hotair--2020-07-24--Fake news: Chicken wings don't count as "food" if you're a bar hoping to serve alcohol, says Cuomo

It ’ s bad enough that this guy purged a not insignificant percentage of New York ’ s nursing-home population with his terrible COVID policies .
Now he has to start sh*t with wings fans too ?
Before we get into this , let ’ s reflect on the fact that a major state ’ s coronavirus policy now partly depends on whether certain finger foods count as “ food ” or not .
It ’ s an unusually absurd variation on an increasingly common theme , that America has lost the plot .
Eventually John Roberts will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masses .
Why is he talking about this in the first place , you ask ?
Well , spooked by the surge of cases in Texas and Florida driven by young dopes who insisted on going out to bars , Cuomo has issued a new rule in New York to reduce the incentive for said dopes to congregate and mingle .
He hasn ’ t closed the bars down , as Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott had to do to try to limit the spread after Texas ’ s cases took off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if establishments want to serve booze , they have to serve food with it .
Twentysomethings can ’ t stroll in at midnight on a Saturday night to do shots , shouting in each other ’ s faces as they get hammered and spread the virus around .
He ’ s going to make that expensive for them in order to deter them .
If they order booze , they have to pay for food as well .
New York ’ s bars immediately and predictably responded to that rule by setting up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a handful of potato chips ” or “ half a carrot , ” all for $ 1 each .
Cuomo couldn ’ t allow that ; it would amount to a mere dollar surcharge on booze bills and would defeat the purpose of his new rule .
So yesterday he was stuck having to explain , absurdly , what would count as a minimal amount of “ food ” to be served with each drink .
New York ’ s State Liquor Authority had to issue extensive guidelines about the matter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why didn ’ t he just skip the food taxonomy and set some sort of minimum food expenditure per each drink instead ?
” I.e .
you need to spend eight dollars on chow for each serving of booze you consume .
If the point here is to discourage prolonged mingling while getting drunk , making prolonged mingling while getting drunk prohibitively expensive is the way to go .
Doesn ’ t matter what they eat or whether they eat .
It ’ s the cost that matters .
And now you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t they just require all bars to serve people outside , where it ’ s safer ?
No more indoor drinking.
” The problem , I think , is that many young dopes will hang around milling about in crowds for hours right in front of the bar so that they can get refills on their drinks .
The risk is smaller out there than it is inside the bar , but if you ’ re packed close together and you ’ re shouting in each other ’ s faces without masks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ ll be some spread .
Essentially , Cuomo ’ s solution was to impose a new sin tax in the form of mandatory finger-food purchases on all alcohol .
Which brings us to the momentous question : Do wings count ?
It sounds from the clip like they don ’ t , which is outrageous ( particularly for a state in which Buffalo is located ) : “ When he got those executive powers , his brain fried and he became like a king , ” said one Republican state assemblyman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo really exclude wings or did his comments in the clip just come out wrong ?
From the state guidelines : Wings are food .
Cuomo ’ s spokesman further clarified what he said in the clip : When he said “ more than hors d ’ oeuvres ” in the clip , it was apparently just an interjection while he was listing permissible food .
Which actually makes sense under his policy .
A plate of wings will run you more than a dollar or two so having to purchase it serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking and the mingling that goes with it .
Like I say , even half a carrot should satisfy him so long as the bar is charging nine bucks for it or whatever .
And what if you ’ re a bar owner who didn ’ t actually serve food at your establishment in the Before Times ?
Well , then , you ’ re SOL , my man : “ To fulfill Cuomo ’ s requirements , they must now pour extra money into food supplies and manpower in a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak of.
” Anyway .
It ’ s a good thing the NYPD doesn ’ t have anything better to do with its time .

It’s bad enough that this guy purged a not insignificant percentage of New York’s nursing-home population with his terrible COVID policies.
Now he has to start sh*t with wings fans too?
Before we get into this, let’s reflect on the fact that a major state’s coronavirus policy now partly depends on whether certain finger foods count as “food” or not.
It’s an unusually absurd variation on an increasingly common theme, that America has lost the plot. Eventually John Roberts will have to legally define “crudités” for the masses.
Earlier today, Governor Cuomo said chicken wings are not substantial food for bars to be allowed to sell alcohol. He added that sandwiches were the "lowest level" of substantive food. #Buffalo His comments: pic.twitter.com/zaSXgfEq6S — Stephen Marth (@StephenMarth) July 23, 2020
Why is he talking about this in the first place, you ask? Well, spooked by the surge of cases in Texas and Florida driven by young dopes who insisted on going out to bars, Cuomo has issued a new rule in New York to reduce the incentive for said dopes to congregate and mingle. He hasn’t closed the bars down, as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had to do to try to limit the spread after Texas’s cases took off. Rather, he’s said, if establishments want to serve booze, they have to serve food with it. Twentysomethings can’t stroll in at midnight on a Saturday night to do shots, shouting in each other’s faces as they get hammered and spread the virus around. He’s going to make that expensive for them in order to deter them. If they order booze, they have to pay for food as well.
New York’s bars immediately and predictably responded to that rule by setting up “menus” composed of dishes like “a handful of potato chips” or “half a carrot,” all for $1 each. Cuomo couldn’t allow that; it would amount to a mere dollar surcharge on booze bills and would defeat the purpose of his new rule. So yesterday he was stuck having to explain, absurdly, what would count as a minimal amount of “food” to be served with each drink. New York’s State Liquor Authority had to issue extensive guidelines about the matter.
Now you’re thinking, “Why didn’t he just skip the food taxonomy and set some sort of minimum food expenditure per each drink instead?” I.e. you need to spend eight dollars on chow for each serving of booze you consume. If the point here is to discourage prolonged mingling while getting drunk, making prolonged mingling while getting drunk prohibitively expensive is the way to go. Doesn’t matter what they eat or whether they eat. It’s the cost that matters.
And now you’re thinking, “Why don’t they just require all bars to serve people outside, where it’s safer? No more indoor drinking.” The problem, I think, is that many young dopes will hang around milling about in crowds for hours right in front of the bar so that they can get refills on their drinks. The risk is smaller out there than it is inside the bar, but if you’re packed close together and you’re shouting in each other’s faces without masks on, it ain’t zero. There’ll be some spread.
Essentially, Cuomo’s solution was to impose a new sin tax in the form of mandatory finger-food purchases on all alcohol. Which brings us to the momentous question: Do wings count? It sounds from the clip like they don’t, which is outrageous (particularly for a state in which Buffalo is located):
🧐 — Buffalo Wild Wings (@BWWings) July 23, 2020
“When he got those executive powers, his brain fried and he became like a king,” said one Republican state assemblyman of Cuomo. But wait. Did Cuomo really exclude wings or did his comments in the clip just come out wrong? From the state guidelines:
Q: I operate a restaurant or bar, and I understand that I must serve sandwiches, soups, or “other foods” when a patron orders an alcoholic beverage, can you tell me what constitutes “other foods?” A: “Other foods” are foods which are similar in quality and substance to sandwiches and soups; for example, salads, wings, or hotdogs would be of that quality and substance; however, a bag of chips bowl of nuts, or candy alone are not.
Wings are food. Cuomo’s spokesman further clarified what he said in the clip:
So, I still do not understand how to diagram a sentence: To be a bar you have to have food available [LISTS FOODS]:
➡soups
➡sandwiches
➡et cetera [INTERJECT] more than hors d’oeuvres [BACK TO LIST]
➡chicken wings [BACK TO SENTENCE] you had to have some substantive food. — Jack Sterne (@JRSterne) July 23, 2020
When he said “more than hors d’oeuvres” in the clip, it was apparently just an interjection while he was listing permissible food. Which actually makes sense under his policy. A plate of wings will run you more than a dollar or two so having to purchase it serves Cuomo’s goal of deterring binge drinking and the mingling that goes with it. Like I say, even half a carrot should satisfy him so long as the bar is charging nine bucks for it or whatever. And what if you’re a bar owner who didn’t actually serve food at your establishment in the Before Times? Well, then, you’re SOL, my man: “To fulfill Cuomo’s requirements, they must now pour extra money into food supplies and manpower in a time when few people have any extra money to speak of.”
Anyway. It’s a good thing the NYPD doesn’t have anything better to do with its time.


hotair--2020-07-24--PM Justin Trudeau is in trouble again, this time over a charity scandal

In February 2019 there were calls for Justin Trudeau to resign over the SNC-Lavalin scandal .
Later in 2019 he faced an embarrassing blackface scandal .
But he somehow survived both scandals , though his party took a hit .
Now Trudeau is in trouble again , this time over a charity scandal and there are once again calls from the opposition for him to resign : Trudeau ’ s trouble began building momentum a few weeks ago after his government announced the deal to pay WE Charity up to C $ 43 million to administer a C $ 912-million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Covid-19 response .
The group works on international development projects and classroom programs , mostly in the U.S. and Canada , that teach youth about civic engagement .
The public and parliamentary reaction in Canada to the news and further revelations of speaking fees and travel expenses paid to family members of Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau has been swift and harsh .
That ’ s the big picture but it ’ s really the obvious exchange of benefits between Trudeau and this ostensibly independent charity .
Writing in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describes what it was like attending an event put on by this charity : When I went to one of the “ WE Day ” rallies in Vancouver two years ago , I found the speakers ’ lineup almost explicitly designed to aggravate anyone not aligned with the “ natural governing party.
” Among a gaggle of actors and musicians , I heard from the city ’ s progressive mayor , longtime Canadian Broadcasting Corp. anchor Peter Mansbridge and the prime minister ’ s wife and mother .
Geared toward grade-school children , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ youthful populism yet felt more like a venue for allies of the government to push their vision of the proper order of things on the next generation .
Debatable liberal doctrines on everything from immigration to gun control , indigenous rights and the environment were casually presented as self-evidently correct ; the kids cheered supportively… The WE scandal is a monument to Trudeau ’ s obliviousness , but also the arrogance of a progressive Canadian establishment that has long assumed its politics are non-partisan .
We now know WE never even bothered to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas to the government .
Through its connection to a bumbling prime minister , WE ’ s vast charity-industrial complex — what Brian Lilley calls “ Kielburger Inc. ” — has been exposed as just one more tool through which a haughty network of Canadian politicians , activists and media personalities collect state subsidies and push their worldview while imagining it ’ s neutral community service .
In 2017 , this charity even produced a glossy , campaign style advertisement which basically made Trudeau the voice of Canada ’ s future .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Prime Minister ?
The only honest answer is that it ’ s both .
Here was the reaction to the ad from a Conservative MP : “ WE works for Trudeau and Trudeau for them.
” On top of that , there ’ s the direct payments made to Trudeau ’ s family by the charity for speaking gigs : The WE organization paid the prime minister ’ s mother , Margaret Trudeau , $ 312,000 for 28 speeches since 2016 , as first reported by the media website Canadaland .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Alexandre “ Sacha ” Trudeau , $ 40,000 for eight appearances in 2017-2018 and , back in 2012 , $ 1,400 to Sophie Grégoire Trudeau .
Trudeau was , at the time , a member of Parliament , but not the leader of the Liberal party or prime minister .
Previously , WE Charity had said no member of the Trudeau family had been paid for their appearances , with the exception of travel expenses for Grégoire Trudeau .
That ’ s a lot of money going to Trudeau ’ s family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they lied .
The contract with WE has now been cancelled but the scandal continues to snowball .
Trudeau has claimed that the non-partisan public service recommended WE as the only group that could administer the nearly $ 1 billion Canadian contract but that has been disputed : Earlier this week , Conservative leader Andrew Scheer grilled Trudeau in Parliament with a series of questions , some of which the Prime Minister refused to answer : Just today , Scheer has called for Trudeau to step down : Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finance Minister Bill Morneau need to “ step aside for the good of the country ” over the WE Charity scandal .
Speaking to reporters in Regina , Sask.
, Scheer said their departures would “ allow the government to move past these scandals ” and would “ improve the lives of Canadians.
” “ These individuals need to do the right thing , ” he said .
Scheer said Liberal MPs should push for new leadership so that the party can “ rehabilitate its very tarnished image.
” It won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through this once with SNC-Lavalin and he ’ ll try to tap dance through this as well .
But the two previous scandals did cost his Liberal party even if it didn ’ t cost him his job .
This time he ’ s starting off from a worse position .

In February 2019 there were calls for Justin Trudeau to resign over the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Later in 2019 he faced an embarrassing blackface scandal. But he somehow survived both scandals, though his party took a hit. Now Trudeau is in trouble again, this time over a charity scandal and there are once again calls from the opposition for him to resign:
Trudeau’s trouble began building momentum a few weeks ago after his government announced the deal to pay WE Charity up to C$43 million to administer a C$912-million student grant program as part of Canada’s Covid-19 response. The group works on international development projects and classroom programs, mostly in the U.S. and Canada, that teach youth about civic engagement. The public and parliamentary reaction in Canada to the news and further revelations of speaking fees and travel expenses paid to family members of Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau has been swift and harsh.
That’s the big picture but it’s really the obvious exchange of benefits between Trudeau and this ostensibly independent charity. Writing in the Washington Post, opinion columnist J.J. McCullough describes what it was like attending an event put on by this charity:
When I went to one of the “WE Day” rallies in Vancouver two years ago, I found the speakers’ lineup almost explicitly designed to aggravate anyone not aligned with the “natural governing party.” Among a gaggle of actors and musicians, I heard from the city’s progressive mayor, longtime Canadian Broadcasting Corp. anchor Peter Mansbridge and the prime minister’s wife and mother. Geared toward grade-school children, the afternoon bore the prerequisite veneer of youthful populism yet felt more like a venue for allies of the government to push their vision of the proper order of things on the next generation. Debatable liberal doctrines on everything from immigration to gun control, indigenous rights and the environment were casually presented as self-evidently correct; the kids cheered supportively… The WE scandal is a monument to Trudeau’s obliviousness, but also the arrogance of a progressive Canadian establishment that has long assumed its politics are non-partisan. We now know WE never even bothered to register as a lobbyist before pitching policy ideas to the government. Through its connection to a bumbling prime minister, WE’s vast charity-industrial complex — what Brian Lilley calls “Kielburger Inc.” — has been exposed as just one more tool through which a haughty network of Canadian politicians, activists and media personalities collect state subsidies and push their worldview while imagining it’s neutral community service.
In 2017, this charity even produced a glossy, campaign style advertisement which basically made Trudeau the voice of Canada’s future.
Is this a promo for the charity or for the Prime Minister? The only honest answer is that it’s both. Here was the reaction to the ad from a Conservative MP: “WE works for Trudeau and Trudeau for them.”
Watch this ad. WE works for Trudeau and Trudeau for them.
It’s no longer about Trudeau’s judgment. It’s about his character. He’s corrupt. https://t.co/JbyWY3rm89 — Candice Bergen (@CandiceBergenMP) July 10, 2020
On top of that, there’s the direct payments made to Trudeau’s family by the charity for speaking gigs:
The WE organization paid the prime minister’s mother, Margaret Trudeau, $312,000 for 28 speeches since 2016, as first reported by the media website Canadaland. WE also paid Trudeau’s brother, Alexandre “Sacha” Trudeau, $40,000 for eight appearances in 2017-2018 and, back in 2012, $1,400 to Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. Trudeau was, at the time, a member of Parliament, but not the leader of the Liberal party or prime minister. Previously, WE Charity had said no member of the Trudeau family had been paid for their appearances, with the exception of travel expenses for Grégoire Trudeau.
That’s a lot of money going to Trudeau’s family, and when initially asked about it they lied. The contract with WE has now been cancelled but the scandal continues to snowball. Trudeau has claimed that the non-partisan public service recommended WE as the only group that could administer the nearly $1 billion Canadian contract but that has been disputed:
“I think the public service has proven itself very capable, accountable and certainly would have been absolutely able to administer this program,” said Chris Aylward, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, told MPs.
Earlier this week, Conservative leader Andrew Scheer grilled Trudeau in Parliament with a series of questions, some of which the Prime Minister refused to answer:
Just today, Scheer has called for Trudeau to step down:
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said today that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau need to “step aside for the good of the country” over the WE Charity scandal. Speaking to reporters in Regina, Sask., Scheer said their departures would “allow the government to move past these scandals” and would “improve the lives of Canadians.” “These individuals need to do the right thing,” he said. Scheer said Liberal MPs should push for new leadership so that the party can “rehabilitate its very tarnished image.”
It won’t happen of course. Trudeau has been through this once with SNC-Lavalin and he’ll try to tap dance through this as well. But the two previous scandals did cost his Liberal party even if it didn’t cost him his job. This time he’s starting off from a worse position.


hotair--2020-07-24--U.N. to U.S.: Stop using "excessive force" on protesters and journalists in Portland, other cities

The United Nations is weighing in on the Portland riots .
The intergovernmental organization cites concerns about reports of “ peaceful ” protesters suffering from abuse at the hands of federal and local law enforcement .
Cue the human rights spokeswoman .
“ There have been reports that peaceful protesters have been detained by unidentified police officers and that is a worry because it may place those detained outside the protection of the law and may give rise to arbitrary detention and other human rights violations , ” Liz Throssell , a U.N. human rights spokeswoman , said at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The authorities should ensure that federal and local security forces deployed are properly and clearly identified and would use force only when necessary , proportionately and in accordance with international standards , ” she said .
Note that the spokeswoman is speaking from Geneva , which , last time I looked , isn ’ t even in the United States .
She ’ s expressing the U.N. ’ s concern from overseas .
What , was no one available in that big building in Turtle Bay ?
This is a reaction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in members of the Department of Homeland Security , Customs and Border Protection , Federal Protective Service and U.S .
Marshals Service to both Portland and Washington , D.C. to protect federal property and assist local law enforcement .
For the umpteenth time , these crowds consist of violent anarchists and agitators , including Antifa , not peaceful protesters just asserting First Amendment rights .
The media and the left continue to believe if they say something enough times , it becomes the truth .
These “ peaceful protesters ” attack law enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local cops .
We ’ ve all seen video footage of Molotov cocktails and other dangerous objects being hurled at law enforcement , as well as fires being started to burn down federal property .
These protests began as Black Lives Matter protests after the death of George Floyd but we are way beyond that now .
George Floyd ’ s name isn ’ t even mentioned anymore and these riots have nothing to do with him .
You can argue about the visual optic of law enforcement becoming militarized or about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tactics but these officers are doing the job that is asked of them .
They place themselves between the violent rioters and innocent people .
They are not stormtroopers or the Gestapo as Democrats call them .
The United Nations can step back and take a seat .
Any allegations of excessive force or bad behavior on the part of law enforcement are being addressed .
A federal judge in Portland Thursday barred federal officers from dispersing , arresting , threatening to arrest or using force against journalists or legal observers and demanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probable cause .
The judge also mandated over 100 federal officers to identify themselves and their agency before arresting anyone and to explain why an arrest is taking place .
The Department of Justice also announced a probe into the use of force by federal officers after Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was tear-gassed by officers just a day before .
Journalists and “ legal observers ” are being protected , now by a federal judge , if any of the allegations concerning abuse against them prove to be true .
The United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many Americans because of its inconsistency in calling out real abuse by murdering dictators .
The United States left the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2018 , for example , over its inclusion of Venezuela and Eritrea .
Permanent members include China and Russia .
Spare us the sanctimonious lectures now .

The United Nations is weighing in on the Portland riots. The intergovernmental organization cites concerns about reports of “peaceful” protesters suffering from abuse at the hands of federal and local law enforcement. Cue the human rights spokeswoman.
“There have been reports that peaceful protesters have been detained by unidentified police officers and that is a worry because it may place those detained outside the protection of the law and may give rise to arbitrary detention and other human rights violations,” Liz Throssell, a U.N. human rights spokeswoman, said at a news briefing in Geneva on Friday. “The authorities should ensure that federal and local security forces deployed are properly and clearly identified and would use force only when necessary, proportionately and in accordance with international standards,” she said.
Note that the spokeswoman is speaking from Geneva, which, last time I looked, isn’t even in the United States. She’s expressing the U.N.’s concern from overseas. What, was no one available in that big building in Turtle Bay?
This is a reaction to President Trump’s decision to send in members of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Federal Protective Service and U.S. Marshals Service to both Portland and Washington, D.C. to protect federal property and assist local law enforcement. For the umpteenth time, these crowds consist of violent anarchists and agitators, including Antifa, not peaceful protesters just asserting First Amendment rights. The media and the left continue to believe if they say something enough times, it becomes the truth.
These “peaceful protesters” attack law enforcement, whether it is federal officers or local cops. We’ve all seen video footage of Molotov cocktails and other dangerous objects being hurled at law enforcement, as well as fires being started to burn down federal property. These protests began as Black Lives Matter protests after the death of George Floyd but we are way beyond that now. George Floyd’s name isn’t even mentioned anymore and these riots have nothing to do with him. You can argue about the visual optic of law enforcement becoming militarized or about their uniforms, or even about crowd control tactics but these officers are doing the job that is asked of them. They place themselves between the violent rioters and innocent people. They are not stormtroopers or the Gestapo as Democrats call them.
The United Nations can step back and take a seat. Any allegations of excessive force or bad behavior on the part of law enforcement are being addressed.
A federal judge in Portland Thursday barred federal officers from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest or using force against journalists or legal observers and demanded that they immediately stop detaining protesters without probable cause. The judge also mandated over 100 federal officers to identify themselves and their agency before arresting anyone and to explain why an arrest is taking place. The Department of Justice also announced a probe into the use of force by federal officers after Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler was tear-gassed by officers just a day before.
Journalists and “legal observers” are being protected, now by a federal judge, if any of the allegations concerning abuse against them prove to be true.
The United Nations’ criticism falls on deaf ears to many Americans because of its inconsistency in calling out real abuse by murdering dictators. The United States left the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2018, for example, over its inclusion of Venezuela and Eritrea. Permanent members include China and Russia. Spare us the sanctimonious lectures now.


hotair--2020-07-24--More problems with Cathy Areu's claims about Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity

Tuesday the Spectator uncovered some problems with sexual harassment claims made by former Fox News guest Cathy Areu against Tucker Carlson .
Specifically , the date of the alleged incident and the number of appearances she made on Carlson ’ s show after the alleged incident were both incorrect .
Areu ’ s attorney admitted she had misremembered the date .
That admission was important because in proved the party that night was not the Fox News Christmas party but a smaller party for Carlson ’ s staff .
And that matters because it doesn ’ t seem to line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Carlson said .
Specifically , she had claimed that Carlson had told her he ’ d only be stopping at the party for a few minutes to show his face .
In fact , it was his staff party and he was there for the entire thing .
Also Areu claimed Carlson had hinted he ’ d be alone in his hotel room that night but in fact Carlson ’ s wife was at the party that night .
Today Mediaite has a bit more on the story : So not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , she was with him at the hotel as well .
It ’ s hard to see how Carlson could have told Areu he ’ d be alone when he must have known his wife would be there and would be with him all night .
As for the retaliation part of her claim , that also doesn ’ t hold up : It ’ s not unusual for women who ’ ve been sexually harassed to forget some of the details .
In this case though , the incident in question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Areu wasn ’ t responding to questions off the cuff .
She sat down with her attorney and presumably had plenty of time to refresh her recollections before they were written into this complaint .
The fact that there are other witnesses who remember it differently seems significant .
Her story also isn ’ t helped by the fact that her claims about an incident involving Sean Hannity also seem to have major problems : Areu did wind up going next door for drinks at Del Friscos with a man who was there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Areu herself had invited : And after going out for drinks , Areu sent texts thanking Hannity for the gesture : “ Please thank Sean for a fun evening .
He shouldn ’ t have !
… but We did exactly as he and Alex ’ s had bet .
Down to the pineapple martini.
” All of that seems to cut against the description of what happened in the complaint , which says that Areu failed to “ play along ” and was “ hardly ever ” asked to return to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retaliation by Tucker Carlson , these claims also don ’ t seem to add up .
Five appearances in four months does not equate to “ hardly ever ” being asked on the show again .
Did Areu ’ s attorney verify anything that she told him ?
Again , this doesn ’ t absolutely prove that nothing awkward or inappropriate happened on these occasions .
But the fact that some of Areu ’ s claims were factually wrong and others seem questionable will obviously make it harder for her story to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m still waiting to hear if Areu told anyone else about these incidents at the time ( not that long ago ) and if what she said then matches up with the complaint .

Tuesday the Spectator uncovered some problems with sexual harassment claims made by former Fox News guest Cathy Areu against Tucker Carlson. Specifically, the date of the alleged incident and the number of appearances she made on Carlson’s show after the alleged incident were both incorrect. Areu’s attorney admitted she had misremembered the date.
That admission was important because in proved the party that night was not the Fox News Christmas party but a smaller party for Carlson’s staff. And that matters because it doesn’t seem to line up with specific claims Areu made about what Carlson said. Specifically, she had claimed that Carlson had told her he’d only be stopping at the party for a few minutes to show his face. In fact, it was his staff party and he was there for the entire thing. Also Areu claimed Carlson had hinted he’d be alone in his hotel room that night but in fact Carlson’s wife was at the party that night. Today Mediaite has a bit more on the story:
A source familiar with the event told Mediaite that Carlson’s wife did attend the Tucker Carlson Tonight Christmas party. Fox News also told Mediaite that Carlson hosted the entire party for his show’s staff alongside his wife, who stayed in the hotel with him that evening.
So not only was Carlson’s wife at the party, she was with him at the hotel as well. It’s hard to see how Carlson could have told Areu he’d be alone when he must have known his wife would be there and would be with him all night. As for the retaliation part of her claim, that also doesn’t hold up:
Fox told Mediaite that company records indicate Areu appeared on Carlson’s show four times in the four months following the incident, the same number of times she appeared on the show in the four months preceding it. “There is zero evidence of retaliation,” the network claimed. The network also said there were eyewitnesses to Carlson and Areu’s conversation who would contradict her account.
It’s not unusual for women who’ve been sexually harassed to forget some of the details. In this case though, the incident in question is only about 19 months ago and Areu wasn’t responding to questions off the cuff. She sat down with her attorney and presumably had plenty of time to refresh her recollections before they were written into this complaint. The fact that there are other witnesses who remember it differently seems significant.
Her story also isn’t helped by the fact that her claims about an incident involving Sean Hannity also seem to have major problems:
In the lawsuit, Areu claims, she was a “relatively regular” guest on Hannity’s prime-time show until March 8, 2018. “On that day, Mr. Hannity, on set and in front of the entire studio crew – and completely unsolicited – threw $100 on the set desk,” the suit claimed. “He then began calling out to the men in the room and demanding that someone take Ms. Areu out on a date for drinks at Del Friscos. He repeatedly yelled, ‘who wants to take her on a date?’ ‘Take her on a date to Del Friscos.’”
Areu did wind up going next door for drinks at Del Friscos with a man who was there but it turns out he was someone Areu herself had invited:
“Is it ok for me to bring a guest?” Areu apparently wrote in an email to a staffer earlier that day, referring to the guest as “Alex.” She added, “He’s my good luck charm. He does yoga. Very calming. I run. I’m nuts,” before signing the email with a winking face and her name.
And after going out for drinks, Areu sent texts thanking Hannity for the gesture: “Please thank Sean for a fun evening. He shouldn’t have! … but We did exactly as he and Alex’s had bet. Down to the pineapple martini.” All of that seems to cut against the description of what happened in the complaint, which says that Areu failed to “play along” and was “hardly ever” asked to return to the show. As with her claims about retaliation by Tucker Carlson, these claims also don’t seem to add up.
According to Fox News, its records indicate Areu appeared on Hannity a total of nine times between the date of the alleged incident, March 8, 2018, and July 3, 2019. Of that number, Fox said, five appearances took place in the four months directly after the incident.
Five appearances in four months does not equate to “hardly ever” being asked on the show again. Did Areu’s attorney verify anything that she told him?
Again, this doesn’t absolutely prove that nothing awkward or inappropriate happened on these occasions. But the fact that some of Areu’s claims were factually wrong and others seem questionable will obviously make it harder for her story to be believed in court and by the public. I’m still waiting to hear if Areu told anyone else about these incidents at the time (not that long ago) and if what she said then matches up with the complaint.


hotair--2020-07-24--WSJ: A&E lost half its audience after canceling "Live PD"

Couldn ’ t happen to a more deserving network .
A & E panicked in the aftermath of the homicide of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and canceled all of its “ Live PD ” programming .
Half of its viewers responded by canceling their A & E viewing , the Wall Street Journal reported today ( via Instapundit ) : Ratings for A & E Network have plummeted since it canceled the hit police reality show “ Live PD ” on June 10 , a sign of how much the network relies on law-enforcement programming .
Average prime-time viewership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and July 19 was 498,000 people , down 49 % from the same period last year , according to data from Nielsen .
In the key demographics of adults 18-49 and 25-54 , the declines are 55 % and 53 % , respectively .
Those results in the younger demos demonstrate just how idiotic the decision to cancel the entire Live PD platform was .
The point of the cancellation was , presumably , to demonstrate that A & E was down with the struggle by caving to demands from primarily younger activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a positive light .
Rather than wait to see whether there was still a demand for the show , A & E apparently just assumed that the activists spoke for their audience .
Big mistake , as it turns out .
As Ed Driscoll quipped at Instapundit , “ Get woke , go broke.
” As I wrote at the time , A & E could have avoided the problem — and the stampede away from its programming — by trusting its viewers to signal whether the show could keep going : If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the anger over the George Floyd homicide , then cancellation would be understandable .
It ’ s still an open question as to whether people might lose their taste for the show after all of the unrest of the last couple of weeks .
But why not wait to let the viewers make that decision on their own ?
If the ratings collapsed , then the “ no way forward ” conclusion might make sense .
The obvious conclusion is that ratings and viewers don ’ t actually matter to A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurately , ratings and viewers matter less to A & E than pretensions to “ wokeness.
” And in this case , education and transparency regarding law enforcement will lose out to corporate virtue-signaling .
The disservice to viewers and communities goes further than just the mindless condescension and patronization of that decision .
The Live PD platform gave viewers a look at real policing in real time , allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions about performance and policies .
That allowed for a fuller , more context-loaded perspective about difficulties on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrated the benefit of body cams and transparency to policing in a manner that engaged Americans far more vigorously than dry debates ever did .
By turning all of that off , A & E treated its audience as though they just assumed us all to be idiots who couldn ’ t possibly handle that transparency .
And in doing that , they effectively short-circuited informed debate and nuanced engagement in the policy discussions that have become critical in these past few weeks .
Small wonder , then , that A & E @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other providers who don ’ t treat them with contempt .
Perhaps A & E ’ s corporate bosses should consider canceling the contracts of the people who made this foolish decision and revive the Live PD platform — before another television network beats them to it and acquires that loyal viewership .
Tick tock , tick tock …

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving network. A&E panicked in the aftermath of the homicide of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and canceled all of its “Live PD” programming. Half of its viewers responded by canceling their A&E viewing, the Wall Street Journal reported today (via Instapundit):
Ratings for A&E Network have plummeted since it canceled the hit police reality show “Live PD” on June 10, a sign of how much the network relies on law-enforcement programming. Average prime-time viewership for A&E between June 11 and July 19 was 498,000 people, down 49% from the same period last year, according to data from Nielsen. In the key demographics of adults 18-49 and 25-54, the declines are 55% and 53%, respectively.
Those results in the younger demos demonstrate just how idiotic the decision to cancel the entire Live PD platform was. The point of the cancellation was, presumably, to demonstrate that A&E was down with the struggle by caving to demands from primarily younger activists to eliminate programming that painted police in a positive light. Rather than wait to see whether there was still a demand for the show, A&E apparently just assumed that the activists spoke for their audience.
Big mistake, as it turns out. As Ed Driscoll quipped at Instapundit, “Get woke, go broke.”
As I wrote at the time, A&E could have avoided the problem — and the stampede away from its programming — by trusting its viewers to signal whether the show could keep going:
If the ratings and loyal viewer base disappeared because of the anger over the George Floyd homicide, then cancellation would be understandable. It’s still an open question as to whether people might lose their taste for the show after all of the unrest of the last couple of weeks. But why not wait to let the viewers make that decision on their own? If the ratings collapsed, then the “no way forward” conclusion might make sense. The obvious conclusion is that ratings and viewers don’t actually matter to A&E. Or, perhaps more accurately, ratings and viewers matter less to A&E than pretensions to “wokeness.” And in this case, education and transparency regarding law enforcement will lose out to corporate virtue-signaling.
The disservice to viewers and communities goes further than just the mindless condescension and patronization of that decision. The Live PD platform gave viewers a look at real policing in real time, allowing viewers to draw their own conclusions about performance and policies. That allowed for a fuller, more context-loaded perspective about difficulties on all sides of policing. It also demonstrated the benefit of body cams and transparency to policing in a manner that engaged Americans far more vigorously than dry debates ever did.
By turning all of that off, A&E treated its audience as though they just assumed us all to be idiots who couldn’t possibly handle that transparency. And in doing that, they effectively short-circuited informed debate and nuanced engagement in the policy discussions that have become critical in these past few weeks. Small wonder, then, that A&E’s audience left the channel for other providers who don’t treat them with contempt. Perhaps A&E’s corporate bosses should consider canceling the contracts of the people who made this foolish decision and revive the Live PD platform — before another television network beats them to it and acquires that loyal viewership. Tick tock, tick tock …


hotair--2020-07-24--Trump: Jim Inhofe promised me the final defense bill won't rename military bases named after Confede

Trump: Jim Inhofe promised me the final defense bill won't rename military bases named after Confederates

You ’ re allowed to cancel traitors , man .
In fact , cancelling them is an act of civic hygiene .
There ’ s a wrinkle to that tweet .
The Senate ’ s version of the defense bill , which contained Elizabeth Warren ’ s amendment to start the process on renaming bases , has already passed by an overwhelming majority , 86/14 .
What Trump means is that Inhofe has promised him it won ’ t appear in the final bill that ’ s yet to be negotiated between the House and Senate .
But it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the power to guarantee that : Inhofe is the head of the GOP-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee .
Normally one could expect a committee to block a bill that ’ s disfavored by the chairman .
But Inhofe already had a crack at stopping the Warren amendment in June — and lost that vote .
If the final compromise bill retains the provision , as Democrats will insist upon , what makes him think he has the juice to sink it next time ?
He ’ s hinting that he has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interesting as a strategic question for both parties ahead of the election than it is on the merits .
Quinnipiac polled it this week in Florida and found , as you ’ d expect , that public opinion is closely split .
There ’ s a narrow plurality in favor of renaming the bases .
What do you do with that data if you ’ re a Republican senator ?
On the one hand , renaming is favored by independents and white college grads , two groups whom you ’ d like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the other hand , it ’ s opposed by white voters generally and senior citizens , two groups whom you really need to turn out for you .
There ’ s little clarity here on what the “ safe ” position is on the bases .
But there ’ s more clarity on whether Trump is likely to be a one-term president , which means this subject may end up as a proxy issue for both parties on the president himself .
He ’ s been very vocal about his opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middling public reaction to the issue , after all , which means how Republicans vote here is destined to be viewed more as a loyalty test than anything else .
If you ’ re a GOP senator , do you want to pass — or fail — that test ?
The question ’ s not as easy as it sounds .
The best explanation for why Trump and his toadies in the House started taking shots at Liz Cheney this week is that they ’ re suddenly nervous about congressional Republicans turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deteriorates .
Making an example of Cheney is a way to send the message that disloyalty won ’ t be tolerated even if Republicans might hold a few more seats this fall by distancing themselves from Trump .
But maybe that ’ s okay with some congressional Republicans .
If they think he ’ s doomed , they might relish an opportunity to show swing voters back home that they ’ re not under the president ’ s thumb , as Democrats are always accusing them of being .
Voting to rename the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an efficient way to signal some degree of independence from him , notably on a culture-war issue .
Trump could always turn around and attack them , but doing that would be self-defeating in that it would risk costing his own caucus some of their seats in the next Congress by turning MAGA fans against them .
A second term won ’ t be much fun if he ’ s stuck bargaining with Pelosi and Schumer over everything .
What about Democrats , though ?
Do they maybe want to let Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s an argument that they might — namely , if they think they ’ re months away from having total control of government , why would they want to share credit with congressional GOPers for renaming bases ?
Let Inhofe drive a hard bargain in the conference committee , then reluctantly agree to remove the provision and scream about it for days .
“ These pro-Confederate right-wingers were prepared to hold up money for our troops so that racist traitors could continue to be honored on our bases !
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us in charge !
” Might help with suburbanites .
I don ’ t think Dems will agree to strip it out , though .
They ’ re going to insist that the renaming provision ends up in the final bill for a simple reason : They want Trump to choke on it and veto it .
One key reason why his polling has tanked over the past two months , I think , is the public ’ s sense that his priorities are out of whack .
Back in April , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow on reopening and put safety first by containing the virus , he charged ahead anyway .
Last month , with a second wave spreading across the south and California and protests about racial injustice happening nationwide , he seemed more interested in talking about statues .
The defense bill sets Dems up with a new way to press the case that he cares about the wrong things .
Does Trump want to keep Confederate names on bases so badly that he ’ d actually hold up money for the troops because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad look .
But he might do it .
The man really seems to have a thing about Confederate iconography : The same Quinnipiac poll that I mentioned above found that 51 percent of Floridians see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism versus 38 percent that see it as a symbol of southern pride .
Dems would love to see Trump demonstrate that he cares more about Confederate base names than he does about funding the Pentagon .
So as I say , they ’ re going to insist that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final bill .
The real suspense has to do with whether McConnell wants to put up a fight about that .
He could try to keep the issue out of the Trump spotlight by trying to kill it in conference committee , before it passes and reaches the president ’ s desk , but he knows in that case that Dems will simply call him and his caucus more pro-Confederate than pro-troop instead .
Or he could try to protect his caucus by leaving it in the bill and hoping/trusting that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto a funding bill over it .
I think that ’ s what he ’ ll do , in the hopes that knowing his veto will be overridden would be sufficiently embarrassing to Trump that he ’ ll back down and sign the bill grudgingly in the end .
Kayleigh McEnany was asked about Trump ’ s tweet at today ’ s White House briefing and replied by saying that the bases are defined by the men who serve at them , not the men for whom they ’ re named .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @

You’re allowed to cancel traitors, man. In fact, cancelling them is an act of civic hygiene.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1286669631072108546
There’s a wrinkle to that tweet. The Senate’s version of the defense bill, which contained Elizabeth Warren’s amendment to start the process on renaming bases, has already passed by an overwhelming majority, 86/14. What Trump means is that Inhofe has promised him it won’t appear in the final bill that’s yet to be negotiated between the House and Senate.
But it’s not clear why he thinks Inhofe has the power to guarantee that:
Not sure what this means. The bill heads to conference committee where a bipartisan group from House/Senate negotiate it, then gets voted on again, then heads to Resolute Desk. But that provision is anticipated to survive. Inhofe doesn't have some special veto in the process. https://t.co/avfhlCI6WQ — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 24, 2020
Inhofe is the head of the GOP-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee. Normally one could expect a committee to block a bill that’s disfavored by the chairman. But Inhofe already had a crack at stopping the Warren amendment in June — and lost that vote. If the final compromise bill retains the provision, as Democrats will insist upon, what makes him think he has the juice to sink it next time?
He’s hinting that he has a secret plan:
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also predicted that a provision would be removed from the bill that requires the 10 military bases named after Confederate generals to be renamed. Inhofe said he spoke with President Donald Trump on Thursday about the provision, which the president and Inhofe oppose. “We’re going to see to it that provision doesn’t survive the bill,” Inhofe said. “I’m not going to say how at this point.”
This issue is now more interesting as a strategic question for both parties ahead of the election than it is on the merits. Quinnipiac polled it this week in Florida and found, as you’d expect, that public opinion is closely split. There’s a narrow plurality in favor of renaming the bases.
What do you do with that data if you’re a Republican senator? On the one hand, renaming is favored by independents and white college grads, two groups whom you’d like to make some inroads with before November. On the other hand, it’s opposed by white voters generally and senior citizens, two groups whom you really need to turn out for you. There’s little clarity here on what the “safe” position is on the bases.
But there’s more clarity on whether Trump is likely to be a one-term president, which means this subject may end up as a proxy issue for both parties on the president himself. He’s been very vocal about his opposition to renaming bases named after Confederates despite the middling public reaction to the issue, after all, which means how Republicans vote here is destined to be viewed more as a loyalty test than anything else. If you’re a GOP senator, do you want to pass — or fail — that test?
The question’s not as easy as it sounds. The best explanation for why Trump and his toadies in the House started taking shots at Liz Cheney this week is that they’re suddenly nervous about congressional Republicans turning on him en masse as his polling deteriorates. Making an example of Cheney is a way to send the message that disloyalty won’t be tolerated even if Republicans might hold a few more seats this fall by distancing themselves from Trump.
But maybe that’s okay with some congressional Republicans. If they think he’s doomed, they might relish an opportunity to show swing voters back home that they’re not under the president’s thumb, as Democrats are always accusing them of being. Voting to rename the bases and then overriding his veto would be an efficient way to signal some degree of independence from him, notably on a culture-war issue. Trump could always turn around and attack them, but doing that would be self-defeating in that it would risk costing his own caucus some of their seats in the next Congress by turning MAGA fans against them. A second term won’t be much fun if he’s stuck bargaining with Pelosi and Schumer over everything.
What about Democrats, though? Do they maybe want to let Republicans strip out Warren’s amendment? There’s an argument that they might — namely, if they think they’re months away from having total control of government, why would they want to share credit with congressional GOPers for renaming bases? Let Inhofe drive a hard bargain in the conference committee, then reluctantly agree to remove the provision and scream about it for days. “These pro-Confederate right-wingers were prepared to hold up money for our troops so that racist traitors could continue to be honored on our bases! We’ll right this wrong when you put us in charge!” Might help with suburbanites.
I don’t think Dems will agree to strip it out, though. They’re going to insist that the renaming provision ends up in the final bill for a simple reason: They want Trump to choke on it and veto it. One key reason why his polling has tanked over the past two months, I think, is the public’s sense that his priorities are out of whack. Back in April, when most of the country wanted to go slow on reopening and put safety first by containing the virus, he charged ahead anyway. Last month, with a second wave spreading across the south and California and protests about racial injustice happening nationwide, he seemed more interested in talking about statues. The defense bill sets Dems up with a new way to press the case that he cares about the wrong things. Does Trump want to keep Confederate names on bases so badly that he’d actually hold up money for the troops because of it? Because that’d be a bad look.
But he might do it. The man really seems to have a thing about Confederate iconography:
President Donald Trump erupted late last week after Defense Secretary Mark Esper issued a new military-wide directive that was a de facto ban on the display of the Confederate flag. According to two people familiar with his reaction, Trump was fuming over Esper’s carefully worded memo that did not mention the flag by name, but effectively banned it from being flown on military installations by not naming it. Trump has declined to denounce the Confederate flag in recent weeks and has instead said those who see it as a source of pride should be able to continue flying it.
The same Quinnipiac poll that I mentioned above found that 51 percent of Floridians see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism versus 38 percent that see it as a symbol of southern pride. Dems would love to see Trump demonstrate that he cares more about Confederate base names than he does about funding the Pentagon.
So as I say, they’re going to insist that Warren’s amendment remain part of the final bill. The real suspense has to do with whether McConnell wants to put up a fight about that. He could try to keep the issue out of the Trump spotlight by trying to kill it in conference committee, before it passes and reaches the president’s desk, but he knows in that case that Dems will simply call him and his caucus more pro-Confederate than pro-troop instead. Or he could try to protect his caucus by leaving it in the bill and hoping/trusting that Trump will have the good sense not to veto a funding bill over it. I think that’s what he’ll do, in the hopes that knowing his veto will be overridden would be sufficiently embarrassing to Trump that he’ll back down and sign the bill grudgingly in the end.
Kayleigh McEnany was asked about Trump’s tweet at today’s White House briefing and replied by saying that the bases are defined by the men who serve at them, not the men for whom they’re named. Then why refuse to rename them?


hotair--2020-07-24--Security analysts reverse-engineered a Chinese-made DJI drone app and found the ability to spy on us

Security analysts reverse-engineered a Chinese-made DJI drone app and found the ability to spy on users

Recently two different security firms were hired to reverse-engineer and analyze DJI drone software available for use on Android devices .
DJI is one of the largest drone manufacturers in the world and is based in China .
What the analysts found were features hidden in the software that send a bunch of technical information back to Chinese servers , most of it information that has no connection to flying drones .
As Ars Technica reports , the worse case scenario here is that the app is spying on users : Two weeks ago , security firm Synacktiv reverse-engineered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm Grimm published the results of its own independent analysis .
At a minimum , both found that the app skirted Google terms and that , until recently , the app covertly collected a wide array of sensitive user data and sent it to servers located in mainland China .
A worst-case scenario is that developers are abusing hard-to-identify features to spy on users .
According to the reports , the suspicious behaviors include : • The ability to download and install any application of the developers ’ choice through either a self-update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ software development kit provided by China-based social media platform Weibo .
Both features could download code outside of Play , in violation of Google ’ s terms .
• A recently removed component that collected a wealth of phone data including IMEI , IMSI , carrier name , SIM serial Number , SD card information , OS language , kernel version , screen size and brightness , wireless network name , address and MAC , and Bluetooth addresses .
These details and more were sent to MobTech , maker of a software developer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the app .
• Automatic restarts whenever a user swiped the app to close it .
The restarts cause the app to run in the background and continue to make network requests .
• Advanced obfuscation techniques that make third-party analysis of the app time-consuming .
A lot of the phone data the app was collecting is Greek to me but here ’ s what security firm Synacktiv said about the IMSI data : I can ’ t think of any innocent reasons why DJI would be collecting this data but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the Chinese government might order them to do it .
Grimm research was hired to validate the findings by Synacktiv and wrote this about the possible worst case scenario : In the worst case , these features can be used to target specific users with malicious updates or applications that could be used to exploit the user ’ s phone .
Given the amount of user ’ s information retrieved from their device , DJI or Weibo would easily be able to identify specific targets of interest .
The next step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new application ( via the Weibo SDK ) or update the DJI application with a customized version built specifically to exploit their device .
Once their device has been exploited , it could be used to gather additional information from the phone , track the user via the phone ’ s various sensors , or be used as a springboard to attack other devices on the phone ’ s WiFi network .
This targeting system would allow an attacker to be much stealthier with their exploitation , rather than much noisier techniques @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a website .
DJI has published a lengthy response to these findings which attempts to explain the reason for these features .
Some of their explanations sound reasonable to me but a couple of them are a bit shaky .
For instance , why does the software automatically restart itself when it is shut down by the user .
Here ’ s DJI ’ s response : For comparison , here ’ s what Grimm said about that : As described in the Synacktiv ’ s report , when a user attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the background .
As such , the app can only be killed through the Android “ Force Stop ” option , as it will be restarted if closed via the normal Android swipe close gesture .
While the app is in the background , it accesses the device ’ s location .
It is unknown what is done with the location the device collects .
And what does DJI have to say about the collection of all that personal phone data like IMSI : It ’ s true those components were recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consolation for the million-plus users who installed the earlier versions .
Also , calling the intentional collection of this data a “ potential security flaw ” seems to downplay it quite a bit .
The data was being collected .
Also , what does it matter that this data collection only happened on the company ’ s consumer products .
China is well known to be interested in collecting data on ordinary Americans .
It was behind the Equifax hack in 2017 and the OPM hack in 2015 .
So saying the app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing .
China has been doing this for years .
Ars Technica notes that the US Army banned the use of DJI drones in 2017 .

Recently two different security firms were hired to reverse-engineer and analyze DJI drone software available for use on Android devices. DJI is one of the largest drone manufacturers in the world and is based in China. What the analysts found were features hidden in the software that send a bunch of technical information back to Chinese servers, most of it information that has no connection to flying drones. As Ars Technica reports, the worse case scenario here is that the app is spying on users:
Two weeks ago, security firm Synacktiv reverse-engineered the app. On Thursday, fellow security firm Grimm published the results of its own independent analysis. At a minimum, both found that the app skirted Google terms and that, until recently, the app covertly collected a wide array of sensitive user data and sent it to servers located in mainland China. A worst-case scenario is that developers are abusing hard-to-identify features to spy on users. According to the reports, the suspicious behaviors include: The ability to download and install any application of the developers’ choice through either a self-update feature or a dedicated installer in a software development kit provided by China-based social media platform Weibo. Both features could download code outside of Play, in violation of Google’s terms.
A recently removed component that collected a wealth of phone data including IMEI, IMSI, carrier name, SIM serial Number, SD card information, OS language, kernel version, screen size and brightness, wireless network name, address and MAC, and Bluetooth addresses. These details and more were sent to MobTech, maker of a software developer kit used until the most recent release of the app.
Automatic restarts whenever a user swiped the app to close it. The restarts cause the app to run in the background and continue to make network requests.
Advanced obfuscation techniques that make third-party analysis of the app time-consuming.
A lot of the phone data the app was collecting is Greek to me but here’s what security firm Synacktiv said about the IMSI data:
The MobTech component embedded in recent versions of DJI Android GO 4 application collects personal data such as IMSI, IMEI, the serial number of the SIM card, etc. This data is not relevant or necessary for drone flights and go beyond DJI privacy policy 8. For example, IMSI is used by cellular network operators. These sensitive, unique, persistent data identifiers can be used by intelligence agencies or malicious people to later track individuals or eavesdrop communications.
I can’t think of any innocent reasons why DJI would be collecting this data but I can think of a very clear reason why the Chinese government might order them to do it. Grimm research was hired to validate the findings by Synacktiv and wrote this about the possible worst case scenario:
In the worst case, these features can be used to target specific users with malicious updates or applications that could be used to exploit the user’s phone. Given the amount of user’s information retrieved from their device, DJI or Weibo would easily be able to identify specific targets of interest. The next step in exploiting these targets would be to suggest a new application (via the Weibo SDK) or update the DJI application with a customized version built specifically to exploit their device. Once their device has been exploited, it could be used to gather additional information from the phone, track the user via the phone’s various sensors, or be used as a springboard to attack other devices on the phone’s WiFi network. This targeting system would allow an attacker to be much stealthier with their exploitation, rather than much noisier techniques, such as exploiting all devices visiting a website.
DJI has published a lengthy response to these findings which attempts to explain the reason for these features. Some of their explanations sound reasonable to me but a couple of them are a bit shaky. For instance, why does the software automatically restart itself when it is shut down by the user. Here’s DJI’s response:
DJI GO 4 is not able to restart itself without input from the user, and we are investigating why these researchers claim it did so. We have not been able to replicate this behavior in our tests so far.
For comparison, here’s what Grimm said about that:
As described in the Synacktiv’s report, when a user attempts to close the app, it restarts itself in the background. As such, the app can only be killed through the Android “Force Stop” option, as it will be restarted if closed via the normal Android swipe close gesture. While the app is in the background, it accesses the device’s location. It is unknown what is done with the location the device collects.
And what does DJI have to say about the collection of all that personal phone data like IMSI:
The MobTech and Bugly components identified in these reports were previously removed from DJI flight control apps after earlier researchers identified potential security flaws in them. Again, there is no evidence they were ever exploited, and they were not used in DJI’s flight control systems for government and professional customers.
It’s true those components were recently removed but that’s not much consolation for the million-plus users who installed the earlier versions. Also, calling the intentional collection of this data a “potential security flaw” seems to downplay it quite a bit. The data was being collected.
Also, what does it matter that this data collection only happened on the company’s consumer products. China is well known to be interested in collecting data on ordinary Americans. It was behind the Equifax hack in 2017 and the OPM hack in 2015. So saying the app was only collecting data on consumers means nothing. China has been doing this for years.
Ars Technica notes that the US Army banned the use of DJI drones in 2017.


hotair--2020-07-24--"Fox & Friends" to White House: Don't call our pollster fake

Fox can fire its pollster for the endless string of discouraging data it ’ s produced for the president or it can defend its pollster as a highly regarded member of the profession .
But it has to be one or the other .
As a matter of basic integrity , the anchors can ’ t sit by in silence and let White House mouthpieces like Hogan Gidley try to gaslight the audience about “ fake polls.
” Either agree with him and terminate the in-house pollsters for being part of the “ suppression poll hoax effort !
” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most independent-minded member of the “ Fox & Friends ” crew , pushed back .
What ’ s got Gidley exercised ?
I ’ ll tell you after you watch .
He ’ s grumbling because Fox dropped three new battleground polls yesterday , none of them good .
The least bad is Minnesota , which Trump barely lost in 2016 and had been hoping to target this year as a way to hedge against a Biden upset in , say , Arizona .
But at the moment POTUS is in no position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s on defense not just in true swing states like the Rust Belt but in reddish swing states like Texas .
Fox has him down 13 points in Minnesota , 51/38 .
Which is bad , but ultimately doesn ’ t change the 2016 map at all .
The bigger news is that they also have him down nine in Michigan and 11 in Pennsylvania , each part of the midwestern blue wall that he shattered four years ago .
Together those two account for 36 electoral votes .
Subtract them from Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Biden would shrink to 270/268 , with any other Trump state on the map capable of handing the presidency to the Democrat unless Trump can pick up a Clinton state somewhere — and like I say , Minnesota may be his best bet .
The story in all three states is the same : Apart from Biden piling up huge leads with women , his overall advantage owes less to him running up the score with traditionally Democratic groups and more to him cutting into Trump ’ s lead with traditionally Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s data among senior citizens and suburbanites , holds his own among men and whites without a college degree , and is even competitive with Trump on who ’ d best handle China .
Maybe most importantly , and contrary to conventional wisdom , Biden is the “ enthusiasm ” candidate right now .
Gidley spends the clip insisting that Biden ’ s leads are a mirage because Trump has way more social media interaction or whatever , and certainly it ’ s true that Trump fans are more excited about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s not the relevant issue with enthusiasm .
The relevant issue is who ’ s more enthusiastic to vote .
Is it Trump-lovers on the right or is it Trump-haters on the left who have zero use for Biden but are roiling to cast a ballot for him in the name of seeing Trump ousted ?
The Democrat has double-digit leads in all three states among people who are “ extremely interested ” in the election : He ’ s +10 in Michigan , +15 in Pennsylvania , and +27 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about which side is more solidly behind their candidate is how each nominee polls among his own party .
In all three states Biden does better among Democrats than Trump does among Republicans .
In Michigan he ’ s +88 to Trump ’ s +82 , in Pennsylvania he ’ s +83 to Trump ’ s +74 , and in Minnesota , a bluer state , he ’ s +89 to POTUS ’ s +79 .
Turnout this fall will be a test not of which side most loves its nominee but of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left loathes him .
Nate Cohn , the Times ’ s data guy , has a piece out today wondering what the total picture would look like on Election Day if Biden ’ s competitiveness for the white vote isn ’ t a mirage .
If he produces the usual Democratic landslide margins among nonwhites but also runs up the score among white college grads ( while holding Trump to something less than a landslide among whites without a degree ) , what sort of wipeout is the GOP looking at ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lead among white voters overall is down to three points in quality polls .
In 2016 he beat Hillary Clinton by 20 among that group .
Over the last two decades , Republican strength among white voters has given the party structural advantages in the House , the Senate and the Electoral College .
A competitive race among white voters would deprive Republicans of those advantages , threatening carefully devised gerrymanders and raising the specter of previously unimagined losses in the Senate .
[ I ] n this situation , Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 54 percent to 44 percent , and would win 375 votes in the Electoral College , including all of the states won by Mr. Obama in 2012 , in addition to North Carolina , Georgia and Arizona .
Mr. Biden ’ s weakness among nonwhite voters would leave Texas short of turning blue… Republicans in the House may also face severe consequences .
In this analysis , Mr. Biden would carry a staggering 260 congressional districts , including a half-dozen districts won by Mr. Trump in Texas .
He could even carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digits in 2016 , like Missouri ’ s Second , Indiana ’ s Fifth , Arizona ’ s Sixth , Florida ’ s 16th , or Ohio ’ s 12th and 14th .
Mr. Trump would win another set of 25 districts by less than five points each .
Many of these districts were only somewhat competitive in the 2018 midterms , while many others were not competitive at all .
Already , various ratings outfits like the Cook Political Report have classified them as competitive .
That ’ s the real nightmare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be bad but not disastrous for the GOP if Biden won but McConnell retained a Senate majority to curb him .
It ’ d be disastrous but not paradigm-shifting if Dems won the White House and a *narrow* Senate majority since it ’ s likely that the GOP would strike back with big gains in the midterms and retake the upper chamber .
There ’ d be two years of Democratic rule , but some Dems would be nervous about the extent of a right-wing backlash in 2022 if they went whole hog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the center .
The paradigm-shifting scenario is if Democrats win so big this fall in the House and Senate that they actually end up with a cushion for the midterms , raising the possibility of unified Dem control all the way through Biden ’ s term .
They could get a lot done in four years and they ’ d be less fearful of a Republican backlash in a presidential election year like 2024 than they would be in a midterm .
If anything , progressives will push them to go big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans will come to like the new changes and will reward the party four years from now to keep them going .
Republicans had better get some of those wayward white voters back before November .
At the moment , the Cook Political Report thinks it ’ s more likely than not that Democrats will retake the Senate majority .
Even David Perdue ’ s Senate race in Georgia is now listed as a toss-up .
I ’ ll leave you with this from the Examiner ’ s Tim Carney , who laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trends in 2020 for comparison purposes .
Hillary did have big leads at times on Trump four years ago , but every time she gained some distance on him she began to fall back towards a close race .
This year the only question has been , “ How big is Biden ’ s lead today ?
Sorta big or really big ?
”

Fox can fire its pollster for the endless string of discouraging data it’s produced for the president or it can defend its pollster as a highly regarded member of the profession.
But it has to be one or the other. As a matter of basic integrity, the anchors can’t sit by in silence and let White House mouthpieces like Hogan Gidley try to gaslight the audience about “fake polls.” Either agree with him and terminate the in-house pollsters for being part of the “suppression poll hoax effort!” or push back. Brian Kilmeade, the most independent-minded member of the “Fox & Friends” crew, pushed back.
What’s got Gidley exercised? I’ll tell you after you watch.
On Fox & Friends, Trump campaign press secretary Hogan Gidley calls Fox News polling "fake," and Brian Kilmeade tells him "don't call the Fox News pollsters fake." pic.twitter.com/kV6xS1keEK — Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) July 24, 2020
He’s grumbling because Fox dropped three new battleground polls yesterday, none of them good. The least bad is Minnesota, which Trump barely lost in 2016 and had been hoping to target this year as a way to hedge against a Biden upset in, say, Arizona. But at the moment POTUS is in no position to expand the map; he’s on defense not just in true swing states like the Rust Belt but in reddish swing states like Texas. Fox has him down 13 points in Minnesota, 51/38. Which is bad, but ultimately doesn’t change the 2016 map at all.
The bigger news is that they also have him down nine in Michigan and 11 in Pennsylvania, each part of the midwestern blue wall that he shattered four years ago. Together those two account for 36 electoral votes. Subtract them from Trump’s 2016 total and his lead over Biden would shrink to 270/268, with any other Trump state on the map capable of handing the presidency to the Democrat unless Trump can pick up a Clinton state somewhere — and like I say, Minnesota may be his best bet. The story in all three states is the same: Apart from Biden piling up huge leads with women, his overall advantage owes less to him running up the score with traditionally Democratic groups and more to him cutting into Trump’s lead with traditionally Republican groups. He polls well in Fox’s data among senior citizens and suburbanites, holds his own among men and whites without a college degree, and is even competitive with Trump on who’d best handle China.
Maybe most importantly, and contrary to conventional wisdom, Biden is the “enthusiasm” candidate right now. Gidley spends the clip insisting that Biden’s leads are a mirage because Trump has way more social media interaction or whatever, and certainly it’s true that Trump fans are more excited about their candidate than Democrats are about theirs. But that’s not the relevant issue with enthusiasm. The relevant issue is who’s more enthusiastic to vote. Is it Trump-lovers on the right or is it Trump-haters on the left who have zero use for Biden but are roiling to cast a ballot for him in the name of seeing Trump ousted? The Democrat has double-digit leads in all three states among people who are “extremely interested” in the election: He’s +10 in Michigan, +15 in Pennsylvania, and +27 in Minnesota.
Another piece of evidence about which side is more solidly behind their candidate is how each nominee polls among his own party. In all three states Biden does better among Democrats than Trump does among Republicans. In Michigan he’s +88 to Trump’s +82, in Pennsylvania he’s +83 to Trump’s +74, and in Minnesota, a bluer state, he’s +89 to POTUS’s +79. Turnout this fall will be a test not of which side most loves its nominee but of whether the right loves Trump more than the left loathes him.
Nate Cohn, the Times’s data guy, has a piece out today wondering what the total picture would look like on Election Day if Biden’s competitiveness for the white vote isn’t a mirage. If he produces the usual Democratic landslide margins among nonwhites but also runs up the score among white college grads (while holding Trump to something less than a landslide among whites without a degree), what sort of wipeout is the GOP looking at? Right now, notes Cohn, Trump’s lead among white voters overall is down to three points in quality polls. In 2016 he beat Hillary Clinton by 20 among that group.
Over the last two decades, Republican strength among white voters has given the party structural advantages in the House, the Senate and the Electoral College. A competitive race among white voters would deprive Republicans of those advantages, threatening carefully devised gerrymanders and raising the specter of previously unimagined losses in the Senate. [I]n this situation, Mr. Biden would win by 10 percentage points, 54 percent to 44 percent, and would win 375 votes in the Electoral College, including all of the states won by Mr. Obama in 2012, in addition to North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. Mr. Biden’s weakness among nonwhite voters would leave Texas short of turning blue… Republicans in the House may also face severe consequences. In this analysis, Mr. Biden would carry a staggering 260 congressional districts, including a half-dozen districts won by Mr. Trump in Texas. He could even carry districts where Mr. Trump won by double digits in 2016, like Missouri’s Second, Indiana’s Fifth, Arizona’s Sixth, Florida’s 16th, or Ohio’s 12th and 14th. Mr. Trump would win another set of 25 districts by less than five points each. Many of these districts were only somewhat competitive in the 2018 midterms, while many others were not competitive at all. Already, various ratings outfits like the Cook Political Report have classified them as competitive.
That’s the real nightmare scenario this fall. It’d be bad but not disastrous for the GOP if Biden won but McConnell retained a Senate majority to curb him. It’d be disastrous but not paradigm-shifting if Dems won the White House and a *narrow* Senate majority since it’s likely that the GOP would strike back with big gains in the midterms and retake the upper chamber. There’d be two years of Democratic rule, but some Dems would be nervous about the extent of a right-wing backlash in 2022 if they went whole hog on a leftist agenda and might stick to the center. The paradigm-shifting scenario is if Democrats win so big this fall in the House and Senate that they actually end up with a cushion for the midterms, raising the possibility of unified Dem control all the way through Biden’s term. They could get a lot done in four years and they’d be less fearful of a Republican backlash in a presidential election year like 2024 than they would be in a midterm. If anything, progressives will push them to go big on policy reforms in the belief that Americans will come to like the new changes and will reward the party four years from now to keep them going.
Republicans had better get some of those wayward white voters back before November. At the moment, the Cook Political Report thinks it’s more likely than not that Democrats will retake the Senate majority. Even David Perdue’s Senate race in Georgia is now listed as a toss-up.
I’ll leave you with this from the Examiner’s Tim Carney, who laid the national polling trends in 2016 beside the trends in 2020 for comparison purposes. Hillary did have big leads at times on Trump four years ago, but every time she gained some distance on him she began to fall back towards a close race. This year the only question has been, “How big is Biden’s lead today? Sorta big or really big?”


hotair--2020-07-24--Nick Sandmann settles his lawsuit with the Washington Post

Today is Nick Sandmann ’ s 18th birthday and he celebrated by making an announcement about his lawsuit against the Washington Post .
Sandmann ’ s attorney Lin Wood predicted last night that he would receive a “ present of JUSTICE ” last night .
And this morning he clarified what that was .
Obviously the settlement here indicates that the Post has agreed to pay some amount of money , but neither Sandmann nor Wood are saying how much .
As mentioned above , Sandmann filed his $ 250 million lawsuit against the Post in February of 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal judge dismissed that lawsuit saying that the Post ’ s coverage of the story was protected by the 1st Amendment even if the claims they reported weren ’ t accurate .
That looked like the end of the line , not only for that lawsuit but for all of the lawsuits Sandmann had filed .
However , last October the same judge partially reversed his decision after reviewing an amended complaint .
After reviewing an amended complaint , Judge William Bertelsman ordered Monday that the case could enter the discovery phase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the newspaper could continue… Bertelsman said in the order that he stands by his decision that 30 of the 33 statements Sandmann ’ s lawyers argued were libelous were not , but that “ justice requires ” further review of three of the statements .
“ These three statements state that ( Sandmann ) ‘ blocked ’ Nathan Phillips and ‘ would not allow him to retreat , ’ ” the order reads .
At the time , attorney Lin Wood celebrated this reversal as a “ huge win ” for Sandmann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Todd McMurty tweeted that the decision , “ bodes will for the NBC and CNN cases , as well.
” He later deleted that , possibly because of the typo , but it ’ s clear what he meant .
The fact that a federal judge had agreed part of the lawsuit should go forward against the Post was a warning to other organizations .
Perhaps influenced by that decision , CNN settled a similar defamation suit with Sandmann in January .
Then as now no one would say exactly what CNN had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the settlement is an agreement by both sides not to share the details .
So don ’ t expect to find out anytime soon how much the Post settlement was worth .
But obviously , even if Sandmann is settling for 1 percent of the original figure , he ’ s already a very rich 18 year old .
Finally , both Sandmann and Lin Wood made clear they aren ’ t done yet .
The mention of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey seems like an indication of someone they might go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter was on their list for a possible future lawsuit and also spelled out who the other six media organizations were : The lawsuit against NBC was filed last year at the same time as the lawsuits against CNN and the Post .
The other five lawsuits mentioned above were filed this March : Two have paid , let ’ s see what the other six decide to do now .

Today is Nick Sandmann’s 18th birthday and he celebrated by making an announcement about his lawsuit against the Washington Post.
Stay by your timelines… — Nicholas Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) July 24, 2020
On 2/19/19, I filed $250M defamation lawsuit against Washington Post. Today, I turned 18 & WaPo settled my lawsuit. Thanks to @ToddMcMurtry & @LLinWood for their advocacy. Thanks to my family & millions of you who have stood your ground by supporting me. I still have more to do. — Nicholas Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) July 24, 2020
Sandmann’s attorney Lin Wood predicted last night that he would receive a “present of JUSTICE” last night.
https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1286508471458902026
And this morning he clarified what that was.
https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1286676149989445638
Obviously the settlement here indicates that the Post has agreed to pay some amount of money, but neither Sandmann nor Wood are saying how much.
As mentioned above, Sandmann filed his $250 million lawsuit against the Post in February of 2019. In July of the same year, a federal judge dismissed that lawsuit saying that the Post’s coverage of the story was protected by the 1st Amendment even if the claims they reported weren’t accurate. That looked like the end of the line, not only for that lawsuit but for all of the lawsuits Sandmann had filed. However, last October the same judge partially reversed his decision after reviewing an amended complaint.
After reviewing an amended complaint, Judge William Bertelsman ordered Monday that the case could enter the discovery phase and hence a portion of the lawsuit against the newspaper could continue… Bertelsman said in the order that he stands by his decision that 30 of the 33 statements Sandmann’s lawyers argued were libelous were not, but that “justice requires” further review of three of the statements. “These three statements state that (Sandmann) ‘blocked’ Nathan Phillips and ‘would not allow him to retreat,’” the order reads.
At the time, attorney Lin Wood celebrated this reversal as a “huge win” for Sandmann’s case. And his co-counsel Todd McMurty tweeted that the decision, “bodes will for the NBC and CNN cases, as well.” He later deleted that, possibly because of the typo, but it’s clear what he meant. The fact that a federal judge had agreed part of the lawsuit should go forward against the Post was a warning to other organizations.
Perhaps influenced by that decision, CNN settled a similar defamation suit with Sandmann in January. Then as now no one would say exactly what CNN had agreed to pay. It seems that part of the settlement is an agreement by both sides not to share the details. So don’t expect to find out anytime soon how much the Post settlement was worth. But obviously, even if Sandmann is settling for 1 percent of the original figure, he’s already a very rich 18 year old.
Finally, both Sandmann and Lin Wood made clear they aren’t done yet.
We have settled with WAPO and CNN. The fight isn’t over. 2 down. 6 to go. Don’t hold your breath @jack. — Nicholas Sandmann (@N1ckSandmann) July 24, 2020
The mention of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey seems like an indication of someone they might go after next. Attorney Lin Wood confirmed Twitter was on their list for a possible future lawsuit and also spelled out who the other six media organizations were:
https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1286697836910989313
The lawsuit against NBC was filed last year at the same time as the lawsuits against CNN and the Post. The other five lawsuits mentioned above were filed this March:
On Monday, Sandmann sued the ABC News, CBS News, the New York Times, Gannett and Rolling Stone. Gannett is the parent company of The Enquirer… $275 million from NBC
$250 million from the Washington Post
$195 million Gannett
$95 million from ABC News
$65 million from the New York Times
$60 million from CBS News
$35 million from Rolling Stone
Two have paid, let’s see what the other six decide to do now.


hotair--2020-07-24--Charlamagne Tha God to Biden: "Shut the eff up forever"

Charlamagne Tha God just isn ’ t feeling it for Joe Biden .
He made that perfectly clear during his radio show this week when he declared Biden the “ Donkey of the Day ” .
During the Donkey of the Day segment of his radio show , the host went through his reasoning on why Biden should just “ Shut the eff up forever.
” You may remember that Biden is on thin ice with Charlamagne Tha God from his last appearance on The Breakfast Club– you know , the time he told the host that if he didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ain ’ t black.
” That stunningly arrogant remark by Biden did not amuse Charlamagne , not even a little .
Biden dug in even further when he accused the radio show host of baiting him .
Then , as Biden ’ s racist remark continued to remain in public discourse , CTG brought up Biden ’ s own history and the racism that exists there .
So , when Joe Biden again opened his mouth and delivered another incredibly insane comment , this time calling Trump the first racist president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began with a standard riff about how white men , specifically old white men , have brought us to this point in our history .
“ America is tired , ok ?
We ’ re tired and we ’ re fed up and we ’ re really fed up with old white male leadership , ok ?
Old white male leadership has gotten us to this point.
” “ Old white male leadership has failed America.
” White men bad ?
Check .
Systemic racism ?
Check .
“ Racism is the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though .
He ’ s not sticking up for Trump in any way .
He goes on to say that Trump isn ’ t the first and won ’ t be the last racist president – “ he ’ s just more overt in his racism than most presidents we ’ ve had in the past.
” Oh .
Funny how the racism that was exhibited during the Obama years is never brought up , right ?
I am old enough to remember that for eight years , President Obama did many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden went along for the ride .
Remember the beer summit between his professor friend in Cambridge , Massachusetts , and the white cop who simply answered a call placed by a neighborhood watch person ?
How about when Obama jumped in with both feet during the Ferguson , Missouri riots after the death of Michael Brown and sent members of his administration to monitor the situation on the ground , as well as to Brown ’ s funeral ?
Those are just two examples from off the top of my head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one way .
How did such a racist country elect a black man as president not once but twice ?
CTG rightfully goes on to say that there is a real enthusiasm problem with Biden and Democrat voters .
Republicans are enthusiastic about re-electing Trump but Democrats are mostly voting against Trump , not for Biden .
That ’ s a problem when it comes to getting out the vote on Election Day .
He wants Biden to hurry up and announce his running mate , which he assumes will be a black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can get enthusiastic about voting for her , not for him .
Identity politics is the glue that holds the Democrat Party together .
CTG isn ’ t quite able to acknowledge that by black voters voting as a block for Democrats , they have suffered the consequences for their blind loyalty .
They have lived for generations on bad public policy decisions made by the party that wants to keep them beholden to big government programs and nanny state solutions .
He even mentions that Biden must prove he is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LBJ was for JFK .
Ah , yes .
The Great Society initiatives and legislation meant to eliminate poverty and racial injustice .
How ’ d that work out ?
I give CTG credit for honestly taking Biden to task for trying to distribute “ revisionist history ” .
That ’ s something we can all agree on .
It has come down to this – there is no way that Joe Biden can pass over the black women his team is considering as his running mate and chose a white woman or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The segment of the party that the Democrats rely on to win elections – black voters , particularly black women voters , would stay home and Biden would lose the election .
Sounds good to me but the internal implosion in the Democrat Party would take years to fix .
Biden would blow the party up .
In the meantime , CTG wants Joe to just keep quiet and let his running mate do the talking .
Biden may as well take that advice .
We know whomever he chooses will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden will just be a figurehead .

Charlamagne Tha God just isn’t feeling it for Joe Biden. He made that perfectly clear during his radio show this week when he declared Biden the “Donkey of the Day”. During the Donkey of the Day segment of his radio show, the host went through his reasoning on why Biden should just “Shut the eff up forever.”
You may remember that Biden is on thin ice with Charlamagne Tha God from his last appearance on The Breakfast Club– you know, the time he told the host that if he didn’t vote for Biden, “You ain’t black.” That stunningly arrogant remark by Biden did not amuse Charlamagne, not even a little. Biden dug in even further when he accused the radio show host of baiting him. Then, as Biden’s racist remark continued to remain in public discourse, CTG brought up Biden’s own history and the racism that exists there.
So, when Joe Biden again opened his mouth and delivered another incredibly insane comment, this time calling Trump the first racist president, Charlamagne decided enough is enough. He began with a standard riff about how white men, specifically old white men, have brought us to this point in our history.
“America is tired, ok? We’re tired and we’re fed up and we’re really fed up with old white male leadership, ok? Old white male leadership has gotten us to this point.” “Old white male leadership has failed America.” White men bad? Check. Systemic racism? Check. “Racism is the American way.” Don’t misunderstand him, though. He’s not sticking up for Trump in any way. He goes on to say that Trump isn’t the first and won’t be the last racist president – “he’s just more overt in his racism than most presidents we’ve had in the past.” Oh.
Funny how the racism that was exhibited during the Obama years is never brought up, right? I am old enough to remember that for eight years, President Obama did many things that further divided Americans, and Joe Biden went along for the ride. Remember the beer summit between his professor friend in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the white cop who simply answered a call placed by a neighborhood watch person? How about when Obama jumped in with both feet during the Ferguson, Missouri riots after the death of Michael Brown and sent members of his administration to monitor the situation on the ground, as well as to Brown’s funeral? Those are just two examples from off the top of my head. Racism is ok if it goes one way. How did such a racist country elect a black man as president not once but twice?
CTG rightfully goes on to say that there is a real enthusiasm problem with Biden and Democrat voters. Republicans are enthusiastic about re-electing Trump but Democrats are mostly voting against Trump, not for Biden. That’s a problem when it comes to getting out the vote on Election Day. He wants Biden to hurry up and announce his running mate, which he assumes will be a black woman. Then, you see, he can get enthusiastic about voting for her, not for him. Identity politics is the glue that holds the Democrat Party together.
“Joe, you got to hurry up and announce your Black woman VP [vice president] so I can be enthused about voting for her because I will never be enthused about voting for you, and you know America is a terrible place when Kanye West seems like a viable option,” Charlamagne added.
CTG isn’t quite able to acknowledge that by black voters voting as a block for Democrats, they have suffered the consequences for their blind loyalty. They have lived for generations on bad public policy decisions made by the party that wants to keep them beholden to big government programs and nanny state solutions. He even mentions that Biden must prove he is the progressive successor of the Obama presidency like LBJ was for JFK. Ah, yes. The Great Society initiatives and legislation meant to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. How’d that work out?
I give CTG credit for honestly taking Biden to task for trying to distribute “revisionist history”. That’s something we can all agree on. It has come down to this – there is no way that Joe Biden can pass over the black women his team is considering as his running mate and chose a white woman or even a Latina, for that matter. The segment of the party that the Democrats rely on to win elections – black voters, particularly black women voters, would stay home and Biden would lose the election. Sounds good to me but the internal implosion in the Democrat Party would take years to fix. Biden would blow the party up. In the meantime, CTG wants Joe to just keep quiet and let his running mate do the talking. Biden may as well take that advice. We know whomever he chooses will be running the show in his administration. Biden will just be a figurehead.