hotair--2020-07-08--NY Post: Omar campaign paid husband nearly $900K over last two years

Nepotism , fraud , or simply business as usual ?
The difference might simply be in scale rather than principle .
Ilhan Omar ’ s campaign has paid her new husband , political consultant Tim Mynett , nearly a million dollars in fees over the last two years , and nearly $ 200K since their marriage in March .
If that sounds like a fine way to siphon off campaign contributions into the family bank account , that ’ s because it is .
However , it ’ s not illegal — and might not even violate any formal ethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has continued quietly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to her new husband ’ s consulting film , including a $ 189,000 windfall in March — just weeks after they announced they had tied the knot , campaign data shows .
The payments between the Minneapolis Democratic congresswoman and Tim Mynett prompted at least one ethics complaint in 2019 after The Post first revealed allegations — made by Mynett ’ s then-wife in her divorce filing — that Omar was having an affair with the member of her political consulting team , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman .
Omar was married to her second husband at the time .
But that doesn ’ t appear to have stopped the now-married couple , with Mynett ’ s E Street Group collecting $ 292,814.99 from his wife ’ s campaign this year for digital advertising , fundraising consulting and research services , according to the Federal Election Commission filings .
In total , Mynett has received a whopping $ 878,930.65 from Omar ’ s campaign since he began working for her in 2018 , raising eyebrows among watchdogs and political law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with cronyism .
This isn ’ t the first time that the issue has come up .
The Star Tribune reported on it in April , when the latest payment got disclosed .
It also noted that it ’ s not unusual for family members to draw salaries on campaigns or to work as consultants : The Minnesota Democrat ’ s campaign paid E Street Group , a firm founded by her husband , Tim Mynett , $ 292,000 for advertising , fundraising , travel and other services between January and March of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign finance report filed Wednesday .
The law doesn ’ t prohibit hiring a spouse for a federal campaign and it ’ s not unheard of for candidates and members of Congress to employ and pay relatives through their committees .
Rep. Collin Peterson , D-Minn. , for example , has hired his son as campaign treasurer .
… Omar defended the business relationship in a series of tweets last month , saying the campaign pays fair market value for the firm ’ s services .
She first hired the group , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , during her 2018 run for Congress .
“ Fair market value ” ?
For running as an incumbent in the nation ’ s wackiest-progressive district ?
It ’ s tough to imagine that Omar would need to pay her husband nearly twice what she earns in a year as a member of Congress for work done in a single quarter .
Omar is running against a significant primary challenge , and she ’ s certainly got the cash ; even before this quarter ’ s filings , Omar ’ s campaign raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2020 ’ s Q1 filing , which makes Mynett ’ s cut about a third of the total .
It does come to nearly half of all disbursements , which seems … excessive .
However , unless someone can show that Mynett has padded his bills for the purpose of siphoning off campaign funds for personal use , there isn ’ t a legal case here .
There doesn ’ t even seem to be an ethics case here , at least not one for a formal House investigation , although former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks it stinks : The arrangement is possible because of a 1960s federal anti-nepotism statute that prohibits members of Congress from hiring relatives for government jobs but does not block family members from doing campaign work , a former chief ethics lawyer from the administration of former President George W. Bush told The New York Post .
“ It should not be allowed , ” attorney Richard Painter said .
“ I think it ’ s a horrible idea to allow it , given the amount of money that goes into these campaigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim could be reviewed by the FEC and referred back to the House , but don ’ t bet on it .
For one thing , they ’ ve already reviewed it , and Omar claims that the FEC is fine with the arrangement : In the end , the only people to whom Omar will have to answer for this arrangement are her contributors and the voters in MN-05 .
House members won ’ t — and likely can ’ t — penalize Omar for an arrangement many of them use themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family members .
The contributions keep rolling in , however , and if this kind of issue had any import among MN-05 voters , they wouldn ’ t have elected Omar in the first place .
Therefore , the answer to my first question is … all of the above .
But unfortunately , it doesn ’ t matter .

Nepotism, fraud, or simply business as usual? The difference might simply be in scale rather than principle. Ilhan Omar’s campaign has paid her new husband, political consultant Tim Mynett, nearly a million dollars in fees over the last two years, and nearly $200K since their marriage in March. If that sounds like a fine way to siphon off campaign contributions into the family bank account, that’s because it is.
However, it’s not illegal — and might not even violate any formal ethics rules, either:
Rep. Ilhan Omar has continued quietly funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to her new husband’s consulting film, including a $189,000 windfall in March — just weeks after they announced they had tied the knot, campaign data shows. The payments between the Minneapolis Democratic congresswoman and Tim Mynett prompted at least one ethics complaint in 2019 after The Post first revealed allegations — made by Mynett’s then-wife in her divorce filing — that Omar was having an affair with the member of her political consulting team, who was at the time married to another woman. Omar was married to her second husband at the time. But that doesn’t appear to have stopped the now-married couple, with Mynett’s E Street Group collecting $292,814.99 from his wife’s campaign this year for digital advertising, fundraising consulting and research services, according to the Federal Election Commission filings. In total, Mynett has received a whopping $878,930.65 from Omar’s campaign since he began working for her in 2018, raising eyebrows among watchdogs and political law experts who say the practice is rife with cronyism.
This isn’t the first time that the issue has come up. The Star Tribune reported on it in April, when the latest payment got disclosed. It also noted that it’s not unusual for family members to draw salaries on campaigns or to work as consultants:
The Minnesota Democrat’s campaign paid E Street Group, a firm founded by her husband, Tim Mynett, $292,000 for advertising, fundraising, travel and other services between January and March of this year, according to a federal campaign finance report filed Wednesday. The law doesn’t prohibit hiring a spouse for a federal campaign and it’s not unheard of for candidates and members of Congress to employ and pay relatives through their committees. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., for example, has hired his son as campaign treasurer. … Omar defended the business relationship in a series of tweets last month, saying the campaign pays fair market value for the firm’s services. She first hired the group, which previously worked for Attorney General Keith Ellison, during her 2018 run for Congress.
“Fair market value”? For running as an incumbent in the nation’s wackiest-progressive district? It’s tough to imagine that Omar would need to pay her husband nearly twice what she earns in a year as a member of Congress for work done in a single quarter. Omar is running against a significant primary challenge, and she’s certainly got the cash; even before this quarter’s filings, Omar’s campaign raised $3.389 million in this cycle as of 2020’s Q1 filing, which makes Mynett’s cut about a third of the total. It does come to nearly half of all disbursements, which seems … excessive.
However, unless someone can show that Mynett has padded his bills for the purpose of siphoning off campaign funds for personal use, there isn’t a legal case here. There doesn’t even seem to be an ethics case here, at least not one for a formal House investigation, although former White House ethics lawyer-turned-Democratic candidate Richard Painter thinks it stinks:
The arrangement is possible because of a 1960s federal anti-nepotism statute that prohibits members of Congress from hiring relatives for government jobs but does not block family members from doing campaign work, a former chief ethics lawyer from the administration of former President George W. Bush told The New York Post. “It should not be allowed,” attorney Richard Painter said. “I think it’s a horrible idea to allow it, given the amount of money that goes into these campaigns from special interests.”
The fair-market value claim could be reviewed by the FEC and referred back to the House, but don’t bet on it. For one thing, they’ve already reviewed it, and Omar claims that the FEC is fine with the arrangement:
My relationship with Tim began long after this work started. We consulted with a top FEC campaign attorney to ensure there were no possible legal issues with our relationship. We were told this is not uncommon and that no, there weren’t. — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 17, 2020
In the end, the only people to whom Omar will have to answer for this arrangement are her contributors and the voters in MN-05. House members won’t — and likely can’t — penalize Omar for an arrangement many of them use themselves to double-dip or get taxpayer money to family members. The contributions keep rolling in, however, and if this kind of issue had any import among MN-05 voters, they wouldn’t have elected Omar in the first place.
Therefore, the answer to my first question is … all of the above. But unfortunately, it doesn’t matter.


hotair--2020-07-08--Birdwatcher "not cooperating" with police on Central Park Karen case

It was only yesterday that we learned the District Attorney in Manhattan was bringing charges against Amy Cooper , the now infamous Central Park Karen .
At the time , I noted that the DA might have a hard time making those charges stick for a variety of reasons , aside from public support for continuing to dunk on Cooper seeming to wane .
But the prosecutor ’ s job became even more difficult overnight .
The “ other Cooper ” involving the original incident , birdwatcher Christian Cooper , has told reporters that he is refusing to cooperate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly the aggrieved party , not to mention the only other witness to the events leading up to the 911 call , this development shoots a hole in the hull of the case .
( NY Post ) The man at the center of the Central Park ‘ Karen ’ fiasco has said he will not cooperate with the Manhattan District Attorney ’ s investigation , according to a new report .
Christian Cooper , told the New York Times on Tuesday that Amy Cooper , 41 , has suffered enough since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputation .
Amy Cooper was charged on Monday with falsely reporting an incident in the third degree .
“ On the one hand , she ’ s already paid a steep price , ” Mr. Cooper , 57 , told the paper , referring to the criminal charge .
“ That ’ s not enough of a deterrent to others ?
” There are two ways to interpret this development .
The more charitable angle would be to simply take Mr. Cooper at his word .
He feels that the public humiliation Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss of her job ( and potentially her entire career ) is more than sufficient punishment for her calling the cops on him .
It ’ s a smart play for the birdwatcher no matter how this entire drama unfolds going forward .
He gets to look like the bigger , more generous person who adopts a policy reminiscent of his first name ( Christian ) and forgives his transgressor while getting on with his life .
The alternative would have been to aggressively follow the case into court and testify against her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking rather petty as if he was trying to grind his heel into her back after she ’ d already taken a fairly serious figurative beating over an incident where neither of them wound up being physically injured and there probably weren ’ t very many police resources wasted in the end .
And if the prosecution wound up failing to obtain a conviction , he walks away looking like the “ loser ” in the confrontation and he hands Karen a win .
Then there ’ s the somewhat more cynical explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have no solid proof of this .
As I pointed out yesterday , that video that Christian Cooper recorded is the only solid evidence we have to go on and it begins well after their argument began .
Unless , of course , there was another video of what took place beforehand that he deleted off of his phone for some reason .
If he was cooperating with the investigation , the police might have wanted to check out the phone for evidence .
Why would that matter ?
Because according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birdwatcher had been threatening to “ lure away ” her dog with pet treats while the pooch was off the leash .
On the phone with the police dispatcher , she used the phrase “ threatening my dog.
” Now that may still turn out to be a bunch of malarkey , as one current presidential candidate might say .
But if it ’ s not and more details were to come to light over the course of the prosecutor ’ s investigation , Christian Cooper loses the role of the victim/hero in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture changes .
Just for the record , I ’ m not hanging my hat on that theory .
Amy Cooper strikes me as something of a nutjob and the birdwatcher comes off appearing very reasonable in his public remarks , so we should probably take him at his word .
( Your mileage may vary . )
But none of this changes the fact that we ’ re still talking about this story a month and a half after the original incident took place .
What is it about this tale that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have an answer for that one , but I know I ’ m still clicking on the links every time it pops up .

It was only yesterday that we learned the District Attorney in Manhattan was bringing charges against Amy Cooper, the now infamous Central Park Karen. At the time, I noted that the DA might have a hard time making those charges stick for a variety of reasons, aside from public support for continuing to dunk on Cooper seeming to wane. But the prosecutor’s job became even more difficult overnight. The “other Cooper” involving the original incident, birdwatcher Christian Cooper, has told reporters that he is refusing to cooperate in the investigation. Since he’s allegedly the aggrieved party, not to mention the only other witness to the events leading up to the 911 call, this development shoots a hole in the hull of the case. (NY Post)
The man at the center of the Central Park ‘Karen’ fiasco has said he will not cooperate with the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation, according to a new report. Christian Cooper, told the New York Times on Tuesday that Amy Cooper, 41, has suffered enough since the May encounter that destroyed her career and reputation. Amy Cooper was charged on Monday with falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. “On the one hand, she’s already paid a steep price,” Mr. Cooper, 57, told the paper, referring to the criminal charge. “That’s not enough of a deterrent to others?”
There are two ways to interpret this development. The more charitable angle would be to simply take Mr. Cooper at his word. He feels that the public humiliation Amy Cooper has suffered, combined with the loss of her job (and potentially her entire career) is more than sufficient punishment for her calling the cops on him. It’s a smart play for the birdwatcher no matter how this entire drama unfolds going forward. He gets to look like the bigger, more generous person who adopts a policy reminiscent of his first name (Christian) and forgives his transgressor while getting on with his life.
The alternative would have been to aggressively follow the case into court and testify against her. Then he would have come off looking rather petty as if he was trying to grind his heel into her back after she’d already taken a fairly serious figurative beating over an incident where neither of them wound up being physically injured and there probably weren’t very many police resources wasted in the end. And if the prosecution wound up failing to obtain a conviction, he walks away looking like the “loser” in the confrontation and he hands Karen a win.
Then there’s the somewhat more cynical explanation, though I’ll note upfront that we have no solid proof of this. As I pointed out yesterday, that video that Christian Cooper recorded is the only solid evidence we have to go on and it begins well after their argument began. Unless, of course, there was another video of what took place beforehand that he deleted off of his phone for some reason. If he was cooperating with the investigation, the police might have wanted to check out the phone for evidence.
Why would that matter? Because according to the Karen in question, the birdwatcher had been threatening to “lure away” her dog with pet treats while the pooch was off the leash. On the phone with the police dispatcher, she used the phrase “threatening my dog.” Now that may still turn out to be a bunch of malarkey, as one current presidential candidate might say. But if it’s not and more details were to come to light over the course of the prosecutor’s investigation, Christian Cooper loses the role of the victim/hero in this case pretty quickly and the entire picture changes.
Just for the record, I’m not hanging my hat on that theory. Amy Cooper strikes me as something of a nutjob and the birdwatcher comes off appearing very reasonable in his public remarks, so we should probably take him at his word. (Your mileage may vary.) But none of this changes the fact that we’re still talking about this story a month and a half after the original incident took place. What is it about this tale that’s so compelling? I don’t have an answer for that one, but I know I’m still clicking on the links every time it pops up.


hotair--2020-07-09--Atlanta Mayor: Okay, now that I have the virus, everyone has to wear masks

As we learned over the holiday weekend , Atlanta Mayor ( and potential Biden running mate ) Keisha Lance Bottoms has been diagnosed with COVID-19 .
Her husband has tested positive as well .
While she reportedly remains asymptomatic , she maintains that she has “ no idea ” where or when she could have been exposed to the novel coronavirus .
As I asked at the time , is it possible she might not have contracted the disease if she ’ d worn a mask more often ?
Perhaps she ’ s taken that possibility to heart because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signing an order to make masks mandatory in her city .
And yesterday she did just that .
( Fox 5 Atlanta ) Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms signed an executive order Wednesday evening , mandating the use of masks throughout the city .
The order requires anyone within city limits and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport , to wear a mask or a cloth face covering over their nose and mouth , except those with a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a face mask or are under the age of 10 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures to help slow the spread of COVID-19 infections in Atlanta .
Public health experts overwhelmingly agree that wearing a face covering helps slow the spread of this sometimes deadly virus , ” Mayor Bottoms said in a statement .
This is going to present some complications for the state of Georgia with potential implications for the rest of the country as well .
The timing of the order isn ’ t really the issue here , though it certainly doesn ’ t present a very good look .
Large parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process of opening back up , though many have had mask orders in place for some time .
But now , in July , Atlanta is issuing its first mask mandate ?
There ’ s something here about horses and barn doors coming to mind .
But as I suggested , that ’ s not the real sticking point .
The potential problem is that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has already issued an executive order of his own .
As NPR reported on Tuesday , that mandate forbids local governments from ordering their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders has ever been taken up by the legislatures in question , so it ’ s a face-off between executive branches at the state and municipal level .
Much as we have since the beginning of the pandemic , we ’ re once again seeing tests of the extraordinary executive powers being exercised up and down the line without the benefit of legislative oversight or participation .
What are Atlanta residents supposed to do now that their Mayor and their Governor have essentially issued directly conflicting orders that carry the force of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the Governor can override the authority of the mayors and county executives around the state , can the President of the United States override the power of the governors ?
Considering Donald Trump ’ s appetite for ramming through solutions rapidly , one could only imagine what would happen if he starts a series of battles with the governors of the blue states .
Executive orders are supposed to be reserved for emergency situations where fast action is required to prevent or lessen the impacts of impending disasters .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months .
There has been plenty of time for the state legislature of Georgia and/or the City Council of Atlanta to consider this matter and put some regulations in place about personal protective medical gear and other virus suppression measures .
Such laws could easily have been crafted with expirations dates for the mandates , allowing for extensions if the threat persists .
Instead , we have a battle of wills between executives issuing their own conflicting orders .
All I ’ m saying here is that this is no way to run @ @ @

As we learned over the holiday weekend, Atlanta Mayor (and potential Biden running mate) Keisha Lance Bottoms has been diagnosed with COVID-19. Her husband has tested positive as well. While she reportedly remains asymptomatic, she maintains that she has “no idea” where or when she could have been exposed to the novel coronavirus. As I asked at the time, is it possible she might not have contracted the disease if she’d worn a mask more often? Perhaps she’s taken that possibility to heart because it was announced this week that she was signing an order to make masks mandatory in her city. And yesterday she did just that. (Fox 5 Atlanta)
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms signed an executive order Wednesday evening, mandating the use of masks throughout the city. The order requires anyone within city limits and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, to wear a mask or a cloth face covering over their nose and mouth, except those with a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a face mask or are under the age of 10. “We will continue to take active measures to help slow the spread of COVID-19 infections in Atlanta. Public health experts overwhelmingly agree that wearing a face covering helps slow the spread of this sometimes deadly virus,” Mayor Bottoms said in a statement.
This is going to present some complications for the state of Georgia with potential implications for the rest of the country as well. The timing of the order isn’t really the issue here, though it certainly doesn’t present a very good look. Large parts of the rest of the country are in the process of opening back up, though many have had mask orders in place for some time. But now, in July, Atlanta is issuing its first mask mandate? There’s something here about horses and barn doors coming to mind.
But as I suggested, that’s not the real sticking point. The potential problem is that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has already issued an executive order of his own. As NPR reported on Tuesday, that mandate forbids local governments from ordering their own health policies. Neither of these orders has ever been taken up by the legislatures in question, so it’s a face-off between executive branches at the state and municipal level.
Much as we have since the beginning of the pandemic, we’re once again seeing tests of the extraordinary executive powers being exercised up and down the line without the benefit of legislative oversight or participation. What are Atlanta residents supposed to do now that their Mayor and their Governor have essentially issued directly conflicting orders that carry the force of law? And perhaps more to the point, if the Governor can override the authority of the mayors and county executives around the state, can the President of the United States override the power of the governors? Considering Donald Trump’s appetite for ramming through solutions rapidly, one could only imagine what would happen if he starts a series of battles with the governors of the blue states.
Executive orders are supposed to be reserved for emergency situations where fast action is required to prevent or lessen the impacts of impending disasters. We’ve known about the novel coronavirus for months. There has been plenty of time for the state legislature of Georgia and/or the City Council of Atlanta to consider this matter and put some regulations in place about personal protective medical gear and other virus suppression measures. Such laws could easily have been crafted with expirations dates for the mandates, allowing for extensions if the threat persists. Instead, we have a battle of wills between executives issuing their own conflicting orders. All I’m saying here is that this is no way to run an organization.


hotair--2020-07-08--Harry and Meghan are here to tackle systemic racism.... and colonialism, too

Our heroes have arrived , though we really didn ’ t even know we needed them .
Prince Harry and Meghan Markel are not only actively supporting the Black Lives Matter movement , now they are including colonialism , too .
File this in the “ You can ’ t make this stuff up ” folder .
Harry and Meghan are desperately trying to remain relevant now that they have officially taken a leave from The Firm , a characterization of the Royal Family it is said Queen Elizabeth II has been known to use .
The queen says they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take up where they left off , should the two decide to do that .
So , what do Harry and Meghan have to lose ?
They are comfortably renting a home owned by Tyler Perry in California and Meghan is hoping to reignite her D-List Hollywood career .
Her prince , after all , pitches her availability for a little voiceover work in movies to the likes of Disney executive Bob Iger at formal receptions .
Now that the royal couple is attempting to make their own way in the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important .
This is rather easy in the current atmosphere of civil unrest , given that Meghan Markel fancies herself the voice of the woke .
She and Harry call out racial injustice , including in June when Meghan delivered a commencement address to the 2020 graduates of Los Angeles ’ Immaculate Heart High School .
She urged the graduating students to speak out against police brutality and racial injustice in the United States .
She added a personal memory from her childhood in Los Angeles to the speech , comparing today to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd ’ s life mattered and Breonna Taylor ’ s life mattered and Philando Castile ’ s life mattered and Tamir Rice ’ s life mattered , and so did so many other people whose names we know and whose names we do not know , ” said Markle .
She compared the current moment to what she experienced during the 1992 LA riots , which took place after the brutal and racist police beating of Rodney King .
“ I remember rushing back home , and on that drive home , seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markle recalled in her speech .
“ I remember seeing men in the back of a van holding guns and rifles .
I remember pulling up to the house and seeing the tree that had always been there completely charred .
And those memories don ’ t go away.
” So , when Harry and Meghan joined the Queen ’ s Commonwealth Trust on Wednesday in a video conversation about fairness , justice , and racial equality , the two spoke about their very different upbringings and how they are learning about racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meghan ’ s references to her own firsthand experiences of racism due to her biracial heritage , but nevermind .
What does she have to learn , is the question , if she is here to be our social justice sherpa ?
The Queen ’ s Commonwealth Trust is separate from the Royal Family .
Harry is president and Meghan is vice-president .
The Queen ’ s Commonwealth Trust is a growing network of young changemakers across the Commonwealth .
A platform where smart ideas and insights are shared , to show that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anywhere .
A place that sparks optimism and inspiration , where more and more people feel motivated and confident to step up and take positive action .
Our vision is a world where young people are equal partners in driving change .
We champion , fund and connect young leaders who are working hard to change the world .
We use our network , platform and resources , built and shaped together with young people , to demonstrate the leadership , energy and optimism of young people across the Commonwealth and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for everyone .
Harry is down with the struggle .
He even includes the past days of British colonization in his talks to young people .
Implying the British colonial past had a role in the history of injustice , Harry said : “ When you look across the Commonwealth , there is no way that we can move forward unless we acknowledge the past … We all acknowledge there ’ s so much more still to do .
It ’ s not going to be easy and in some cases , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … And guess what , everybody benefits.
” Harry then added that the Black Lives Matter movement has allowed for people to recognize “ the wrong ” in the world , adding that ” this is the moment when people are starting to be listened to.
” Meghan continued on to say that the couple would do “ everything from our end , ” to help the young people — with Harry stressing his age , adding that it was in the hands of the younger generation now .
“ That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a laugh .
“ Keep up the incredible work and know that we are right there with you , standing in solidarity , ” Meghan then told the QCT members .
“ We ’ re going to get there … and we have a lot of renewed faith and energy in that having had this conversation.
” Meghan is 38 .
People this age should know better but I suppose that ’ s on the education system in America for Meghan and the Royal bubble in England for the prince .
Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trayvon Martin at the hands of a person who was not a policeman .
He called himself a neighborhood watch kind of guy .
“ The wrong in the world ” is nothing new and BLM didn ’ t discover it .
Racial inequality and injustice issues has been around since the days of slavery in our country .
If Meghan thinks 1992 was bad , she should have been around during the summer of 1968 .
The point is , we are a nation of flawed human beings who strive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States isn ’ t perfect but its the best the world has , to be sure .
Meghan Markel is the Yoko Ono of The Firm .
I can only imagine what Queen Elizabeth II thinks about all this wokeness coming from her grandson and his wife , now Californians .
Does Harry now expect his grandmother to make a public speech apologizing for England ’ s past actions ?
Meghan is an ambitious woman .
She is said to have political aspirations of her own .
She believes she is “ destined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend of the Duchess told Daily Mail that Meghan believes she was “ destined ” to help fight systemic racism in the US .
And that her “ gnawing urgency to uproot from England ” was nothing but fate so she could be at the “ forefront ” of the movement , the insider explained .
“ Meghan said her work as a leader is more important than ever right now and that she ’ s been speaking with Oprah and other community leaders on how she can be part of the solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far beyond acting .
She said she wants to use her voice for change and hasn ’ t ruled out a career in politics , ” the insider said .
Oprah .
Perfect .
We await the first political campaign of future candidate Meghan , Duchess of Sussex .
That won ’ t be awkward at all , right ?

Our heroes have arrived, though we really didn’t even know we needed them. Prince Harry and Meghan Markel are not only actively supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, now they are including colonialism, too. File this in the “You can’t make this stuff up” folder.
Harry and Meghan are desperately trying to remain relevant now that they have officially taken a leave from The Firm, a characterization of the Royal Family it is said Queen Elizabeth II has been known to use. The queen says they can come back into the fold and take up where they left off, should the two decide to do that. So, what do Harry and Meghan have to lose? They are comfortably renting a home owned by Tyler Perry in California and Meghan is hoping to reignite her D-List Hollywood career. Her prince, after all, pitches her availability for a little voiceover work in movies to the likes of Disney executive Bob Iger at formal receptions.
Now that the royal couple is attempting to make their own way in the world, keeping their names in the headlines is important. This is rather easy in the current atmosphere of civil unrest, given that Meghan Markel fancies herself the voice of the woke. She and Harry call out racial injustice, including in June when Meghan delivered a commencement address to the 2020 graduates of Los Angeles’ Immaculate Heart High School. She urged the graduating students to speak out against police brutality and racial injustice in the United States. She added a personal memory from her childhood in Los Angeles to the speech, comparing today to the 1992 L.A. riots.
“George Floyd’s life mattered and Breonna Taylor’s life mattered and Philando Castile’s life mattered and Tamir Rice’s life mattered, and so did so many other people whose names we know and whose names we do not know,” said Markle. She compared the current moment to what she experienced during the 1992 LA riots, which took place after the brutal and racist police beating of Rodney King. “I remember rushing back home, and on that drive home, seeing ash fall from the sky,” Markle recalled in her speech. “I remember seeing men in the back of a van holding guns and rifles. I remember pulling up to the house and seeing the tree that had always been there completely charred. And those memories don’t go away.”
So, when Harry and Meghan joined the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust on Wednesday in a video conversation about fairness, justice, and racial equality, the two spoke about their very different upbringings and how they are learning about racism together. That seems in conflict with Meghan’s references to her own firsthand experiences of racism due to her biracial heritage, but nevermind. What does she have to learn, is the question, if she is here to be our social justice sherpa? The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust is separate from the Royal Family. Harry is president and Meghan is vice-president.
The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust is a growing network of young changemakers across the Commonwealth. A platform where smart ideas and insights are shared, to show that change can be brought about by anyone, anywhere. A place that sparks optimism and inspiration, where more and more people feel motivated and confident to step up and take positive action. Our vision is a world where young people are equal partners in driving change. We champion, fund and connect young leaders who are working hard to change the world. We use our network, platform and resources, built and shaped together with young people, to demonstrate the leadership, energy and optimism of young people across the Commonwealth and their enormous potential to create a better future for everyone.
Harry is down with the struggle. He even includes the past days of British colonization in his talks to young people.
Implying the British colonial past had a role in the history of injustice, Harry said: “When you look across the Commonwealth, there is no way that we can move forward unless we acknowledge the past … We all acknowledge there’s so much more still to do. It’s not going to be easy and in some cases, it’s not going to be comfortable … And guess what, everybody benefits.” Harry then added that the Black Lives Matter movement has allowed for people to recognize “the wrong” in the world, adding that ” this is the moment when people are starting to be listened to.” Meghan continued on to say that the couple would do “everything from our end,” to help the young people — with Harry stressing his age, adding that it was in the hands of the younger generation now. “I’m aging – I’m 35,” he said. “That’s not aging,” his wife interjected with a laugh. “Keep up the incredible work and know that we are right there with you, standing in solidarity,” Meghan then told the QCT members. “We’re going to get there … and we have a lot of renewed faith and energy in that having had this conversation.”
Meghan is 38. People this age should know better but I suppose that’s on the education system in America for Meghan and the Royal bubble in England for the prince. Black Lives Matter was founded after the death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of a person who was not a policeman. He called himself a neighborhood watch kind of guy. “The wrong in the world” is nothing new and BLM didn’t discover it. Racial inequality and injustice issues has been around since the days of slavery in our country. If Meghan thinks 1992 was bad, she should have been around during the summer of 1968. The point is, we are a nation of flawed human beings who strive to do better for everyone. The United States isn’t perfect but its the best the world has, to be sure.
Meghan Markel is the Yoko Ono of The Firm. I can only imagine what Queen Elizabeth II thinks about all this wokeness coming from her grandson and his wife, now Californians. Does Harry now expect his grandmother to make a public speech apologizing for England’s past actions? Meghan is an ambitious woman. She is said to have political aspirations of her own. She believes she is “destined” to fight racism.
A close friend of the Duchess told Daily Mail that Meghan believes she was “destined” to help fight systemic racism in the US. And that her “gnawing urgency to uproot from England” was nothing but fate so she could be at the “forefront” of the movement, the insider explained. “Meghan said her work as a leader is more important than ever right now and that she’s been speaking with Oprah and other community leaders on how she can be part of the solution. Meghan feels like her mission goes far beyond acting. She said she wants to use her voice for change and hasn’t ruled out a career in politics,” the insider said.
Oprah. Perfect. We await the first political campaign of future candidate Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. That won’t be awkward at all, right?


hotair--2020-07-09--Black lives matter: Feds debating whether blacks and Latinos should get the coronavirus vaccine firs

Black lives matter: Feds debating whether blacks and Latinos should get the coronavirus vaccine first

I ’ m sure our country , particularly its thoughtful and very mature activist class , will debate this subject with the sensitivity and seriousness it deserves .
In particular , expect the president ’ s eventual tweets about it to be a model of delicacy .
Especially if it starts churning in the final weeks of the campaign .
You don ’ t need me or anyone else to explain what makes this subject thorny .
On the one hand , dispensing life-saving medical treatment on the basis of race is eight flavors of f***ed up .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusually susceptible to poor outcomes from COVID-19 , why shouldn ’ t their “ disability ” move them to the front of the line ?
Their medical need for a vaccine is more urgent than the average white person ’ s , and urgency is always a factor when doctors have to prioritize patients for treatment .
In fact , a core argument by the people who demanded that America reopen early in April was that we all need to be more discerning about relative risk levels across the population .
We shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it ’ s chiefly older adults and those with comorbidities who are at risk from the virus , right ?
Open up , let the vulnerable people isolate themselves , and let the healthy go out and take their chances .
Well , why not apply that logic to the vaccine ?
Let the vulnerable people get first crack , and let the healthy go out and take their chances .
Don ’ t worry , the vaccine stock will be replenished .
Eventually .
I ’ m eager to see how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the government comes in wanting to discriminate based on race , the judge will rhetorically punt their asses into the next county .
But in certain very limited circumstances , if the state ’ s interest in discriminating is “ compelling ” and their discriminatory measure is “ narrowly tailored , ” the court might let it slide .
Wanting to prioritize black and Latino Americans for the vaccine because they have a special need strikes me as an interest that might past muster as “ compelling.
” But is there a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would the certainty of litigation end up making this more trouble than it ’ s worth ?
Hold those thoughts .
Black and Latino people have become infected with the virus at three times the rate of whites , and have died nearly twice as frequently .
Many of them have jobs that keep them from working at home , rely on public transportation or live in cramped homes that increase their risk of exposure .
They are more likely to suffer from underlying health problems , including diabetes and obesity , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not only do the groups have less access to health services , they have a documented history of receiving unequal care… [ T ] here will be a gap between the first doses coming off the manufacturing lines and a stockpile large enough to vaccinate the U.S. population .
“ I would say months , ” Dr. José R. Romero , the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices , predicted… “ I think we need to deal with this issue at this time with the information that we have .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that need to be moved to the forefront , in my opinion.
” … “ It ’ s racial inequality — inequality in housing , inequality in employment , inequality in access to health care — that produced the underlying diseases , ” Dr. Matthew said in an interview .
“ That ’ s wrong .
And it ’ s that inequality that requires us to prioritize by race and ethnicity.
” If you liked woke epidemiologists when they were carving out massive exceptions to social-distancing rules for BLM protests , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re sending black and Latino Americans to the front of the line for the miracle drug amid a winter second wave of COVID that ’ s cutting a swath through the American populace .
To be clear , no one ( I think ) is considering making these groups the very first recipients of the vaccine .
Per the Times , a preliminary plan would give first crack to “ vital medical and national security officials first , and then to other essential workers and those considered at high risk.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those “ high risk ” groups that race , age , disability , and so on become factors .
( An interesting problem , relatedly , is prisoners .
The feds wouldn ’ t want to prioritize them for political reasons but they ’ re indisputably at very high risk of infection . )
Here ’ s the question : Is it race per se that ’ s making blacks and Latinos more vulnerable to the virus or is it class ?
If there ’ s something congenital afoot , that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seen data to support that .
The conventional scientific wisdom ( reiterated in the excerpt above ) is that blacks and Latinos tend to have lower incomes and those lower incomes correlate with more health problems .
It ’ s nothing genetic that leaves them prone to serious illness from coronavirus , it ’ s the higher rate of comorbidities and lower quality health care they receive on average that does .
In which case , why not follow the advice of a public health expert at Penn who spoke to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sort of “ point system ” that would prioritize people for the vaccine based on class correlates , not race — education , income , housing , and so on .
Many black and Latino Americans would still be sent to the front of the line under that system but so would lower-income whites , who ’ d otherwise be stuck waiting for months for the vaccine .
The health expert from Penn came up with this idea precisely because he ’ s worried that a court would nuke a pure race-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think the Roberts Court would look at a scheme like that and ask the same question I ’ m asking here .
If poverty , not race , is making people more vulnerable to the virus , why the hell aren ’ t we prioritizing impoverished people ?
That would be more “ narrowly tailored ” to the problem than a racial system would .
One major advantage a racial system would have over a “ points system , ” though , is speed .
We had a debate about speed back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and many millions of people were suddenly being laid off .
Uncle Sam needed to step in and get them money ASAP — but how ?
Some called for means-testing , having the IRS look at people ’ s adjusted gross income for the past year or two and send them a certain amount of stimulus money based on their perceived need .
But others said there ’ s no time .
Just get the money out the door .
It ’ s a crisis ; send everyone the same amount .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of urgency to vaccinate the population once the vaccine is available .
Are we going to spend months weighing everyone ’ s “ points ” ?
Or are we just going to designate certain groups as priorities and begin dosing them out immediately ?
Anyway , neither you nor I nor anyone else expects America ’ s rich to sit idly by for months while millions of poors line up for first shot at the miracle cure .
So either this entire scheme is going to go up in smoke , whether in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or the rich will simply figure out a way to get vaccinated immediately through other means .

I’m sure our country, particularly its thoughtful and very mature activist class, will debate this subject with the sensitivity and seriousness it deserves.
In particular, expect the president’s eventual tweets about it to be a model of delicacy. Especially if it starts churning in the final weeks of the campaign.
You don’t need me or anyone else to explain what makes this subject thorny. On the one hand, dispensing life-saving medical treatment on the basis of race is eight flavors of f***ed up. On the other hand, if race makes people unusually susceptible to poor outcomes from COVID-19, why shouldn’t their “disability” move them to the front of the line? Their medical need for a vaccine is more urgent than the average white person’s, and urgency is always a factor when doctors have to prioritize patients for treatment.
In fact, a core argument by the people who demanded that America reopen early in April was that we all need to be more discerning about relative risk levels across the population. We shouldn’t lock down the whole country when it’s chiefly older adults and those with comorbidities who are at risk from the virus, right? Open up, let the vulnerable people isolate themselves, and let the healthy go out and take their chances.
Well, why not apply that logic to the vaccine? Let the vulnerable people get first crack, and let the healthy go out and take their chances. Don’t worry, the vaccine stock will be replenished. Eventually.
I’m eager to see how this would fly in court. Normally if the government comes in wanting to discriminate based on race, the judge will rhetorically punt their asses into the next county. But in certain very limited circumstances, if the state’s interest in discriminating is “compelling” and their discriminatory measure is “narrowly tailored,” the court might let it slide. Wanting to prioritize black and Latino Americans for the vaccine because they have a special need strikes me as an interest that might past muster as “compelling.” But is there a better way to do this? And would the certainty of litigation end up making this more trouble than it’s worth? Hold those thoughts.
Black and Latino people have become infected with the virus at three times the rate of whites, and have died nearly twice as frequently. Many of them have jobs that keep them from working at home, rely on public transportation or live in cramped homes that increase their risk of exposure. They are more likely to suffer from underlying health problems, including diabetes and obesity, that raise the risk of hospitalization and death. Not only do the groups have less access to health services, they have a documented history of receiving unequal care… [T]here will be a gap between the first doses coming off the manufacturing lines and a stockpile large enough to vaccinate the U.S. population. “I would say months,” Dr. José R. Romero, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, predicted… “I think we need to deal with this issue at this time with the information that we have. And it is: They are groups that need to be moved to the forefront, in my opinion.”… “It’s racial inequality — inequality in housing, inequality in employment, inequality in access to health care — that produced the underlying diseases,” Dr. Matthew said in an interview. “That’s wrong. And it’s that inequality that requires us to prioritize by race and ethnicity.”
If you liked woke epidemiologists when they were carving out massive exceptions to social-distancing rules for BLM protests, you’re going to love them when they’re sending black and Latino Americans to the front of the line for the miracle drug amid a winter second wave of COVID that’s cutting a swath through the American populace.
To be clear, no one (I think) is considering making these groups the very first recipients of the vaccine. Per the Times, a preliminary plan would give first crack to “vital medical and national security officials first, and then to other essential workers and those considered at high risk.” It’s when we get down to those “high risk” groups that race, age, disability, and so on become factors. (An interesting problem, relatedly, is prisoners. The feds wouldn’t want to prioritize them for political reasons but they’re indisputably at very high risk of infection.) Here’s the question: Is it race per se that’s making blacks and Latinos more vulnerable to the virus or is it class? If there’s something congenital afoot, that’s one thing. But I haven’t seen data to support that. The conventional scientific wisdom (reiterated in the excerpt above) is that blacks and Latinos tend to have lower incomes and those lower incomes correlate with more health problems. It’s nothing genetic that leaves them prone to serious illness from coronavirus, it’s the higher rate of comorbidities and lower quality health care they receive on average that does.
In which case, why not follow the advice of a public health expert at Penn who spoke to the Times for its piece? He recommends a sort of “point system” that would prioritize people for the vaccine based on class correlates, not race — education, income, housing, and so on. Many black and Latino Americans would still be sent to the front of the line under that system but so would lower-income whites, who’d otherwise be stuck waiting for months for the vaccine. The health expert from Penn came up with this idea precisely because he’s worried that a court would nuke a pure race-based vaccine system, with good reason. I think the Roberts Court would look at a scheme like that and ask the same question I’m asking here. If poverty, not race, is making people more vulnerable to the virus, why the hell aren’t we prioritizing impoverished people? That would be more “narrowly tailored” to the problem than a racial system would.
One major advantage a racial system would have over a “points system,” though, is speed. We had a debate about speed back in the spring when states were locking down and many millions of people were suddenly being laid off. Uncle Sam needed to step in and get them money ASAP — but how? Some called for means-testing, having the IRS look at people’s adjusted gross income for the past year or two and send them a certain amount of stimulus money based on their perceived need. But others said there’s no time. Just get the money out the door. It’s a crisis; send everyone the same amount. We’ll feel the same sort of urgency to vaccinate the population once the vaccine is available. Are we going to spend months weighing everyone’s “points”? Or are we just going to designate certain groups as priorities and begin dosing them out immediately?
Anyway, neither you nor I nor anyone else expects America’s rich to sit idly by for months while millions of poors line up for first shot at the miracle cure. So either this entire scheme is going to go up in smoke, whether in court or in lobbyist-filled offices in Congress, or the rich will simply figure out a way to get vaccinated immediately through other means.


hotair--2020-07-09--Lemon: Let's face it, Jesus Christ "admittedly was not perfect when he was here on the Earth"

The Lemon Giveth , and The Lemon Taketh Away .
After a reasonably fair and interesting debate with Terry Crews over the nature of Black Lives Matter , Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo returned to form with this fatuous exchange about the founders and their place in American culture on Monday ’ s CNN broadcast .
In talking about Mount Rushmore in particular , both Lemon and Cuomo accuse Donald Trump and his supporters as “ deifying ” the founders of the country and acting as if they were perfect human beings , a straw-man argument that literally no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Julio Rosas notes , Lemon observed that no one ’ s perfect — not even Jesus Christ , whom Lemon says “ admittedly was not perfect ” while in the flesh .
That ’ d be news to a couple of billion Christians around the world : LEMON : Right .
But it ’ s not just the Trumpers , as you say .
Right ?
It ’ s not just the Trump apologists and the Trump supporters , it ’ s very well-meaning liberals as well who are feeling these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those feelings then maybe that means that you have a conscience about it .
And that ’ s actually the right feeling to have and you should be engaged in a discussion .
But here ’ s the thing , Jesus Christ , if you believe — if that ’ s what you believe in , Jesus Christ , admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this earth .
So why are we defying the fathers of this country ?
Many of whom owned slaves and , in the Constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want — they put slavery in there , that slavery should be abolished because it was the way the king wanted .
And then the Congress said , no way .
And so they had to come up with an alternative about three-fifths of a man and on and on and on .
CUOMO : Well , they knew , they knew that they had an inconsistency with the logic .
LEMON : There you go .
All men are not perfect .
CUOMO : All men are created equal , except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not perfect .
We have to stop deifying them and saying , yes , they did some great things and they created a Constitution .
And a , you know , a blueprint for us that it wasn ’ t perfect at the time , and that ’ s good .
But they weren ’ t perfect either .
And so , as Americans , all of us should come together and have these conversations and get together and stop letting someone divide us .
No one is perfect .
Nothing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ahem .
I can most assuredly state with conviction that those who “ believe ” in Christianity also believe that Jesus was indeed perfect — even here on Earth .
In fact , that was the entire point of His sacrifice ; He had to be perfect to provide salvation for the world .
Furthermore , believers in Trinitarian Christianity recognize Jesus as having two natures , both divine and human , and perfected in both .
His mission was to call each of us to perfection in the Lord and served as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like , here and in the next world .
How do two prime-time hosts on a major cable-news network not know that basic fact about Christianity ?
If they don ’ t , then what credibility do they have on anything else ?
As for the rest of this discussion , it ’ s nearly as bad .
No one erects statues and monuments as an act of deification ( which also would contradict Christianity , and Judaism and Islam too for that matter ) .
They do it as a memorial to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community .
That is precisely the problem with Confederate monuments , because those honor treason and rebellion , whereas those honoring the founders remind us of their contribution to liberty , no matter how imperfect it was .
No one argues that men like Washington or Jefferson are perfect just because they support leaving their monuments in place .
They are arguing that their massive contributions to America must be honored , even while their contradictions to those ideals should be discussed and remembered .
If the standard for statues and monuments is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to complete nihilism .
Even Martin Luther King couldn ’ t meet that standard ; should we therefore tear his statue down too ?
Does it “ deify ” King to leave it standing ?
This is an inane take on a massively stupid iconoclastic impulse .
If putting forth that argument is “ divisive , ” it ’ s only because it divides the radical nihilists from everyone else of reason .
The latter does not include those ignorant enough to declare that believers in Jesus Christ think He was “ @ @ @ @

The Lemon Giveth, and The Lemon Taketh Away. After a reasonably fair and interesting debate with Terry Crews over the nature of Black Lives Matter, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo returned to form with this fatuous exchange about the founders and their place in American culture on Monday’s CNN broadcast. In talking about Mount Rushmore in particular, both Lemon and Cuomo accuse Donald Trump and his supporters as “deifying” the founders of the country and acting as if they were perfect human beings, a straw-man argument that literally no one either believes or has offered.
Then, as Julio Rosas notes, Lemon observed that no one’s perfect — not even Jesus Christ, whom Lemon says “admittedly was not perfect” while in the flesh. That’d be news to a couple of billion Christians around the world:
LEMON: Right. But it’s not just the Trumpers, as you say. Right? It’s not just the Trump apologists and the Trump supporters, it’s very well-meaning liberals as well who are feeling these things. And if you are having those feelings then maybe that means that you have a conscience about it. And that’s actually the right feeling to have and you should be engaged in a discussion. But here’s the thing, Jesus Christ, if you believe — if that’s what you believe in, Jesus Christ, admittedly was not perfect when he was here on this earth. So why are we defying the fathers of this country? Many of whom owned slaves and, in the Constitution, the original one, they didn’t want — they put slavery in there, that slavery should be abolished because it was the way the king wanted. And then the Congress said, no way. And so they had to come up with an alternative about three-fifths of a man and on and on and on. CUOMO: Well, they knew, they knew that they had an inconsistency with the logic. LEMON: There you go. All men are not perfect. (CROSSTALK) CUOMO: All men are created equal, except these men. LEMON: They’re not perfect. We have to stop deifying them and saying, yes, they did some great things and they created a Constitution. And a, you know, a blueprint for us that it wasn’t perfect at the time, and that’s good. But they weren’t perfect either. And so, as Americans, all of us should come together and have these conversations and get together and stop letting someone divide us. No one is perfect. Nothing is perfect not even the founding fathers.
Ahem. I can most assuredly state with conviction that those who “believe” in Christianity also believe that Jesus was indeed perfect — even here on Earth. In fact, that was the entire point of His sacrifice; He had to be perfect to provide salvation for the world. Furthermore, believers in Trinitarian Christianity recognize Jesus as having two natures, both divine and human, and perfected in both. His mission was to call each of us to perfection in the Lord and served as an example of what that would look like, here and in the next world.
How do two prime-time hosts on a major cable-news network not know that basic fact about Christianity? If they don’t, then what credibility do they have on anything else?
As for the rest of this discussion, it’s nearly as bad. No one erects statues and monuments as an act of deification (which also would contradict Christianity, and Judaism and Islam too for that matter). They do it as a memorial to a significant contribution to the country or community. That is precisely the problem with Confederate monuments, because those honor treason and rebellion, whereas those honoring the founders remind us of their contribution to liberty, no matter how imperfect it was. No one argues that men like Washington or Jefferson are perfect just because they support leaving their monuments in place. They are arguing that their massive contributions to America must be honored, even while their contradictions to those ideals should be discussed and remembered.
If the standard for statues and monuments is perfection, then we’re basically back to complete nihilism. Even Martin Luther King couldn’t meet that standard; should we therefore tear his statue down too? Does it “deify” King to leave it standing? This is an inane take on a massively stupid iconoclastic impulse. If putting forth that argument is “divisive,” it’s only because it divides the radical nihilists from everyone else of reason. The latter does not include those ignorant enough to declare that believers in Jesus Christ think He was “admittedly” flawed.


hotair--2020-07-09--Police shooting in Baltimore raises questions about how 'defund police' would work

One of the things we ’ ve heard in the past few weeks is that the “ defund police ” slogan is a workable proposal because some of the jobs police are currently asked to do could be done by others .
For instance , police are often called to scenes where someone with mental problems is in distress .
Some organizations have argued those calls should be handled by trained counselors rather than cops .
Here ’ s the coordinator from a group called CAHOOTS in Eugene , Oregon making the case last month : “ In those situations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue , there ’ s not an emergent threat to the safety of an individual or a neighborhood , why do we need the police to be the ones responding ?
” Tim Black , Cahoots ’ s operations coordinator , told MarketWatch .
“ Why can ’ t it be folks from that community who are coming with unconditional positive regard and empathy , instead of force ?
” … “ For the past three decades , we ’ ve been really demonstrating how public-safety dollars can go to something other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So when we hear these conversations around ‘ defund the police ’ that are happening now , what we ’ re hearing is an opportunity to really engage in meaningful dialogue about what public safety actually means.
” I don ’ t think it ’ s a crazy proposition .
In fact , I think most police officers would probably rather have someone else handle those kind of calls .
But an incident in Baltimore this week really puts the whole argument in perspective .
What you see in this incident may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s clearly a kind of worst case scenario that needs to be considered before making decisions about police reform .
The incident took place early Wednesday morning : Two police officers shot a man who reportedly pulled a gun on them while experiencing a behavioral crisis in Northeast Baltimore before dawn Wednesday morning , Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said .
The man was critically injured in the shooting , which happened about 3:25 a.m. , after police were called to a home in the 5800 block of Falkirk Road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street near Huber Memorial Church .
The call came from the homeowner , a relative of the man , police said .
The relative led officers to the man , who pulled a gun on them , police said , prompting them to shoot him “ multiple times , ” Harrison said .
When officers searched the man , they found a second gun , the police commissioner said .
Today , Baltimore police released the audio of the 911 call along with body camera footage , which you can watch below .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion but here ’ s what I saw .
First , the family called because the man , whose name is Ricky Walker Jr. , was clearly disturbed and having an “ episode.
” When police finally enter the basement about 10 minutes into this clip , Walker is shouting and seems incoherent .
Two officers , who are both black , try to talk to him calmly .
Nearly the entire time Walker is standing with his hands above his head .
He claims ( I don ’ t know if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filming everything on a GoPro camera above the door frame .
He keeps talking to the camera saying “ Please save my life , yo.
” It seems like he thinks he ’ s livestreaming and he ’ s asking viewers to save him from the police that he believes have entered his house illegally to kill him .
The police talk calmly with Walker for several minutes .
One officer keeps repeating that the man ’ s family invited them in to help him but Walker keeps repeating they they are there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man that there are medics waiting to help him if he ’ ll just go upstairs .
He doesn ’ t want to go .
In fact , the closer the police get , the more agitated Walker seems to be .
He ’ s not making much sense but he ’ s pretty clearly afraid .
As the police move around items that fill the basement , Walker seems to get more agitated .
He ’ s talking about being killed and living even after he dies .
And suddenly the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s got a gun in his right hand .
The video unfreezes and you see him point the gun at one of the officers .
Several shots are fired by the police and Walker is down on the floor .
After he is shot he repeats , “ Please save my life.
” He adds , “ They shot me in my own house.
” So here ’ s the question : What should have happened here ?
This wasn ’ t a random encounter gone wrong .
Police were called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walker was raving .
They apparently knew he had mental problems and tried to keep him calm .
They weren ’ t quick to get physical .
They didn ’ t pull their guns on him so long as he was unarmed .
But ultimately it all went wrong anyway .
Walker was critically injured but fortunately survived .
But back to the question : How else should this have been handled ?
Would you want to send unarmed counselors into that basement ?
If you did , would they be dead or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baltimore Police Chief pointed out that medics waited for cops to go in first to make sure Walker wasn ’ t a threat : But the VP of a behavioral health group said mental health professionals should have been there : Notice she says “ along with police.
” Could this have gone better if mental health professionals had been there ?
Maybe .
I think that ’ s a reasonable point .
But it ’ s a long way from there to claiming counselors should have been sent into that basement instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone is deranged and ranting like this , it ’ s always possible they could become violent and counselors aren ’ t equipped to deal with that .
There ’ s a bit more to this story .
It seems Walker had been arrested 10 days earlier for another episode in which he was found naked with a gun allegedly firing at passing cars .
He was hospitalized after that incident .
Maryland has “ red flag ” laws so some wonder why the guns he had at home weren ’ t taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question and maybe there is some way this particular incident could have been prevented .
But ultimately , something like this is always a possibility and how we decide to handle it as a society doesn ’ t seem as simple to me as “ defund police .
”

One of the things we’ve heard in the past few weeks is that the “defund police” slogan is a workable proposal because some of the jobs police are currently asked to do could be done by others. For instance, police are often called to scenes where someone with mental problems is in distress. Some organizations have argued those calls should be handled by trained counselors rather than cops. Here’s the coordinator from a group called CAHOOTS in Eugene, Oregon making the case last month:
“In those situations where there’s not a criminal issue, there’s not an emergent threat to the safety of an individual or a neighborhood, why do we need the police to be the ones responding?” Tim Black, Cahoots’s operations coordinator, told MarketWatch. “Why can’t it be folks from that community who are coming with unconditional positive regard and empathy, instead of force?”… “For the past three decades, we’ve been really demonstrating how public-safety dollars can go to something other than law enforcement,” Black said. “So when we hear these conversations around ‘defund the police’ that are happening now, what we’re hearing is an opportunity to really engage in meaningful dialogue about what public safety actually means.”
I don’t think it’s a crazy proposition. In fact, I think most police officers would probably rather have someone else handle those kind of calls. But an incident in Baltimore this week really puts the whole argument in perspective. What you see in this incident may depend on your priors going into it, but it’s clearly a kind of worst case scenario that needs to be considered before making decisions about police reform. The incident took place early Wednesday morning:
Two police officers shot a man who reportedly pulled a gun on them while experiencing a behavioral crisis in Northeast Baltimore before dawn Wednesday morning, Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said. The man was critically injured in the shooting, which happened about 3:25 a.m., after police were called to a home in the 5800 block of Falkirk Road — a quiet, residential, tree-lined street near Huber Memorial Church. The call came from the homeowner, a relative of the man, police said. The relative led officers to the man, who pulled a gun on them, police said, prompting them to shoot him “multiple times,” Harrison said. When officers searched the man, they found a second gun, the police commissioner said.
Today, Baltimore police released the audio of the 911 call along with body camera footage, which you can watch below. You can watch and form your own opinion but here’s what I saw.
First, the family called because the man, whose name is Ricky Walker Jr., was clearly disturbed and having an “episode.” When police finally enter the basement about 10 minutes into this clip, Walker is shouting and seems incoherent. Two officers, who are both black, try to talk to him calmly. Nearly the entire time Walker is standing with his hands above his head. He claims (I don’t know if it’s true) that he is filming everything on a GoPro camera above the door frame. He keeps talking to the camera saying “Please save my life, yo.” It seems like he thinks he’s livestreaming and he’s asking viewers to save him from the police that he believes have entered his house illegally to kill him.
The police talk calmly with Walker for several minutes. One officer keeps repeating that the man’s family invited them in to help him but Walker keeps repeating they they are there illegally. An officer tells the disturbed man that there are medics waiting to help him if he’ll just go upstairs. He doesn’t want to go. In fact, the closer the police get, the more agitated Walker seems to be. He’s not making much sense but he’s pretty clearly afraid.
As the police move around items that fill the basement, Walker seems to get more agitated. He’s talking about being killed and living even after he dies. And suddenly the video freezes and zooms slowly and you see he’s got a gun in his right hand. The video unfreezes and you see him point the gun at one of the officers. Several shots are fired by the police and Walker is down on the floor. After he is shot he repeats, “Please save my life.” He adds, “They shot me in my own house.”
So here’s the question: What should have happened here? This wasn’t a random encounter gone wrong. Police were called to the house along with medics because Walker was raving. They apparently knew he had mental problems and tried to keep him calm. They weren’t quick to get physical. They didn’t pull their guns on him so long as he was unarmed. But ultimately it all went wrong anyway. Walker was critically injured but fortunately survived.
But back to the question: How else should this have been handled? Would you want to send unarmed counselors into that basement? If you did, would they be dead or lying in the hospital now? The Baltimore Police Chief pointed out that medics waited for cops to go in first to make sure Walker wasn’t a threat:
The shooting came amid a renewed national conversation on policing in America, and local activists and experts have expressed concern particularly about incidents in which officers respond to mental health crisis calls. Harrison said Thursday that while he agrees “with much of the sentiments, it’s important we put this into context with the realities of the safety of all those involved.” He noted that medics stayed outside due to safety concerns, and said any crisis team of mental health providers would need to receive training on how to respond to situations involving individuals who are believed to be armed.
But the VP of a behavioral health group said mental health professionals should have been there:
Adrienne Breidenstine, vice president of policy and communications for Behavioral Health Systems Baltimore, said that seeing police officers “just completely escalates the situation for people.” The group has a 24-hour crisis team that was not called to the scene. “The video was upsetting to see,” Breidenstine said. “It shows mental health professionals should have been involved with the response, along with police and EMS.”
Notice she says “along with police.” Could this have gone better if mental health professionals had been there? Maybe. I think that’s a reasonable point. But it’s a long way from there to claiming counselors should have been sent into that basement instead of police. Because ultimately, if someone is deranged and ranting like this, it’s always possible they could become violent and counselors aren’t equipped to deal with that.
There’s a bit more to this story. It seems Walker had been arrested 10 days earlier for another episode in which he was found naked with a gun allegedly firing at passing cars. He was hospitalized after that incident. Maryland has “red flag” laws so some wonder why the guns he had at home weren’t taken away. That’s a good question and maybe there is some way this particular incident could have been prevented. But ultimately, something like this is always a possibility and how we decide to handle it as a society doesn’t seem as simple to me as “defund police.”
Here’s the bodycam footage.


hotair--2020-07-09--Fox News source: Durham could "punt" investigation to after the election if it takes much longer

There ’ s no way .
The president would have an aneurysm .
I spent the first half of my presidency buried in Russiagate innuendo , he ’ d say , and we don ’ t even get to the see the evidence against the Obama administration until after the vote ?
I think he ’ d fire Bill Barr if Durham punted .
At the very least , there ’ d be a barrage of tweets about how he thought Barr was the new Roy Cohn but now , sadly , he realizes he was mistaken .
Which would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of a handful of people on Earth who thinks comparing someone to Roy Cohn is a compliment .
Two sources familiar with Durham ’ s investigation told Fox News this week that Durham is working expeditiously to try to finish the probe by the end of summer , but that several lines of investigation are not yet complete .
“ He believes it ’ s critical to do them , ” one source said .
“ He is feeling more pressure to get this done and wrapped up.
” The source also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want this to be viewed political , ” and the closer it gets to November , Durham could “ punt it to after the election.
” … Some Republicans are pushing for the probe to come to a conclusion soon .
Earlier this week , Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said it was “ SAD ” that Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham could wait until after Election Day to initiate prosecutions .
Does this sound like a man who ’ d take the news well that Durham can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s interesting that Fox is hearing whispers about Durham punting today , as Chuck Grassley also complained out of the blue a few days ago about the Durham probe possibly stretching past early November : “ IF NO PROSECUTIONS TIL AFTER ELECTIONS SAD SAD.
” Who told Grassley and who ’ s whispering to Fox ?
And why ?
To all appearances , the leakers are trying to raise alarm on the right that an investigation the GOP has long hoped to use against Democrats in the campaign won ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s self-defeating if the goal is to secure convictions .
( Which it isn ’ t really . )
Ed argued correctly a few days ago that Grassley ’ s tweet makes it easy for any potential defendants to claim in court that the charges against them are politically motivated .
If Fox ’ s story successfully baits Trump into tweeting angrily about it , it ’ ll become easier still .
Everyone understands ( except maybe Durham himself ? )
that the value of this probe is as a potential political weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belatedly fight back against Russiagate .
But to have influential Republicans , up to and including the president , go on record to that effect would help any defense lawyer appeal to a jury and to the public generally that their client is the victim of an abuse of power , targeted for prosecution as an election-year ploy .
Which would be fine by Trump and the GOP .
If they can pressure Durham into delivering his findings early and the fallout helps the president win a second term , who cares if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is : Durham might care .
There ’ s no escaping the political repercussions of his investigation , but it would have a different impact on the campaign if he released his findings in late July instead of late October .
He ’ s a credible person and a respected prosecutor .
The last thing he wants , I assume , is to be known as the James Comey of the 2020 election , the man who swung the outcome of a presidential race by calling voters ’ attention to the mere possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the campaign .
I wonder what his personal “ deadline ” is for wrapping things up or else waiting until after the votes are in .
If he ’ s not ready by August 1 , does he bag it until after November ?
By September 1 ?
October 1 ?
I wonder how much it would even matter to the polls if he showed his cards .
If he has something on Biden himself , it would matter — but Barr told Fox earlier this year that he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to charges against Obama or Biden .
If he has evidence that Biden facilitated someone else ’ s criminal activity , that might matter too .
If Biden plays no meaningful role in his findings , they probably won ’ t matter .
Maybe during normal times they would , but if the second wave of the pandemic is as fearsome as people like Anthony Fauci expect , most voters will be focused on that this fall .
Hopefully there ’ s no second wave and we can have an election about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since POTUS is complaining today about judicial double standards between Russiagate and the tax-return cases that were decided this morning , here ’ s an interesting point : The conventional wisdom on this morning ’ s rulings is that , although Trump “ lost , ” he won inasmuch as neither Congress nor the Manhattan D.A .
is likely to obtain his records before November .
In both cases , the president can keep litigating to try to block them .
All the Court decided was that he doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line is that Democrats won ’ t be able to weaponize them for electoral purposes .
Silver ’ s point , though , is that the current political climate is so awful for Trump that getting the public to focus on something else — virtually anything else — might be a net gain for him .
Barring evidence of out-and-out criminal activity , it ’ s hard to imagine anything in those returns that are worse for him than 130,000 Americans dead and spiraling outbreaks across the southern half of the U.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything in the returns that would help him politically either .
There ’ s a reason , unknown to all of us , that he ’ s fought so doggedly to keep them a secret .
My guess has always been that they ’ d show he ’ s worth much less than the billions he ’ s always claimed , which is a small thing but which he may fear would puncture his mystique as the world ’ s most successful man .
( It would damage it , for sure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ month of October sidetracked by a congressional investigation of the returns , it seems to me that the best-case scenario for its outcome is that it doesn ’ t add further to Biden ’ s lead — that Democrats would find nothing amiss , Trump would take a victory lap and accuse them of wasting the public ’ s time with another specious probe , and then the country would go right back to its anxiety of COVID-19 .
That ’ s the singular political fact about the pandemic : It doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hour by hour .
Barring a miracle drug in the near-term or America achieving herd immunity much , much sooner than any scientist expects , it ’ s going to dominate American politics for the next four months .
“ Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus is the only election issue that matters , ” says Harry Enten in a piece today .
I think that ’ s right .
If Durham produces something truly earth-shaking before November , maybe that would change .
A big enough economic rebound over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it too .
But increasingly it seems like the election ’ s going to be an up or down vote on Trump versus COVID-19 .

There’s no way. The president would have an aneurysm.
I spent the first half of my presidency buried in Russiagate innuendo, he’d say, and we don’t even get to the see the evidence against the Obama administration until after the vote?
I think he’d fire Bill Barr if Durham punted. At the very least, there’d be a barrage of tweets about how he thought Barr was the new Roy Cohn but now, sadly, he realizes he was mistaken.
Which would be funny, as he’s one of a handful of people on Earth who thinks comparing someone to Roy Cohn is a compliment.
Two sources familiar with Durham’s investigation told Fox News this week that Durham is working expeditiously to try to finish the probe by the end of summer, but that several lines of investigation are not yet complete. “He believes it’s critical to do them,” one source said. “He is feeling more pressure to get this done and wrapped up.” The source also told Fox News that Durham “does not want this to be viewed political,” and the closer it gets to November, Durham could “punt it to after the election.”… Some Republicans are pushing for the probe to come to a conclusion soon. Earlier this week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said it was “SAD” that Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham could wait until after Election Day to initiate prosecutions.
Does this sound like a man who’d take the news well that Durham can’t wrap things up before November?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281250565163532288
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281250568342769665
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281260329247399936
It’s interesting that Fox is hearing whispers about Durham punting today, as Chuck Grassley also complained out of the blue a few days ago about the Durham probe possibly stretching past early November: “IF NO PROSECUTIONS TIL AFTER ELECTIONS SAD SAD.” Who told Grassley and who’s whispering to Fox? And why? To all appearances, the leakers are trying to raise alarm on the right that an investigation the GOP has long hoped to use against Democrats in the campaign won’t be available after all.
But that’s self-defeating if the goal is to secure convictions. (Which it isn’t really.) Ed argued correctly a few days ago that Grassley’s tweet makes it easy for any potential defendants to claim in court that the charges against them are politically motivated. If Fox’s story successfully baits Trump into tweeting angrily about it, it’ll become easier still. Everyone understands (except maybe Durham himself?) that the value of this probe is as a potential political weapon, something the GOP can use to belatedly fight back against Russiagate. But to have influential Republicans, up to and including the president, go on record to that effect would help any defense lawyer appeal to a jury and to the public generally that their client is the victim of an abuse of power, targeted for prosecution as an election-year ploy.
Which would be fine by Trump and the GOP. If they can pressure Durham into delivering his findings early and the fallout helps the president win a second term, who cares if anyone goes to jail? The thing is: Durham might care. There’s no escaping the political repercussions of his investigation, but it would have a different impact on the campaign if he released his findings in late July instead of late October. He’s a credible person and a respected prosecutor. The last thing he wants, I assume, is to be known as the James Comey of the 2020 election, the man who swung the outcome of a presidential race by calling voters’ attention to the mere possibility of criminal activity in the waning days of the campaign. I wonder what his personal “deadline” is for wrapping things up or else waiting until after the votes are in. If he’s not ready by August 1, does he bag it until after November? By September 1? October 1?
I wonder how much it would even matter to the polls if he showed his cards. If he has something on Biden himself, it would matter — but Barr told Fox earlier this year that he doesn’t expect Durham’s probe would lead to charges against Obama or Biden. If he has evidence that Biden facilitated someone else’s criminal activity, that might matter too. If Biden plays no meaningful role in his findings, they probably won’t matter. Maybe during normal times they would, but if the second wave of the pandemic is as fearsome as people like Anthony Fauci expect, most voters will be focused on that this fall. Hopefully there’s no second wave and we can have an election about the economy and Durham.
By the way, since POTUS is complaining today about judicial double standards between Russiagate and the tax-return cases that were decided this morning, here’s an interesting point:
Hot take. Not sure I 100% believe this one, but worthy of tweeting. Congress going through Trump's tax records and the media spending a ton of time on that story pre-election might be better for Trump than the alternatives, which is focus on COVID, the economy and the protests. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 9, 2020
The conventional wisdom on this morning’s rulings is that, although Trump “lost,” he won inasmuch as neither Congress nor the Manhattan D.A. is likely to obtain his records before November. In both cases, the president can keep litigating to try to block them. All the Court decided was that he doesn’t have absolute immunity from investigation. The bottom line is that Democrats won’t be able to weaponize them for electoral purposes. Silver’s point, though, is that the current political climate is so awful for Trump that getting the public to focus on something else — virtually anything else — might be a net gain for him. Barring evidence of out-and-out criminal activity, it’s hard to imagine anything in those returns that are worse for him than 130,000 Americans dead and spiraling outbreaks across the southern half of the U.S.
But it’s hard to imagine anything in the returns that would help him politically either. There’s a reason, unknown to all of us, that he’s fought so doggedly to keep them a secret. My guess has always been that they’d show he’s worth much less than the billions he’s always claimed, which is a small thing but which he may fear would puncture his mystique as the world’s most successful man. (It would damage it, for sure.) Even if the country spent the month of October sidetracked by a congressional investigation of the returns, it seems to me that the best-case scenario for its outcome is that it doesn’t add further to Biden’s lead — that Democrats would find nothing amiss, Trump would take a victory lap and accuse them of wasting the public’s time with another specious probe, and then the country would go right back to its anxiety of COVID-19. That’s the singular political fact about the pandemic: It doesn’t go away. People live with it hour by hour. Barring a miracle drug in the near-term or America achieving herd immunity much, much sooner than any scientist expects, it’s going to dominate American politics for the next four months.
“Trump’s handling of the coronavirus is the only election issue that matters,” says Harry Enten in a piece today. I think that’s right. If Durham produces something truly earth-shaking before November, maybe that would change. A big enough economic rebound over the next two or three months might change it too. But increasingly it seems like the election’s going to be an up or down vote on Trump versus COVID-19.


hotair--2020-07-09--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Love in the time of COVID; SCOTUS and religious liberty

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host for Sheila Liaugminas ’ A Closer Look @ @ @ @ @ ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as @ @ @ @ @ their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Remember the dire @ @ @ @ @ Turns out that it might be more like “ happier ever after.
” Dr. Anne @ @ @ @ @ about the strength of family life in crises .
• Just how big of a @ @ @ @ @ in Espinoza ?
Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie of The Catholic Association discusses the potential for @ @ @ @ @ choice after the end of the Blaine amendments .
We will also take your calls @ @ @ @ @ also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host for Sheila Liaugminas’ A Closer Look on Relevant Radio® from 6-7 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Remember the dire predictions about COVID-19 divorces? Turns out that it might be more like “happier ever after.” Dr. Anne Hendershott joins us to talk about the strength of family life in crises.
Just how big of a victory did religious schools win in Espinoza? Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie of The Catholic Association discusses the potential for a vast expansion of school choice after the end of the Blaine amendments.
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-07-09--Satellite photos show Iran's main centrifuge assembly hall was mostly destroyed

Last week Ed wrote about what Iran called an “ incident ” at its Natanz nuclear site .
Iran initially sought to downplay what had happened claiming that an “ industrial shed ” had been damage by a fire .
But by Sunday , Iranian media published a photo taken from one side of the building and finally admitted the damage was to their main centrifuge assembly hall .
Here ’ s the photo released by Iranian media .
It looks bad but it ’ s hard to tell how bad from this angle .
Initial speculation included the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some sort of sabotage inside the facility , possibly a cyber-attack .
But satellite images of the site show that the centrifuge assembly hall was almost completely destroyed by an explosion : Nearly three-quarters of Iran ’ s main centrifuge assembly hall was destroyed by the recent explosion there , Institute for Science and International Security ( ISIS ) president David Albright told The Jerusalem Post… “ It is clear that a major explosion took place , destroying nearly three-quarters of the main centrifuge assembly hall , generating a fire that blackened a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blackening visible where the roof had been blown away by the explosion , ” Albright said .
Here ’ s a before and after comparison : It ’ s hard to imagine that anything in that building can be salvaged .
The big outstanding question is who is responsible for this .
A group calling itself “ Cheetahs of the Homeland ” claimed responsibility last Friday .
Who are they ?
The Iranians say they ’ ve never heard of them .
The multiple , different claims by a self-described group called the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language used by several exiled Iranian opposition organizations .
They also focused almost entirely on Iran ’ s nuclear program , viewed by Israel as a danger to its very existence .
The disparate messages , as well as the fact that Iran experts have never heard of the group before , raised questions about whether Natanz again had faced sabotage by a foreign nation as it had during the Stuxnet computer virus outbreak believed to have been engineered by the U.S. and Israel .
Tehran ’ s reaction so far shows Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a story published Sunday by the NY Times , an unnamed Middle Eastern intelligence official said the attack had come from Israel : A Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode said Israel was responsible for the attack on the Natanz nuclear complex on Thursday , using a powerful bomb .
A member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who was briefed on the matter also said an explosive was used .
Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing sensitive intelligence and operational topics .
Officially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the attack but that it can ’ t say who it was for security reasons .
It ’ s possible that if the attack did come from Israel Iran is hesitant to admit it ( officially ) because it makes the regime look weak .
After all , if they can ’ t secure their nuclear enrichment site , what can they secure ?
The good news is that this one strike is likely to set back the Iranian nuclear program by at least a year , maybe several .
Iran has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it doesn ’ t get its way on the nuclear deal , now it can ’ t build any more centrifuges for a while .
The regime can still pose a threat around the world but between the recent spate of incidents like this one , the death of Gen. Soleimani and the pandemic , Iran is looking a lot more vulnerable than it was two years ago .

Last week Ed wrote about what Iran called an “incident” at its Natanz nuclear site. Iran initially sought to downplay what had happened claiming that an “industrial shed” had been damage by a fire. But by Sunday, Iranian media published a photo taken from one side of the building and finally admitted the damage was to their main centrifuge assembly hall. Here’s the photo released by Iranian media.
Iran declines to disclose cause of fire at Natanz nuclear site https://t.co/YKpOzbVLnz pic.twitter.com/xN4UsxkicI — Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) July 4, 2020
It looks bad but it’s hard to tell how bad from this angle. Initial speculation included the possibility that this was a fire caused by some sort of sabotage inside the facility, possibly a cyber-attack. But satellite images of the site show that the centrifuge assembly hall was almost completely destroyed by an explosion:
Nearly three-quarters of Iran’s main centrifuge assembly hall was destroyed by the recent explosion there, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) president David Albright told The Jerusalem Post… “It is clear that a major explosion took place, destroying nearly three-quarters of the main centrifuge assembly hall, generating a fire that blackened a major portion of the building, the blackening visible where the roof had been blown away by the explosion,” Albright said.
Here’s a before and after comparison:
.@TheGoodISIS issued a report, analyzing satellite images from #Natanz incident saying it has cost Islamic Republic a huge setback in its nuclear activities. "Advanced centrifuges & the only clean room have been ruined…Images consistent with an explosion & fire.
1/2#IranTruth pic.twitter.com/ei60aVpSGU — IranTrue (@iran_true) July 9, 2020
It’s hard to imagine that anything in that building can be salvaged. The big outstanding question is who is responsible for this. A group calling itself “Cheetahs of the Homeland” claimed responsibility last Friday. Who are they? The Iranians say they’ve never heard of them.
The multiple, different claims by a self-described group called the “Cheetahs of the Homeland” included language used by several exiled Iranian opposition organizations. They also focused almost entirely on Iran’s nuclear program, viewed by Israel as a danger to its very existence. The disparate messages, as well as the fact that Iran experts have never heard of the group before, raised questions about whether Natanz again had faced sabotage by a foreign nation as it had during the Stuxnet computer virus outbreak believed to have been engineered by the U.S. and Israel. Tehran’s reaction so far shows Iranian officials are increasingly taking the possibility seriously.
In a story published Sunday by the NY Times, an unnamed Middle Eastern intelligence official said the attack had come from Israel:
A Middle Eastern intelligence official with knowledge of the episode said Israel was responsible for the attack on the Natanz nuclear complex on Thursday, using a powerful bomb. A member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps who was briefed on the matter also said an explosive was used. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing sensitive intelligence and operational topics.
Officially, Iran has said it knows who carried out the attack but that it can’t say who it was for security reasons. It’s possible that if the attack did come from Israel Iran is hesitant to admit it (officially) because it makes the regime look weak. After all, if they can’t secure their nuclear enrichment site, what can they secure?
The good news is that this one strike is likely to set back the Iranian nuclear program by at least a year, maybe several. Iran has frequently threatened to spin up the centrifuges if it doesn’t get its way on the nuclear deal, now it can’t build any more centrifuges for a while. The regime can still pose a threat around the world but between the recent spate of incidents like this one, the death of Gen. Soleimani and the pandemic, Iran is looking a lot more vulnerable than it was two years ago.