hotair--2020-07-17--Dear NYT: We prefer our free-speech martyrs with 75% less ... Che Guevara

BREAKING NEWS ALERT : Irony died today , expectedly , in the pages of the New York Times .
Their profile of a woman facing a prison term in Tunisia for sharing a Facebook joke is a worthy enough subject .
Emna Chargui made the mistake of thinking that a satirical version of a Koranic sura that read “ Wash your hands ” would be taken as a gentle reminder of proper COVID-19 hygiene .
The Tunisian government disagreed and sentenced her to six months in jail for the offense of “ inciting hatred between religions , ” an absurd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yes , the action of Tunisia — which is usually regarded as a West-leaning moderate Islamic state — is of concern to free-speech rights .
It would be easier to credit Chargui as an advocate for freedom , however , if she wasn ’ t wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt .
Apparently neither Chargui nor the New York Times are aware that Guevara was a terrorist in service to a regime that has oppressed speech for decades in Cuba .
Here ’ s the screenshot , in case it disappears : It looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iconography , and with consistency .
The slogan underneath the iconic picture of the Cuban revolutionary says Hasta la Victoria Siempre , Che ’ s rallying cry which roughly means that the victory of the revolution should live forever .
Michael Munger quoted Che extensively to explain how the revolutionary saw individual rights in that victory : Society as a whole must become a huge school.… Education takes among the masses and the new attitude that is praised tends to become habit ; the mass gradually takes it over and exerts pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the indirect way of educating the masses , as powerful as the other , structured , one.… We can see the new man who begins to emerge in this period of the building of socialism .
His image is as yet unfinished ; in fact it will never be finished , since the process advances parallel to the development of new economic forms .
Discounting those whose lack of education makes them tend toward the solitary road , towards the satisfaction of their ambitions , there are others who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advances , tend to march in isolation from the accompanying mass .
What is more important is that people become more aware every day of the need to incorporate themselves into society and of their own importance as motors of that society.… The vanguards have their eyes on the future and its recompenses , but the latter are not envisioned as something individual ; the reward is the new society where human beings will have different characteristics : the society of communist man .
If Chargui embraces Che , then she has nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want what Che wanted — for people to incorporate themselves into the masses for the good of society .
Not to mention , of course , that Che helped Fidel Castro round up and kill dissenters in Cuba before and after Castro came to power , by the hundreds if not thousands .
Che rounded up gays and lesbians and put them in concentration camps , and threatened journalists who tried to use free speech to tell the truth about the Castro regime .
None of that makes what happened to Chargui right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the iconography of oppression shouldn ’ t expect much sympathy when they fall victim to it .
Chargui might not know any better , but the New York Times certainly does , or it should .

BREAKING NEWS ALERT: Irony died today, expectedly, in the pages of the New York Times. Their profile of a woman facing a prison term in Tunisia for sharing a Facebook joke is a worthy enough subject. Emna Chargui made the mistake of thinking that a satirical version of a Koranic sura that read “Wash your hands” would be taken as a gentle reminder of proper COVID-19 hygiene. The Tunisian government disagreed and sentenced her to six months in jail for the offense of “inciting hatred between religions,” an absurd reaction to a Facebook share.
So yes, the action of Tunisia — which is usually regarded as a West-leaning moderate Islamic state — is of concern to free-speech rights. It would be easier to credit Chargui as an advocate for freedom, however, if she wasn’t wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt. Apparently neither Chargui nor the New York Times are aware that Guevara was a terrorist in service to a regime that has oppressed speech for decades in Cuba.
Here’s the screenshot, in case it disappears:
It looks like Chargui has a real problem with iconography, and with consistency. The slogan underneath the iconic picture of the Cuban revolutionary says Hasta la Victoria Siempre, Che’s rallying cry which roughly means that the victory of the revolution should live forever. Michael Munger quoted Che extensively to explain how the revolutionary saw individual rights in that victory:
Society as a whole must become a huge school.… Education takes among the masses and the new attitude that is praised tends to become habit; the mass gradually takes it over and exerts pressure on those who have still not become educated. This is the indirect way of educating the masses, as powerful as the other, structured, one.… We can see the new man who begins to emerge in this period of the building of socialism. His image is as yet unfinished; in fact it will never be finished, since the process advances parallel to the development of new economic forms. Discounting those whose lack of education makes them tend toward the solitary road, towards the satisfaction of their ambitions, there are others who, even within this new picture of over-all advances, tend to march in isolation from the accompanying mass. What is more important is that people become more aware every day of the need to incorporate themselves into society and of their own importance as motors of that society.… The vanguards have their eyes on the future and its recompenses, but the latter are not envisioned as something individual; the reward is the new society where human beings will have different characteristics: the society of communist man.
If Chargui embraces Che, then she has nothing to complain about in Tunis. They want what Che wanted — for people to incorporate themselves into the masses for the good of society. Not to mention, of course, that Che helped Fidel Castro round up and kill dissenters in Cuba before and after Castro came to power, by the hundreds if not thousands. Che rounded up gays and lesbians and put them in concentration camps, and threatened journalists who tried to use free speech to tell the truth about the Castro regime.
None of that makes what happened to Chargui right, of course. But people who use the iconography of oppression shouldn’t expect much sympathy when they fall victim to it. Chargui might not know any better, but the New York Times certainly does, or it should.


hotair--2020-07-17--Barr to US corporations and Hollywood: Stop collaborating with China in its "economic blitzkrieg" on

Barr to US corporations and Hollywood: Stop collaborating with China in its "economic blitzkrieg" on the US

The Democrats had a three-year run with Russia Russia Russia .
The Trump administration has four months to sell China China China , and William Barr made it clear that they don ’ t intend to spare anyone .
As tensions rise with Beijing over trade , espionage , human rights , and COVID-19 , Barr drew a line in the sand with American companies profiting from supply chains in China .
Do you choose to support America , or “ collaborate ” with China on its “ economic blitzkrieg ” on the US ?
Barr declared that the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweeping address Thursday , U.S. Attorney General William Barr blasted American tech giants Google , Microsoft , Yahoo , Apple and Cisco as well as Hollywood for being “ all too willing to collaborate with the Chinese Communist Party.
” “ The People ’ s Republic of China is now engaged in an economic blitzkrieg—an aggressive , orchestrated , whole-of-government campaign to seize the commanding heights of the global economy and to surpass the United States as the world ’ s preeminent superpower , ” Barr said during a speech at the Gerald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grand Rapids , Michigan .
“ All too often , for the sake of short-term profits , American companies have succumbed to that influence—even at the expense of freedom and openness in the United States , ” he said , calling U.S. technology companies “ pawns of Chinese influence.
” In his blistering remarks , Barr slammed U.S. tech companies like Cisco for helping the Communist Party build “ the Great Firewall of China , ” what he described as the world ’ s “ most sophisticated system for Internet surveillance and censorship.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well for its repeated appeasement of China ’ s Communist Party .
The attorney general singled out Disney , saying that Walt Disney would all but turn over in his grave to see how his company grovels at the feet of communists in Beijing : Barr alleged the officials “ display hammer-and-sickle insignia at their desks and attend party lectures during business hours ” .
“ If Disney and other American corporations continue to bow to Beijing , they risk undermining both their own future competitiveness and prosperity , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thrive , ” Barr said .
The Disney company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the allegations .
The attorney general also criticised Hollywood studios for bowing to Chinese pressure to tweak scripts in return for Chinese distribution , citing two cases in which the nationalities of characters were allegedly changed so as not to irritate Beijing .
The history of Hollywood ’ s cave to China ’ s censors is long and inglorious indeed .
However craven that has been , and it ’ s been at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not as bad as Big Tech ’ s partnership with Beijing on oppression .
Google and Microsoft didn ’ t just tweak scripts to avoid offending the Xi regime , after all ; they helped Xi build systems that suppressed dissent .
And they weren ’ t alone in that assistance among US corporations , either .
This is actually a perfect time to draw a line in the sand on China , and not just because of the election .
These same corporate entities , and the entire entertainment industry for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years about social justice and wokery .
In the wake of this summer ’ s unrest , they are about to escalate that messaging .
If they want to be taken seriously , then they should be showing some sacrifice along those lines by cutting their ties to the murderously repressive and deeply supremacist regime in Beijing .
If their pocketbook means more to them than “ justice , ” then the rest of us should continually point out that hypocrisy — and apply public policy to those choices , starting with taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of social justice .
Put up or shut up .
That ’ s the choice consumers can force on these corporations .

The Democrats had a three-year run with Russia Russia Russia. The Trump administration has four months to sell China China China, and William Barr made it clear that they don’t intend to spare anyone. As tensions rise with Beijing over trade, espionage, human rights, and COVID-19, Barr drew a line in the sand with American companies profiting from supply chains in China. Do you choose to support America, or “collaborate” with China on its “economic blitzkrieg” on the US? Barr declared that the time to choose is now:
In a sweeping address Thursday, U.S. Attorney General William Barr blasted American tech giants Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple and Cisco as well as Hollywood for being “all too willing to collaborate with the Chinese Communist Party.” “The People’s Republic of China is now engaged in an economic blitzkrieg—an aggressive, orchestrated, whole-of-government campaign to seize the commanding heights of the global economy and to surpass the United States as the world’s preeminent superpower,” Barr said during a speech at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum and Library in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “All too often, for the sake of short-term profits, American companies have succumbed to that influence—even at the expense of freedom and openness in the United States,” he said, calling U.S. technology companies “pawns of Chinese influence.” In his blistering remarks, Barr slammed U.S. tech companies like Cisco for helping the Communist Party build “the Great Firewall of China,” what he described as the world’s “most sophisticated system for Internet surveillance and censorship.”
Barr took aim at Hollywood as well for its repeated appeasement of China’s Communist Party. The attorney general singled out Disney, saying that Walt Disney would all but turn over in his grave to see how his company grovels at the feet of communists in Beijing:
Barr alleged the officials “display hammer-and-sickle insignia at their desks and attend party lectures during business hours”. “If Disney and other American corporations continue to bow to Beijing, they risk undermining both their own future competitiveness and prosperity, as well as the classical liberal order that has allowed them to thrive,” Barr said. The Disney company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the allegations. The attorney general also criticised Hollywood studios for bowing to Chinese pressure to tweak scripts in return for Chinese distribution, citing two cases in which the nationalities of characters were allegedly changed so as not to irritate Beijing.
The history of Hollywood’s cave to China’s censors is long and inglorious indeed. However craven that has been, and it’s been at least craven, it’s still not as bad as Big Tech’s partnership with Beijing on oppression. Google and Microsoft didn’t just tweak scripts to avoid offending the Xi regime, after all; they helped Xi build systems that suppressed dissent. And they weren’t alone in that assistance among US corporations, either.
This is actually a perfect time to draw a line in the sand on China, and not just because of the election. These same corporate entities, and the entire entertainment industry for that matter, has been lecturing Americans for years about social justice and wokery. In the wake of this summer’s unrest, they are about to escalate that messaging. If they want to be taken seriously, then they should be showing some sacrifice along those lines by cutting their ties to the murderously repressive and deeply supremacist regime in Beijing. If their pocketbook means more to them than “justice,” then the rest of us should continually point out that hypocrisy — and apply public policy to those choices, starting with taxes on those supply chains in the name of social justice.
Put up or shut up. That’s the choice consumers can force on these corporations.


hotair--2020-07-17--Washington Redfaces? WaPo drops long-awaited sexual-harassment bombshell on Snyder, NFL

Suddenly , Dan Snyder ’ s worries over his team ’ s name might look like his second-worst problem .
Rumors had swirled for days if not weeks that the Washington Post had a # MeToo story percolating about the Redskins , and that it would implicate executives on the team .
It would hardly be the first such story involving Snyder ’ s organization ; two years ago , Snyder fired business-ops president Dennis Greene for “ pimping out ” the team ’ s cheerleaders to high-rolling fans .
The story finally dropped last night , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen women describe a workplace that more resembles Mad Men than a modern office .
The only good news for Snyder is that no one is accusing him personally of harassing behavior , but it suuuuure looks like it didn ’ t bother Snyder either : Snyder had caught wind of the story earlier and had already begun to clean house .
Michael and Santos got the boot earlier this week ; Greene got fired over the cheerleader incident .
Snyder also announced that he would hire an outside attorney to lead an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a rather late move considering what had happened with Greene earlier .
However , here ’ s what Snyder didn ’ t do in response to the allegations , emphasis mine : Applegate is one of 15 former female Redskins employees who told The Washington Post they were sexually harassed during their time at the club .
The other 14 women spoke on the condition of anonymity , citing a fear of litigation because some signed nondisclosure agreements with the team that threaten legal retribution if they speak negatively about the club @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Post to release former female employees from these agreements so they could speak on the record without fear of legal reprisal .
This story involved interviews with more than 40 current and former employees and a review of text messages and internal company documents .
People and organizations accused of harassment should get the benefit of the doubt , legally speaking , especially when those accusations are anonymous .
However , it ’ s a little tougher to extend that courtesy when the accused clings to NDAs .
Arguably , waiving an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the team could also respond specifically to allegations raised by its employees .
If the team sees that bilateral exchange as a losing proposition , perhaps they shouldn ’ t expect too much sympathy from observers — especially since Snyder hired DC attorney Beth Wilkinson in part to “ help the team set new employee standards for the future.
” That sounds like a tacit admission that the old standards might not have been defensible , no ?
The firings already under way don ’ t help with that impression either .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are looking for a way out .
Almost two weeks ago , their unhappiness with Snyder had them making arrangements to put the minority stake in the team up for sale : The three minority owners of the Washington Redskins are attempting to sell their stakes in the NFL franchise , according to multiple people familiar with the deliberations .
According to one of those people , the owners — Robert Rothman , Dwight Schar and Frederick W. Smith — hired an investment banking firm to conduct the search for potential buyers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not happy being a partner ” of majority owner Daniel Snyder .
… Among them , they represent roughly 40 percent of ownership in the Redskins .
They are also the only members of the team ’ s ownership group other than Snyder , his mother and his sister .
The NFL might want to sit down with them now and cut a deal to replace Snyder instead .
With the value of the now-nameless team dropping , maybe they could buy a controlling interest on the cheap and eject all of Snyder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a team on and off the field that wouldn ’ t be such an embarrassment .

Suddenly, Dan Snyder’s worries over his team’s name might look like his second-worst problem. Rumors had swirled for days if not weeks that the Washington Post had a #MeToo story percolating about the Redskins, and that it would implicate executives on the team. It would hardly be the first such story involving Snyder’s organization; two years ago, Snyder fired business-ops president Dennis Greene for “pimping out” the team’s cheerleaders to high-rolling fans.
The story finally dropped last night, and it’s pretty bad. More than a dozen women describe a workplace that more resembles Mad Men than a modern office. The only good news for Snyder is that no one is accusing him personally of harassing behavior, but it suuuuure looks like it didn’t bother Snyder either:
Among the men accused of harassment and verbal abuse are three former members of Snyder’s inner circle and two longtime members of the personnel department: [Larry] Michael, senior vice president of content and “the voice of the Washington Redskins.” Seven former employees said Michael routinely discussed the physical appearance of female colleagues in sexual and disparaging overtones. In 2018, Michael was caught on a “hot mic” speaking about the attractiveness of a college-aged intern, according to six former employees who heard the recording. Michael declined an interview request and retired Wednesday.
[Alex] Santos, the club’s director of pro personnel, who was accused by six former employees and two reporters who covered the team of making inappropriate remarks about their bodies and asking them whether they were romantically interested in him. In 2019, Santos was the subject of an internal investigation after Rhiannon Walker, a reporter for the Athletic, informed club management Santos had pinched her, told her she had “an ass like a wagon” and repeatedly asked her to date him, Walker said in an interview with The Post. Nora Princiotti, a reporter for the Ringer who formerly covered the team, also said in an interview that she was harassed by Santos. Santos, who was fired this past week, declined to comment.
Richard Mann II, assistant director of pro personnel, who in one text message obtained by the The Post told a female employee he and his colleagues debated whether her breasts had been surgically enhanced and in another text message told another female employee to expect an “inappropriate hug … And don’t worry that will be a stapler in my pocket, nothing else.” Mann, who also was fired last week, declined to comment.
Snyder had caught wind of the story earlier and had already begun to clean house. Michael and Santos got the boot earlier this week; Greene got fired over the cheerleader incident. Snyder also announced that he would hire an outside attorney to lead an investigation to clean up the workplace environment, a rather late move considering what had happened with Greene earlier.
However, here’s what Snyder didn’t do in response to the allegations, emphasis mine:
Applegate is one of 15 former female Redskins employees who told The Washington Post they were sexually harassed during their time at the club. The other 14 women spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing a fear of litigation because some signed nondisclosure agreements with the team that threaten legal retribution if they speak negatively about the club. The team declined a request from The Post to release former female employees from these agreements so they could speak on the record without fear of legal reprisal. This story involved interviews with more than 40 current and former employees and a review of text messages and internal company documents.
People and organizations accused of harassment should get the benefit of the doubt, legally speaking, especially when those accusations are anonymous. However, it’s a little tougher to extend that courtesy when the accused clings to NDAs. Arguably, waiving an NDA would release both parties, so the team could also respond specifically to allegations raised by its employees. If the team sees that bilateral exchange as a losing proposition, perhaps they shouldn’t expect too much sympathy from observers — especially since Snyder hired DC attorney Beth Wilkinson in part to “help the team set new employee standards for the future.” That sounds like a tacit admission that the old standards might not have been defensible, no? The firings already under way don’t help with that impression either.
Maybe this is why Snyder’s partners are looking for a way out. Almost two weeks ago, their unhappiness with Snyder had them making arrangements to put the minority stake in the team up for sale:
The three minority owners of the Washington Redskins are attempting to sell their stakes in the NFL franchise, according to multiple people familiar with the deliberations. According to one of those people, the owners — Robert Rothman, Dwight Schar and Frederick W. Smith — hired an investment banking firm to conduct the search for potential buyers, in large part because they are “not happy being a partner” of majority owner Daniel Snyder. … Among them, they represent roughly 40 percent of ownership in the Redskins. They are also the only members of the team’s ownership group other than Snyder, his mother and his sister.
The NFL might want to sit down with them now and cut a deal to replace Snyder instead. With the value of the now-nameless team dropping, maybe they could buy a controlling interest on the cheap and eject all of Snyder’s execs, and then field a team on and off the field that wouldn’t be such an embarrassment.


hotair--2020-07-18--Chicago: 18 officers injured as BLM protesters attempt to pull down Columbus statue

A Black Lives Matter march in Chicago last night turned into a riot when a group of around 1000 people attempted to pull down a statue of Christopher Columbus .
As is often the case , things started peacefully but when police officers surrounded the statue to protect it , the mob got angry .
Dozens of people in the crowd who were clad in all-black clothing rushed the nearby statue , surrounding the short stone wall that circled it .
Some began throwing objects , such as cans and fireworks , at the officers .
A few people tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with officers smacking their batons at them .
“ This is not the way !
… We don ’ t want them to shoot us , ” a man shouted to the group throwing items .
He was told by someone in the crowd to back off .
Here ’ s what it looked like .
This video ( 2nd tweet below ) was shot by an independent journalist who got right up close to the wall where police were standing : Here ’ s the same thing shot from above .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the items being thrown at police seem to be coming from the group of black bloc goons on the left .
As the police cleared out , the Antifa crew came in and began preparing to pull down the statue .
They succeeded in getting a rope over the statue and spent about half an hour trying to pull it down but did not succeed .
While they were busy with that , a significant number of police reinforcements showed up .
They came in and cleared the area using pepper spray .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers were injured in the clash and 12 people were arrested .
Authorities say 18 officers were injured , with some being treated at the scene while others were taken to area hospitals for further evaluation .
No updates have been given on the conditions of those officers .
According to police , 12 individuals from the crowd were arrested and could face a variety of charges , including Battery to a Police Officer , Mob Action or other felonies .
Despite the injuries to police and the obviously violent behavior of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blamed the mayor and the police for violently dispersing the protesters .
Naturally , the protesters don ’ t seem to get that removing statues is something that you can lobby elected officials to do rather than showing up as a mob with a rope .
As they see it , they were peacefully vandalizing city property and the police pepper sprayed them .
Here ’ s a local news report from WGN9 .

A Black Lives Matter march in Chicago last night turned into a riot when a group of around 1000 people attempted to pull down a statue of Christopher Columbus. As is often the case, things started peacefully but when police officers surrounded the statue to protect it, the mob got angry.
Dozens of people in the crowd who were clad in all-black clothing rushed the nearby statue, surrounding the short stone wall that circled it. Some began throwing objects, such as cans and fireworks, at the officers. A few people tried to climb over the wall and were met with officers smacking their batons at them. “This is not the way! … We don’t want them to shoot us,” a man shouted to the group throwing items. He was told by someone in the crowd to back off.
Here’s what it looked like. This video (2nd tweet below) was shot by an independent journalist who got right up close to the wall where police were standing:
Holy fuck. All of a sudden pic.twitter.com/h4hTeHtJQH — Dominic Gwinn (@DominicGwinn) July 18, 2020
Here’s the same thing shot from above. As you can see, most of the items being thrown at police seem to be coming from the group of black bloc goons on the left.
Protesters launch fireworks and other items at Chicago police officers guarding Columbus statue in Grant Park pic.twitter.com/WCga8c47Ty — WGN TV News (@WGNNews) July 18, 2020
As the police cleared out, the Antifa crew came in and began preparing to pull down the statue.
Black bloc Antifa militants are scaling the Columbus statue in Chicago now. https://t.co/iKG3kX39P4 — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 18, 2020
They succeeded in getting a rope over the statue and spent about half an hour trying to pull it down but did not succeed.
While they were busy with that, a significant number of police reinforcements showed up. They came in and cleared the area using pepper spray.
NBC 5 in Chicago reports that 18 officers were injured in the clash and 12 people were arrested.
Authorities say 18 officers were injured, with some being treated at the scene while others were taken to area hospitals for further evaluation. No updates have been given on the conditions of those officers. According to police, 12 individuals from the crowd were arrested and could face a variety of charges, including Battery to a Police Officer, Mob Action or other felonies.
Despite the injuries to police and the obviously violent behavior of the crowd, a group of elected officials blamed the mayor and the police for violently dispersing the protesters.
Naturally, the protesters don’t seem to get that removing statues is something that you can lobby elected officials to do rather than showing up as a mob with a rope. As they see it, they were peacefully vandalizing city property and the police pepper sprayed them. Here’s a local news report from WGN9.


hotair--2020-07-18--Rubio: It "might actually be better" if the UFOs are aliens

As we discussed last month , the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released a bill which , if passed , would direct the Pentagon to get their act together on the UFOs our military has been chasing around in our airspace and issue a report on what ’ s going on and make it available to the public .
The acting head of that committee is Florida Senator Marco Rubio , so he ’ s been receiving a lot of predictable media attention on this subject .
From everything I ’ ve seen , Rubio has been taking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ducking away from opportunities to comment .
One of those cropped up this week , when he was interviewed by investigative journalist Jim DeFade for CBS Miami .
DeFade didn ’ t pull any punches , directly asking the Senator of he thought there were actually aliens in our galaxy and if we might not be alone .
Rubio keeps a serious tone , discussing the possibility of a threat to national security as represented by these strange craft .
But he then goes on to offer a rather startling opinion as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invoking the word “ aliens , ” he says that if it ’ s “ something outside this planet , ” that might be better than finding out that the Chinese or the Russians have gotten a huge leap on us in the technology race .
( Washington Examiner ) “ Look , here ’ s the interesting thing for me about all this and the reason why I think it ’ s an important topic , OK ?
We have things flying over our military bases and places where we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what it is , and it isn ’ t ours .
So , that ’ s a legitimate question to ask , ” Rubio said in a Thursday interview with Jim DeFede of CBS4 News in Miami .
“ I would say that , frankly , that if it ’ s something outside this planet , that might actually be better than the fact that we ’ ve seen some technological leap on behalf of the Chinese or the Russians or some other adversary that allows them to conduct this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But the bottom line is : If there are things flying over your military bases and you don ’ t know what they are because they ’ re not yours , and they exhibit , potentially , technologies that you don ’ t have at your own disposal , that to me is a national security risk and one that we should be looking into.
” Here ’ s the video clip from the interview because it ’ s always better to hear the person saying it themselves and judge for yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject .
It ’ s only a couple of minutes long .
I don ’ t want to hang the Senator out to dry here or imply that he said something that he didn ’ t .
Jim DeFede was clearly trying to draw Rubio into saying that he thought it could be extraterrestrials and he hit him with a broadside question .
“ What ’ s your gut ?
” he asked .
“ Are we alone in the universe , or is there something else out there ?
” Rubio wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least not entirely .
He told DeFade that he doesn ’ t have a gut reaction “ because it ’ s a phenomenon , ” Rubio said .
“ It ’ s unexplained .
I just want to know what it is , and if we can ’ t determine what it is , then that ’ s a fact point that we need to take into account .
I wouldn ’ t venture to speculate beyond that.
” Nick Pope , also known as “ the real Fox Mulder ” ( who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic ) , responded to Rubio ’ s comments .
When asking whether it would be preferable for the UFOs to be coming from another planet rather than Russia or China , Nick said it ’ s definitely time to have that debate .
I agree with Nick .
It ’ s definitely time to have that debate and for it to reach to the highest levels of government and between nations .
We need answers , assuming that finding them is even possible .
So since this is pretty much a binary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibilities .
Would you rather the Tic Tacs turn out to be the property of extraterrestrials visiting our Earth or something cooked up by the Russians , the Chinese , or even our own tech ?
( Rubio didn ’ t consider the third option , saying flatly that it ’ s not ours .
But if it was something from a deep enough , black budget Special Access Program ( SAP ) he might not know about it . )
Well , the argument against wanting it to be aliens is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with beings that are so vastly technologically superior to us that we ’ re not even on the level of the Indigenous South Americans watching the Spanish Ships approaching the shore for the first time and wondering who or what they are .
And that situation didn ’ t end well for the natives as you ’ ll recall .
But at the same time , these things have been flying around for a long time .
They ’ ve been with us at least since the Nimitz encounters of 2004 , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance , check out the first episode of season two of Unidentified on the History Channel .
They interview American fighter pilots who reported seeing identical things in their airspace during the Vietnam war .
If they were going to attack us , they could have done it long ago and there probably wasn ’ t squat we could do about it .
But if these things turn out to be the property of the Russians or the Chinese , that means somebody has made a massive leap ahead of us in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that ’ s not an ideal situation to be in either .
But if the Russians had this sort of technology for all this time , probably back to the fifties or sixties , wouldn ’ t they have used it to end the cold war conclusively in their favor ?
And if it ’ s our own gear , why haven ’ t we broken it out yet and dominated our adversaries ?
Also , if we have anti-gravity technology , why are we still burning fossil fuels to get around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even a coin toss for me .
If I have to pick one possibility , I ’ m going with aliens .
( As if most of you couldn ’ t have already guessed . )
The problem is , I still rather doubt we have our hands on any of this tech and we may never get it because the visitors ( if that ’ s who they are ) have apparently shown zero interest in talking to us .
Anyway , just as a closing item to pique your interest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ History Channel show I mentioned with the Vietnam pilot who saw what for all the world fits the description of a Tic Tac .

As we discussed last month, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released a bill which, if passed, would direct the Pentagon to get their act together on the UFOs our military has been chasing around in our airspace and issue a report on what’s going on and make it available to the public. The acting head of that committee is Florida Senator Marco Rubio, so he’s been receiving a lot of predictable media attention on this subject. From everything I’ve seen, Rubio has been taking the question in an admirably serious fashion and not ducking away from opportunities to comment. One of those cropped up this week, when he was interviewed by investigative journalist Jim DeFade for CBS Miami.
DeFade didn’t pull any punches, directly asking the Senator of he thought there were actually aliens in our galaxy and if we might not be alone. Rubio keeps a serious tone, discussing the possibility of a threat to national security as represented by these strange craft. But he then goes on to offer a rather startling opinion as to their origin. While not directly invoking the word “aliens,” he says that if it’s “something outside this planet,” that might be better than finding out that the Chinese or the Russians have gotten a huge leap on us in the technology race. (Washington Examiner)
“Look, here’s the interesting thing for me about all this and the reason why I think it’s an important topic, OK? We have things flying over our military bases and places where we’re conducting military exercises, and we don’t know what it is, and it isn’t ours. So, that’s a legitimate question to ask,” Rubio said in a Thursday interview with Jim DeFede of CBS4 News in Miami. “I would say that, frankly, that if it’s something outside this planet, that might actually be better than the fact that we’ve seen some technological leap on behalf of the Chinese or the Russians or some other adversary that allows them to conduct this sort of activity.” Rubio added: “But the bottom line is: If there are things flying over your military bases and you don’t know what they are because they’re not yours, and they exhibit, potentially, technologies that you don’t have at your own disposal, that to me is a national security risk and one that we should be looking into.”
Here’s the video clip from the interview because it’s always better to hear the person saying it themselves and judge for yourself how seriously they’re taking the subject. It’s only a couple of minutes long.
I don’t want to hang the Senator out to dry here or imply that he said something that he didn’t. Jim DeFede was clearly trying to draw Rubio into saying that he thought it could be extraterrestrials and he hit him with a broadside question. “What’s your gut?” he asked. “Are we alone in the universe, or is there something else out there?”
Rubio wasn’t taking the bait, at least not entirely. He told DeFade that he doesn’t have a gut reaction “because it’s a phenomenon,” Rubio said. “It’s unexplained. I just want to know what it is, and if we can’t determine what it is, then that’s a fact point that we need to take into account. I wouldn’t venture to speculate beyond that.”
Nick Pope, also known as “the real Fox Mulder” (who I interviewed here previously on a related topic), responded to Rubio’s comments. When asking whether it would be preferable for the UFOs to be coming from another planet rather than Russia or China, Nick said it’s definitely time to have that debate.
While @marcorubio rightly characterizes UAP incursions as a national security issue, his bombshell statement that something from "outside this planet" might be better than this being Chinese or Russian technology is more debatable. But it's time to *have* that debate! #UFO #UFOs https://t.co/pxPp7ZOuno — Nick Pope (@nickpopemod) July 18, 2020
I agree with Nick. It’s definitely time to have that debate and for it to reach to the highest levels of government and between nations. We need answers, assuming that finding them is even possible. So since this is pretty much a binary choice, let’s consider the possibilities. Would you rather the Tic Tacs turn out to be the property of extraterrestrials visiting our Earth or something cooked up by the Russians, the Chinese, or even our own tech? (Rubio didn’t consider the third option, saying flatly that it’s not ours. But if it was something from a deep enough, black budget Special Access Program (SAP) he might not know about it.)
Well, the argument against wanting it to be aliens is that means that we are sharing our space with beings that are so vastly technologically superior to us that we’re not even on the level of the Indigenous South Americans watching the Spanish Ships approaching the shore for the first time and wondering who or what they are. And that situation didn’t end well for the natives as you’ll recall. But at the same time, these things have been flying around for a long time. They’ve been with us at least since the Nimitz encounters of 2004, but probably much longer. If you get a chance, check out the first episode of season two of Unidentified on the History Channel. They interview American fighter pilots who reported seeing identical things in their airspace during the Vietnam war. If they were going to attack us, they could have done it long ago and there probably wasn’t squat we could do about it.
But if these things turn out to be the property of the Russians or the Chinese, that means somebody has made a massive leap ahead of us in the technology race. As Rubio suggests, that’s not an ideal situation to be in either. But if the Russians had this sort of technology for all this time, probably back to the fifties or sixties, wouldn’t they have used it to end the cold war conclusively in their favor? And if it’s our own gear, why haven’t we broken it out yet and dominated our adversaries? Also, if we have anti-gravity technology, why are we still burning fossil fuels to get around?
This one isn’t really even a coin toss for me. If I have to pick one possibility, I’m going with aliens. (As if most of you couldn’t have already guessed.) The problem is, I still rather doubt we have our hands on any of this tech and we may never get it because the visitors (if that’s who they are) have apparently shown zero interest in talking to us. Anyway, just as a closing item to pique your interest, here’s a segment from that History Channel show I mentioned with the Vietnam pilot who saw what for all the world fits the description of a Tic Tac.


hotair--2020-07-18--Burger King fights cattle farting with lemongrass... and yodeling. No... really

For over forty years , Burger King used a slogan – Have it your way .
Who knew one day that the company would be joining the climate change discussion with the methane emissions- fighting ingredient of lemongrass ?
The corporation thinks that lemongrass fed to cows will decrease cow farts and burps .
The science is iffy , though .
During a limited-time release in the cities of Austin , Los Angeles , Miami , New York City , and Portland , Burger King will offer “ reduced methane emissions beef.
” Channeling its inner green guilt , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that addresses how cows and methane emissions affect the earth , a.k.a .
global climate change .
“ Since we are part of the problem , we are working to be part of the solution.
” Burger King is relying on a U.N. report that states , “ Livestock is responsible for 14.5 % of all human-induced greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions.
” The corporation wants to do its part to pursue the 2016 Paris Agreement target on global warming .
Cows have a complex digestive system consisting of four stomachs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the food that we can not – such as grass – through a process called enteric fermentation .
As the cows digest their feed , they produce a lot of methane .
This greenhouse gas is released every time the cows burp and fart the methane gas out .
Methane is considered a high contributor to global warming , making it a key area for us to tackle in pursuit of the 2016 Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ diet of its cattle .
It should help them digest food better , thus fewer gas emissions .
They are adding 100 grams of dried lemongrass leaves to the cows ’ daily feed .
BK claims a reduction of up to 33 % on average of methane emissions during the period the diet was fed .
Burger King hopes some yodeling children will be the sugar to make the lemongrass beef message go down easier .
The lead yodeler is a boy who did a Walmart ad a couple of years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ several months ago before the coronavirus pandemic shut down studio productions , so this decision has been in the works for a while .
As you can imagine , cattle ranchers aren ’ t amused .
In Colorado , for example , they talk about recent record heat and drought that have made life difficult .
They say this is just a publicity stunt .
“ This is the worst drought I ’ ve seen in my lifetime .
We ’ ve never had to pull cattle off of grass in July before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can look around and the grass is brown .
This is typically what it looks like in September , not in July.
” The land around Sterling is so dry , in fact , that the family has taken on some cattle from other ranchers who ran out of grass for their livestock .
“ We ’ re trying to figure out exactly how longer to be able to stay out there before the grass dies , ” said Josh Sonnenberg .
“ I don ’ t know if I can afford to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what the cattle prices are going to do with the pandemic and everything else going on.
” “ Burger King has come out with what I call a publicity stunt in which they hope to get more people to drive through their lot than any other fast food chains down the street by citing a study that says cows fart too much , ” Jerry Sonnenberg said .
Sonnenberg says the ad uses a study that has not been peer-reviewed .
He claims that only about 5 % to 10 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to flatulence .
He says switching to lemongrass ( if it can be grown on his land ) or algae would raise the price of beef .
It might even push some ranchers in financial difficulty out of business .
Josh Sonnenberg acknowledges that ranchers and farmers need to do a better job of educating the public on what they do and how feeding programs work so that misinformation isn ’ t taken as fact .
Real scientific evidence or just some virtue-signaling from a big corporation wanting to be one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your next Whopper will have a Thai flavor to it .

For over forty years, Burger King used a slogan – Have it your way. Who knew one day that the company would be joining the climate change discussion with the methane emissions- fighting ingredient of lemongrass? The corporation thinks that lemongrass fed to cows will decrease cow farts and burps. The science is iffy, though.
During a limited-time release in the cities of Austin, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and Portland, Burger King will offer “reduced methane emissions beef.” Channeling its inner green guilt, a new motto appears during an educational video that addresses how cows and methane emissions affect the earth, a.k.a. global climate change. “Since we are part of the problem, we are working to be part of the solution.” Burger King is relying on a U.N. report that states, “Livestock is responsible for 14.5% of all human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” The corporation wants to do its part to pursue the 2016 Paris Agreement target on global warming.
Cows have a complex digestive system consisting of four stomachs, which enables them to eat and digest the food that we cannot – such as grass – through a process called enteric fermentation. As the cows digest their feed, they produce a lot of methane. This greenhouse gas is released every time the cows burp and fart the methane gas out. Methane is considered a high contributor to global warming, making it a key area for us to tackle in pursuit of the 2016 Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
So, Burger King is changing the diet of its cattle. It should help them digest food better, thus fewer gas emissions. They are adding 100 grams of dried lemongrass leaves to the cows’ daily feed. BK claims a reduction of up to 33% on average of methane emissions during the period the diet was fed.
Teaming with top researchers from the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico and U.C. Davis, we’ve conducted several rounds of research developing and refining a new cattle menu. The results? Based on this initial research, we’ve discovered that feeding cows with relatively small amounts of lemongrass, during the three-to-four month ‘fattening’ stages of production, reduces their methane emissions by up to 33% on average. Adding 100 grams of dried lemongrass leaves to the cows’ daily diet makes a significant difference.
Burger King hopes some yodeling children will be the sugar to make the lemongrass beef message go down easier. The lead yodeler is a boy who did a Walmart ad a couple of years ago. Burger King’s ad was produced several months ago before the coronavirus pandemic shut down studio productions, so this decision has been in the works for a while.
As you can imagine, cattle ranchers aren’t amused. In Colorado, for example, they talk about recent record heat and drought that have made life difficult. They say this is just a publicity stunt.
“This is the worst drought I’ve seen in my lifetime. We’ve never had to pull cattle off of grass in July before,” Sonnenberg said. “You can look around and the grass is brown. This is typically what it looks like in September, not in July.” The land around Sterling is so dry, in fact, that the family has taken on some cattle from other ranchers who ran out of grass for their livestock. “We’re trying to figure out exactly how longer to be able to stay out there before the grass dies,” said Josh Sonnenberg. “I don’t know if I can afford to buy hay because we don’t know what the cattle prices are going to do with the pandemic and everything else going on.” “Burger King has come out with what I call a publicity stunt in which they hope to get more people to drive through their lot than any other fast food chains down the street by citing a study that says cows fart too much,” Jerry Sonnenberg said.
Sonnenberg says the ad uses a study that has not been peer-reviewed. He claims that only about 5% to 10% of the gases emitted from cattle is due to flatulence. He says switching to lemongrass (if it can be grown on his land) or algae would raise the price of beef. It might even push some ranchers in financial difficulty out of business. Josh Sonnenberg acknowledges that ranchers and farmers need to do a better job of educating the public on what they do and how feeding programs work so that misinformation isn’t taken as fact.
Real scientific evidence or just some virtue-signaling from a big corporation wanting to be one of the woke ones? Who knows? Maybe your next Whopper will have a Thai flavor to it.


hotair--2020-07-18--NBA bubble bursts: Star player feels backlash for pro-police face mask

Deliver the wrong message with a face mask , suffer the wrath of the angry mob .
Even if the message is unintentional , there is no escaping the immediate reaction of scorn that offended social justice warriors will show .
James Harden , an NBA star player for the Houston Rockets , wore a face mask that fully covered his nose , mouth , and full beard as he reported to his first day of practice with the Rockets at the NBA ’ s Walt Disney World campus .
The Houston Rockets twitter account posted a picture of Harden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mask Up ” , a reminder for people to do so .
The reaction was swift when viewers noticed the pattern on the mask .
The subject of face masks has become a political one and Harden ’ s mask quickly became a part of the conversation .
He was criticized for wearing a blue mask that featured a thin blue line , assumed to be a pro-police design , and a Punisher skull .
The thin blue line is thought to be an anti-Black Lives Matter message and the Punisher skull is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if a person supports the police , there must be white supremacy involved .
The NBA , which has over 30 million followers , shared the Twitter post from the Rockets .
The question was – did Harden wear this particular face mask as a political statement ?
He says no .
It was an unintentional choice that was made because the mask fully covered his beard comfortably and he liked the head covering part , too .
Earlier Thursday , Harden said he was still trying to decide on what message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , as the league is allowing personal political messages on jerseys this year .
And , he praised Houston ’ s support for George Floyd .
The vast majority of NBA players have strongly supported the Black Lives Matter movement .
The NBA agreed to paint “ Black Lives Matter ” on the courts at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex near Orlando , where the league will play , and will allow players to wear social justice messages in place of their names on their jerseys .
Unlike his fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been particularly vocal about politics .
Asked earlier Thursday whether he would choose a message to wear on his jersey , Harden demurred .
“ I ’ m working on it right now , ” he told ESPN ’ s Marc J. Spears .
“ I ’ m in the process of figuring out if I ’ m going to put a message on my back and other ways to deliver my ( social justice ) message.
” While Harden was being criticized for the appearance of supporting police ( the horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying he probably really didn ’ t realize the message he was sending .
Even those defending Harden send a troubling message .
The rapper assumes if a person “ doesn ’ t have internet ” then that person doesn ’ t know right from wrong .
And , if someone does support the police , that person is against “ US ” , other black people .
How sick is all of that ?
This is the problem , though .
Even an NBA player who isn ’ t particularly inclined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down if he does something against the groupthink of his peers .
In the case of this blue face mask , I think Harden very likely didn ’ t realize what he was wearing .
And it shows how far the NBA has gone to appease the Black Lives Matter movement .
No one is allowed to be supportive of police , but supporting a movement founded by Marxists is fine .
A movement that calls for destroying our way of life and creating violence and civil unrest in cities across the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and women trying to protect the public .
It ’ s a horrible message and does nothing to bring people together .
The truth is , the BLM movement doesn ’ t want to bring people together and promote peaceful understanding .
That ’ s a lie .
They want to blow things up ( figuratively and literally ) and usher in their idea of utopia .
Meanwhile , the NBA supports Communist China and enriches itself with that support .
Individual players do , too , with endorsement deals in China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NBA tweeted out support for Hong Kong protesters earlier this year , as they demonstrated for freedom .
Harden isn ’ t as innocent as his friends would have you believe .
Clearly , the NBA puts profits over garnering support from pro-police , anti-Communist white people .
At least that is the message the NBA is sending .
Allowing players to wear social justice messages on their jerseys during games is a really bad idea .
No one is tuning in to a game to hear the political thoughts from players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game .
Speaking of NBA players and face masks , I ’ ll end with this tidbit .
While Harden wore his blue mask because he liked it and thought it looked cool , the Lakers ’ Dwight Howard was the victim of a snitch .
The NBA has a snitch line for players to tattle on each other when one doesn ’ t wear a face mask , as the NBA requires .
Someone turned Howard in for not wearing a mask .
“ Somebody told on me , ” Howard said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face mask while in the NBA campus bubble in Orlando , Fla .
While the hotline was set up for the protection of the players and everyone involved in the season restart , players don ’ t seem too happy with what they ’ re calling the “ snitch hotline.
” Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert , who was the first NBA player to test positive for COVID-19 , called the mesure “ petty.
” “ I don ’ t know if someone ’ s gon na use it , but I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said according to ESPN .
“ I think it ’ s more about respecting each other and all do it as a small community.
” Several players have already gotten into trouble for breaking bubble protocol , including Sacramento Kings forward Richaun Holmes , who left the campus to pick up a food delivery .
A snitch line sure smacks of authoritarianism , doesn ’ t it ?

Deliver the wrong message with a face mask, suffer the wrath of the angry mob. Even if the message is unintentional, there is no escaping the immediate reaction of scorn that offended social justice warriors will show.
James Harden, an NBA star player for the Houston Rockets, wore a face mask that fully covered his nose, mouth, and full beard as he reported to his first day of practice with the Rockets at the NBA’s Walt Disney World campus. The Houston Rockets twitter account posted a picture of Harden wearing the mask with the message “Mask Up”, a reminder for people to do so. The reaction was swift when viewers noticed the pattern on the mask.
https://twitter.com/HoustonRockets/status/1283931715082293249
The subject of face masks has become a political one and Harden’s mask quickly became a part of the conversation. He was criticized for wearing a blue mask that featured a thin blue line, assumed to be a pro-police design, and a Punisher skull. The thin blue line is thought to be an anti-Black Lives Matter message and the Punisher skull is associated with “far-right groups.” Apparently, if a person supports the police, there must be white supremacy involved.
The NBA, which has over 30 million followers, shared the Twitter post from the Rockets. The question was – did Harden wear this particular face mask as a political statement? He says no. It was an unintentional choice that was made because the mask fully covered his beard comfortably and he liked the head covering part, too.
Photographs of Harden wearing the mask, a neck gaiter pulled over his face, published by the Rockets’ and NBA’s social media accounts, provoked strong reactions from people on both sides of the issue. “Honestly, I wasn’t trying to make a political statement,” Harden said before the Rockets’ practice Friday. “I honestly wore it just because it covered my whole face and my beard. It’s pretty simple.”
Earlier Thursday, Harden said he was still trying to decide on what message if any, his team jersey would state, as the league is allowing personal political messages on jerseys this year. And, he praised Houston’s support for George Floyd.
The vast majority of NBA players have strongly supported the Black Lives Matter movement. The NBA agreed to paint “Black Lives Matter” on the courts at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex near Orlando, where the league will play, and will allow players to wear social justice messages in place of their names on their jerseys. Unlike his fellow NBA superstar LeBron James, Harden has never been particularly vocal about politics. Asked earlier Thursday whether he would choose a message to wear on his jersey, Harden demurred. “I’m working on it right now,” he told ESPN’s Marc J. Spears. “I’m in the process of figuring out if I’m going to put a message on my back and other ways to deliver my (social justice) message.”
While Harden was being criticized for the appearance of supporting police (the horror), others spoke up for him, saying he probably really didn’t realize the message he was sending.
Among those who slammed Harden for wearing the mask were musician Trey Songz, who called Harden’s choice of a mask “certified clown s—,” tweeting that “I’ll say it for everybody who scared to.” But rapper Young Thug, a friend of Harden’s, stuck up for the former MVP by suggesting he didn’t know what the thin blue line imagery meant, noting in a tweet that Harden doesn’t “have internet so he obviously don’t know what’s right or wrong if he posted something that’s against US.”
Even those defending Harden send a troubling message. The rapper assumes if a person “doesn’t have internet” then that person doesn’t know right from wrong. And, if someone does support the police, that person is against “US”, other black people. How sick is all of that? This is the problem, though. Even an NBA player who isn’t particularly inclined to speak about politics must be shut down if he does something against the groupthink of his peers.
In the case of this blue face mask, I think Harden very likely didn’t realize what he was wearing. And it shows how far the NBA has gone to appease the Black Lives Matter movement. No one is allowed to be supportive of police, but supporting a movement founded by Marxists is fine. A movement that calls for destroying our way of life and creating violence and civil unrest in cities across the country is to be supported over the men and women trying to protect the public. It’s a horrible message and does nothing to bring people together. The truth is, the BLM movement doesn’t want to bring people together and promote peaceful understanding. That’s a lie. They want to blow things up (figuratively and literally) and usher in their idea of utopia.
Meanwhile, the NBA supports Communist China and enriches itself with that support. Individual players do, too, with endorsement deals in China. Harden apologized to the Chinese government when the NBA tweeted out support for Hong Kong protesters earlier this year, as they demonstrated for freedom. Harden isn’t as innocent as his friends would have you believe. Clearly, the NBA puts profits over garnering support from pro-police, anti-Communist white people. At least that is the message the NBA is sending. Allowing players to wear social justice messages on their jerseys during games is a really bad idea. No one is tuning in to a game to hear the political thoughts from players, they are there to watch a game.
Speaking of NBA players and face masks, I’ll end with this tidbit. While Harden wore his blue mask because he liked it and thought it looked cool, the Lakers’ Dwight Howard was the victim of a snitch. The NBA has a snitch line for players to tattle on each other when one doesn’t wear a face mask, as the NBA requires. Someone turned Howard in for not wearing a mask.
“Somebody told on me,” Howard said after being warned for not wearing a face mask while in the NBA campus bubble in Orlando, Fla. While the hotline was set up for the protection of the players and everyone involved in the season restart, players don’t seem too happy with what they’re calling the “snitch hotline.” Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert, who was the first NBA player to test positive for COVID-19, called the mesure “petty.” “I don’t know if someone’s gonna use it, but I think it’s sort of petty,” he said according to ESPN. “I think it’s more about respecting each other and all do it as a small community.” Several players have already gotten into trouble for breaking bubble protocol, including Sacramento Kings forward Richaun Holmes, who left the campus to pick up a food delivery.
A snitch line sure smacks of authoritarianism, doesn’t it?


hotair--2020-07-18--Chuck Grassley: I wouldn't hold a hearing on a SCOTUS vacancy before the election

He first said this in 2016 , then reiterated it in 2018 , then reiterated it yet again for reporters yesterday .
The McConnell standard for election-year vacancies is , of course , that they shouldn ’ t be filled if the presidency and the Senate majority are held by different parties .
That ’ s not the case this year so it ’ s full speed ahead for Cocaine Mitch if any seats on the Court open up before November .
The Grassley standard is different .
The Judiciary Committee shouldn ’ t hold hearings on a SCOTUS vacancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s said .
Those are strong words coming from a man who chaired the committee for many years .
Two wrinkles , though .
He ’ s not the chairman right now ; Lindsey Graham is , and Graham has ( belatedly ) adopted the McConnell standard .
Grassley has no control over what the Judiciary Committee does at the moment .
But he does get to cast a vote for confirmation , of course , as all senators do .
That ’ s the second wrinkle .
If McConnell and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmation vote to the Senate floor , would Grassley defy them in return by voting against the nominee ?
Because if so , that ’ s a big , big deal .
Sen. Chuck Grassley , then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , incurred the wrath of liberals in 2016 when he put President Barack Obama ’ s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland on hold until after the presidential election .
“ If I were chairman of the committee and this vacancy occurred , I would not have a hearing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised the people in 2016 , ” Grassley told reporters Friday morning… Grassley gave a similar answer earlier this month when asked about rumors Justice Samuel Alito would retire at the end of the court ’ s term .
“ If I were chairing the committee , based on what I told people in 2016 , I could not process ( the nomination ) , ” he said .
He and three other Republicans could nuke the McConnell standard and impose the Grassley standard on the Senate all on their own if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on any nominees in an election year .
Romney might be willing to join that effort .
So might Lisa Murkowski .
And if the vacancy happened before the election , Susan Collins would have to think hard about whether to infuriate Maine Republicans by joining as well or risk infuriating left-leaning Maine independents by voting to confirm .
There ’ d be tricky strategic questions for all of them to ponder .
On the one hand , declining to confirm a new Republican justice would fumble away an opportunity that the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A vacancy , especially a vacancy in a seat currently held by a liberal , would be a chance to reshape the Court for decades .
If you ’ re Chuck Grassley , how could you say no to that ?
More to the point , how could you expect Republican voters to ever forgive you if you did ?
On the other hand , progressives are restless for revenge on the GOP for holding open Scalia ’ s seat in the 2016 election .
That was their own chance to reshape the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary blew the election .
A few months later , Republicans nuked the SCOTUS filibuster to confirm Gorsuch .
Ever since , lefties have chattered excitedly about radical ways to remake SCOTUS via Court-packing , term limits on justices , etc .
A Romney or Collins might calculate that filling a seat this fall , with Trump poised to lose the election , would turbo-charge those complaints and leave Biden with little choice next year but to sign on to a Court-packing effort .
“ For institutional reasons , ” they might say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to choose which president fills this vacancy.
” That might be enough to puncture the left ’ s Court-packing balloon .
The closer we get to the election , the more dicey the politics of filling a surprise vacancy would get .
Imagine that a seat opened up in mid-October .
Normally there ’ s a period of many weeks between the time a seat opens , a nominee is chosen , confirmation hearings are held , and the vote is taken .
Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump on July 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t begin until nearly two months later .
Would McConnell simply jettison that interim period and schedule a confirmation hearing the day after Trump nominated someone in October , without any time for the opposition to research the candidate ?
Would he cancel hearings altogether and hold a vote ASAP to get the nominee confirmed before Election Day ?
It ’ s unpredictable how that would play politically .
Republican voters might be energized by it ; Democratic voters definitely would be .
But it would also change the subject from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If McConnell concluded that the spectacle of ramming through a nominee via irregular procedures was apt to boost lefty turnout against Trump , would he hold off on a confirmation vote purely for that reason ?
If he did , then *that* might boost lefty turnout by giving them an extra reason to show up on Election Day .
“ The seat is open !
We need to elect Biden so that he can fill this vacancy , not Trump !
” Like I say : Dicey .
Where things get really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacancy opens up during the lame-duck session after Trump has lost the election .
There ’ s no question Trump would want to fill that seat ; I think McConnell would too , even ( especially ? )
if Election Day swept an incoming Democratic majority to power in the Senate in the next term .
Again , though , the normal timetable for confirmations would make this difficult — if McConnell intended to follow something like a normal timetable — since there are just two months between Election Day and the swearing-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think it ’ d be much harder to hold the GOP Senate caucus together in voting to confirm during a lame-duck session than it would be if a vacancy opened up before the election .
Romney , Collins , Murkowski and a fourth Republican ( Grassley ? )
might simply say , “ The people have spoken , they want a Democratic government in charge now , and we feel it ’ d be improper to deny them their will on something so important by ramming through a confirmation via irregular procedures.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Confirming a Republican justice during the lame-duck period after an election which the GOP lost very narrowly would be easier to sell politically than confirming one after an election in which they ’ d been blown out .
But I don ’ t know .
It ’ d be awfully hard to pass on one last chance to put a conservative on the Court before losing power .
Joni Ernst was asked about this very scenario yesterday .
Watch the clip below for her response .

He first said this in 2016, then reiterated it in 2018, then reiterated it yet again for reporters yesterday. The McConnell standard for election-year vacancies is, of course, that they shouldn’t be filled if the presidency and the Senate majority are held by different parties. That’s not the case this year so it’s full speed ahead for Cocaine Mitch if any seats on the Court open up before November.
The Grassley standard is different. The Judiciary Committee shouldn’t hold hearings on a SCOTUS vacancy in an election year, period, he’s said. Those are strong words coming from a man who chaired the committee for many years. Two wrinkles, though. He’s not the chairman right now; Lindsey Graham is, and Graham has (belatedly) adopted the McConnell standard. Grassley has no control over what the Judiciary Committee does at the moment.
But he does get to cast a vote for confirmation, of course, as all senators do. That’s the second wrinkle. If McConnell and Graham defy his wishes and bring a confirmation vote to the Senate floor, would Grassley defy them in return by voting against the nominee?
Because if so, that’s a big, big deal.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, then the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, incurred the wrath of liberals in 2016 when he put President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland on hold until after the presidential election. “If I were chairman of the committee and this vacancy occurred, I would not have a hearing on it because that’s what I promised the people in 2016,” Grassley told reporters Friday morning… Grassley gave a similar answer earlier this month when asked about rumors Justice Samuel Alito would retire at the end of the court’s term. “If I were chairing the committee, based on what I told people in 2016, I could not process (the nomination),” he said.
He and three other Republicans could nuke the McConnell standard and impose the Grassley standard on the Senate all on their own if they decided on principle not to vote yes on any nominees in an election year. Romney might be willing to join that effort. So might Lisa Murkowski. And if the vacancy happened before the election, Susan Collins would have to think hard about whether to infuriate Maine Republicans by joining as well or risk infuriating left-leaning Maine independents by voting to confirm.
There’d be tricky strategic questions for all of them to ponder. On the one hand, declining to confirm a new Republican justice would fumble away an opportunity that the party might not have again for years. A vacancy, especially a vacancy in a seat currently held by a liberal, would be a chance to reshape the Court for decades. If you’re Chuck Grassley, how could you say no to that? More to the point, how could you expect Republican voters to ever forgive you if you did?
On the other hand, progressives are restless for revenge on the GOP for holding open Scalia’s seat in the 2016 election. That was their own chance to reshape the Court; McConnell blocked it and then Hillary blew the election. A few months later, Republicans nuked the SCOTUS filibuster to confirm Gorsuch. Ever since, lefties have chattered excitedly about radical ways to remake SCOTUS via Court-packing, term limits on justices, etc. A Romney or Collins might calculate that filling a seat this fall, with Trump poised to lose the election, would turbo-charge those complaints and leave Biden with little choice next year but to sign on to a Court-packing effort. “For institutional reasons,” they might say, “we believe voters should be allowed to choose which president fills this vacancy.” That might be enough to puncture the left’s Court-packing balloon.
The closer we get to the election, the more dicey the politics of filling a surprise vacancy would get. Imagine that a seat opened up in mid-October. Normally there’s a period of many weeks between the time a seat opens, a nominee is chosen, confirmation hearings are held, and the vote is taken. Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump on July 9, 2018; his confirmation hearing didn’t begin until nearly two months later. Would McConnell simply jettison that interim period and schedule a confirmation hearing the day after Trump nominated someone in October, without any time for the opposition to research the candidate? Would he cancel hearings altogether and hold a vote ASAP to get the nominee confirmed before Election Day? It’s unpredictable how that would play politically. Republican voters might be energized by it; Democratic voters definitely would be. But it would also change the subject from the pandemic, which might help Trump marginally.
If McConnell concluded that the spectacle of ramming through a nominee via irregular procedures was apt to boost lefty turnout against Trump, would he hold off on a confirmation vote purely for that reason? If he did, then *that* might boost lefty turnout by giving them an extra reason to show up on Election Day. “The seat is open! We need to elect Biden so that he can fill this vacancy, not Trump!” Like I say: Dicey.
Where things get really dicey is the scenario in which a vacancy opens up during the lame-duck session after Trump has lost the election. There’s no question Trump would want to fill that seat; I think McConnell would too, even (especially?) if Election Day swept an incoming Democratic majority to power in the Senate in the next term. Again, though, the normal timetable for confirmations would make this difficult — if McConnell intended to follow something like a normal timetable — since there are just two months between Election Day and the swearing-in of the new Senate. And I think it’d be much harder to hold the GOP Senate caucus together in voting to confirm during a lame-duck session than it would be if a vacancy opened up before the election. Romney, Collins, Murkowski and a fourth Republican (Grassley?) might simply say, “The people have spoken, they want a Democratic government in charge now, and we feel it’d be improper to deny them their will on something so important by ramming through a confirmation via irregular procedures.”
The Election Day margins might matter too. Confirming a Republican justice during the lame-duck period after an election which the GOP lost very narrowly would be easier to sell politically than confirming one after an election in which they’d been blown out.
But I don’t know. It’d be awfully hard to pass on one last chance to put a conservative on the Court before losing power. Joni Ernst was asked about this very scenario yesterday. Watch the clip below for her response.


hotair--2020-07-18--Oh my: Strzok notes show no evidence of Team Trump-Russia contacts, doubts about Steele dossier -- i

Oh my: Strzok notes show no evidence of Team Trump-Russia contacts, doubts about Steele dossier -- in February 2017

Just when did the FBI ’ s top echelon realize that the Steele dossier was unreliable ?
New notes released by the Senate Judiciary Committee late yesterday show the agent in charge of Operation Crossfire Hurricane realized it by mid-February 2017 .
Peter Strzok also knew that leaks from the investigation included flat-out false information that attempted to shore up the public case for continuing the probe , all of which raises new questions as to why the probe continued at all : A top F.B.I .
agent recognized by February 2017 that a now notorious dossier of claims about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the Justice Department continued to rely on it as part of its basis to renew permission to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser , documents released on Friday showed .
The documents included an F.B.I .
memo recounting a three-day interview in January 2017 with a person who served as a primary source for Christopher Steele , a former British intelligence officer who compiled the dossier for a research firm paid by Democrats .
They also included an F.B.I .
agent ’ s notes disputing aspects of a New York Times article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peter Strzok , had not participated in the interview of Mr. Steele ’ s source , in which the source had suggested that the dossier misstated or exaggerated certain information that the source had gathered from a network of contacts in Russia and relayed to Mr. Steele .
But Mr. Strzok appeared to be aware of aspects of it .
In his annotations about two weeks later , Mr. Strzok questioned the reliability of the dossier .
Reacting to a line in the newspaper article that senior F.B.I .
officials believed that Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Strzok wrote in the margins : “ Recent interviews and investigation , however , reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.
” Why is this important ?
It shows that the whole basis for idea that Donald Trump had colluded with Russians in warping the 2016 elections — or had been trapped by their intelligence services — had serious credibility problems well before the appointment of a special counsel .
Those credibility problems went right to the top by February 2017 , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And yet the FBI would not only rely on the Steele dossier to get surveillance extended on Carter Page multiple times , it also kept the probe alive long enough to turn it over to Robert Mueller .
The notes show something else , too , in relation to the entire raison d ’ être of the investigation .
The NYT report that followed two weeks later claimed that “ Trump campaign aides had repeated contact with Russian intelligence , ” the core accusation of Russiagate .
That was news to Strzok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment that the FBI had no such evidence of any meetings : Let ’ s recall the specific context of Strzok ’ s comments .
Page , as it turned out , made contacts with Russian intelligence because he was working clandestinely for the CIA at the time .
Manafort had a long history with the Russians and their intel that predated the campaign — a history of illegality which the DoJ had declined to pursue until Robert Mueller needed it for leverage .
Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn ’ s “ contacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and were entirely legitimate .
And at least as far as Flynn is concerned , the FBI knew that a month prior to Strzok ’ s notes .
Beyond that , though , the FBI had apparently not found any basis for Crossfire Hurricane by mid-February 2017 .
According to Strzok ’ s notes , they hadn ’ t found any contacts between Trump or his advisers and Russian intelligence , and the only substantial input they had was the Steele dossier — which Strzok already knew was unreliable .
And , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after much demagoguery and more leaked misinformation , the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller never did find any evidence of collusion with Russian intelligence .
All of this leads to one question : why did the FBI continue to pursue the investigation after February 2017 when they had no evidentiary basis for it ?
Where was the probable cause ?
Who leaked misinformation to the New York Times to provide a political cover for the FBI ’ s investigation ?
Who kept this probe going when it clearly didn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Perhaps John Durham will come up with some answers to those questions .
At this point , though , there doesn ’ t appear to be any innocent answers to them .
Update : Well , it started out as one question .
It ended up looking more like this , I admit :

Just when did the FBI’s top echelon realize that the Steele dossier was unreliable? New notes released by the Senate Judiciary Committee late yesterday show the agent in charge of Operation Crossfire Hurricane realized it by mid-February 2017. Peter Strzok also knew that leaks from the investigation included flat-out false information that attempted to shore up the public case for continuing the probe, all of which raises new questions as to why the probe continued at all:
A top F.B.I. agent recognized by February 2017 that a now notorious dossier of claims about purported Trump-Russia ties had credibility problems, but the Justice Department continued to rely on it as part of its basis to renew permission to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser, documents released on Friday showed. The documents included an F.B.I. memo recounting a three-day interview in January 2017 with a person who served as a primary source for Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who compiled the dossier for a research firm paid by Democrats. They also included an F.B.I. agent’s notes disputing aspects of a New York Times article the next month. The agent, Peter Strzok, had not participated in the interview of Mr. Steele’s source, in which the source had suggested that the dossier misstated or exaggerated certain information that the source had gathered from a network of contacts in Russia and relayed to Mr. Steele. But Mr. Strzok appeared to be aware of aspects of it. In his annotations about two weeks later, Mr. Strzok questioned the reliability of the dossier. Reacting to a line in the newspaper article that senior F.B.I. officials believed that Mr. Steele had a credible track record, Mr. Strzok wrote in the margins: “Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.”
Why is this important? It shows that the whole basis for idea that Donald Trump had colluded with Russians in warping the 2016 elections — or had been trapped by their intelligence services — had serious credibility problems well before the appointment of a special counsel. Those credibility problems went right to the top by February 2017, as the Strzok notes Lindsey Graham released show. And yet the FBI would not only rely on the Steele dossier to get surveillance extended on Carter Page multiple times, it also kept the probe alive long enough to turn it over to Robert Mueller.
The notes show something else, too, in relation to the entire raison d’être of the investigation. The NYT report that followed two weeks later claimed that “Trump campaign aides had repeated contact with Russian intelligence,” the core accusation of Russiagate. That was news to Strzok, who wrote in a recently declassified comment that the FBI had no such evidence of any meetings:
“We are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” Still, he also added, the bureau had identified contacts between Mr. Page and Russian intelligence officials before the campaign; contacts between an associate of Paul Manafort, the onetime campaign chairman, and Russian intelligence; and contacts between two campaign advisers, Jeff Sessions and Michael T. Flynn, and Russia’s ambassador to the United States.
Let’s recall the specific context of Strzok’s comments. Page, as it turned out, made contacts with Russian intelligence because he was working clandestinely for the CIA at the time. Manafort had a long history with the Russians and their intel that predated the campaign — a history of illegality which the DoJ had declined to pursue until Robert Mueller needed it for leverage. Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn’s “contacts” were with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and were entirely legitimate. And at least as far as Flynn is concerned, the FBI knew that a month prior to Strzok’s notes.
Beyond that, though, the FBI had apparently not found any basis for Crossfire Hurricane by mid-February 2017. According to Strzok’s notes, they hadn’t found any contacts between Trump or his advisers and Russian intelligence, and the only substantial input they had was the Steele dossier — which Strzok already knew was unreliable. And, as we found out two years later and after much demagoguery and more leaked misinformation, the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller never did find any evidence of collusion with Russian intelligence.
All of this leads to one question: why did the FBI continue to pursue the investigation after February 2017 when they had no evidentiary basis for it? Where was the probable cause? Who leaked misinformation to the New York Times to provide a political cover for the FBI’s investigation? Who kept this probe going when it clearly didn’t have any need to continue, and why?
Perhaps John Durham will come up with some answers to those questions. At this point, though, there doesn’t appear to be any innocent answers to them.
Update: Well, it started out as one question. It ended up looking more like this, I admit:


hotair--2020-07-18--Disgraced Democrat sprung from prison without explanation

Here ’ s a name that ’ s something of a blast from the past .
Those of you who have been following political corruption stories for a while will likely recall the tale of former Pennsylvania Congressman Chaka Fattah .
It ’ s been a while since his name has been in the news .
In fact , the last time I wrote about him was back in December of 2016 when he was sentenced to the longest stretch in prison of any member of Congress in the history of the country .
Fattah was given a ten-year sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxpayer money and funds designated for charitable causes .
He was only halfway through his time in the crowbar motel , but this week he was quietly released from the slammer with no explanation being given for this generous maneuver by the federal Bureau of Prisons .
( Free Beacon ) The United States Bureau of Prisons released a disgraced Democratic ex-congressman Thursday without explaining why he should not be out of prison with more than five years left on his sentence .
Former Pennsylvania representative Chaka Fattah was convicted on charges of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philadelphia mayoral campaign , in which he accepted an illegal $ 1 million loan .
But the Bureau of Prisons has not offered an explanation for the release , according to the Philadelphia Inquirer .
Fattah ’ s time in Congress came to an end in 2016 when he , along with several associates , was indicted on federal racketeering and influence peddling charges .
The most obvious guess is that the threat of spreading the novel coronavirus in the prison was the rationale used to justify releasing Fattah .
As much as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume that was the reason for knocking half of his sentence off , it was at least consistent with the policies being pushed in Philadelphia .
They ’ re supposedly keeping the more violent and dangerous prisoners behind bars , while booting out those who were guilty of less physically dangerous offenses .
Since Fattah ’ s crimes were strictly of the white-collar variety , I suppose one could make an argument in his favor .
But that doesn ’ t make it any easier of a pill to swallow .
Keep in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Congress , it was only to avoid becoming the sixth member in history to be forcibly ejected from the House of Representatives .
And given the laundry list of crimes he was convicted of , particularly considering the nature of the crimes , his removal would have been unavoidable .
You ’ ll recall that Fattah stole more than half a million dollars from public education funds to pay off some of his personal loans .
He helped a friend land a position as an ambassador , leading to another $ 23K @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He also filched tens of thousands of dollars from a non-profit charitable fund to pay for his kid ’ s college loans .
This guy was shameless , and he never even apologized for all of the grifting and theft .
The most he said on that subject at his sentencing hearing was that he had been “ found on the wrong side of these questions by a jury.
” He never once even suggested that there was any problem with him raiding the public piggy bank for his own benefit .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having been elected to Congress , the store was open for business and he planned to cash in as much as possible .
Chaka Fattah will go down in history as one of the most corrupt , self-serving people to ever hold office .
And now he ’ s managed to land himself a release from prison after only serving barely half of the sentence he was given .
Some people simply have a charmed life , I suppose .
And I guess this means Billy Joel was right when he said @ @ @ @ @ @

Here’s a name that’s something of a blast from the past. Those of you who have been following political corruption stories for a while will likely recall the tale of former Pennsylvania Congressman Chaka Fattah. It’s been a while since his name has been in the news. In fact, the last time I wrote about him was back in December of 2016 when he was sentenced to the longest stretch in prison of any member of Congress in the history of the country. Fattah was given a ten-year sentence for stealing millions of dollars in both taxpayer money and funds designated for charitable causes. He was only halfway through his time in the crowbar motel, but this week he was quietly released from the slammer with no explanation being given for this generous maneuver by the federal Bureau of Prisons. (Free Beacon)
The United States Bureau of Prisons released a disgraced Democratic ex-congressman Thursday without explaining why he should not be out of prison with more than five years left on his sentence. Former Pennsylvania representative Chaka Fattah was convicted on charges of bribery and corruption connected to his failed Philadelphia mayoral campaign, in which he accepted an illegal $1 million loan. But the Bureau of Prisons has not offered an explanation for the release, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fattah’s time in Congress came to an end in 2016 when he, along with several associates, was indicted on federal racketeering and influence peddling charges.
The most obvious guess is that the threat of spreading the novel coronavirus in the prison was the rationale used to justify releasing Fattah. As much as it may rankle people, if we assume that was the reason for knocking half of his sentence off, it was at least consistent with the policies being pushed in Philadelphia. They’re supposedly keeping the more violent and dangerous prisoners behind bars, while booting out those who were guilty of less physically dangerous offenses. Since Fattah’s crimes were strictly of the white-collar variety, I suppose one could make an argument in his favor.
But that doesn’t make it any easier of a pill to swallow. Keep in mind that when Chaka Fattah finally resigned from Congress, it was only to avoid becoming the sixth member in history to be forcibly ejected from the House of Representatives.
And given the laundry list of crimes he was convicted of, particularly considering the nature of the crimes, his removal would have been unavoidable. You’ll recall that Fattah stole more than half a million dollars from public education funds to pay off some of his personal loans. He helped a friend land a position as an ambassador, leading to another $23K mysteriously winding up in his pocket. He also filched tens of thousands of dollars from a non-profit charitable fund to pay for his kid’s college loans.
This guy was shameless, and he never even apologized for all of the grifting and theft. The most he said on that subject at his sentencing hearing was that he had been “found on the wrong side of these questions by a jury.” He never once even suggested that there was any problem with him raiding the public piggy bank for his own benefit. It was as if he simply assumed that, having been elected to Congress, the store was open for business and he planned to cash in as much as possible.
Chaka Fattah will go down in history as one of the most corrupt, self-serving people to ever hold office. And now he’s managed to land himself a release from prison after only serving barely half of the sentence he was given. Some people simply have a charmed life, I suppose. And I guess this means Billy Joel was right when he said only the good die young.