (minutes in the movie) where we see these two kids, and their families, frolic on the beach every holiday. We see family photographs, text messages and lots of flirting and even a kiss, plus all sorts of happy family moments, until they’re teens and one of the moms dies, so the yearly visits stop for Charles Michael Davis’ family.
What we don’t see, EVER, are siblings. Nope. Not a mention. Not a background actor. Nothing. Not in the pictures. Not in the family moments. We even see Lea Michele’s entire family arrive at the hotel MULTIPLE TIMES, and it’s just the three of them. THESE SIBLINGS DO NOT EXIST.
And, yet, in present day, when both families return to the resort, Davis' presumably for the first time since his on-screen mother’s, off-screen death, surprise…They each have a sibling we have never seen, nor even hinted at. Did these mysterious close-in-age sibs never interact with the families through all those years until now? C’mon, movie…Hire two other kid actors and don’t let them speak, but at least show them in the flashbacks. Fair warning: This never once stopped bugging me.
Oh, and, Lea Michele’s brother is gay and interracially married with a child, solely I presume so that child can have a later interaction with Chad Michael Davis’ child who, unlike normal children of that age, can fit into the exact same swimsuit for three years running. (Not to be alarmist, but they should have her checked, because that lack of growth is abnormal.)
While I’m all for representation and am mostly in the something-is-better-than-nothing camp, but to say the magically appearing siblings get short shrift, would be implying this story had any shrift to give them. Other than his husband posing shirtless (and good for the gay brother, nice catch), there is even less for Michele’s brother to do in the story than Davis’ newfound sister, whose only role is to suck the joy from their father’s life with her nagging. Cool roles for your gay and African-American woman characters, movie.
So, anyway, Lea Michele is an architect who wants to build beautiful municipal buildings and is sad that towns want to, you know, prioritize function and cost, thus saving taxpayer dollars, over her beautiful designs. When Davis suggests using steel, in lieu of glass, to save money and “still bring in light” and she thinks it’s a genius idea, I am concerned for both of them that they don’t know how transparency works, and think they should definitely not fall in love because their kids would be super pretty, but real dumb.
Even dumber than their own parents who each apparently, oops, left one of their children home from a Hawaiian vacation for 13 years running. …Again, I never stopped thinking of this throughout the movie. Even all the pictures the hotel shares later, feature only young Lea and Chad. Were these siblings adopted by the families at age 25? If I were them I’d be real ticked I missed all those awesome Hawaiian vacations.
Speaking of, the other thing I never let go of is…How do these people afford these annual vacations to O’ahu at the busiest/most expensive time of the year, with each family member getting their own, large beachfront suite? Maybe Davis’ family, who it's pointed out a couple times has a five-store chain in Boston, could manage it, but how did Michele’s parents, portrayed as hippie, dippy homeopaths pull it off? Are they also bank robbers? Is that why their extra child wasn’t with them? Was he doing time for the family’s crimes?
And adult Davis apparently has a beachfront San Diego home and an endless supply of $250k sailboats at his disposal, anywhere in the world, so he’s clearly also, somehow, a multimillionaire, even though it’s implied his dad is disappointed in his career choices. So, yeah, this movie does not understand how life, money or families work.
Despite that, the respective parents, minus dead mom who only gets one line, were the best part of the movie. Fun, funny and the bit about Michele’s parents not being able to keep their hands off each other was that comedy thing where they kept repeating it so many times it actually became funny.
Anywho, Chad and Lea reconnect over sailboat wine and private waterfall swimming. (They actually shot at Waimea Falls, closing one of the most popular hikes in the island to tourists for filming, which I bet a lot of people on their once-in-a-lifetime Hawaiian vacation appreciated.) But, oh noes, his not-quite-ex-wife wants him back and he leaves Lea in Hawaii to go to Vermont. Now, of course, you should never date a guy who willingly leaves Hawaii…Or, you know, ONE THAT IS STILL MARRIED AND TOLD YOU SO.
Then, in between that year and next, Davis gets unmarried, but never mentions it to love-of-his-life Lea, while Lea gets un-single, dating Bryan Greenberg, who we know is a bad guy because even though he shows up with thoughtful presents for her entire family and lets Davis’ daughter win the hotel’s Christmas race at the last minute, he’s also practical and loyal. And, yuck, who needs that nonsense?
Side note, this whole movie was shot in Hawaii, including the “snow” scene set in Cleveland. Yep, not a lot of outdoor malls in Cleveland, and that stacked up ice was melting so fast, Michele and Greenberg are practically wading. I had to laugh.
Still, because she’s the worst, Lea’s character says yes when Bryan's asks her to marry him. (I can recall not one of these character names, and I watched this 12 hours ago.) And, even though she’s making googly eyes at Davis the whole time, she still spends a year apparently happily planning a wedding to Greenberg and is having it (dum, dum, dum) in Hawaii on Christmas…Just to rub it in Davis’ face I guess?
Instead of expressing her doubts way before this, she waits until after the rehearsal dinner, and after she’s gotten some assurances from Davis that he still wants her, and then dumps poor Greenberg, who really has very little to do in this movie besides compete in the hotel’s Reindeer Games, so hope he enjoyed his Hawaiian vacation.
And, as always happens in these movies, it’s portrayed as romantic when she runs after another guy (or, he runs after her, it’s hard to tell here), five minutes after calling off her wedding, which, again, was scheduled for tomorrow. Hot tip: That’s not romance, and Lea Michele’s character here continues to be the worst.
Cut to a year later, and they’re getting married on the beach. I presume a year after that they’re divorced and those family vacys get reaaalll awkward.
Final Judgement: 2 Paws Up. Loved the Hawaiian scenery—I always want to go to there—the parents, and the sheen of a bigger budget can’t be denied, but there were just too many things I found frustrating about the story to fully enjoy this one.
0 notes
Text
WHAT TO WATCH THIS WEEKEND November 22, 2019 - A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, 21 BRIDGES, AGNES BY VARD and more
While things have gotten busier in my everyday life, things are somewhat slowing down in terms of movies as we get through Thanksgiving, and then things will pick up again in December as every studio tries to get their awards movies into theaters.
The big movie of the weekend is Disney’s FROZEN 2, which I really don’t have much to say about. I haven’t seen it. I don’t plan to see it. NEXT! (I did write quite about about it over at The Beat.)
I have seen the other two wide releases of the weekend and the better of the two is Marielle Heller’s A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD (Sony/Tristar Pictures). I’m not going to write a full or mini review, but you may already know that this is the movie in which Tom Hanks plays Fred Rogers of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, but what you might not realize is that this is not a biopic. Instead, this is a story based around a 1998 meeting between Rogers and and a cynical Esquire writer (played by Matthew Rhys) sent to profile him. What happens instead is that the writer ends up becoming friends with Rogers, who helps him deal with domestic issues, particularly with his father (played by Chris Cooper). It’s quite a wonderful film that really wins you over as it goes along, and though it’s not Mr. Rogers’ story, it is Hanks’ movie, very similar to Disney’s Saving Private Ryan a few years back.
I really wanted to like Brian Kirk’s 21 BRIDGES (STXfilms), starring Chadwick Boseman, J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller and Stephan James, cause I really like a good New York-based police thriller… but this isn’t one. Yeah, I’m not sure what happened but a lot of it has to do with Kirk having a better cast than a script, and there being a lot of really obvious and questionable plot devices that are easy to figure out almost from the beginning. I also was annoyed that it immediately set up Boseman’s police detective as a cop not afraid to use his gun but twice he has Stephan James’ character at gun point, once while he is holding his partner (Miller) hostage, the other in a face-off on a train, and he doesn’t shoot. It’s just a very disjointed film that could and should have been a lot better.
LIMITED RELEASES
Before we get to the regularly-scheduled releases, I want to mention the latest concert film release by Trafalgar Releasing, Depeche Mode: Spirits in the Forest, which is where you’ll be able to find me on Thursday night. I was pretty bummed to miss the group’s last tour, I think because I was in Toronto for my last TIFF, but going by Trafalgar’s other releases, this should be another great concert film.
The bigger release of the weekend is Todd Haynes’ DARK WATERS (Focus Features), starring Mark Ruffalo as environmental defense lawyer Rob Pilott, who was called upon by a farmer (Bill Camp) from the area of West Virginia where he grew up about the hundreds of cows who were dying from mutations which could be blamed on the nearby Dupont plant. As Pilott investigates, he learns that the materials being used to create the company’s innovative “teflon” has elements that are dangerous to living things, as he spends decades trying to get them to take responsibility. I usually like this type of movie, as evidenced by last week’s The Report, and of course, I’ve been a long-time Haynes fan, but this movie was a real slog, especially when compared to The Report or the earlier environmental message movie from Focus Features, Promised Land, which Gus Van Sant directed. Haynes had a decent cast but the story is told at such a snail’s pace that I found myself mostly bored and even dozing at times. Anne Hathaway is particularly wasted as Pilott’s wife, because she really doesn’t get to show off her usual dramatic flair. I did like most of the cast otherwise, but I just can’t in good conscience recommend this movie. (Regardless, I should have some interviews over at ComingSoon.net sometime soon.)
On the other hand, I loved Agnès Varda’s final film VARDA BY AGNÈS (Janus Films), a documentary that covers her entire film career and acts as a mini-filmmaking lesson as much as it’s a portrait of her life. I’ll freely admit that I’m not too familiar with Varda’s work beyond the movie Faces Places, which she made with photographer J.R. a few years back. This movie covers their collaborating but also so much more, and if you want a great autobiographical view of the filmmaker and visual artist, this is a great introduction, especially with her entire filmography being shown at Lincoln Center in a complete retrospective next month. I just loved this movie, and it made me want to see more of Varda’s work, as she has had such an amazing and rich career as a filmmaker, especially in recent years as she got more into creating film-based installations. This opens at the Film Forum and at Lincoln Center in New York, and I expect somewhere in L.A. as well but hopefully it will get out to more cities.
Opening at the Quadin New York as well as the Laemmle Royal in L.A. is Kim Loginotto’s doc Shooting the Mafia (Cohen Media Group) about Italian photographer Letizia Battaglia who spent her life battling the Mafia by filming their crimes as a photojournalist.
Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney also has a new doc out this week called CITIZEN K, also opening at the Laemmle Royal, but can also be seen at the Kent Theater if you don’t mind treking out to Coney Island. It’s a look at post-Soviet Russia through political dissident Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was able to get rich living in exile in London after being deposed as an oligarch.
Apple TV+’s Sundance pick-up HALA (Greenwich Entertainment) will get a theatrical release before debuting on the channel. Written by Minhal Baig, it follows a 17-year-old Pakistani-American teenager (played by Geraldine Viswanathan) who is try to balance her different lives.
Also out this week is the action flick The Courier (Lionsgate), starring Olga Kurylenko as a motorcycle courier who has to fight a sadistic crime boss’ henchmen to protect the witness that can incriminate him. It also stars Gary Oldman and Dermot Mulroney. I’ll let you figure out which actor plays which role.
Lastly, there’s Jon Kasbe’s doc When Lambs Become Lions (Oscilloscope Laboratories), winner of the editing award at Tribeca, as it follows a small-time ivory dealer who is trying to protect his trade with the help of a conflicted wildlife ranger. It opens at the Laemmle Monica Film Center in L.A. on Friday and then the Village East in New York on December 6.
STREAMING AND CABLE
This week’s streaming premiere is the fantasy rom-com The Knight Before Christmas, starring Vanessa Hudgens and Josh Whitehouse.
REPERTORY
FILM AT LINCOLN CENTER (NYC):
I’m going against the norm this week by starting off with FilmLinc, and there’s a good reason for that, and it’s called, “Relentless Invention: New Korean Cinema, 1996-2003,” which as it explains quite readily is an amazing series of some of the best Korean films from those years leading up to Park Chan-wook’s Old Boy, which was quite a turning point for the country’s cinema. The series includes two of Bong Joon-ho’s films, 2003’s Memories of Murder (in a new 4K restoration) and Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000), as well as Director Park’s earlier films Joint Security Area (2000) and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, both which are excellent. Others include Kwak Jae-wong’s rom-com My Sassy Girl from 2001, which was a pretty big Asian box office sensation. Genre films are well-represented with Kim Jee-won’s 1998 film The Quiet Family, Park Jong-won’s Rainbow Trout (which I highly recommend since it has similar class contrasts as Director Bong’s Parasite), as well as Nowhere to Hide. The series will run through December 4, two whole weeks, and if there’s a good excuse to get up to the Upper West Side, then THIS IS IT!!
METROGRAPH (NYC):
Things are still going well down in my own neighborhood on the Lower East Side, as Metrograph Pictures will be releasing a new restoration of Susan Sontag’s 1969 debut feature Duet for Cannibals (Metrograph Pictures), a quirky movie she made in Stockholm centers around the love quadrangle between a German exile, his wife and his Swedish secretary and soon-to-be wife. Noah Baumbach’s residency continues with screenings of 2010′s Greenberg and 2014′s While We’re Young, paired with hand-selected companion films, Robert Altman’s The Long Goodbye (1973) with the former and Mike Nichols’ Working Girl (1988) on Sunday. Also, Lulu Wang’s The Farewell, currently my favorite movie of 2019, will screen at the Metrograph on Sunday as part of its allegiance with the New York Film Critics Circle.
The Metrograph is doing Daniel Schmidt’s “Dream Double Feature” a little differently… by showing them on two different nights with Joseph Mankiewicz’s 1947 film The Ghost and Mrs. Muir on Friday and Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s 2015 Cemetary of Splendor with Rachel Rose’s 2016 short Everything and More on Saturday. I don’t really know as much about the films being shown as part of Moustapha Alassane: Three Programs of the Nigerien Master, but each program is made up of a series of shorts that are running Saturday and Sunday. This week’s Late Nites at Metrograph is the anthology film Tokyo!, featuring short works from Bong Joon-ho, Michelle Gondry and Leos Carax. It will screen Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights while this weekend’s Playtime: Family Matineesis George Cukor’s 1933 adaptation of Little Women.
THE NEW BEVERLY (L.A.):
The lateness of my column means I keep missing the Weds matinee and I apologize for that. Also tonight and Thursday is a double feature of Vigilante, The Delta Force and Avalanche. Friday’s Cronenberg matinee is 1996’s Crash, while the Friday midnight movie is Pulp Fiction and then Saturday’s midnight is Demolition University (1997) with director Kevin Tenney in person. This weekend’s Kiddee Matinee is the 1961 adventure Mysterious Island. Monday’s matinee is The Limey, and Monday night is a “Robert Forster Secret Surprise Night” in tribute to the late star of Tarantino’s Jackie Brown. Tuesday’s double feature is David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive with the 1998 remake of Psycho, and just in case I’m late on next week’s column, the Weds. matinee is Samuel Fuller’s 1959 The Crimson Kimono.
IFC CENTER (NYC)
This weekend’s Weekend Classics: May All Your Christmases be Noiris Allen Baron’s 1961 film Blast of Silence(on Friday and Saturday only), this week’s Waverly Midnights: Spy Games is 1990’s The Hunt for Red October and The Manchurian Candidate. Late Night Favorites: Autumn 2019is once again Argento’s Suspiriaand Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange– both great movies, but enough already! At least on Monday, you’ll have a chance to see Todd Haynes’ awesome 1998 film Velvet Goldmine, presented as part of the Queer|Art|Film series.
MOMA (NYC):
Vision Statement: Early Directorial Works will screen Cristian Mungiu’s acclaimed 2007 film 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Dayson Thursday (also playing at Film Forum this weekend), John Cassevetes’ 1959 film Shadowsand Kleber Filho’s Neighboring Sounds on Saturday. Modern Matinees: Iris Barry’s History of Filmcontinues with more films from 1927 and 1928. Otherwise, MOMA is concentrating on its annual “Contenders 2019” series.
FILM FORUM (NYC):
“The Romanians: 30 Years of Cinema Revolution” continues through next Thursday with lots of interesting choices and Yasujior Ozu’s Tokyo Twilight continues through November 28. This weekend’s Film Forum Jr. is Miracle on 34th Street.
EGYPTIAN THEATRE (LA):
Friday is a special cast and crew reunion screening of Flight of the Navigator, while Joe Dante’s 16mm Spotlight on Sunday will show Ladybug Ladybug (1963). The theater is mostly focused on “Argentina: New Cinema 2019,” while the AEROis mostly focused on “Cinema Italian Style 2019.”
ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE BROOKLYN(NYC)
Next Monday’s “Out of Tune” is The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (which is already sold out), Tuesday’s “Terror Tuesday” is 1987’s Stagefright and the “Weird Wednesday” is 1994’s Tammy and the T-Rex.
BAM CINEMATEK (NYC):
On Sunday, Jane Campion’s In the Cut (2003) and Alan Pakula’s Klute (1971) will be shown as a double feature as part of “Beyond the Canon.”
MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE (NYC):
MOMI’s “Moments of Grace: The Collected Terrence Malick” continues this weekend with screenings of The Thin Red Line(with critic Matt Zoller Seitz introducing the Friday night screening) and Days of Heaven.
ROXY CINEMA (NYC)
1987’s Oscar-winning performance by Cher in Moonstruck opposite Nicolas Cage screens on Thursday and Friday. Guillermo del Tor’s Pan’s Labyrinth also screens Friday night while the Coens’ Raising Arizona (1987) will screen Saturday as will a special Kevin Corrigan-hosted screening of 1997’s Bandwagon in 35mm. Sunday is a special 35mm screening of Sofia Coppola’s 2006 movie Marie Antoinette.
LANDMARK THEATRES NUART (LA):
The Friday midnight offering is Kiefer Sutherland and Reese Witherspoon in 1997’s Freeway.
Next week, it’s Thanksgiving and Rian Johnson’s Knives Out, which also has advance screenings this Friday and Saturday nights, as well as the crime-drama Queen and Slim.
0 notes
Text
Bedroom Eyes - Isaac Lahey
Characters: Lydia Martin, Stiles Stilinski, Isaac Lahey, Reader.
*REQUESTED FROM PROMPT LIST*
“Oh, what about Greenberg?” Lydia asks you.
You roll your eyes. “Seriously? No one even knows his first name. I mean that too, I’m not even sure he knows his name.” You throw your carrot stick back onto your tray and lean forward. “Greenberg.” You scoff.
“Y/N, come on. I’m trying to get you a boyfriend.” She defends herself, sitting her purse on the table.
“You can get me a boyfriend after you get Stiles.”
“I didn’t know you played dirty, Y/L/N.” She rolls her eyes.
“You can’t act like you’re not in love with him, Lyd.” She suddenly becomes very interested in cleaning out her purse.
“This is not about me. This is about you finding a boyfriend before you die a virgin.”
You furrow your brow. “Who says I’m a virgin?”
“Sweet Y/N’s been deflowered?” Isaac asks as he sits beside you. He puts his backpack almost in your lap and you push it onto the ground.
“Why is this any of your business?” You scoot towards Lydia and she smirks.
“Oh, it’s not. I just find it interesting that you’ve had sex but you’ve yet to have a boyfriend.” He opens up his bottle of water, the clicking of the lid sending you over the edge.
“I moved here sophomore year. You know nothing about me.”
“Oh come on, Y/N! We’re friends!” He chuckles.
“No, actually..we’re not. You’re friends with my friends, therefore we’re within the same proximity most of the time. I do not care about you, and I do not want to be your friend, okay? You’re a jerk.” You push your tray away, any trace of appetite you’d had vanished.
“Wow. Okay. I was just asking a simple question.” He shakes his head and scoots away from you.
“A simple question about my sex life.”
Stiles and Scott sit down beside Isaac. “Woah…whose sex life?” Stiles raises an eyebrow.
“Y/N’s apparently.” Isaac answers.
Lydia holds a finger to her lips and swats Stiles’ arm. “I have to go. I’ll see you after school.” You sigh and stand up, rushing to your locker.
“So you and Isaac…” Lydia starts. She met you at your locker at the end of the day.
“There is no me and Isaac.” You roll your eyes as you shove your books in your locker.
“I think there is. You’ve got great chemistry. Not to mention the sexual tension. God…you two would be so hot together.” She smiles.
“Would you shut up? He’s standing right there and he can probably hear us.” You slam your locker closed.
“He can’t. Anyway, from what I’ve heard he’s great in bed.”
“Oh yeah? How many hundreds of girls did you hear it from?”
“Y/N, give him a chance! You said you’re not a virgin so it’s not like it’s anything special.”
“Yes, that’s logical. I had sex with one guy so now the possibilities are endless.” You walk towards Scott, hoping Lydia would end the conversation.
“Stop being sarcastic! That’s exactly my point.” She runs to keep up with you.
“You see, unlike some other people, I don’t sleep with everyone I make eye contact with.“ You’d reached Scott. You watched as Isaac connected the dots. He turned on his heel and took off down the hall.
You groaned. “Isaac! Wait!” You ran after him, catching him as he walked out onto the lacrosse field.
He turns around, his height advantage over you suddenly intimidating. “What? What do you want? Do you want me to talk to the hundreds of girls I slept with?”
“I’m sorry, okay? I didn’t mean it.” You sigh and grab his arm.
He pulls away from you. “No wait. Maybe I should ask every person I’ve ever made eye contact with.”
“I said I’m sorry! What else do you want?”
“You. I want you!” He steps back, dropping his backpack on the ground as he runs a hand through his hair.
“I-..what?” You’re taken aback.
“You’ve done nothing but offend me today, Y/N. I’m trying, I really am. I just..I love the banter with you and I don’t ever try to be a jerk. It’s just so cute to get a rise out of you.”
You step closer to him, his face softening as you near. “I never would’ve guessed. It’s not as obvious as you think it is.”
“I give you bedroom eyes!” He pouts slightly. The anger gone from both of you the second those five words tumble from his lips.
You laugh, throwing your head back. “Bedroom eyes? God, Lahey you’re such a nerd.”
He chuckles, the grin plastered on his face showing off his dimples. “Will you give this a shot? Even if I am a nerd that gives you bedroom eyes?”
“I think this may be a start.” You laugh and he pulls you into his arms.
He rests his head on top of yours. “I’m sorry. Let’s start over?”
“Only if you stop with the bedroom eyes.”
“I’ll never live that down, will I?”
You smile. “Nope.”
#isaac lahey#stilinskiimagines#teen wolf fic#teen wolf smut#teen wolf#stiles x lydia#stydia#stiles stilinski#scott mccall#lydia martin#daniel sharman#kol mikaelson#kaleb westphall
737 notes
·
View notes
Text
2021 NBA player rankings, Nos. 30-21: These players will be borderline All-Stars in 4 years
That means a mix of established players and some total unknowns, with little in between.
We’re now into All-Star territory on our Top 101 of 2021 NBA countdown. As such, a few of us went nuts over blue-chippers with potential, while a few others went back to good ol’ reliable NBA productivity. The end result is a nice mix of players that seemingly rank way above the previous batch on this list.
Now is when this list gets serious. Now is where our reputations, such as they even exist, will be judged.
30. Jimmy Butler
Age in 2021: 31 (10 seasons)
CHRIS GREENBERG: Jimmy Butler is not a one-trick pony. He was one of just six NBA players in the top-15 in offensive AND defensive win shares last season. The others? Kawhi, Westbrook, Curry, Durant, and Giannis. Butler is a 27-year-old horse who will lead a group of young stallions in Minnesota.
OK, I’m out of equine metaphors, but Butler is not out of years. If Tom Thibodeau doesn’t break him, Butler will keep working hard, improve his two-way game, and make us silly for letting him slip so far. He’ll be just 31 years old in 2021. That’s younger than LeBron James right now.
Everyone else’s reactions
ERIC GOLDMAN, CANIS HOOPUS: If the Wolves have three legit top 30 guys -- Andrew Wiggins and Karl-Anthony Towns are still on the board — I'm not sure I'll know what to do with myself.
TOM ZILLER: I can’t believe Butler went this low. I almost took him at No. 21. When it looked like he’d be there at 31, I was dumbfounded. So, uh, good pick.
MATT ELLENTUCK: Letting Butler slip this low is one of our collective worst crimes in this draft.
MIKE PRADA: I was deciding between Butler and the No. 25 guy on this list, and it was very difficult.
JOHN MEYER, CANIS HOOPUS: I don't care what his rating is in 2021. I just hope the Wolves will have figured out how to clone him by then.
RICKY O’DONNELL: Still not over how stupid the Bulls are.
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: I just want an argyle sock monkey.
More reading material
29. Rudy Gobert
Age in 2021: 29 (8 seasons)
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: The risk of taking a big man in these drafts is their susceptibility to injury, and Rudy Gobert is equally at risk. As long as he stays healthy, however, he has the physical tools to become the league’s most imposing defensive center over the next few years. With that title, how could he not be a top-30 player.
Everyone else’s reactions
TOM ZILLER: Kristian with a shockingly sane pick!
WHITNEY MEDWORTH: There’s a first for everything.
MATT ELLENTUCK: Fam, he doesn’t play for the Knicks though.
MYCHAL LOWMAN, SLC DUNK: Being rated at No. 29 in 2021 is no small feat for Gobert, as he will be pushing the end of his prime at age 29. We think he’ll have anchored the Jazz for the lastfour4 years as their main star alongside phenom Donovan Mitchell on the outside.
TIM CATO: My only concern is this: headed into the 2013 season, there were five centers in the top-25, according to one list. Those five were Dwight Howard, Marc Gasol, Joakim Noah, Al Horford, and Roy Hibbert. Two have fallen off completely, another two have clearly declined, and only Gasol is hanging onto his same level of production.
The career of a center can die a swift, quick death, and Gobert already has a history of injuries. Gobert remaining in the top-30 come 2021 is far from certain.
More reading material
28. Andrew Wiggins
Age in 2021: 26 (7 seasons)
WHITNEY MEDWORTH: Wiggins will still only be 26 in 2021. Assuming that playing for Thibodeau doesn’t make his body feel like he’s actually 36, he’ll be just fine. Playing alongside a veteran in Jimmy Butler won’t hurt his game. It’ll only help it.
Everyone else’s reactions
JOHN MEYER, CANIS HOOPUS: I really wish you guys would have doubled down on your 2013 prediction (No. 8) just to get the people going.
ERIC GOLDMAN, CANIS HOOPUS: Sweet, he's going to learn to play defense!
MIKE PRADA: I’m worried about Wiggins. We know he can score, but he continues to show a troubling disinclination to do much else despite his immense physical gifts. Maybe Butler helps, or maybe his intense demeanor clashes with Wiggins’ mild-mannered nature like oil and water. Glen Taylor’s request that Wiggins commit to improving before handing him a maximum contract was patronizing as hell, but it says something that Taylor believed he needs to say those things, does it not?
It’s possible the above paragraph looks dumb in four years and Wiggins reaches his full potential. Maybe he needs tough love after all. I hope so!
But this is a big season for Wiggins, and I’m not sure the conditions are all set up for him to thrive.
TOM ZILLER: Glen Taylor hired David Kahn. I don’t think we need to defer to his basketball expertise. I think Thibodeau and Butler will be excellent for Wiggins: he’s going to continue to be challenged to improve every day.
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: He needs to step up.
27. Bradley Beal
Age in 2021: 27 (9 seasons)
TIM CATO: How the hell is Bradley Beal only 23? I swear he’s been in the league since the Napoleonic Era.
There’s injuries to consider, sure, but we’re all encouraged by his career year posted last season: career highs in points per game, field goal percentage, made threes, and assists, all while keeping his turnovers (2.0) exactly the same as the previous two seasons. That’s a stellar sign for his future.
Everyone else’s reactions
TOM ZILLER: What a difference one healthy year makes. There’s no way he would have gone this high last summer.
MIKE PRADA: You mean, “what a difference playing for a real coach makes.” Scott Brooks got Beal to ditch Randy Wittman’s bizarre long two fascination and dramatically upped Beal’s three-point and free-throw rates. Funny how a sweet shooter and slithery penetrator starts to look better when he’s put in a position to take the right kind of shots.
TOM ZILLER: Well, also when he’s not in street clothes. Wittman wasn’t Tonya Hardinging him out there.
MIKE PRADA: We sure about that?
CHRIS GREENBERG: Just think, by 2021 there will be even fewer people who will understand a Tonya Harding reference. Gillooly!
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: Not better than C.J. McCollum.
26. Dennis Smith Jr.
Age in 2021: 23 (4 seasons)
KOFIE YEBOAH: Dennis Smith Jr. has superstar potential. The athleticism is crazy and his aggressive nature around the rim paired with that athleticism will be a sight to behold in the league for years to come.
People may be concerned about his health, and that’s understandable. However, Smith Jr. was excellent in Summer League, and that was just a sample of what he can do in the years to come.
Everyone else’s reactions
DOYLE RADER, MAVS MONEYBALL: Even though Smith Jr. is often mentioned in the Rookie of the Year discussion, this is an extremely high ranking, as he has yet to play a single minute of NBA basketball.
TIM CATO: Point guards take time to develop, which is my only concern about this rankings. Everything else, pending health, points to Smith being so, so good. He’s not just athletic, he’s wow-are-we-witnessing-evolution-right-now explosive. He’s a gifted passer with a more-than-passable jump shot. The defensive instincts are there, though — like many rookies — there is still work that can be done. In a sea of tall point guards this draft, Smith may seem short ... but he’s still 6’3!
Maybe he’s still developing in 2021, but I’m convinced he’ll end up somewhere very high on this list.
MIKE PRADA: Yeah, let’s slllooowwww down on these young point guards. It usually takes a while for them to make their mark.
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: Kofie drank the juice, y’all.
MATT ELLENTUCK: LET THE YOUNG POINT GUARDS GROW.
KOFIE YEBOAH: THE FUTURE IS HERE, MATT!
TOM ZILLER: For the record, this was the point in the draft where I knew I’d be getting wonderful value on players currently in the 26-29 age range.
25. Klay Thompson
Age in 2021: 31 (10 seasons)
MIKE PRADA: If you’re tall and can shoot the lights out, you will age beautifully. Extra points for being a terrific defender, too. The question is whether Thompson will achieve this ranking by remaining the Warriors’ most underappreciated star or by balling out on his own team.
Everyone else’s reactions
TOM BEVILACQUA, GOLDEN STATE OF MIND: By the year 2021, Klay will be about the same age Ray Allen was when he was traded to Boston. Allen probably ranked just outside the top 25 of NBA players at that time, but Klay is a better defensive player than Allen was, so I’d say this seems about right.
TIM CATO: To put it in memespeak, Reggie Miller -> upgrade button -> Klay Thompson. I’d love to see him run the show somewhere before his prime is over.
WHITNEY MEDWORTH: I’m with Tim here. I think he may take a chance on himself in free agency in 2018 and I hope he does. For as much of a green light Thompson has in Golden State, I’d like to see it get even greener on another team.
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: I don’t think Thompson has takeover ability. He’s the league’s best two-way shooting guard — the ultimate role player. Not sure he goes higher than No. 25 no matter who’s around him.
TIM CATO: Ain’t no role player who ever dropped 60 points in 29 minutes.
WHITNEY MEDWORTH: On 11 dribbles.
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: In a system that benefits him, with shooters spacing the floor and selfless teammates actively finding the open man. Take all that away and what happens?
KOFIE YEBOAH: This happens.
BRADY KLOPFER, GOLDEN STATE OF MIND: This feels right to me, but I could easily see him being a good bit lower. Klay isn’t a phenomenal athlete by any stretch of the imagination, so any hit he takes on that front could have a pretty large impact. It wouldn’t shock me if he’s a decidedly average defensive player by the time he’s in his 30s, and if he stays in GS for the next few years, his offensive game may not develop much further.
Then again, he’s one of the greatest shooters of all time and knows his limitations as well or better than any star in the game.
24. DeMarcus Cousins
Age in 2021: 30 (11 seasons)
MATT ELLENTUCK: DeMarcus Cousins has defied odds by becoming a legitimate three-point shooter at 36 percent in his seventh season in the league. He nearly doubled his attempts from the season before, and in his first five seasons took less than one per game.
Cousins knows how to adapt to survive as a big man in this league, and I have no doubt he’ll continue to make the necessary adjustments to stay among the top centers in the game.
Everyone else’s reactions
OLEH KOSEL, THE BIRD WRITES: Probably easier to just flip a coin. Additional missed postseasons could effectively kill off Boogie's in-the-best-shape-of-his-life alter-ego completely and allow malcontent DMC to reign supreme.
On a more positive note, the Fire-and-Ice relationship with Anthony Davis and subsequent playoff trips give way to a maturer Cousins, one who uses his vast array of skills for the greater good of his team to justify a top-25 ranking in four years.
MIKE PRADA: How many teams will Cousins play for between now and 2021?
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: Think the better question is how many wins will Boogie have between now and 2021?
CHRIS GREENBERG: More Boogie, please.
TOM ZILLER: No comment.
MIKE PRADA: All seriousness, Boogie’s offensive evolution ain’t the issue. It’s his defense and conditioning, neither of which has ever been up to par for the new NBA as of yet. Plus, there’s all the other stuff.
More reading material
23. Luka Doncic
Age in 2021: 22 (3 seasons)
RICKY O’DONNELL: I’m buying the hype on Doncic, the 17-year-old Slovenian wunderkind who could be the first pick in the next NBA draft, for two reasons: his productivity and his skill level.
He’s already one of the best players in one of the best leagues in the world during a time when his American peers are in high school. He’s also a 6’8 point guard who can shoot, pass, and finish while playing the game with a rare creativity. I’ll bet on that advanced skill level over more athletic American prospects this time around.
Everyone else’s reactions
TOM ZILLER: Fran Fraschilla is going to swell to twice his normal size talking about Doncic next June at the draft.
MIKE PRADA: Been a lot of fun watching him in Eurobasket, but this feels too soon for him to be an all-star caliber player. Put him in the top 10 on the 2025 list.
MATT ELLENTUCK: You lost me at “the 17-year-old ...”
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: I don’t know much about this kid, so I’m just gonna nod in agreement.
CHRIS GREENBERG: Considering where we’ve got REDACTED, I guess, this, maybe, makes sense. Either way, I’m here for the 6’8 point guards.
More reading material
22. Myles Turner
Age in 2021: 25 (6 seasons)
ZITO MADU: At just 21 years old, he’s already one of the best shot blockers in the league and the rare big man who can shoot threes, at least at a respectable level. He has a lot to improve on the offensive end and defending the post, but with such a great foundation and the spotlight on him now with Paul George, I expect for him to steadily improve.
Everyone else’s reactions
CAITLIN COOPER, INDY CORNROWS: Prime-age stretch 5s aren't going to suddenly depreciate in value by 2021, so there could be room for Myles Turner in the Top-25 somewhere behind Joel Embiid, Karl-Anthony Towns, Nikola Jokic, and Kristaps Porzingis if his then fully developed frame is less apt to shy away from contact as the key cog within what is hopefully a more modern and imaginative offense.
MIKE PRADA: This is asking a hell of a lot from Turner. I know Pacers fans are desperate for a face of the franchise that embraces them, but we’re talking about him being a perennial all-star if he’s this high. It’s possible, but I would’ve taken the safer route and picked him several spots lower.
I worry the absence of George will simply raise expectations too much.
TOM ZILLER: This is going to be a very interesting season for Turner. I’m a little concerned about how much his guards can help him develop.
WHITNEY MEDWORTH: GREAT PICK, ZITO. I’m serious. I love this pick.
More reading material
21. Markelle Fultz
Age in 2021: 23 (4 seasons)
You may now realize that though many prospects from the 2017 draft class have been selected, an auspicious name has not yet come up. That is disrespect. I know my name is a bad word in some parts of Philly (despite my unrelenting Dion Waiters boosterism) but that is disrespect I cannot allow to stand.
Everyone else’s reactions
TIM CATO: Just throwing this out there: I’ve talked to a surprising number of people within the NBA who think Fultz will never be anything other than an empty stats all-star on a bad team. I don’t think I agree, but it’s worth noting.
MIKE PRADA: Do they all work for the Boston Celtics?
TIM CATO: Yes. (OK, no, but it seems clear to me that Boston had the same concerns.)
CHRIS GREENBERG: With Simmons starting at point for Philly, this just seems kind of high for a backup. Right?
TOM ZILLER: Oh, my Shammgod, the disrespect! You all should probably delete Twitter from your phones now.
KRISTIAN WINFIELD: Lonzo Ball will be better. No disrespect, Fultz. You’re dope, too.
More reading material
INTRO | FULL LIST | TOP 100 OF 2017 | HOW WE DID IN 2013 | SNUBS | 101-91 | 90-81 | 80-71 | 70-61 | 60-51 | 50-41 | 40-31 | 30-21 | 20-11 | 10-1 | THE CASES FOR NO. 1
0 notes
Text
Acid Angels in Arizona: An Interview with Body of Light
Body of Light. Photo: Kaleb Marshall
In recent years, when Arizona’s experimental music realm rears it’s head, you are met with an entirely new world of talented individuals creating something enviable that artists are tracing their lines around. In steps Body of Light, a synth duo comprised of Alex and Andrew Jarson, two brothers that helped solidify the emerging Arizona music scene. Body of Light exhibits style and power, with swelling synths, the throb and peal of electronic drums surrounding hungry, searching vocals, further showcasing tracks that could surely be a staple of dancehall nights for years to come. Free Press Houston exchanged words with the Jarson brothers prior to their performance at The Secret Group on Friday.
FPH: Last time you were in town was a bit over a year ago with High Functioning Flesh. That was a fun show, and seemed like a promising tour with label-mates. This time around, you are visiting with Black Marble and DRAA, two bands I personally have been enjoying very much recently. Incredibly solid tours back to back. How has the tour been so far?
Andrew: It’s been a blast. Every show has had great crowds. They always seem to be very energetic, and we’re a pretty energetic band so that helps the shows in the long run. Black Marble had already been on tour for I think 20 something days before we met up with them in NYC, and it can be awkward starting a tour like that, but we had an amazing sold out show in NYC and that really set off the whole tour. Chris and Oliver from Black Marble are truly great guys and we’re blessed to tour with people we get along so well with.
Alex: We’ve been having the best time in the world. Nearly every show has been packed with people and the crowds have been very responsive to both bands. That’s all you can really ask for. We love touring with Black Marble. They’re amazing people and I’m kind of bummed we only have like 9 days left.
FPH: Alex, we met in 2013 and you gave me a few Body of Light (or Bodi of Light) cassettes, as well of other written works of yours. Older tracks like “Wayside City,” which were catchy dirge-pop hits, could have remained a lifelong direction, but then the LP Let Me Go comes around and seems to have realized a clear path for the band. Was this a natural evolution, or is this something you eventually wanted to work towards?
Andrew: I’d say it was certainly a natural evolution, we actually wrote Let Me Go not too long after we put out the Limits of Reason tape in 2014. I’d say the biggest difference between the two is that we had the intention of having the LMG tracks mixed professionally, and the songs did go through some gradual changes during the time between it’s released. Once we got Ben Greenberg on board to mix the record, the songs really took shape into something we had wanted them to be from the start. We had already envisioned Let Me Go as our first real LP, so he brought it to a level, to a platform that we felt we could build on as a band from here on out.
Alex: I’m very conscious of when I’m writing the same thing over and over again. We’ve never been that kind of a band. So when we went into writing this album, I wanted it to be different. We wanted high energy tracks that came off in a powerful way, especially live. But I also wanted it to feel hollow, yet emotional to the listener. Ben really helped push us to mold these tracks and I’m really grateful for his input.
FPH: Mentioning earlier your written works, you are both heavily involved and helped create Ascetic House, an incredibly influential creative collective that has produced some of the most noteworthy music of the past few years. How did it all begin, and do you still have the same creative input as you did before?
Alex: It starts much earlier than the name, you know? We were all going to shows, like anyone else involved in underground music. Eventually, people moved and things felt like it needed a bit of a push. We all got a bit older and wanted to have some influence with our output. We came up with the name, I think, in 2011. We released music we enjoyed and really pushed ourselves to grow and learn. The creative input is still the same. If anything, we have more control now as it expands.
Andrew: I moved to Tempe in 2009 and lived on Alex’s couch. I was making music constantly at the time on my Akai 16 track recorder, usually in the corner of the room that I had made into my little makeshift room, if you could really even call it that. I was pretty socially awkward at the time — I was 18 and I had gone to punk and hardcore shows with my brother for a while before then, but hardcore was never my thing at all, and I never really met anyone or anything like that. So I felt maybe like a bit an outsider. But moving to Tempe, I got the chance to see these amazing punk and indie shows at these great DIY spots like The Manor, Yobs, Eastside Records, etc. and I met all these great people like Danny Pupillo, Nick and Steve Nappa, JS Aurelius, JR Nelson, and way too many others to reference. We all realized we lived within blocks from each other, and as we started forming all of these bands with each other, and seeing so many amazing acts, that was really how Ascetic House naturally began.
FPH: Translating from being a part of the punk community, Body of Light puts on a very entertaining live performance, and utilizes an intriguing aesthetic. I know Alex used to carry a leg bone with him on stage while performing, which is great in my book. Tell me a bit about that.
Andrew: The bone era was about right when I joined the band. So I had seen him perform as Body of Light and understood what the performance was supposed to be. I never wanted to distract from that, I found my way to provide support and let him do his thing. His performance evolved from there on out, and at the same time so did my stage setup and the structure of the set.
Alex: I found this bone in a field and for some reason, I thought it would be fun to perform with. I would hold it in the air as if it was an instrument of its own, or a wand. I was experimenting a lot with my surroundings then. The idea of mortality was becoming ingrained in my mind. I think that idea terrified me and having that with me gave me a sense of peace. It didn’t matter. On stage, we were the ones who had control. When I felt like it was the right time, I threw it off the stage at a show in New York. It shattered into a million pieces. I still have a small fragment in a box somewhere.
FPH: Both of you are involved in solo experimental electronic projects (Memorymann, Blue Krishna, etc) and seem equally capable behind the gear. Has there ever been a shimmer of an idea to try performing a track with your positions swapped?
Andrew: Body of Light is a collaborative project, It’s not like I’m the songwriter and he’s the singer/lyricist. Sometimes he will write the basis of a song and I will give musical input, and sometimes I’ll help out with lyrics or vocal melodies. Just because we have roles on stage doesn’t mean we need to follow them in the long run. Not sure if I would ever do lead vocals at this point, but I wouldn’t rule anything out. I’d love to do some backing vocals sometime, which we’re working on in practice. It’s that natural blood harmony, you know?
Alex: Yeah, roles are always changing. We have plans for him to get on vocals, perhaps on the next record. I’d like to play more live, if I ever stop running around on stage.
FPH: Besides the musical influences that stick out almost immediately from listening to your tracks new and old, what else in the creative world influences you for songwriting, performance, recording, etc.
Alex: There’s just too many bands and artists to name. I’m mainly influenced by the people that are close to me. Sometimes it has nothing to do with sound at all. Someone could do something and it produces a thought. The sound just comes from the emotion behind it. I’ve found that touring and traveling in general influences my music the most.
Andrew: Some of my biggest influences in terms of production from the past come from the Modern Soul and Funk world, like Terry Lewis & Jimmy Jam, Prince, etc., but I also love the pop productions of Scott, Aitken, & Waterman, Bobby Orlando, and Freestyle bands of the past. Stuff I love to listen to on the radio. As far as modern influence I really like the recent releases from Danny Wolfers/Legowelt, especially the Smackos stuff. I’m also a huge fan of some of our friends work, such as Glochids, High Functioning Flesh, and SURVIVE.
FPH: The LP from Dais made it’s way across quite a few 2016 Best Of The Year lists. I’ve seen great tours and shows showcasing you as well. What is next for the band?
Alex: I love our last record a lot and it’s really exciting to see how much it’s been listened to. We got to go play in Japan, tour the US twice, and meet so many amazing people. I never expected anyone to care, so it’s a huge blessing to be able to do this with my life. We’re going to finish this tour and jump into writing a new record. I think it’s time.
Andrew: I’m really excited to write when we get home from this tour. We have both got a lot more gear and production equipment since the last record, and I spent a lot of time building up my studio to work in a very hybrid ITB/OTB way. We’re also planning on some tours and have even bounced around the idea of adding another live member to the band. So there’s a lot on the table and we’ll see where it takes us.
Catch Body of Light at The Secret Group on Friday, June 23. The night will include Brooklyn’s Black Marble headlining, with DRAA from Tempe supporting. Pick up a copy of Body Of Light’s LP “Let Me Go” on Dais Records from the band, label, or local vendors Deep End, Wired Up, or Vinal Edge.
Also, catch up with the sonic innovations of Ascetic House at www.ascetic.house
Acid Angels in Arizona: An Interview with Body of Light this is a repost
0 notes
Text
Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama
New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-want-to-impeach-obama/
Why Do Republicans Want To Impeach Obama
Obama A Republican Congress And Impeachment
GOP Faithful Want Obama Impeached, Why? He’s Obama, That’s Why
Some Republicans are eager to impeach the President. Some are so eager that they go on the record saying that impeachment would probably pass the House. Representatives Barletta , Farenthold , and Senator Cruz say that the only obstacle is the Democratic Senate, which would not convict the President. The Washington Posts Jonathan Capehart took this a step further and argued Republican control of the Senate could result in President Obamas impeachment.
Regardless of who controls the Senate, the rationale presented by Cruz, Barletta, and Farenthold makes no sense. In no immediate future will Republicans control enough votes two-thirds of the Senate to remove the president from office. In order to reach the 66 vote threshold, Republicans need to win every single Senate election in November. Democrats may lose the Senate majority. However, no one believes Democrats will lose every single Senate race. More reasonable forecasts suggest Republicans will gain 5-6 seats. That is enough for a majority but not close to the amount necessary to remove Obama from office. In sum, there is no situation in which not having the votes is the reason impeachment has not been pursued.
There is a reasonable argument that the Republican Party, with a House majority insulated from electoral pain through a combination of safe districts packed with conservative constituents, would not hesitate to impeach Obama. He has been enemy number one since he stepped into office.
Efforts To Impeach Barack Obama
This article is part of a series about
e
During Barack Obama‘s tenure as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain Republican members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, stated that Obama had engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office. Rationales offered for possible impeachment ranged from Obama allowing people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity, to the 2012 Benghazi attack, to Obama’s enforcement of immigration laws, and false claims that he was born outside the United States.
Multiple surveys of U.S. public opinion found that a near supermajority of Americans rejected the idea of impeaching Obama, though a bit more than a simple majority of Republicans did support such efforts. For example, CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported impeachment, but in general, 65% of American adults, disagreed with impeachment with only 33% supporting such efforts.
How President Obama Will Be Impeached
Writing about Rep. Eric Cantors stunning primary defeat last week, I warned Democrats that the House majority leaders loss was as much a wake-up call for them as it was for the GOP. Well, now I want to warn them about a very real possibility: President Obama will be impeached if the Democrats lose control of the U.S. Senate.
Yeah, yeah, I read Aaron Blakes astute piece in The Post on the impeachment process. He says probably not to the question of whether the House could impeach Obama. But probably is not definitely. And with the way the impeachment talk has gone, probably not could become absolutely if the Senate flips to the Republicans.
Rep. Lou Barletta became the latest to openly discuss impeaching the president. In response to a question from a radio host on Monday, the two-term congressman who was swept in during the tea party wave of 2010, said, Obama is just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances. Articles of impeachment, he added, probably could pass in the House.
In a later interview, Barletta said one of the reasons he wouldnt vote for impeachment was because a Democrat-controlled Senate would never convict the Democrat president. Blake also mentions this parenthetically in his piece. Others who have talked about impeachment point to this as the reason not to pursue the extraordinary political rebuke.
Follow Jonathan on Twitter:
Recommended Reading: What Is The Pin The Republicans Are Wearing
Reasons John Boehner Opted To Sue Obama Rather Than Impeach
While most Republicans favor impeachment, John Boehner recalls the losses that Republicans sustained in 1998 midterm elections, during the Clinton impeachment.
Loading…
In a near party-line vote, House Republicans on Wednesday approved 225 to 201 a resolution to sue President Obama or other administration officials for actions inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution.
Translation: Republicans accuse the president of executive overreach exceeding his constitutional powers and unlawfully going around Congress.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calls the lawsuit “perilous and meritless.” President Obama dismissed it as a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. “Stop being mad all the time. Stop just hating all the time. Come on,” the president said during a speech in Kansas City, Mo., earlier in the day.
Some Republicans, such as former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, want the House to go further and impeach the president. A CNN poll last week shows that the majority of Republicans favor impeachment. So why would House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio opt for a lawsuit instead of impeachment?
Here are three reasons why:
Republican Voters Want To Impeach The President Good Luck With That
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and other Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama might want to take a look at the history books and the U.S. Constitution before getting too excited about the idea.
Congress rarely uses its power to impeach, and when it has, impeachment has only infrequently — and in the case of a president, never — resulted in removal from office. Congress has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times in the history of the United States. Just 19 of those cases have been tried by the Senate, and only eight federal judges have ever been convicted and removed from office.
Although House Speaker John Boehner has maintained he is not interested in pursuing impeachment, a top White House aide said Friday that he expected House Republicans to do just that. And a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that one-third of Americans and two-thirds of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached. These numbers reflect an increasingly popular view in conservative circles, which Palin gave voice to earlier this month when she claimed the recent surge of undocumented immigrants at the border was an example of the president’s “rewarding of lawlessness.”
So, why do some conservatives appear to think this would be more of a Nixon than a Clinton situation?
Rep. Bob Goodlatte , chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, earlier this month offered perhaps the most sober rebuke to the calls for impeachment.
Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Are Against Trump
Hundreds Of Historians Join A Call For Trumps Impeachment
More than 300 historians and constitutional scholars have signed an open letter calling for the impeachment and removal of President Trump. They say his continuation in office after encouraging supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol posed a clear and present danger to American democracy and the national security of the United States.
Those who signed the letter, released on Medium on Monday, include best-selling authors like Ron Chernow, Taylor Branch, Garry Wills and Stacy Schiff, as well as many leading academic historians. A number of the signatories had joined a previous letter in December 2019, calling for the presidents impeachment because of numerous and flagrant abuses of power including failure to protect the integrity of the impending 2020 election.
Since November 2020, the new letter says, Trump has refused to accept the results of a free and fair election, something no president before him has ever done.
Politically, the condemnation by historians may carry less weight than the presidents loss of support in recent days from business groups that once supported him or his policies. But David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers who drafted the new letter, said that historical expertise mattered.
In September, the American Historical Association issued a statement condemning the first White House History Conference, held at the National Archives .
Public Debate Over Impeachment Demands
In terms of background, U.S. public opinion widely opposed efforts made to impeach previous Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland has stated that their organization found that 69% opposed impeaching President Bush in 2006.
According to a July 2014 YouGov poll, 35% of Americans believed President Obama should be impeached, including 68% of Republicans. Later that month, a CNN survey found that about two thirds of adult Americans disagreed with impeachment efforts. The data showed intense partisan divides, with 57% of Republicans supporting the efforts compared to only 35% of independents and 13% of Democrats.
On July 8, 2014, the former Governor of Alaska and 2008 RepublicanVice Presidential nomineeSarah Palin publicly called for Obama’s impeachment for “purposeful dereliction of duty”. In a full statement, she said: “Itâs time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.”
Andrew McCarthy of the National Review wrote the book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case For Obama’s Impeachment, which argued that threatening impeachment was a good way to limit executive action by Obama .
Don’t Miss: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There
Is The Supreme Court Likely To Save Obamacare
The Supreme Court is likely to leave in place the bulk of Obamacare, including key protections for pre-existing health conditions.
Conservative justices John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared in two hours of arguments to be unwilling to strike down the entire law a long-held Republican goal.
The courts three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety and presumably would form a majority by joining a decision that cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it.
Leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, California and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place.
A decision is expected by late spring.
Meet The Impeachment Crowd: 6 Republicans Who Want Obama Out
Trump Asks Why GOP Didn’t Impeach Obama for IRS Scandal, Obamacare Promise, Iran Cash Payment
From Sarah Palin to Tom Coburn, several Republicans are calling for impeachment.
— intro: Has President Obamas use of the pen and phone to circumvent Congress gotten out of hand?
Some members of the GOP seem to think so.
Even as the embattled president fights criticism over the escalating humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border, the release of Arm. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in return for five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a mounting chorus of Republicans are calling for impeachment.
Heres a list of the high-profile Republicans who want to kick the president out of office:
quicklist: 1category: title: Sarah Palin url: text: Who Is She: 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, former governor of Alaska, sometime reality show host.
What She Said: Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, No mas. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. Its time to impeach.
When She Said It: July 8, 2014
media: 21159508caption: related:
quicklist: 2category: title: Tom Tancredo url: text: Who Is He: Former candidate for Colorado governor, 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, former congressman representing Colorados 6th Congressional District.
When He Said It: Valentines Day 2014
media: 24494513caption: related:
When He Said It: June 4, 2014
media: 24494378caption: related:
Recommended Reading: How Do Republicans Feel About The Wall
Clyburn: Gop Will Try To Impeach Obama
Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn is predicting that Republicans will try to impeach Barack Obama so that they can put an asterisk next to the name of the first black president.
There will be some reason found to introduce an impeachment resolution, the South Carolina congressman said Tuesday on MSNBCs The Ed Show. These Republicans have decided that this president must have an asterisk by his name after he leaves office, irrespective of whether or not he gets convicted. It is their plan to introduce an impeachment resolution.
He continued, is to put an asterisk next to this first African-American president in the history of the country to put an asterisk next to his name when the history books are written.
Clyburn, a high-ranking member of Democratic leadership in the House, argued that Republicans are aiming for impeachment as a way to keep the country focused on foolishness rather than on what we need to do in order to move an agenda forward.
As far as what will spur the call to impeach, Clyburn pointed to the heated debate on immigration reform.
Obama has warned Republican leaders in Congress that if they do not act quickly on a plan to reform immigration laws, he will issue executive orders aimed at changing the system. Speaker John Boehner has said that executive actions will poison the well on any attempts to reform the laws.
Obama Administration Immigration Policy
In June 2012, Senator Jon Kyl mentioned impeachment when discussing the Obama Administration policy on immigration. He said on the Bill Bennettradio show, “if itâs bad enough and if shenanigans involved in it, then of course impeachment is always a possibility. But I donât think at this point anybody is talking about that”.
In August 2013, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma responded to a questioner in a town hall meeting, who had asserted that Obama was failing to carry out his constitutional responsibilities, by saying that “you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president… and that’s called impeachment”. Coburn added, “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’, but I think you’re getting perilously close”. Coburn did not specify what grounds he felt would support impeachment, but NBC News noted that Coburn “mentioned that he believes Department of Homeland Security officials have told career USCIS employees to ‘ignore’ background checks for immigrants”. Coburn mentioned no evidence that substantiated his belief.
Also Check: Did Republicans Block Funding For Election Security
Trumps Former Secretary Of Veterans Affairs Says He Would Vote To Remove The President From Office
David J. Shulkin, the former secretary of veterans affairs under President Trump, said on Monday that he would vote to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office if he were still in the cabinet, saying that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he is a threat to the nation.
Theres no doubt I believe that this is the time to put the countrys interest first, and I do not believe the president should any longer be serving, Dr. Shulkin said in an interview. I believe that this is an extraordinary time of danger and challenge to the country, and I would support removal from office.
Dr. Shulkin, who said he would also support impeachment but worried it was not an efficient enough mechanism, went further than most other former Trump cabinet secretaries have gone in calling for the presidents removal from office. John F. Kelly, who served as Mr. Trumps secretary of homeland security before becoming White House chief of staff, has also said he would support invoking the 25th Amendment while other Trump cabinet veterans like former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and former Attorney General William P. Barr have offered scathing criticism without explicitly calling for Mr. Trumps removal.
Trump’s Former Chief Of Staff Is On Capitol Hill To Meet With The Impeachment Team
From CNN’s Kristin Wilson
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told reporters that the Democrats opening argument was pretty much what I was expecting and that its hard to make a good case when you have an unconstitutional process.
He said hes spoken with former President Trump on a regular basis but had not spoken with him about the opening arguments at the Senate trial.
When asked why he was on Capitol Hill, he said, I’m just coming over to meet with the impeachment team and said that he will be with them sporadically over the course of the trial.
Recommended Reading: Why Did Republicans Lose The Election
But It Would Be A Boneheaded Move For Numerous Reasons
When Congress heads off on its upcoming five-week recess, some Republicans, at town halls with constituents, will bring up the “I” word: impeachment. Barack Obama, they’ll say, needs to be removed from office. The reasons, in their view, are many: Benghazi. The IRS. An inability to control the Mexican border, to name but three. The constitutional standard for removal from office in Article II, Section 4 is “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and to the far right, Obama more than qualifies.
Talking tough about impeachment is what constituents in gerrymandered Republican districts want to hear. It’s good red-meat politics. But back here on planet Earth, the reality is this: There’s about as much chance of Obama being removed from office as there is of Nancy Pelosi throwing the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl. It’s just not going to happen. The probability is literally zero.
Here are some numbers: A CNN poll last week said one third of Americans want Obama impeached. Just a liberal media poll, you say? Well, a Fox News survey last week said the same thing. And that one third just happens to coincide more or less with the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans. Fact is, vast majorities of independent voters and Democrats oppose removing the president from office.
So the Republican dream of Obama being forced from office making Joe Biden the 45th president simply isn’t going to happen.
President’s Constitutional Duty To Faithfully Execute The Laws
On December 3, 2013, the House Judiciary committee held a hearing formally titled “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”, which some participants and observers viewed as an attempt to begin justifying impeachment proceedings. Asked if the hearing was about impeachment, the committee chairman responded that it was not, adding, “I didn’t mention impeachment nor did any of the witnesses in response to my questions at the Judiciary Committee hearing.” Contrary to his claims however, a witness did mention impeachment rather blatantly. Partisan Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz said, âA check on executive lawlessness is impeachmentâ as he accused Obama of âclaim the right of the king to essentially stand above the law.â
Recommended Reading: How Many Seats Do Republicans Hold In Congress
The State Department Labels Cuba A State Sponsor Of Terrorism In A Last
The State Department has designated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism, a last-minute foreign policy stroke that will complicate the incoming Biden administrations plans for dealing with Havana.
With this action, we will once again hold Cubas government accountable and send a clear message: The Castro regime must end its support for international terrorism and subversion of U.S. justice, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement.
The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Pompeo was weighing the move and had a plan to do so on his desk. The action, announced with just over a week left in the Trump administration, reverses a step taken in 2015 after President Barack Obama restored U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba, calling its decades of isolation an archaic relic of the Cold War.
Once in office, President Trump acted swiftly to undermine Mr. Obamas policy of openness, which Republicans said Havana forfeited by failing to implement promised reforms and continuing to crack down on political dissent. The designation requires a finding that a country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, according to the State Department. The move automatically triggers U.S. sanctions against Cuba, including limits on U.S. foreign assistance, export controls and financial restrictions.
What Did Trump Say About Obamacare
Why Republicans want Hunter Biden to testify in Trump’s impeachment trial
President Trump has been actively trying to repeal the healthcare law since he campaigned for the 2016 presidential election.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to revoke Obamacare because it’s been an “unlawful failure.”
A brief filed in June asked the court to strike down the Affordable Care Act, arguing it became invalid after Congress axed parts of it.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “President Trump and the Republicans campaign to rip away the protections and benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the coronavirus crisis is an act of unfathomable cruelty.
“If President Trump gets his way, 130 million Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the ACAs lifesaving protections and 23 million Americans will lose their health coverage entirely.
“There is no legal justification and no moral excuse for the Trump Administrations disastrous efforts to take away Americans health care.”
Republicans also argue that some people are better off without Obamacare due to the fact that it does not cover those who need it most.
According to the provisions, people who earn just slightly too much to qualify for federal premium subsidies, particularly early retirees and people in their 50s and early 60s who are self-employed are not covered.
Trump endorsed a replacement to Obamacare in 2017 but fell short of passing the Republican-controlled Congress.
You May Like: Are Republicans More Wealthy Than Democrats
Trump’s Rhetoric On Impeachment In 2014 Becomes Relevant Anew
In his unhinged letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, Donald Trump told the congressional leader, “You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!” The president went on to suggest via Twitter this morning that he’s concerned about impeachment being made “trivial.”
He appears to have arrived at these concerns quite recently.
It wasn’t long ago, for example, that Trump wanted Pelosi to impeach George W. Bush for having launched the Iraq war. “He got us into the war with lies!” Trump said in 2008.
His attitude toward impeaching Barack Obama was even more cavalier. “Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?” Trump wrote on Twitter in June 2014.
Several months later, after Republicans took complete control over both houses of Congress, Trump appeared on Fox & Friends and was asked what he’d like to see the new GOP majorities do. Trump replied that he wanted Republicans to impeach the Democratic president.
“Do you think Obama seriously wants to be impeached and go through what Bill Clinton did? He would be a mess. He would be thinking about nothing but. It would be a horror show for him. It would be an absolute embarrassment. It would go down on his record permanently.”
It wasn’t altogether clear what it was Obama did that Trump saw as worthy of impeachment; Trump simply seemed to like the idea of trying to rattle Obama on a personal level.
Does this sound like anyone else you know?
Donald Trump Claims Republicans ‘never Even Thought Of Impeaching’ Barack Obama History Tells A Different Story
President Donald Trump claimed that Republicans “never even thought of impeaching” Barack Obama, despite the record showing that many spoke of doing so over multiple issues.
In an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump called on Republicans to get tougher and said that while he thinks Democrats are bad politicians with lousy policies he respects that they stick together. And, Trump said, Democrats are vicious.
“They’re much more vicious. We would never do a thing like this,” Trump told Hannity of the current House impeachment inquiry over the Ukraine affair in which the president is accused of soliciting the help of a foreign government in the 2020 election.
” could’ve impeached Obama for the IRS scandal, they could’ve impeached him for the guns or whatever, where guns went all over the place and people got killed with guns, Fast and Furious. They could’ve impeached him for many different things. They didn’t impeach him. They never even thought of impeaching him.”
In fact, Republicans in Congress did raise the impeachment of Obama multiple times.
Ex-GOP Congressman Predicts Republicans Could Flip on Trump Over Doral
In 2010, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa called the alleged White House job offer to ex-Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak if he dropped out of a Senate primary “a crime, and could be impeachable” for Obama, Fox News reported.
Read Also: What Republicans Are Running For President
0 notes
Text
Acid Angels in Arizona: An Interview with Body of Light
Body of Light. Photo: Kaleb Marshall
In recent years, when Arizona’s experimental music realm rears it’s head, you are met with an entirely new world of talented individuals creating something enviable that artists are tracing their lines around. In steps Body of Light, a synth duo comprised of Alex and Andrew Jarson, two brothers that helped solidify the emerging Arizona music scene. Body of Light exhibits style and power, with swelling synths, the throb and peal of electronic drums surrounding hungry, searching vocals, further showcasing tracks that could surely be a staple of dancehall nights for years to come. Free Press Houston exchanged words with the Jarson brothers prior to their performance at The Secret Group on Friday.
FPH: Last time you were in town was a bit over a year ago with High Functioning Flesh. That was a fun show, and seemed like a promising tour with label-mates. This time around, you are visiting with Black Marble and DRAA, two bands I personally have been enjoying very much recently. Incredibly solid tours back to back. How has the tour been so far?
Andrew: It’s been a blast. Every show has had great crowds. They always seem to be very energetic, and we’re a pretty energetic band so that helps the shows in the long run. Black Marble had already been on tour for I think 20 something days before we met up with them in NYC, and it can be awkward starting a tour like that, but we had an amazing sold out show in NYC and that really set off the whole tour. Chris and Oliver from Black Marble are truly great guys and we’re blessed to tour with people we get along so well with.
Alex: We’ve been having the best time in the world. Nearly every show has been packed with people and the crowds have been very responsive to both bands. That’s all you can really ask for. We love touring with Black Marble. They’re amazing people and I’m kind of bummed we only have like 9 days left.
FPH: Alex, we met in 2013 and you gave me a few Body of Light (or Bodi of Light) cassettes, as well of other written works of yours. Older tracks like “Wayside City,” which were catchy dirge-pop hits, could have remained a lifelong direction, but then the LP Let Me Go comes around and seems to have realized a clear path for the band. Was this a natural evolution, or is this something you eventually wanted to work towards?
Andrew: I’d say it was certainly a natural evolution, we actually wrote Let Me Go not too long after we put out the Limits of Reason tape in 2014. I’d say the biggest difference between the two is that we had the intention of having the LMG tracks mixed professionally, and the songs did go through some gradual changes during the time between it’s released. Once we got Ben Greenberg on board to mix the record, the songs really took shape into something we had wanted them to be from the start. We had already envisioned Let Me Go as our first real LP, so he brought it to a level, to a platform that we felt we could build on as a band from here on out.
Alex: I’m very conscious of when I’m writing the same thing over and over again. We’ve never been that kind of a band. So when we went into writing this album, I wanted it to be different. We wanted high energy tracks that came off in a powerful way, especially live. But I also wanted it to feel hollow, yet emotional to the listener. Ben really helped push us to mold these tracks and I’m really grateful for his input.
FPH: Mentioning earlier your written works, you are both heavily involved and helped create Ascetic House, an incredibly influential creative collective that has produced some of the most noteworthy music of the past few years. How did it all begin, and do you still have the same creative input as you did before?
Alex: It starts much earlier than the name, you know? We were all going to shows, like anyone else involved in underground music. Eventually, people moved and things felt like it needed a bit of a push. We all got a bit older and wanted to have some influence with our output. We came up with the name, I think, in 2011. We released music we enjoyed and really pushed ourselves to grow and learn. The creative input is still the same. If anything, we have more control now as it expands.
Andrew: I moved to Tempe in 2009 and lived on Alex’s couch. I was making music constantly at the time on my Akai 16 track recorder, usually in the corner of the room that I had made into my little makeshift room, if you could really even call it that. I was pretty socially awkward at the time — I was 18 and I had gone to punk and hardcore shows with my brother for a while before then, but hardcore was never my thing at all, and I never really met anyone or anything like that. So I felt maybe like a bit an outsider. But moving to Tempe, I got the chance to see these amazing punk and indie shows at these great DIY spots like The Manor, Yobs, Eastside Records, etc. and I met all these great people like Danny Pupillo, Nick and Steve Nappa, JS Aurelius, JR Nelson, and way too many others to reference. We all realized we lived within blocks from each other, and as we started forming all of these bands with each other, and seeing so many amazing acts, that was really how Ascetic House naturally began.
FPH: Translating from being a part of the punk community, Body of Light puts on a very entertaining live performance, and utilizes an intriguing aesthetic. I know Alex used to carry a leg bone with him on stage while performing, which is great in my book. Tell me a bit about that.
Andrew: The bone era was about right when I joined the band. So I had seen him perform as Body of Light and understood what the performance was supposed to be. I never wanted to distract from that, I found my way to provide support and let him do his thing. His performance evolved from there on out, and at the same time so did my stage setup and the structure of the set.
Alex: I found this bone in a field and for some reason, I thought it would be fun to perform with. I would hold it in the air as if it was an instrument of its own, or a wand. I was experimenting a lot with my surroundings then. The idea of mortality was becoming ingrained in my mind. I think that idea terrified me and having that with me gave me a sense of peace. It didn’t matter. On stage, we were the ones who had control. When I felt like it was the right time, I threw it off the stage at a show in New York. It shattered into a million pieces. I still have a small fragment in a box somewhere.
FPH: Both of you are involved in solo experimental electronic projects (Memorymann, Blue Krishna, etc) and seem equally capable behind the gear. Has there ever been a shimmer of an idea to try performing a track with your positions swapped?
Andrew: Body of Light is a collaborative project, It’s not like I’m the songwriter and he’s the singer/lyricist. Sometimes he will write the basis of a song and I will give musical input, and sometimes I’ll help out with lyrics or vocal melodies. Just because we have roles on stage doesn’t mean we need to follow them in the long run. Not sure if I would ever do lead vocals at this point, but I wouldn’t rule anything out. I’d love to do some backing vocals sometime, which we’re working on in practice. It’s that natural blood harmony, you know?
Alex: Yeah, roles are always changing. We have plans for him to get on vocals, perhaps on the next record. I’d like to play more live, if I ever stop running around on stage.
FPH: Besides the musical influences that stick out almost immediately from listening to your tracks new and old, what else in the creative world influences you for songwriting, performance, recording, etc.
Alex: There’s just too many bands and artists to name. I’m mainly influenced by the people that are close to me. Sometimes it has nothing to do with sound at all. Someone could do something and it produces a thought. The sound just comes from the emotion behind it. I’ve found that touring and traveling in general influences my music the most.
Andrew: Some of my biggest influences in terms of production from the past come from the Modern Soul and Funk world, like Terry Lewis & Jimmy Jam, Prince, etc., but I also love the pop productions of Scott, Aitken, & Waterman, Bobby Orlando, and Freestyle bands of the past. Stuff I love to listen to on the radio. As far as modern influence I really like the recent releases from Danny Wolfers/Legowelt, especially the Smackos stuff. I’m also a huge fan of some of our friends work, such as Glochids, High Functioning Flesh, and SURVIVE.
FPH: The LP from Dais made it’s way across quite a few 2016 Best Of The Year lists. I’ve seen great tours and shows showcasing you as well. What is next for the band?
Alex: I love our last record a lot and it’s really exciting to see how much it’s been listened to. We got to go play in Japan, tour the US twice, and meet so many amazing people. I never expected anyone to care, so it’s a huge blessing to be able to do this with my life. We’re going to finish this tour and jump into writing a new record. I think it’s time.
Andrew: I’m really excited to write when we get home from this tour. We have both got a lot more gear and production equipment since the last record, and I spent a lot of time building up my studio to work in a very hybrid ITB/OTB way. We’re also planning on some tours and have even bounced around the idea of adding another live member to the band. So there’s a lot on the table and we’ll see where it takes us.
Catch Body of Light at The Secret Group on Friday, June 23. The night will include Brooklyn’s Black Marble headlining, with DRAA from Tempe supporting. Pick up a copy of Body Of Light’s LP “Let Me Go” on Dais Records from the band, label, or local vendors Deep End, Wired Up, or Vinal Edge.
Also, catch up with the sonic innovations of Ascetic House at www.ascetic.house
Acid Angels in Arizona: An Interview with Body of Light this is a repost
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
clifton-metals
Clifton Metals
kajal0311
Untitled
naralucas-blog1
NaraLucas 💘
paradise-nina
Paradise
hellosydneykitty
Hello Sydney Kitten