hotair--2020-09-22--ICE arrests illegal immigrant pedophile that Denver released, but the story gets worse

Back on September 4th , an alarming incident took place at the international terminal of the Denver International Airport , though it didn ’ t make much of a splash in the national media at the time .
Celin Villeda-Orellana , a 33-year-old illegal alien from Honduras , was preparing to board an airplane and leave the country .
Before he could make good on his plans , Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents apprehended him .
If that were the end of the story we could write this off as a job well done by ICE and move along , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Villeda-Orellana ’ s story than first meets the eye .
This was far from the first time the illegal alien had run up against the law .
He first jumped the border from Mexico in 2007 , going on to later be arrested in Chicago and deported back to Honduras .
He did it again in 2018 ( that ’ s the next incident we know of , anyway ) , being once again arrested in Arizona .
He was sent to Texas for deportation , but while waiting to be shipped out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that in a moment . )
What makes the arrest at the Denver airport more alarming is the fact that Villeda-Orellana wasn ’ t simply wanted on illegal immigration charges .
He was wanted for the sexual assault of a child .
Even worse , he had been in the custody of the Denver Police prior to this event , but they refused an ICE detainer and released him yet again .
( CBS Denver ) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) personnel arrested a Honduran man at Denver International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man had been arrested on sexual assault on a child charges by Denver law enforcement .
He was subsequently released from jail against the wishes of the federal agents .
Celin Villeda-Orellana , 33 , was in the country illegally , according to an ICE spokesperson .
And not for the first time .
When asked if the suspect was attempting to board a plane or leave the country from DIA , an ICE spokesperson refused to elaborate on the circumstances of his arrest .
This is where the story shifts back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reason he was released while awaiting deportation was that it had been determined that was part of “ a family unit ” because he had illegally crossed the border with a child .
ICE has since determined that he was not related to the child .
Whether or not this is the same child he ’ s accused of sexually assaulting in Denver is unknown , but it certainly sounds as if he was trafficking the child when he returned to the United States .
The Denver PD had charged the illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual assault on a child .
But he somehow managed to post a $ 5,000 bond to be released , despite ICE asking the police to hold him .
And what was the Denver Sheriff ’ s Department ’ s excuse for rejecting the detainer request and springing him from jail ?
Here ’ s their official statement .
“ The Denver Sheriff Department ( DSD ) legally can not honor civil ‘ detainer ’ requests from ICE unless they are accompanied by a criminal warrant issued by a judge .
Denver does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notification when individuals are released .
Pursuant to the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act , when the Denver Sheriff Department receives a request for notification from ICE , DSD faxes ICE notification of release when the individual enters into the release process .
It is the responsibility of ICE to arrive at DSD prior to release and take the individual into custody .
The additional details turn this into even more of a mess .
The Sheriff ’ s Department faxed a notification of Villeda-Orellana ’ s pending release to ICE on Feb. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They scrambled to get a warrant , but that ’ s not always easy that late in the evening .
The suspect was released that same night at 10:48 p.m. That means that ICE was given a grand total of two hours and twenty minutes to try to find a judge to give them a warrant before the man facing six counts relating to the sexual assault of a child was released .
According to ICE , he then went on to “ re-offend , ” though details of that incident were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those sanctuary cities that have passed laws making it as difficult as possible for ICE to coordinate with local law enforcement .
In this case , they managed to put an accused child molester back out on the streets rather than waiting for ICE to find a judge and get a warrant .
The police and the Sheriff ’ s Department were following the rules put in place by the city .
And that ’ s where the real blame for all of this should be placed .

Back on September 4th, an alarming incident took place at the international terminal of the Denver International Airport, though it didn’t make much of a splash in the national media at the time. Celin Villeda-Orellana, a 33-year-old illegal alien from Honduras, was preparing to board an airplane and leave the country. Before he could make good on his plans, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents apprehended him. If that were the end of the story we could write this off as a job well done by ICE and move along, but there is a lot more to Villeda-Orellana’s story than first meets the eye.
This was far from the first time the illegal alien had run up against the law. He first jumped the border from Mexico in 2007, going on to later be arrested in Chicago and deported back to Honduras. He did it again in 2018 (that’s the next incident we know of, anyway), being once again arrested in Arizona. He was sent to Texas for deportation, but while waiting to be shipped out, he was released. (More on that in a moment.) What makes the arrest at the Denver airport more alarming is the fact that Villeda-Orellana wasn’t simply wanted on illegal immigration charges. He was wanted for the sexual assault of a child. Even worse, he had been in the custody of the Denver Police prior to this event, but they refused an ICE detainer and released him yet again. (CBS Denver)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel arrested a Honduran man at Denver International Airport on Sept. 4, months after the man had been arrested on sexual assault on a child charges by Denver law enforcement. He was subsequently released from jail against the wishes of the federal agents. Celin Villeda-Orellana, 33, was in the country illegally, according to an ICE spokesperson. And not for the first time. When asked if the suspect was attempting to board a plane or leave the country from DIA, an ICE spokesperson refused to elaborate on the circumstances of his arrest.
This is where the story shifts back to Villeda-Orellana’s 2018 arrest. The reason he was released while awaiting deportation was that it had been determined that was part of “a family unit” because he had illegally crossed the border with a child. ICE has since determined that he was not related to the child. Whether or not this is the same child he’s accused of sexually assaulting in Denver is unknown, but it certainly sounds as if he was trafficking the child when he returned to the United States.
The Denver PD had charged the illegal alien with six felony counts relating to sexual assault on a child. But he somehow managed to post a $5,000 bond to be released, despite ICE asking the police to hold him. And what was the Denver Sheriff’s Department’s excuse for rejecting the detainer request and springing him from jail? Here’s their official statement.
“The Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) legally cannot honor civil ‘detainer’ requests from ICE unless they are accompanied by a criminal warrant issued by a judge. Denver does promptly respond to requests from ICE for notification when individuals are released. Pursuant to the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act, when the Denver Sheriff Department receives a request for notification from ICE, DSD faxes ICE notification of release when the individual enters into the release process. It is the responsibility of ICE to arrive at DSD prior to release and take the individual into custody.
The additional details turn this into even more of a mess. The Sheriff’s Department faxed a notification of Villeda-Orellana’s pending release to ICE on Feb. 21, 2020, at 8:28 p.m. They scrambled to get a warrant, but that’s not always easy that late in the evening. The suspect was released that same night at 10:48 p.m. That means that ICE was given a grand total of two hours and twenty minutes to try to find a judge to give them a warrant before the man facing six counts relating to the sexual assault of a child was released. According to ICE, he then went on to “re-offend,” though details of that incident were not provided.
Denver is another one of those sanctuary cities that have passed laws making it as difficult as possible for ICE to coordinate with local law enforcement. In this case, they managed to put an accused child molester back out on the streets rather than waiting for ICE to find a judge and get a warrant. The police and the Sheriff’s Department were following the rules put in place by the city. And that’s where the real blame for all of this should be placed.


hotair--2020-09-22--Breaking: Romney says let's get this SCOTUS vote in now; Update: 51

Alternate mainstream media headline , inspired by our colleague Guy Benson : Mitt Romney suddenly reverts to previous status as a dog-torturing venture capitalist .
Or , alternate alternate headline , via Politico : Cocaine Mitch wins again .
Sen. Mitt Romney said he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court , essentially clinching consideration of Trump ’ s nominee this year despite the impending election .
Just two Republican senators have asked for the party to put the breaks on the confirmation .
And with a 53-seat majority , Senate Majority Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to move forward with a nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
“ I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president ’ s nominee .
If the nominee reaches the Senate floor , I intend to vote based upon their qualifications , ” the Utah Republican said in a statement .
There ’ s not much more to add to this , since it adds up to 51 — at least for now .
The writing on this wall probably came yesterday after retiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court pick .
Alexander , who usually votes with the majority but likes to work across the aisle , was one of the big votes McConnell needed in harness , pour encourager les autres in a way .
In fact , it ’ s tough to be surprised by this decision .
Romney may represent a less-than-enthusiastic electorate when it comes to Trump , but Utah is still deeply conservative and deeply concerned about the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary .
Had Romney waffled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , voters there would have been outraged — not on Trump ’ s behalf , but on their own behalf .
And rightly so , too .
One has to wonder what Susan Collins and especially Lisa Murkowski might do now in the breach .
Collins faces a tough election in Maine , so she ’ ll probably hang tight to her no vote , at least on the motion to proceed to a floor vote .
Murkowski , however , faces a similar political climate as Romney .
Alaskan Republicans already tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to scuttle a normal process for filling a Supreme Court opening might end up being more damaging than supporting the normal process would have been .
It may be that both will try to eat their cake and have it too by voting against the motion to proceed but voting to confirm the specific nominee in the end .
Anyway , Romney ’ s not hiding his thoughts behind a spokesman .
Here ’ s his statement on Twitter : Update : In case anyone missed it yesterday , Cory Gardner also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s 51 and the ballgame , unless something changes .

Alternate mainstream media headline, inspired by our colleague Guy Benson: Mitt Romney suddenly reverts to previous status as a dog-torturing venture capitalist. Or, alternate alternate headline, via Politico: Cocaine Mitch wins again.
Sen. Mitt Romney said he would support a floor vote on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court, essentially clinching consideration of Trump’s nominee this year despite the impending election. Just two Republican senators have asked for the party to put the breaks on the confirmation. And with a 53-seat majority, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) now has the votes he needs to move forward with a nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the president’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications,” the Utah Republican said in a statement.
There’s not much more to add to this, since it adds up to 51 — at least for now. The writing on this wall probably came yesterday after retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander declared his intent to vote for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick. Alexander, who usually votes with the majority but likes to work across the aisle, was one of the big votes McConnell needed in harness, pour encourager les autres in a way.
In fact, it’s tough to be surprised by this decision. Romney may represent a less-than-enthusiastic electorate when it comes to Trump, but Utah is still deeply conservative and deeply concerned about the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. Had Romney waffled in the face of Democratic threats and caved, voters there would have been outraged — not on Trump’s behalf, but on their own behalf. And rightly so, too.
One has to wonder what Susan Collins and especially Lisa Murkowski might do now in the breach. Collins faces a tough election in Maine, so she’ll probably hang tight to her no vote, at least on the motion to proceed to a floor vote. Murkowski, however, faces a similar political climate as Romney. Alaskan Republicans already tried to oust her once, and her attempts to scuttle a normal process for filling a Supreme Court opening might end up being more damaging than supporting the normal process would have been. It may be that both will try to eat their cake and have it too by voting against the motion to proceed but voting to confirm the specific nominee in the end.
Anyway, Romney’s not hiding his thoughts behind a spokesman. Here’s his statement on Twitter:
My statement regarding the current Supreme Court vacancy: pic.twitter.com/6YO0dPWWXc — Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) September 22, 2020
Update: In case anyone missed it yesterday, Cory Gardner also threw his support to Mitch McConnell. That’s 51 and the ballgame, unless something changes.


hotair--2020-09-22--Trump 2020 road murals "being investigated" and removed in Massachusetts

Over the weekend , some new , unauthorized “ street art ” showed up at multiple locations in the towns of Carver and Middleboro , Massachusetts .
Out on the pavement of state route 44 , someone painted some very neatly stenciled murals reading “ TRUMP 2020.
” They appear to have been a couple of car lengths long and were applied using yellow paint as has been the case with so many other street murals we ’ ve seen cropping up around the country this year .
But nobody was “ celebrating ” these messages on the public roadways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Transportation , scurried to investigate the activity and hurriedly dispatched workers to cover up the displays prior to permanently removing them .
Anyone who has been paying attention to all of the road mural news this year will probably spot the difference between this event and similar incidents of road defacement carrying different messages .
( CBS Boston ) Transportation officials are investigating after “ TRUMP 2020 ” was painted onto six separate locations along Route 44 in Carver and Middleboro .
MassDOT policy prohibits any unauthorized markings on state highways .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crews to temporarily cover the markings as soon as possible , ” MassDOT said in a statement .
Crews will come back overnight to permanently removed the pro-Donald Trump messages .
In one of the locations “ TRUMP 2020 ” was painted twice , once in each travel lane .
The messages were put on the road using yellow paint .
I ’ m not going to start off this particular tirade by cheering for whoever decided to paint those road murals because unless you obtain a permit , it ’ s illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the government was quick to have the DOT point out that their policies “ prohibit any unauthorized markings ” on the roads .
With that said , it would be nice if there was just a bit less hypocrisy on display here .
A pro-Trump message calls for an immediate investigation to identify the perpetrators and work crews to paint over and later scrub the paint from the roads .
But as we ’ ve already seen , the DOT takes a decidedly different position ( or lack thereof ) when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defund the Police murals , don ’ t they ?
Let ’ s return to that statement from the DOT for a moment .
Their policy “ prohibits ” unauthorized markings , right ?
Oh , really ?
Well , how about this beauty located right in the middle of Boston ?
You can click through to view the picture which required aerial photography to fit it all in .
That Black Lives Matter mural takes up the entire width of Washington Street and stretches for a city block .
Nobody asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the road and yet the DOT hasn ’ t moved to “ investigate ” it or remove it .
In fact , the Mayor of Boston actually praised it .
Here ’ s another one painted in the center of Worcester .
Anybody from the DOT looking into that one or removing it ?
Don ’ t be silly .
Of course they aren ’ t .
This isn ’ t all that dissimilar to the situation in New York City .
The Mayor there has not just turned a blind eye to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but even participated in painting them .
But when a local artist painted a ( literal ) thin blue line on the median around one police precinct station , the DOT was immediately dispatched to make him remove it .
A separate request for a permit to paint a Blue Lives Matter mural on a different street has been forced into a lawsuit that the Mayor is fighting tooth and claw .
The reality here is that municipal governments around the country have adopted a double standard by establishing a precedent where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech , but then picking winners and losers in terms of who has the right to engage in these displays .
And you can always predict who the losers will be in that debate .

Over the weekend, some new, unauthorized “street art” showed up at multiple locations in the towns of Carver and Middleboro, Massachusetts. Out on the pavement of state route 44, someone painted some very neatly stenciled murals reading “TRUMP 2020.” They appear to have been a couple of car lengths long and were applied using yellow paint as has been the case with so many other street murals we’ve seen cropping up around the country this year. But nobody was “celebrating” these messages on the public roadways. Local officials immediately contacted the Department of Transportation, scurried to investigate the activity and hurriedly dispatched workers to cover up the displays prior to permanently removing them. Anyone who has been paying attention to all of the road mural news this year will probably spot the difference between this event and similar incidents of road defacement carrying different messages. (CBS Boston)
Transportation officials are investigating after “TRUMP 2020” was painted onto six separate locations along Route 44 in Carver and Middleboro. MassDOT policy prohibits any unauthorized markings on state highways. The agency “will be dispatching contractor crews to temporarily cover the markings as soon as possible,” MassDOT said in a statement. Crews will come back overnight to permanently removed the pro-Donald Trump messages. In one of the locations “TRUMP 2020” was painted twice, once in each travel lane. The messages were put on the road using yellow paint.
I’m not going to start off this particular tirade by cheering for whoever decided to paint those road murals because unless you obtain a permit, it’s illegal to deface the roadways in this fashion. And the government was quick to have the DOT point out that their policies “prohibit any unauthorized markings” on the roads.
With that said, it would be nice if there was just a bit less hypocrisy on display here. A pro-Trump message calls for an immediate investigation to identify the perpetrators and work crews to paint over and later scrub the paint from the roads. But as we’ve already seen, the DOT takes a decidedly different position (or lack thereof) when it comes to Black Lives Matter or Defund the Police murals, don’t they?
Let’s return to that statement from the DOT for a moment. Their policy “prohibits” unauthorized markings, right? Oh, really? Well, how about this beauty located right in the middle of Boston? You can click through to view the picture which required aerial photography to fit it all in. That Black Lives Matter mural takes up the entire width of Washington Street and stretches for a city block. Nobody asked for a permit before that was put on the road and yet the DOT hasn’t moved to “investigate” it or remove it. In fact, the Mayor of Boston actually praised it.
Here’s another one painted in the center of Worcester. Anybody from the DOT looking into that one or removing it? Don’t be silly. Of course they aren’t.
This isn’t all that dissimilar to the situation in New York City. The Mayor there has not just turned a blind eye to the painting of massive BLM murals, but even participated in painting them. But when a local artist painted a (literal) thin blue line on the median around one police precinct station, the DOT was immediately dispatched to make him remove it. A separate request for a permit to paint a Blue Lives Matter mural on a different street has been forced into a lawsuit that the Mayor is fighting tooth and claw.
The reality here is that municipal governments around the country have adopted a double standard by establishing a precedent where the public streets can become forums for political speech, but then picking winners and losers in terms of who has the right to engage in these displays. And you can always predict who the losers will be in that debate.


hotair--2020-09-22--Finally: The Never Trumper argument for confirming a SCOTUS pick

Which argument is more compelling in favor of holding a confirmation vote for Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court pick — the one from a Never Trump conservative , or from a Senate Democrat ?
Only one is intentional , but they are both essentially the same argument .
Let ’ s kick this off with some irony first .
Senator Amy Klobuchar tried to argue against the idea last night , but booted it spectacularly : Yes indeed , that ’ s exactly what happens … and exactly what will happen at the end of the week .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s in office until January 20 .
Since the opening took place before then , the current president picks the replacement , as Trump will do on Friday or Saturday … with four months left in his term in office .
Klobuchar tried to clean up the argument : People are voting “ RIGHT NOW ” to pick our next president , not the current president .
They ’ re voting for the person they want to fill Supreme Court openings during that person ’ s term in office … which starts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate can refuse to consider that choice until after the election ( or ever ) if a majority decides it doesn ’ t want to proceed with it , which is what happened in 2016 ( along with a lot of hypocritical blathering from all sides , then and now ) .
But there ’ s nothing at all unusual about a president picking a replacement Supreme Court justice ; in fact , that ’ s truly “ how it works , ” constitutionally speaking , as Klobuchar stumbles into admitting .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his Never Trump-conservative perspective at The Daily Beast .
Perhaps this cohort wants to deny Trump any opportunity for a win , Lewis says with some sympathy , but in this case they ’ re hardly acting as principled conservatives .
Not only should they desire the kind of jurists Trump is likely to nominate , they should recognize that this is an entirely legitimate exercise of authority by both Trump and Senate Republicans : If you are a conservative , then you should support the kinds of judges Trump is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m talking about Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa .
These are highly qualified judges that Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio might have nominated .
So if you don ’ t support them now , it might mean that you ’ ve changed .
This is fine , but then you might want to drop the “ conservative ” part from your résumé .
While Democrats will surely scaremonger whomever Trump nominates , it ’ s not like Republican-nominated judges get on the Court and start taking crazy right-wing positions .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for disappointing conservatives too often .
… Another possible rationale for opposing this is the assumption that Republicans are doing something that is egregious , and that it will lead to us spiraling out of control .
I just disagree with the premise that Republicans are doing something weird or outrageous .
A vacancy occurred , and the sitting president is going to try to nominate a replacement .
That ’ s it .
As I explained in my previous column , a duly elected president has the right to make a nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to confirm ( or not ) his nominee .
As for Democrats ’ threats to escalate this fight unless Senate Republicans back down , Lewis argues that ’ s how we got Trump in the first place : Just as a baseball team ’ s fans might rightly be angry and disenchanted if their ball club started throwing games , conservative voters have every right to expect that the people they elected will at least try to defend their values and advance their beliefs .
It is demoralizing for people to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the establishment elites abandon the fight to avoid trouble .
This is one of the reasons we got Trump—there was at least a perception that conservative elites kept losing because they were too soft .
I ’ m not sure that was valid , but backing down on something of this magnitude would only confirm this perception .
That would be especially true if the retreat was from a legitimate constitutional authority granted to the president and the Senate , all to avoid a temper tantrum from Democrats .
A temper tantrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place , after all .
After using minoritarian tactics to block George Bush ’ s appellate-circuit appointments , Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer retaliated when Mitch McConnell did the same to Barack Obama ’ s .
They set a new precedent for changing rules mid-session and eliminated the filibuster for all presidential appointments except for the Supreme Court .
When Schumer threatened to use the filibuster on Neil Gorsuch , McConnell used the Reid-Schumer precedent to eliminate minoritarian tactics altogether .
In fact , one has to wonder whether we would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment had McConnell not given Schumer a dose of his own medicine in 2017 .
At any rate , it ’ s easy to get distracted by all the hypocrisy on both sides .
Lewis cuts to the heart of the argument intentionally by noting its normality , while Klobuchar fumbled her way to the truth … even if she likely still doesn ’ t recognize it .
A Supreme Court opening has emerged , and the current president and Senate have the authority and arguably the responsibility to deal with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that chose the current officeholders , that is .

Which argument is more compelling in favor of holding a confirmation vote for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick — the one from a Never Trump conservative, or from a Senate Democrat? Only one is intentional, but they are both essentially the same argument.
Let’s kick this off with some irony first. Senator Amy Klobuchar tried to argue against the idea last night, but booted it spectacularly:
The people pick the President; the President nominates the Justice. That is how it works. — Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) September 21, 2020
Yes indeed, that’s exactly what happens … and exactly what will happen at the end of the week. The people picked a president, and he’s in office until January 20. Since the opening took place before then, the current president picks the replacement, as Trump will do on Friday or Saturday … with four months left in his term in office.
Klobuchar tried to clean up the argument:
People are voting RIGHT NOW to pick our president — that president should pick the next Supreme Court Justice. — Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) September 21, 2020
People are voting “RIGHT NOW” to pick our next president, not the current president. They’re voting for the person they want to fill Supreme Court openings during that person’s term in office … which starts on January 20. Now, the Senate can refuse to consider that choice until after the election (or ever) if a majority decides it doesn’t want to proceed with it, which is what happened in 2016 (along with a lot of hypocritical blathering from all sides, then and now). But there’s nothing at all unusual about a president picking a replacement Supreme Court justice; in fact, that’s truly “how it works,” constitutionally speaking, as Klobuchar stumbles into admitting.
That brings us to Matt Lewis’ argument from his Never Trump-conservative perspective at The Daily Beast. Perhaps this cohort wants to deny Trump any opportunity for a win, Lewis says with some sympathy, but in this case they’re hardly acting as principled conservatives. Not only should they desire the kind of jurists Trump is likely to nominate, they should recognize that this is an entirely legitimate exercise of authority by both Trump and Senate Republicans:
If you are a conservative, then you should support the kinds of judges Trump is likely to nominate. Here, I’m talking about Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. These are highly qualified judges that Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio might have nominated. So if you don’t support them now, it might mean that you’ve changed. This is fine, but then you might want to drop the “conservative” part from your résumé. While Democrats will surely scaremonger whomever Trump nominates, it’s not like Republican-nominated judges get on the Court and start taking crazy right-wing positions. Indeed, it’s fair to criticize them for disappointing conservatives too often. … Another possible rationale for opposing this is the assumption that Republicans are doing something that is egregious, and that it will lead to us spiraling out of control. I just disagree with the premise that Republicans are doing something weird or outrageous. A vacancy occurred, and the sitting president is going to try to nominate a replacement. That’s it. As I explained in my previous column, a duly elected president has the right to make a nomination, and duly elected senators have the right to confirm (or not) his nominee.
As for Democrats’ threats to escalate this fight unless Senate Republicans back down, Lewis argues that’s how we got Trump in the first place:
Just as a baseball team’s fans might rightly be angry and disenchanted if their ball club started throwing games, conservative voters have every right to expect that the people they elected will at least try to defend their values and advance their beliefs. It is demoralizing for people to work hard in the political process only to see the establishment elites abandon the fight to avoid trouble. This is one of the reasons we got Trump—there was at least a perception that conservative elites kept losing because they were too soft. I’m not sure that was valid, but backing down on something of this magnitude would only confirm this perception.
That would be especially true if the retreat was from a legitimate constitutional authority granted to the president and the Senate, all to avoid a temper tantrum from Democrats. A temper tantrum is how Democrats got here in the first place, after all. After using minoritarian tactics to block George Bush’s appellate-circuit appointments, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer retaliated when Mitch McConnell did the same to Barack Obama’s. They set a new precedent for changing rules mid-session and eliminated the filibuster for all presidential appointments except for the Supreme Court. When Schumer threatened to use the filibuster on Neil Gorsuch, McConnell used the Reid-Schumer precedent to eliminate minoritarian tactics altogether.
In fact, one has to wonder whether we would have three openings on the Supreme Court at this moment had McConnell not given Schumer a dose of his own medicine in 2017.
At any rate, it’s easy to get distracted by all the hypocrisy on both sides. Lewis cuts to the heart of the argument intentionally by noting its normality, while Klobuchar fumbled her way to the truth … even if she likely still doesn’t recognize it. A Supreme Court opening has emerged, and the current president and Senate have the authority and arguably the responsibility to deal with it. Elections have consequences — the elections that chose the current officeholders, that is.


hotair--2020-09-23--California law makes it a crime to spread "misinformation" about mail-in voting

I ’ m old enough to remember when speaking out about political issues was actually considered “ a good thing.
” You know… raising your voice , participating in the debate and voting .
Those were all admirable activities in a participatory democracy .
Not so in California these days , particularly after the passage of a new law that will leave you subject to a penalty in court if you talk about mail-in voting in a way not approved of by the Democratic majority .
That ’ s right .
Gavin Newsom just signed a new bill into law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread disinformation ” about voting by mail , either in person or on social media .
And the bill ’ s sponsor wants law enforcement to start prosecuting people immediately .
( CBS Los Angeles ) Authored by Sen. Henry Stern , D-Los Angeles , SB 739 took effect immediately after being signed by Gov .
Gavin Newsom on Friday .
“ If you ’ re putting out tweets , Facebook posts or using social and other types of media to intentionally mislead voters about their right and ability to vote by mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it ’ s my hope local D.A.s and the state attorney general will go after violators the moment they see them , ” Stern said .
This law is problematic on so many levels that it ’ s difficult to imagine it surviving a challenge in the courts .
( Read the full text here . )
What California is essentially doing here is criminalizing political speech , so there are huge First Amendment implications .
The law also relies heavily on some very dubious verbiage when defining who may or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be shown to have “ actual knowledge and intent to deceive.
” Really ?
Well , what if the person is talking about something they believe to be true but they ’ re just wrong because they read something incorrectly ?
How do you propose to prove that ?
Also , the guilty party must be spreading “ voting information that is incorrect , false , or misleading.
” The prosecutor then has to rely on someone to draw a line in the sand as to what is “ misleading.
” Good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of information would fall into this category ?
For example , let ’ s say you pointed out to your followers on Twitter that people have been sent to jail after being convicted of stealing and/or altering thousands of mail-in ballots and they found such fraud incredibly easy to pull off .
Would you be getting a ticket ?
Or perhaps you could point to instances where unscrupulous postal carriers were recruited to misdeliver ballots or simply throw completed ones in the trash .
Would that qualify as “ misinformation ” even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also don ’ t know where the line between opinions , criticism and facts will be drawn .
How about that guy in Michigan who put a display in his yard including a sign about mail-in voting and a toilet ?
If he moved that display to California , could he be arrested ?
At the moment , I ’ m hard-pressed to think of an example of actual misinformation about voting by mail that could legitimately be considered patent falsehoods under this statute .
I suppose if you were telling people an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received by or claiming that they needed to be sent to a false address that might fall under this category .
But the person doing it would either need to do a lot of research in advance or be an election law lawyer .
Otherwise , as noted above , how will the courts handle it if the person simply claims they didn ’ t know the information was incorrect ?
I ’ m going to pin a news update bookmark to this one so we can all keep track of it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a single person is actually prosecuted under this new law and how it shakes out in the courts .

I’m old enough to remember when speaking out about political issues was actually considered “a good thing.” You know… raising your voice, participating in the debate and voting. Those were all admirable activities in a participatory democracy. Not so in California these days, particularly after the passage of a new law that will leave you subject to a penalty in court if you talk about mail-in voting in a way not approved of by the Democratic majority. That’s right. Gavin Newsom just signed a new bill into law that makes it a misdemeanor to “spread disinformation” about voting by mail, either in person or on social media. And the bill’s sponsor wants law enforcement to start prosecuting people immediately. (CBS Los Angeles)
A newly signed state law makes spreading misinformation about voting by mail a misdemeanor criminal offense. Authored by Sen. Henry Stern, D-Los Angeles, SB 739 took effect immediately after being signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday. “If you’re putting out tweets, Facebook posts or using social and other types of media to intentionally mislead voters about their right and ability to vote by mail, that’s now a crime, and it’s my hope local D.A.s and the state attorney general will go after violators the moment they see them,” Stern said.
This law is problematic on so many levels that it’s difficult to imagine it surviving a challenge in the courts. (Read the full text here.) What California is essentially doing here is criminalizing political speech, so there are huge First Amendment implications. The law also relies heavily on some very dubious verbiage when defining who may or may not be guilty. The accused must be shown to have “actual knowledge and intent to deceive.” Really? Well, what if the person is talking about something they believe to be true but they’re just wrong because they read something incorrectly? How do you propose to prove that?
Also, the guilty party must be spreading “voting information that is incorrect, false, or misleading.” The prosecutor then has to rely on someone to draw a line in the sand as to what is “misleading.” Good luck with that.
I wonder what sort of information would fall into this category? For example, let’s say you pointed out to your followers on Twitter that people have been sent to jail after being convicted of stealing and/or altering thousands of mail-in ballots and they found such fraud incredibly easy to pull off. Would you be getting a ticket? Or perhaps you could point to instances where unscrupulous postal carriers were recruited to misdeliver ballots or simply throw completed ones in the trash. Would that qualify as “misinformation” even though it’s true?
We also don’t know where the line between opinions, criticism and facts will be drawn. How about that guy in Michigan who put a display in his yard including a sign about mail-in voting and a toilet? If he moved that display to California, could he be arrested?
At the moment, I’m hard-pressed to think of an example of actual misinformation about voting by mail that could legitimately be considered patent falsehoods under this statute. I suppose if you were telling people an incorrect date that the ballots must be received by or claiming that they needed to be sent to a false address that might fall under this category. But the person doing it would either need to do a lot of research in advance or be an election law lawyer. Otherwise, as noted above, how will the courts handle it if the person simply claims they didn’t know the information was incorrect?
I’m going to pin a news update bookmark to this one so we can all keep track of it. I’ll be fascinated to see if a single person is actually prosecuted under this new law and how it shakes out in the courts.


hotair--2020-09-22--Mike Bloomberg's team re-enfranchises 32,000 felons in Florida -- all of whom are black or Latino

A clever bit of gamesmanship by Democrats who ’ ve otherwise been thwarted in their attempt to return Florida ’ s many hundreds of thousands of felons to the voter rolls in time for the election .
In 2018 Floridians passed a constitutional amendment that restored the right to vote to anyone who ’ d been convicted of a crime other than murder or a sexual offense .
That would have put a gigantic number of new voters in play , many of them poor and minorities , in a state that Trump won by a little more than 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have that , Republicans said .
So the state legislature passed a law stipulating that felons would only regain their right to vote if they paid off all outstanding fines and court fees related to their cases .
That policy was savaged as a de facto poll tax ; a lawsuit ensued , but the new statute was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals .
Voting with the majority : Barbara Lagoa , one of Trump ’ s new SCOTUS shortlisters .
According to WaPo , some 775,000 ( ! )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
They ’ re barred from voting unless and until SCOTUS itself says otherwise .
…or , of course , unless they manage to scrape together the dough to pay off their fines in time to vote in the upcoming election .
Mike Bloomberg has vowed to spend $ 100 million in Florida to try to get Biden over the top , much of which will go to advertising and GOTV projects .
But he and his team had a bright idea .
What if they looked through the long list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the debts for people who owe only a small amount of money ?
And what if , instead of helping out every ex-con with a small fine still outstanding , they helped out only those ex-cons who are most likely to vote for Joe Biden , namely , black voters ( and Latinos to a much smaller extent ) ?
For the comparatively low price of $ 16 million , Team Bloomy may have just added tens of thousands of votes to Biden ’ s eventual total .
I wonder how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have flipped , especially given how intense polarization is about Trump .
A few hundred , maybe ?
“ We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment , ” the memo read .
“ The data shows that in Florida , Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc , where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90 % -95 % .
” … Several philanthropic groups , including a nonprofit founded by the professional basketball player LeBron James , have since committed donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg effort , which his aides said will be pooled with about $ 5 million already raised by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition , is narrowly focused only on Black and Hispanic voters who are already registered to vote and whose debts are less than $ 1,500… “ Mike wanted to get this done for two reasons , ” said a Bloomberg adviser , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations .
“ One , because it ’ s the right thing to do for the democracy .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of voters who are predisposed to vote for Joe Biden.
” … The Bloomberg memo pointed out that the 31,790 targeted voters , including 25,548 who are Black , are nearly equivalent to the margin by which Gov .
Ron DeSantis ( R ) won election in 2018 , and about three times as big as the margin that elected Sen. Rick Scott ( R-Fla. ) that same year .
An op-ed in the Times offers a fascinating what-if .
What if this had happened before the 2000 presidential election ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ group is targeting felons who are already registered to vote .
But presumably , if they can find the money , they could expand this program to other black ex-cons who aren ’ t registered and get them on the rolls in the next two weeks .
Which raises a question : Exactly what sort of interactions are happening between the ex-cons whose debts are being paid and either Bloomberg ’ s group and/or the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition ?
If you go to sleep one night owing $ 1,500 to Florida ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next day to find that a benefactor paid that debt for you , you ’ re surely going to ask why .
Why would anyone be so generous ?
And even if no one tells you to your face that they ’ re trying to purchase your vote for Joe Biden , it ’ ll be clear enough from the press coverage what the deal is here .
Quid pro quo : You ’ re indemnified on your fines and in return you go and cast your ballot for Joe .
That sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a bribe that was only made possible by the Florida GOP ’ s insistence on creating a new obstacle to Floridians ’ attempt to restore voting rights to most of the state ’ s felon population .
( 1 ) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree , punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 .
This section shall not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering .
( 2 ) A person who by bribery , menace , threat , or other corruption , directly or indirectly , influences , deceives , or deters or attempts to influence , deceive , or deter any person in the free exercise of that person ’ s right to register to vote at any time , upon the first conviction , commits a felony of the third degree , punishable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 775.083 , or s. 775.084 , and , upon any subsequent conviction , commits a felony of the second degree , punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 .
This may explain why Bloomberg ’ s team is focused only on felons who are already registered to vote rather than those who could conceivably get registered before October 5 .
Under both sections of the statute , money paid to influence someone to register is a no-no — but it doesn ’ t say anything about money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered .
How about this statute , though ?
( 1 ) Whoever by bribery , menace , threat , or other corruption whatsoever , either directly or indirectly , attempts to influence , deceive , or deter any elector in voting or interferes with him or her in the free exercise of the elector ’ s right to vote at any election commits a felony of the third degree , punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 for the first conviction , and a felony of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 , for any subsequent conviction .
( 2 ) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person ’ s or another ’ s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote .
Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree , punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement , including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person .
Since the debts are being paid up front and the newly re-enfranchised felons are then free to vote however they like , one *could* argue that it ’ s not really a “ bribe.
” Payment of the fines and fees isn ’ t contingent upon voting for Joe , it ’ s more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expecting will then elicit a reciprocal “ gift.
” But if a candidate were standing outside a polling place handing $ 50 bills to people as they walked in , that ’ s obviously illegal even though it could also technically be spun as a “ gift ” rather than a binding transaction .
Makes you wonder if Team Bloomy shouldn ’ t have paid off the debts for a few white ex-cons too , just to make their intent here a teeny bit more plausibly deniable .
I wonder if someone ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Florida ’ s Republican establishment is willing to effectively block a constitutional amendment that was passed by the state ’ s voters , they ’ re surely willing to have a prosecutor somewhere up the chain go after Bloomberg about this .

A clever bit of gamesmanship by Democrats who’ve otherwise been thwarted in their attempt to return Florida’s many hundreds of thousands of felons to the voter rolls in time for the election. In 2018 Floridians passed a constitutional amendment that restored the right to vote to anyone who’d been convicted of a crime other than murder or a sexual offense. That would have put a gigantic number of new voters in play, many of them poor and minorities, in a state that Trump won by a little more than 100,000 four years ago.
Can’t have that, Republicans said. So the state legislature passed a law stipulating that felons would only regain their right to vote if they paid off all outstanding fines and court fees related to their cases. That policy was savaged as a de facto poll tax; a lawsuit ensued, but the new statute was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Voting with the majority: Barbara Lagoa, one of Trump’s new SCOTUS shortlisters. According to WaPo, some 775,000(!) felons still owe money to the court system. They’re barred from voting unless and until SCOTUS itself says otherwise.
…or, of course, unless they manage to scrape together the dough to pay off their fines in time to vote in the upcoming election. Mike Bloomberg has vowed to spend $100 million in Florida to try to get Biden over the top, much of which will go to advertising and GOTV projects. But he and his team had a bright idea. What if they looked through the long list of felons with outstanding debt and just paid off the debts for people who owe only a small amount of money? And what if, instead of helping out every ex-con with a small fine still outstanding, they helped out only those ex-cons who are most likely to vote for Joe Biden, namely, black voters (and Latinos to a much smaller extent)?
For the comparatively low price of $16 million, Team Bloomy may have just added tens of thousands of votes to Biden’s eventual total. I wonder how many votes the same amount spent on advertising would have flipped, especially given how intense polarization is about Trump. A few hundred, maybe?
“We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment,” the memo read. “The data shows that in Florida, Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%.”… Several philanthropic groups, including a nonprofit founded by the professional basketball player LeBron James, have since committed donations to pay the owed money. The Bloomberg effort, which his aides said will be pooled with about $5 million already raised by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, is narrowly focused only on Black and Hispanic voters who are already registered to vote and whose debts are less than $1,500… “Mike wanted to get this done for two reasons,” said a Bloomberg adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “One, because it’s the right thing to do for the democracy. And two, because it immediately activates tens of thousands of voters who are predisposed to vote for Joe Biden.”… The Bloomberg memo pointed out that the 31,790 targeted voters, including 25,548 who are Black, are nearly equivalent to the margin by which Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) won election in 2018, and about three times as big as the margin that elected Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that same year.
An op-ed in the Times offers a fascinating what-if. What if this had happened before the 2000 presidential election?
In 2000, George W. Bush won Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes at the time because he captured 537 more popular votes of almost 6 million cast. Florida’s tough felon voting restrictions then disenfranchised an estimated 500,000 people. As of 2019, Florida’s prison population was disproportionately Black: about half the prison population, compared with 17 percent of the state’s population. Eighty-eight percent of African-Americans voted Democrat in the 2016 presidential election. Had the state allowed felons to vote in 2000, Al Gore likely would have won Florida and hence the presidential election… Florida’s voter registration deadline of Oct. 5 is quickly approaching, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have a much clearer road to victory with Florida’s electoral votes than without them.
As noted above, Bloomberg’s group is targeting felons who are already registered to vote. But presumably, if they can find the money, they could expand this program to other black ex-cons who aren’t registered and get them on the rolls in the next two weeks.
Which raises a question: Exactly what sort of interactions are happening between the ex-cons whose debts are being paid and either Bloomberg’s group and/or the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition? If you go to sleep one night owing $1,500 to Florida’s court system and wake up the next day to find that a benefactor paid that debt for you, you’re surely going to ask why. Why would anyone be so generous? And even if no one tells you to your face that they’re trying to purchase your vote for Joe Biden, it’ll be clear enough from the press coverage what the deal is here. Quid pro quo: You’re indemnified on your fines and in return you go and cast your ballot for Joe. That sounds like a bribe, although it’s a bribe that was only made possible by the Florida GOP’s insistence on creating a new obstacle to Floridians’ attempt to restore voting rights to most of the state’s felon population.
A noteworthy statute:
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering. (2) A person who by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption, directly or indirectly, influences, deceives, or deters or attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any person in the free exercise of that person’s right to register to vote at any time, upon the first conviction, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, and, upon any subsequent conviction, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
This may explain why Bloomberg’s team is focused only on felons who are already registered to vote rather than those who could conceivably get registered before October 5. Under both sections of the statute, money paid to influence someone to register is a no-no — but it doesn’t say anything about money paid to someone who’s already registered.
How about this statute, though?
(1) Whoever by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any elector in voting or interferes with him or her in the free exercise of the elector’s right to vote at any election commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 for the first conviction, and a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, for any subsequent conviction. (2) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.
Since the debts are being paid up front and the newly re-enfranchised felons are then free to vote however they like, one *could* argue that it’s not really a “bribe.” Payment of the fines and fees isn’t contingent upon voting for Joe, it’s more like a gift which Team Bloomy is expecting will then elicit a reciprocal “gift.” But if a candidate were standing outside a polling place handing $50 bills to people as they walked in, that’s obviously illegal even though it could also technically be spun as a “gift” rather than a binding transaction. Makes you wonder if Team Bloomy shouldn’t have paid off the debts for a few white ex-cons too, just to make their intent here a teeny bit more plausibly deniable.
I wonder if someone’s going to try to sue. If Florida’s Republican establishment is willing to effectively block a constitutional amendment that was passed by the state’s voters, they’re surely willing to have a prosecutor somewhere up the chain go after Bloomberg about this.


hotair--2020-09-22--April Ryan fangirls Kamala over her spot on ticket: "It sends chills through me"

It wasn ’ t quite as cringe-worthy as when MSNBC ’ s Chris Matthews said he got a thrill up his leg over Barack Obama but it was pretty darn close .
April Ryan , White House correspondent , and D.C. bureau chief for American Urban Radio Networks , as well as a CNN political analyst , is beyond excited that Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris for his running mate .
Ryan , like lots of other people , is confined to working from home due to the coronavirus pandemic .
She has been doing a series of “ COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For Monday ’ s chat , her guest was Kamala Harris .
The conversation began with small talk that included Ryan ’ s compliments on Kamala ’ s choice of footwear on the campaign trail .
Kamala mentioned she was speaking from her Washington , D.C. headquarters on the campus of Howard University .
And , Ryan even brought in her two daughters , ages 12 and 13 , to say hello .
Once all that was finished , as I checked my glucose level , April Ryan went right to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She asked Kalama “ What is the Democrat Party doing to thwart this ( Trump ’ s ) nomination ?
” Being a politician running in a big election , Kamala began her answer by touting herself .
She said , “ I was elected to two offices as the first woman and the first black person.
” She went on to say she speaks as a member of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee , as well as the vice-presidential nominee .
And finally cutting to the chase , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president in 43 days .
That person should choose the replacement.
” At that time , Ryan jumped in to mention the “ Garland Precedent ” , which isn ’ t a thing .
It ’ s really all the Democrats and their useful idiots in the media have on the subject .
They know the president is well within his constitutional rights to make a nomination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg , in fact , it is his constitutional obligation .
If Biden were to be able to choose a replacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appoint a black woman to the lifetime gig .
Kamala assured Ryan that “ Joe ’ s gon na keep his word.
” and she spoke of how grateful she is that Biden had “ the audacity ” to ask a black woman to be his running mate .
There was talk of the pandemic , with both pointing fingers at the Trump administration , President Trump in particular , as the reason “ black America is suffering.
” She launched into reciting some numbers that prove , in her mind , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to get COVID-19 and die twice as often than others .
She said Biden will reform health care , if elected , and suddenly we were in 2009 again .
If Joe Biden wants to run on the Democrats ’ unprecedented power grab of destroying an industry that made up 1/6 of the national economy at the time of the Obama administration , that ’ s the campaign ’ s choice .
However , many of us are old enough to remember how the ACA increased insurance prices , narrowed choices of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide Barack Obama with a fact-check that called his promise of how great Obamacare will be as the Lie of the Year .
Sure , run on that , Joe .
Kamala classlessly refered to Attorney General Bill Barr as “ Trump ’ s boy ” because he is pursuing legal action on behalf of the administration against the ACA .
Kamala mentioned the Woodward book when Ryan asked about the proposed national mask mandate by Biden .
She used a quote from the book that I have not seen told before , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up – “ If you ’ re with us you don ’ t wear a mask .
If you ’ re with them you wear a mask.
” She bashed Trump for making the coronavirus political , though Democrats do that .
While she and April were busy agreeing with each other that everyone must wear a face mask , Ryan even said it was a matter of “ right to life ” .
That ’ s rich , right ?
A liberal pro-abortion woman talking about the right to life during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t make this stuff up .
Ryan asked if she and Biden are practicing for the upcoming debates .
She said they were .
April Ryan was relieved because “ Trump plays gutter politics.
” Is Ryan worried about Biden ’ s ability to outperform Trump ?
It seems so .
She also asked if Kamala is concerned about the polls narrowing .
Kamala brushed that off as just normal happenings during a presidential election .
This gave her an opening to say that the choice is clear – If you want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and elect someone who believes in science , vote for Joe .
If you want the exact opposite of all that , then vote for Trump .
The message from Democrats has not changed in four years and they have learned nothing .
At least she didn ’ t call Trump voters a basket of deplorable .
April Ryan said that former United States Attorney and United States Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates wants Biden and the Democrats to expand the Supreme Court .
Ryan asked Kamala for a name if more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kamala didn ’ t answer , instead said she is “ focused on the next 43 days ” .
“ Early voting is the new thing.
” The Democrats have flipped from showing up on Election Day , to mail-in voting , to early voting , and back to in-person voting .
Wrapping up the chat , April went into full slobber mode .
She held up a t-shirt that was apparently one in support of Kamala but the lettering appeared upside down and backwards in the camera so I couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved of it .
Ryan said history will be made and she can ’ t wait to call her Madame Vice-President .
She asked Kamala , “ Does that give you chills ?
” She said it does for her .
And , she quickly added , “ I can ’ t endorse.
” Sure , April .
We see you .
So , April Ryan allowed Kamala Harris to dodge the question about packing the Supreme Court , which Kamala spoke favorably of just last year .
I still think Kamala should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination process as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
She behaved unprofessionally during the Kavanaugh hearing .
She has a real conflict of interest this time around .
Kamala Harris as the vice-presidential choice sends chills through me , too , but for a different reason than April .
She ’ s the most liberal senator , according to GovTrack.US and she will be very aggressively promoting a far left agenda in a Harris-Biden administration .
Poor old Joe will be a feckless figurehead in the White House .
If he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taster immediately .

It wasn’t quite as cringe-worthy as when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said he got a thrill up his leg over Barack Obama but it was pretty darn close. April Ryan, White House correspondent, and D.C. bureau chief for American Urban Radio Networks, as well as a CNN political analyst, is beyond excited that Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris for his running mate.
Ryan, like lots of other people, is confined to working from home due to the coronavirus pandemic. She has been doing a series of “COVID conversations” on Instagram for her followers. For Monday’s chat, her guest was Kamala Harris. The conversation began with small talk that included Ryan’s compliments on Kamala’s choice of footwear on the campaign trail. Kamala mentioned she was speaking from her Washington, D.C. headquarters on the campus of Howard University. And, Ryan even brought in her two daughters, ages 12 and 13, to say hello.
Once all that was finished, as I checked my glucose level, April Ryan went right to the subject on everyone’s mind. She asked Kalama “What is the Democrat Party doing to thwart this (Trump’s) nomination?” Being a politician running in a big election, Kamala began her answer by touting herself. She said, “I was elected to two offices as the first woman and the first black person.” She went on to say she speaks as a member of the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the vice-presidential nominee. And finally cutting to the chase, she said, “The American people will elect a president in 43 days. That person should choose the replacement.” At that time, Ryan jumped in to mention the “Garland Precedent”, which isn’t a thing. It’s really all the Democrats and their useful idiots in the media have on the subject. They know the president is well within his constitutional rights to make a nomination to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in fact, it is his constitutional obligation.
If Biden were to be able to choose a replacement, he has made a promise to appoint a black woman to the lifetime gig. Kamala assured Ryan that “Joe’s gonna keep his word.” and she spoke of how grateful she is that Biden had “the audacity” to ask a black woman to be his running mate.
There was talk of the pandemic, with both pointing fingers at the Trump administration, President Trump in particular, as the reason “black America is suffering.” She launched into reciting some numbers that prove, in her mind, that claim. Blacks are 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 and die twice as often than others. She said Biden will reform health care, if elected, and suddenly we were in 2009 again. If Joe Biden wants to run on the Democrats’ unprecedented power grab of destroying an industry that made up 1/6 of the national economy at the time of the Obama administration, that’s the campaign’s choice. However, many of us are old enough to remember how the ACA increased insurance prices, narrowed choices of doctors, and even turned out to provide Barack Obama with a fact-check that called his promise of how great Obamacare will be as the Lie of the Year. Sure, run on that, Joe. Kamala classlessly refered to Attorney General Bill Barr as “Trump’s boy” because he is pursuing legal action on behalf of the administration against the ACA.
Kamala mentioned the Woodward book when Ryan asked about the proposed national mask mandate by Biden. She used a quote from the book that I have not seen told before, so she may have just made it up – “If you’re with us you don’t wear a mask. If you’re with them you wear a mask.” She bashed Trump for making the coronavirus political, though Democrats do that. While she and April were busy agreeing with each other that everyone must wear a face mask, Ryan even said it was a matter of “right to life”. That’s rich, right? A liberal pro-abortion woman talking about the right to life during a face mask discussion. You can’t make this stuff up.
Ryan asked if she and Biden are practicing for the upcoming debates. She said they were. April Ryan was relieved because “Trump plays gutter politics.” Is Ryan worried about Biden’s ability to outperform Trump? It seems so. She also asked if Kamala is concerned about the polls narrowing. Kamala brushed that off as just normal happenings during a presidential election. This gave her an opening to say that the choice is clear – If you want to expand health care, unify the country, and elect someone who believes in science, vote for Joe. If you want the exact opposite of all that, then vote for Trump. The message from Democrats has not changed in four years and they have learned nothing. At least she didn’t call Trump voters a basket of deplorable.
April Ryan said that former United States Attorney and United States Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates wants Biden and the Democrats to expand the Supreme Court. Ryan asked Kamala for a name if more judges are added in a Biden administration. Kamala didn’t answer, instead said she is “focused on the next 43 days”. “Early voting is the new thing.” The Democrats have flipped from showing up on Election Day, to mail-in voting, to early voting, and back to in-person voting.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CFaKwLGjG5w/
Wrapping up the chat, April went into full slobber mode. She held up a t-shirt that was apparently one in support of Kamala but the lettering appeared upside down and backwards in the camera so I couldn’t read it. Kamala cackled and approved of it. Ryan said history will be made and she can’t wait to call her Madame Vice-President. She asked Kamala, “Does that give you chills?” She said it does for her. And, she quickly added, “I can’t endorse.” Sure, April. We see you.
So, April Ryan allowed Kamala Harris to dodge the question about packing the Supreme Court, which Kamala spoke favorably of just last year. I still think Kamala should recuse herself from being involved in the nomination process as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She behaved unprofessionally during the Kavanaugh hearing. She has a real conflict of interest this time around.
Kamala Harris as the vice-presidential choice sends chills through me, too, but for a different reason than April. She’s the most liberal senator, according to GovTrack.US and she will be very aggressively promoting a far left agenda in a Harris-Biden administration. Poor old Joe will be a feckless figurehead in the White House. If he wins, he should hire a food taster immediately.


hotair--2020-09-23--Trump: Can you believe Ilhan Omar trying to tell us how to run "our country"?

A leftover from last night ’ s rally in Pennsylvania .
We don ’ t have to speculate what he meant here when he implicitly excluded Omar from “ our country.
” He was clear about that last year .
Those tweets were aimed at “ the Squad , ” a group of four minority women , three of whom were born in the U.S. Trump ’ s “ go back where you came from ” logic was lobbed indiscriminately at all of them apparently because of their skin color .
Omar is the exception , having been born in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. since she was 13 and has been an American citizen for 20 years now .
Her politics are loathsome , particularly the anti-semitic strains in her rhetoric about Israel , but a bunch of American citizens decided she ’ s enough of an American too to have sent her to Congress to represent them .
Not good enough for Trump : Omar ’ s not right about much but she ’ s right in the clip below .
Remember , Trump actually held a naturalization ceremony at the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convince swing voters in the audience that he ’ s pro-immigration , his record to the contrary notwithstanding : It ’ s not immigration per se that he opposes , it ’ s immigration from “ sh*thole countries.
” Although I ’ d amend Omar ’ s comment to clarify that , when push comes to shove , Trump looks fondly on whoever ’ s willing to toady to him , even the people from “ sh*tholes.
” If Omar put on a MAGA hat , she ’ d be part of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , that ’ s license for him to criticize her by focusing on the fact that she was born a foreigner .
And a black Muslim foreigner to boot , something that ’ s surely not lost on his audience .
Here ’ s another interesting comment he made this week while out on the trail , this time in Minnesota .
That ’ s Omar ’ s home state .
“ Every family in Minnesota needs to know about sleepy Joe Biden ’ s extreme plan to flood your state with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from other places all over the planet .
That ’ s what ’ s happened , and you like Omar a lot , don ’ t you ?
” he told the crowd .
Minnesota is also where George Floyd was killed and where the national BLM protests took off , of course .
He ’ s counting on a backlash there among white voters to hand him the state in November .
Which brings us to this : The comment about genes was framed in terms of the hardy pioneer stock that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context of his campaign strategy the bit about the “ racehorse theory ” is next-level creepy , just nakedly eugenic .
What ’ s ironic is that we ’ re probably going to spend the next month in a frenzy of indignation — justifiably — at anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Amy Coney Barrett .
( It ’ s already begun among the media , in fact . )
The president got elected after pushing a Muslim ban , he ’ s taking about genes and breeding on the campaign trail , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came here as a child isn ’ t part of “ our ” country , and yet all of that will go by the boards once he acts offended on Barrett ’ s behalf about religious discrimination .
That ’ s nationalism for you , I guess .
Christian sects are part of “ our country , ” Islam isn ’ t .
Unless you ’ re a Muslim for Trump , in which case you ’ re part of it too .
Inspired by the “ genes ” comment and his attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Trump today : In unguarded moments with senior aides , President Trump has maintained that Black Americans have mainly themselves to blame in their struggle for equality , hindered more by lack of initiative than societal impediments , according to current and former U.S. officials .
After phone calls with Jewish lawmakers , Trump has muttered that Jews “ are only in it for themselves ” and “ stick together ” in an ethnic allegiance that exceeds other loyalties , officials said… Michael Cohen , the president ’ s former lawyer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a racist , a predator , a con man ” in a newly published book .
Cohen accuses Trump of routinely disparaging people of color , including former president Barack Obama .
“ Tell me one country run by a Black person that isn ’ t a s—hole , ” Trump said , according to Cohen .
One former senior White House official defended Trump to the paper this way : “ This is a guy who abuses people in his cabinet , abuses four-star generals , abuses people who gave their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ servants .
It ’ s not like he doesn ’ t abuse people that are White as well.
” Which is a weird way to stick up for him , but it ’ s true !
Again , the litmus test for Trump isn ’ t “ are you white ?
” , it ’ s “ are you pro-Trump ?
” Nothing you ’ ve done can be forgiven if the answer is no , nothing you ’ ve done can ’ t be forgiven if the answer is yes .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that she immigrated here clearly is something that he thinks needs to be forgiven .
She can gain absolution by accepting our lord and savior Donald into her heart but until she does so she ’ s damned by her original sin of being a foreigner .
I ’ ll leave you with this , a bit of trivia about the same Minnesota rally where he made the “ genes ” remark .
It ’ s interesting that his aides seem to have the same view of his base that his critics @ @

A leftover from last night’s rally in Pennsylvania. We don’t have to speculate what he meant here when he implicitly excluded Omar from “our country.” He was clear about that last year.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381395078000643
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381396994723841
Those tweets were aimed at “the Squad,” a group of four minority women, three of whom were born in the U.S. Trump’s “go back where you came from” logic was lobbed indiscriminately at all of them apparently because of their skin color. Omar is the exception, having been born in Somalia, but she’s lived in the U.S. since she was 13 and has been an American citizen for 20 years now. Her politics are loathsome, particularly the anti-semitic strains in her rhetoric about Israel, but a bunch of American citizens decided she’s enough of an American too to have sent her to Congress to represent them.
Not good enough for Trump:
Trump on Ilhan Omar: She’s telling us how to run our country. How did you do where you came from? pic.twitter.com/XLSRZd6yFf — Acyn (@Acyn) September 22, 2020
Omar’s not right about much but she’s right in the clip below. Remember, Trump actually held a naturalization ceremony at the White House during the Republican convention to try to convince swing voters in the audience that he’s pro-immigration, his record to the contrary notwithstanding:
Rep. @Ilhan Omar (D-MN) hits back at Trump's attacks: "Not only is he a racist, but he's a racist xenophobic. Because he's not against immigration, he's just against immigrants who look like me." pic.twitter.com/p70xtETGji — The Recount (@therecount) September 23, 2020
It’s not immigration per se that he opposes, it’s immigration from “sh*thole countries.” Although I’d amend Omar’s comment to clarify that, when push comes to shove, Trump looks fondly on whoever’s willing to toady to him, even the people from “sh*tholes.” If Omar put on a MAGA hat, she’d be part of “our country.” Because she won’t, that’s license for him to criticize her by focusing on the fact that she was born a foreigner. And a black Muslim foreigner to boot, something that’s surely not lost on his audience.
Here’s another interesting comment he made this week while out on the trail, this time in Minnesota. That’s Omar’s home state. “Every family in Minnesota needs to know about sleepy Joe Biden’s extreme plan to flood your state with an influx of refugees from Somalia and from other places all over the planet. That’s what’s happened, and you like Omar a lot, don’t you?” he told the crowd. Minnesota is also where George Floyd was killed and where the national BLM protests took off, of course. He’s counting on a backlash there among white voters to hand him the state in November. Which brings us to this:
“You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we’re so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.” — Trump pic.twitter.com/OiF63qZaKx — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 19, 2020
The comment about genes was framed in terms of the hardy pioneer stock that settled Minnesota originally, but in the context of his campaign strategy the bit about the “racehorse theory” is next-level creepy, just nakedly eugenic. What’s ironic is that we’re probably going to spend the next month in a frenzy of indignation — justifiably — at anti-Catholic bigotry aimed at Amy Coney Barrett. (It’s already begun among the media, in fact.) The president got elected after pushing a Muslim ban, he’s taking about genes and breeding on the campaign trail, he’s hinting that a Muslim congressman who came here as a child isn’t part of “our” country, and yet all of that will go by the boards once he acts offended on Barrett’s behalf about religious discrimination.
That’s nationalism for you, I guess. Christian sects are part of “our country,” Islam isn’t. Unless you’re a Muslim for Trump, in which case you’re part of it too.
Inspired by the “genes” comment and his attacks on Omar, WaPo dropped this bomb on Trump today:
In unguarded moments with senior aides, President Trump has maintained that Black Americans have mainly themselves to blame in their struggle for equality, hindered more by lack of initiative than societal impediments, according to current and former U.S. officials. After phone calls with Jewish lawmakers, Trump has muttered that Jews “are only in it for themselves” and “stick together” in an ethnic allegiance that exceeds other loyalties, officials said… Michael Cohen, the president’s former lawyer, has made similar allegations and calls Trump “a racist, a predator, a con man” in a newly published book. Cohen accuses Trump of routinely disparaging people of color, including former president Barack Obama. “Tell me one country run by a Black person that isn’t a s—hole,” Trump said, according to Cohen.
One former senior White House official defended Trump to the paper this way: “This is a guy who abuses people in his cabinet, abuses four-star generals, abuses people who gave their life for this country, abuses civil servants. It’s not like he doesn’t abuse people that are White as well.” Which is a weird way to stick up for him, but it’s true! Again, the litmus test for Trump isn’t “are you white?”, it’s “are you pro-Trump?” Nothing you’ve done can be forgiven if the answer is no, nothing you’ve done can’t be forgiven if the answer is yes. But, for someone like Omar, the fact that she immigrated here clearly is something that he thinks needs to be forgiven. She can gain absolution by accepting our lord and savior Donald into her heart but until she does so she’s damned by her original sin of being a foreigner.
I’ll leave you with this, a bit of trivia about the same Minnesota rally where he made the “genes” remark. It’s interesting that his aides seem to have the same view of his base that his critics do.


hotair--2020-09-23--California gov: We interrupt your rolling blackouts to announce ban on gas-powered car sales by 2035

A month ago , California couldn ’ t generate enough energy to keep homes powered on a consistent basis , as the state ’ s mandates for “ green energy ” resources left their grid short .
Today , Gov .
Gavin Newsom committed to adding millions of vehicles to the grid ’ s load by 2035 .
“ Of all the simultaneous crises that we face as a state and , ” Gavin declared when signing an EO to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the state over the next fifteen years , “ I ’ d argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a global perspective – none is more important , none is more forceful than the issue of the climate crisis.
” Some Californians might have had to wait for the power to come back on later to hear the news , of course : California Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday that will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars and other passenger vehicles in the state by 2035 .
The move was among a number of actions the Democratic governor announced aimed at slashing the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market , according to the state .
True , but the 2035 ban will force auto manufacturers to start selling more electric vehicles now in order to build enough of a customer base to get the support infrastructure in place .
That ’ s not just outlets in homes and public places , but also building service networks , training more mechanics , and getting spare parts in place to keep the vehicles running .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it will take years to put those in place in sufficient quantity to succeed .
In other words , California won ’ t have fifteen years to add more supply to the grid to meet that demand all at once .
More and more vehicles will get added to the grid for power replenishing starting in the next few years .
That will add to the demand that California can ’ t meet at its present levels of supply , with the shortages forcing the state into serious rationing in the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month ’ s embarrassing blackouts did give state regulators a brief moment of sanity two weeks ago .
They extended the operation of natural-gas power generation past a previous mandated shutdown scheduled at the end of this year , which actually only means they won ’ t cut supply , not add to it .
With the addition of new demand , will California look for new ways to add reliable supply , especially from cleaner fossil-fuel sources that can be found in abundance now ?
Of course not : So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the state has protected its residents from their appliances , air conditioning , and lighting on an arbitrary basis .
Newsom wants to cut supply at the same time he wants to mandate more demand , which isn ’ t going to work out well for “ workers and communities.
” It means workers will have more and more trouble getting to work , while communities have less and less time when commerce can be reliably conducted .
Even for those who can work from home , the grid ’ s reliability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ options that might be available in commercial space makes for an unstable economic climate .
A couple of weeks ago , it seemed that California ’ s leadership had grudgingly acknowledged the gap between utopian Green-New-Deal thinking and hard reality .
And just wait until the state starts dealing with all of the environmental problems that will arise from battery disposal as vehicle power storages ages out .

A month ago, California couldn’t generate enough energy to keep homes powered on a consistent basis, as the state’s mandates for “green energy” resources left their grid short. Today, Gov. Gavin Newsom committed to adding millions of vehicles to the grid’s load by 2035. “Of all the simultaneous crises that we face as a state and,” Gavin declared when signing an EO to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the state over the next fifteen years, “I’d argue as a nation – for that matter from a global perspective – none is more important, none is more forceful than the issue of the climate crisis.”
Some Californians might have had to wait for the power to come back on later to hear the news, of course:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order Wednesday that will ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars and other passenger vehicles in the state by 2035. The move was among a number of actions the Democratic governor announced aimed at slashing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution. The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market, according to the state.
True, but the 2035 ban will force auto manufacturers to start selling more electric vehicles now in order to build enough of a customer base to get the support infrastructure in place. That’s not just outlets in homes and public places, but also building service networks, training more mechanics, and getting spare parts in place to keep the vehicles running. That can’t be developed overnight — it will take years to put those in place in sufficient quantity to succeed.
In other words, California won’t have fifteen years to add more supply to the grid to meet that demand all at once. More and more vehicles will get added to the grid for power replenishing starting in the next few years. That will add to the demand that California can’t meet at its present levels of supply, with the shortages forcing the state into serious rationing in the form of rolling blackouts.
Of course, last month’s embarrassing blackouts did give state regulators a brief moment of sanity two weeks ago. They extended the operation of natural-gas power generation past a previous mandated shutdown scheduled at the end of this year, which actually only means they won’t cut supply, not add to it. With the addition of new demand, will California look for new ways to add reliable supply, especially from cleaner fossil-fuel sources that can be found in abundance now?
Of course not:
Hydraulic fracturing, a method of oil and gas extraction known as fracking, could also end be on the Golden State’s chopping block. Newsom said he is working with the California Legislature to ban the practice by 2024. The order also aims to create new health and safety regulations “that protect workers and communities from the impacts of oil extraction.”
So far, all it’s meant is that the state has protected its residents from their appliances, air conditioning, and lighting on an arbitrary basis. Newsom wants to cut supply at the same time he wants to mandate more demand, which isn’t going to work out well for “workers and communities.” It means workers will have more and more trouble getting to work, while communities have less and less time when commerce can be reliably conducted. Even for those who can work from home, the grid’s reliability and the general lack of back-up power options that might be available in commercial space makes for an unstable economic climate.
A couple of weeks ago, it seemed that California’s leadership had grudgingly acknowledged the gap between utopian Green-New-Deal thinking and hard reality. And just wait until the state starts dealing with all of the environmental problems that will arise from battery disposal as vehicle power storages ages out.