hotair--2020-07-14--Brooklyn Borough President: NYPD should bring back anti-crime units and stop the violence

Last month , under pressure to show the NYPD was willing to reform , Commissioner Dermot Shea announced he was putting an end to plainclothes anti-crime units in the department .
About 600 officers were reassigned to other duties .
At the time , Shea warned that the decision was “ not without risk.
” In the wake of a surge in violent crime in New York City including the death last weekend of a 1-year-old child , some are now suggesting it ’ s time to reconsider that decision .
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and community activist Tony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-crime units back .
Adams , a former cop , became the second member of the African-American community to call on the NYPD to stop the violence by re-instituting the Anti-Crime Unit — undercover cops whose job was to get guns off the street .
The unit was disbanded during the anti-cop protest that shook the city .
“ I think that a total elimination is something we need to reevaluate , ” said Adams .
“ Right now , bad guys are saying if you don ’ t see a blue and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ The guns keep going off and now we have a 1-year-old and the blood is on the hands of the mayor and the state Legislature , ” said Herbert .
As much as I ’ d like to think it ’ s possible for cities like New York , Seattle and Minneapolis to reconsider some of the decisions they ’ ve made about policing recently , I don ’ t think it ’ s going to happen .
The loudest voices in New York City and the country as a whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than the solution .
Yesterday the NY Times published an editorial which opens by referencing the surge in violent crime and then spends six paragraphs denouncing the NYPD for everything from arresting protesters to failing to prevent looting and riots .
The department made more than 2,500 arrests and held hundreds of people for over 24 hours without them seeing a judge .
The Legal Aid Society has sued , arguing that the detentions violated a state law requiring arraignment within a day .
Arrestees were also held in crowded , unsanitary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locations in the midst of the pandemic… Even as officers battled peaceful protesters in the streets , the department failed to prevent theft and the destruction of property in Midtown Manhattan , SoHo and the Bronx… Over the past three decades , the department has helped keep New York one of the safest big cities in America .
Yet it also has lost the confidence of many New Yorkers and is ripe for sweeping reform .
The NYPD is damned if it does and damned if it doesn ’ t .
The NY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has done over the past several years and claim it is need of “ sweeping reform ” as if it were a complete failure .
It must be very clear to officers on the street that , in this moment , the safest thing for them to do is to get out of the way and do as little as possible to call attention to themselves .
Here ’ s the report from CBS 2 which points out that shootings were up 277 % last week compared to 2019 .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not a problem specific to the NYPD , because we ’ re seeing the same surge of violence in other cities .
When you put the police on their back foot , it shouldn ’ t surprise anyone that criminals feel emboldened .

Last month, under pressure to show the NYPD was willing to reform, Commissioner Dermot Shea announced he was putting an end to plainclothes anti-crime units in the department. About 600 officers were reassigned to other duties. At the time, Shea warned that the decision was “not without risk.”
In the wake of a surge in violent crime in New York City including the death last weekend of a 1-year-old child, some are now suggesting it’s time to reconsider that decision. Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and community activist Tony Herbert want the NYPD to bring the anti-crime units back.
Adams, a former cop, became the second member of the African-American community to call on the NYPD to stop the violence by re-instituting the Anti-Crime Unit — undercover cops whose job was to get guns off the street. The unit was disbanded during the anti-cop protest that shook the city. “I think that a total elimination is something we need to reevaluate,” said Adams. “Right now, bad guys are saying if you don’t see a blue and white you can do whatever you want.” Community activist Tony Herbert agrees. “The guns keep going off and now we have a 1-year-old and the blood is on the hands of the mayor and the state Legislature,” said Herbert.
As much as I’d like to think it’s possible for cities like New York, Seattle and Minneapolis to reconsider some of the decisions they’ve made about policing recently, I don’t think it’s going to happen. The loudest voices in New York City and the country as a whole are still treating police as the problem rather than the solution.
Yesterday the NY Times published an editorial which opens by referencing the surge in violent crime and then spends six paragraphs denouncing the NYPD for everything from arresting protesters to failing to prevent looting and riots.
The department made more than 2,500 arrests and held hundreds of people for over 24 hours without them seeing a judge. The Legal Aid Society has sued, arguing that the detentions violated a state law requiring arraignment within a day. Arrestees were also held in crowded, unsanitary jail cells at Police Headquarters and other locations in the midst of the pandemic… Even as officers battled peaceful protesters in the streets, the department failed to prevent theft and the destruction of property in Midtown Manhattan, SoHo and the Bronx… Over the past three decades, the department has helped keep New York one of the safest big cities in America. Yet it also has lost the confidence of many New Yorkers and is ripe for sweeping reform.
The NYPD is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. The NY Times wants to simultaneously praise the job it has done over the past several years and claim it is need of “sweeping reform” as if it were a complete failure. It must be very clear to officers on the street that, in this moment, the safest thing for them to do is to get out of the way and do as little as possible to call attention to themselves.
Here’s the report from CBS 2 which points out that shootings were up 277% last week compared to 2019. It’s clear this is a broader issue, not a problem specific to the NYPD, because we’re seeing the same surge of violence in other cities. When you put the police on their back foot, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that criminals feel emboldened.


hotair--2020-07-14--Bari Weiss' valediction: When the mob becomes the editor-in-chief of the NYT, it's time to say goodb

Bari Weiss' valediction: When the mob becomes the editor-in-chief of the NYT, it's time to say goodbye

“ Showing up for work as a centrist in an American newspaper should not require bravery , ” Bari Weiss writes in an open letter to New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger .
In a stinging resignation notice , Weiss accuses Sulzberger of caving in to social-media mobs and endorsing tribalism at the very moment that newspapers should be defending reasoned discourse and free debate .
The lack of spine from editors and ownership has left those writing for the Paper of Record unable to speak or write freely , Weiss writes , making the newspaper itself entirely irrelevant — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans , the necessity of resisting tribalism , and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned .
Instead , a new consensus has emerged in the press , but perhaps especially at this paper : that truth isn ’ t a process of collective discovery , but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else .
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate editor .
As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper , the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space .
Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences , rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions .
I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history .
Now , history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views .
They have called me a Nazi and a racist ; I have learned to brush off comments about how I ’ m “ writing about the Jews again.
” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers .
My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in .
There , some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly “ inclusive ” one , while others post ax emojis next to my name .
Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action .
They never are .
Weiss specifically refers to one of the most shameful episodes in recent NYT history — the sacking of James Bennet .
Bennet okayed what would normally have been a routine op-ed from a sitting US Senator , Tom Cotton , explaining his position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quell rioting .
At the time , Trump had threatened to use the Insurrection Act to put an end to the riots and Cotton had backed Trump , which certainly made it an urgent issue for debate .
In fact , the NYT had invited Cotton to write it , according to Cotton , and then spent considerable time negotiating practically every line in it .
The NYT has published op-eds from political leaders of every stripe , including from Vladimir Putin , the Taliban ’ s leadership , and others who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Somehow , though , Cotton ’ s op-ed stirred up accusations by NYT staffers and writers that Bennet had made them “ unsafe ” by publishing Cotton ’ s very public policy position on dealing with riots , a position shared by a wide majority ( 58/30 ) of Americans at the time .
They staged a “ virtual walkout ” over the Times ’ decision to even allow a discussion of Cotton ’ s views to take place .
The mob action worked , of course .
Within two days , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; they refused to add it to the print version of the paper .
Both Bennet and managing editor Dean Baquet caved and issued the “ groveling apologies ” that Allahpundit predicted .
And even that wasn ’ t enough ; Sulzberger canceled Bennet as editorial page editor anyway and demoted deputy editor Jim Dao to appease the mob .
None of this is about disagreement and debate .
It ’ s about shutting down debate and not allowing any disagreement .
The very people demanding the removal of Cotton ’ s invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NYT and could have easily penned rebuttals — a whole series of them — for the same readership .
That kind of privileged access to the platform wasn ’ t enough ; they demanded complete control of it … and got it .
What ’ s more , Weiss adds , the only thing new about the Bennett debacle was how publicly it played out : What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity .
If a person ’ s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome .
Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets .
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble , if not fired .
If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media , the editor or writer avoids pitching it .
If she feels strongly enough to suggest it , she is quickly steered to safer ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes , it happens only after every line is carefully massaged , negotiated and caveated .
Why ?
Because Sulzberger doesn ’ t have the courage to stand up to a social-media mob .
In fact , Sulzberger seems more interested in leveraging the cancel-culture mob than in confronting it on behalf of free speech and open debate .
And now everyone knows it .

“Showing up for work as a centrist in an American newspaper should not require bravery,” Bari Weiss writes in an open letter to New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger. In a stinging resignation notice, Weiss accuses Sulzberger of caving in to social-media mobs and endorsing tribalism at the very moment that newspapers should be defending reasoned discourse and free debate. The lack of spine from editors and ownership has left those writing for the Paper of Record unable to speak or write freely, Weiss writes, making the newspaper itself entirely irrelevant — or worse:
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
Weiss specifically refers to one of the most shameful episodes in recent NYT history — the sacking of James Bennet. Bennet okayed what would normally have been a routine op-ed from a sitting US Senator, Tom Cotton, explaining his position on sending US troops into cities to quell rioting. At the time, Trump had threatened to use the Insurrection Act to put an end to the riots and Cotton had backed Trump, which certainly made it an urgent issue for debate. In fact, the NYT had invited Cotton to write it, according to Cotton, and then spent considerable time negotiating practically every line in it.
The NYT has published op-eds from political leaders of every stripe, including from Vladimir Putin, the Taliban’s leadership, and others who are at least antagonists toward the US. Somehow, though, Cotton’s op-ed stirred up accusations by NYT staffers and writers that Bennet had made them “unsafe” by publishing Cotton’s very public policy position on dealing with riots, a position shared by a wide majority (58/30) of Americans at the time. They staged a “virtual walkout” over the Times’ decision to even allow a discussion of Cotton’s views to take place.
The mob action worked, of course. Within two days, the paper added a retraction to the column; they refused to add it to the print version of the paper. Both Bennet and managing editor Dean Baquet caved and issued the “groveling apologies” that Allahpundit predicted. And even that wasn’t enough; Sulzberger canceled Bennet as editorial page editor anyway and demoted deputy editor Jim Dao to appease the mob.
None of this is about disagreement and debate. It’s about shutting down debate and not allowing any disagreement. The very people demanding the removal of Cotton’s invited views from the platform also write for the NYT and could have easily penned rebuttals — a whole series of them — for the same readership. That kind of privileged access to the platform wasn’t enough; they demanded complete control of it … and got it.
What’s more, Weiss adds, the only thing new about the Bennett debacle was how publicly it played out:
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
Why? Because Sulzberger doesn’t have the courage to stand up to a social-media mob. In fact, Sulzberger seems more interested in leveraging the cancel-culture mob than in confronting it on behalf of free speech and open debate. And now everyone knows it.


hotair--2020-07-14--What's the White House's strategy in going after Fauci?

I ’ m cringing at my own headline since there rarely is any conventional “ strategy ” anymore .
There ’ s just the president doing what he wants to do — grumbling about NASCAR banning the Confederate flag at events , say , or taking jabs at his top infectious disease expert — and the people around him scrambling to back him up reflexively irrespective of how it might affect his chances this fall .
Nearly every Trump move can hypothetically be rationalized as a stratagem designed to please his base and maximize their turnout , but that assumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s thrown so many bones to populists already by attacking their hate objects that there can ’ t be any voters left on the right at this point that require further persuasion to commit to him .
Who ’ s still holding out after Trump ’ s rants about BLM and Democratic governors using lockdowns to tank the economy and the “ deep state , ” etc etc etc , and just needs a *little* bit more antagonism towards Anthony Fauci from POTUS before finally deciding to vote for Trump this fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : I think Fauci ’ s gotten on his and his deputies ’ nerves lately due to some of his public comments and they ’ re instinctively “ counterpunching ” no matter how much doing so might backfire on them .
Trump himself has pulled his punches , going no further than to note that Fauci was wrong early on in some of his assessments of the threat from COVID-19 to the U.S. , but his aides have been more aggressive .
First they gagged him : White House communications officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus , responded by allowing Fauci spots this week on PBS NewsHour , a CNN town hall with Sanjay Gupta and NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” during the prime Sunday morning slot , according to one person familiar with the situation .
Then Fauci joined a Facebook Live event on Tuesday with Sen. Doug Jones ( D-Ala. ) , disputing Trump ’ s assertions that a lower death rate showed the country ’ s progress against the pandemic .
Fauci called it “ a false narrative ” and warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into false complacency.
” Fauci did not end up making any of the scheduled appearances .
The White House canceled them after his Tuesday remarks , according to the person , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to relate behind-the-scenes conversations .
Then they started circulating to reporters a list of comments made by Fauci about the pandemic that turned out to be wrong or shortsighted in hindsight .
I ’ ve never heard of a White House pushing oppo on their own guy , and certainly never on an official like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by most of the public .
Most administrations would consider someone like that an asset , worthy of *greater* public visibility in the hope and belief that voters ’ respect for Fauci might translate into respect for Fauci ’ s boss as well .
As it is , Trump cronies like Stephen Moore are openly chattering to reporters about their plans to try to further damage his reputation : “ We are working on a memo that shows how many times Dr. Fauci ’ s been wrong during not just [ this pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Moore told The Daily Beast , adding that he and his team at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity had been working on it for weeks .
Moore , whose failures at political and economic prognostication are routine grist for his critics , added that he and his group intend to send their final product to the White House and Trump and to “ publicize it , ” once ready .
Moore said that the current title of the memo is : “ Dr .
Wrong.
” “ It will document how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong , but in many cases , fabulously wrong… [ and it ’ ll be ] looking at his whole career of making predictions about disease , and trying to show a pattern , ” he continued .
“ Fauci ’ s been ‘ Dr .
Doom ’ … and I don ’ t have a problem with him being ‘ Dr .
Doom , ’ but I have a problem with him being wrong , wrong , wrong… He ’ s been a detriment to getting the economy reopened , with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not all .
People inside the White House and close to Trump are publicly attacking Fauci as well now : “ It boggles the mind ” that the White House would want to go after him , said Fox News ’ s political editor , Chris Stirewalt , last night .
“ It just makes no sense.
” It doesn ’ t .
The closest I can get to making it make sense is to speculate that the White House is worried Fauci will talk governors into issuing new lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovery and possibly extinguish any last chance Trump has at reelection .
But that doesn ’ t make sense either .
First , although Fauci has put lockdowns on the table recently as a last-ditch way to limit the spread in hot-spot states , he ’ s not enthusiastic about them .
“ It would be really a morale breaker , ” he said to Stat this morning of the prospect of new stay-at-home orders .
“ The stress and strain that people were under during prolonged lockdown is the genesis of why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try and open up , they rebounded so abruptly .
Because what I think happened is , they overshot.
” He ’ s been cautiously supportive of reopening schools as well , putting him basically in sync with Trump .
Second , and without rehashing all of this again at length , Trump ’ s “ reopen at all costs ” approach is more of a threat to his reelection than Fauci ’ s “ reopen cautiously ” view .
He ’ s paying a steep price in the polls for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California are experiencing .
If infections continue to skyrocket , the economy will begin slowing down again either because governors feel no choice but to issue new stay-at-home orders or because frightened consumers begin staying home of their own accord .
If the White House had encouraged governors in the spring to stick to their own guidelines on reopening , we — and Trump — might be lined up for a more durable recovery now .
In fact , by demagoging Fauci , the White House risks having parts of the population ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skeptical of precautions urged by experts , which will further retard the country ’ s ability to hold down cases .
Among GOPers , trust in Fauci has already declined from 56 percent in March to 38 percent now : Coincidentally , Republicans are also much , much less likely than Democrats to say they always or very often wear a mask outside the home : In light of all that , what ’ s the “ strategy ” in attacking Fauci ?
There is none .
Anything they can do to limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and good for Trump ’ s chances in November , and so here they are undermining a guy who ’ s doing what he can to get public officials and regular people to limit the spread .
On top of that , as you can see in the first graph , Fauci still rates well on trust among the overall public ( 51/21 ) and among independents ( 52/21 ) .
Even among Republicans , more people trust him than don ’ t ( 38/35 ) .
So how does the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him ?
Which voters are supposed to be won over , rather than alienated , by doing this ?
It makes no sense , like Stirewalt says .
Even a sycophant as loyal as Lindsey Graham knows it ’ s a bad idea : I ’ ll leave you with this .
When do Trump ’ s deputies start circulating oppo on the First Lady ?

I’m cringing at my own headline since there rarely is any conventional “strategy” anymore. There’s just the president doing what he wants to do — grumbling about NASCAR banning the Confederate flag at events, say, or taking jabs at his top infectious disease expert — and the people around him scrambling to back him up reflexively irrespective of how it might affect his chances this fall. Nearly every Trump move can hypothetically be rationalized as a stratagem designed to please his base and maximize their turnout, but that assumption gets weaker by the day. He’s thrown so many bones to populists already by attacking their hate objects that there can’t be any voters left on the right at this point that require further persuasion to commit to him. Who’s still holding out after Trump’s rants about BLM and Democratic governors using lockdowns to tank the economy and the “deep state,” etc etc etc, and just needs a *little* bit more antagonism towards Anthony Fauci from POTUS before finally deciding to vote for Trump this fall?
It’s as simple as this: I think Fauci’s gotten on his and his deputies’ nerves lately due to some of his public comments and they’re instinctively “counterpunching” no matter how much doing so might backfire on them. Trump himself has pulled his punches, going no further than to note that Fauci was wrong early on in some of his assessments of the threat from COVID-19 to the U.S., but his aides have been more aggressive. First they gagged him:
White House communications officials, who must approve television appearances related to the coronavirus, responded by allowing Fauci spots this week on PBS NewsHour, a CNN town hall with Sanjay Gupta and NBC’s “Meet the Press” during the prime Sunday morning slot, according to one person familiar with the situation. Then Fauci joined a Facebook Live event on Tuesday with Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), disputing Trump’s assertions that a lower death rate showed the country’s progress against the pandemic. Fauci called it “a false narrative” and warned, “Don’t get yourself into false complacency.” Fauci did not end up making any of the scheduled appearances. The White House canceled them after his Tuesday remarks, according to the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to relate behind-the-scenes conversations.
Then they started circulating to reporters a list of comments made by Fauci about the pandemic that turned out to be wrong or shortsighted in hindsight. I’ve never heard of a White House pushing oppo on their own guy, and certainly never on an official like Fauci who’s liked and trusted by most of the public. Most administrations would consider someone like that an asset, worthy of *greater* public visibility in the hope and belief that voters’ respect for Fauci might translate into respect for Fauci’s boss as well. As it is, Trump cronies like Stephen Moore are openly chattering to reporters about their plans to try to further damage his reputation:
“We are working on a memo that shows how many times Dr. Fauci’s been wrong during not just [this pandemic], but during his entire career,” Moore told The Daily Beast, adding that he and his team at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity had been working on it for weeks. Moore, whose failures at political and economic prognostication are routine grist for his critics, added that he and his group intend to send their final product to the White House and Trump and to “publicize it,” once ready. Moore said that the current title of the memo is: “Dr. Wrong.” “It will document how often his predictions have been not just wrong, but in many cases, fabulously wrong…[and it’ll be] looking at his whole career of making predictions about disease, and trying to show a pattern,” he continued. “Fauci’s been ‘Dr. Doom’… and I don’t have a problem with him being ‘Dr. Doom,’ but I have a problem with him being wrong, wrong, wrong… He’s been a detriment to getting the economy reopened, with a lot of his false predictions.”
But that’s not all. People inside the White House and close to Trump are publicly attacking Fauci as well now:
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media posts cartoon and message on FB attacking the nation’s leading infectious disease expert for telling the truth about this deadly pandemic. https://t.co/lqwUFHTCYP pic.twitter.com/gR3oHoV1eH — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 14, 2020
“It boggles the mind” that the White House would want to go after him, said Fox News’s political editor, Chris Stirewalt, last night. “It just makes no sense.” It doesn’t. The closest I can get to making it make sense is to speculate that the White House is worried Fauci will talk governors into issuing new lockdown orders, which will kill the economic recovery and possibly extinguish any last chance Trump has at reelection. But that doesn’t make sense either. First, although Fauci has put lockdowns on the table recently as a last-ditch way to limit the spread in hot-spot states, he’s not enthusiastic about them. “It would be really a morale breaker,” he said to Stat this morning of the prospect of new stay-at-home orders. “The stress and strain that people were under during prolonged lockdown is the genesis of why, when they were given the opportunity to try and open up, they rebounded so abruptly. Because what I think happened is, they overshot.” He’s been cautiously supportive of reopening schools as well, putting him basically in sync with Trump.
Second, and without rehashing all of this again at length, Trump’s “reopen at all costs” approach is more of a threat to his reelection than Fauci’s “reopen cautiously” view. He’s paying a steep price in the polls for the spike in cases that the south and California are experiencing. If infections continue to skyrocket, the economy will begin slowing down again either because governors feel no choice but to issue new stay-at-home orders or because frightened consumers begin staying home of their own accord. If the White House had encouraged governors in the spring to stick to their own guidelines on reopening, we — and Trump — might be lined up for a more durable recovery now.
In fact, by demagoging Fauci, the White House risks having parts of the population (i.e. Republicans) grow even more skeptical of precautions urged by experts, which will further retard the country’s ability to hold down cases. Among GOPers, trust in Fauci has already declined from 56 percent in March to 38 percent now:
Coincidentally, Republicans are also much, much less likely than Democrats to say they always or very often wear a mask outside the home:
In light of all that, what’s the “strategy” in attacking Fauci? There is none. Anything they can do to limit the spread is good for the country and good for Trump’s chances in November, and so here they are undermining a guy who’s doing what he can to get public officials and regular people to limit the spread. On top of that, as you can see in the first graph, Fauci still rates well on trust among the overall public (51/21) and among independents (52/21). Even among Republicans, more people trust him than don’t (38/35). So how does the White House help itself by making a foil of him? Which voters are supposed to be won over, rather than alienated, by doing this? It makes no sense, like Stirewalt says. Even a sycophant as loyal as Lindsey Graham knows it’s a bad idea:
GRAHAM defends Dr. Fauci: "We don't have a Dr. Fauci problem. We need to be focusing on doing things that get us to where we need to go. So I have all the respect in the world for Dr. Fauci. I think any effort to undermine him is not going to be productive, quite frankly." — Alan He (@alanhe) July 14, 2020
I’ll leave you with this. When do Trump’s deputies start circulating oppo on the First Lady?


hotair--2020-07-14--Medical professionals criticize report that attempts to clean up Cuomo's nursing home disaster

Gov .
Cuomo is currently taking a victory lap for his handling of the coronavirus in New York , but one decision made early in the shutdown continues to dog him .
The state issued an order in March that made it mandatory for nursing homes to accept people with COVID-19 from hospitals .
The idea was to prevent overcrowding at hospitals but the result may have been to help introduce the virus into nursing homes where a significant number of COVID deaths took place .
The criticism of the nursing home order has been circulating since May when Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s administration published a report attempting to clear his name once and for all .
The report flatly claims “ nursing home admissions from hospitals were not a driver of nursing home infections or fatalities.
” Instead , the report blames the spread of the virus on health care workers and notes that 80 % of the homes that took in COVID patients already had someone who had tested positive for the virus .
But the report isn ’ t a scientific study and medical professionals contacted by the Associated Press said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think they got a lot of political pushback and so their response was , ‘ This isn ’ t a problem .
Don ’ t worry about it , ’ ” said Rupak Shivakoti , an epidemiologist at Columbia University ’ s Mailman School of Public Health .
“ It seems like the Department of Health is trying to justify what was an untenable policy , ” added Charlene Harrington , a professor emerita of nursing and sociology at the University of California at San Francisco .
Cuomo has claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just “ ugly politics ” and furthermore that the report vindicates him .
But when the Associated Press asked experts to look at it , they noticed that it really sidesteps the central question : What impact did the order have on deaths in nursing homes ?
Among the questions not answered : If 80 % of the 310 nursing homes that took coronavirus patients already had cases before the order , what was the effect of the released patients on the other 62 homes ?
… Among the holes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houston , epidemiologist Catherine Troisi was a lack of data on what happened at dozens of nursing homes that had no COVID-19 infections before those sick with the virus were sent to them .
“ Would this get published in an academic journal ?
No , ” Troisi said… “ They really need to own the fact that they made a mistake , that it was never right to send COVID patients into nursing homes and that people died because of it , ” said Dr. Michael Wasserman , president of the California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Steve Scalise sent a letter to Cuomo criticizing the report as “ half-baked data manipulations.
” But a spokesman for Cuomo responded that Republicans were “ denying science ” and claimed “ no one is buying it.
” Could it be any more clear that Cuomo is trying to use a veneer of “ science ” to cloud the issue ?
What today ’ s Associated Press report shows is that Cuomo ’ s spokesperson has it backwards .
The report issued by the state isn ’ t “ science ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not buying what Cuomo is selling .

Gov. Cuomo is currently taking a victory lap for his handling of the coronavirus in New York, but one decision made early in the shutdown continues to dog him. The state issued an order in March that made it mandatory for nursing homes to accept people with COVID-19 from hospitals. The idea was to prevent overcrowding at hospitals but the result may have been to help introduce the virus into nursing homes where a significant number of COVID deaths took place.
The criticism of the nursing home order has been circulating since May when Cuomo reversed the order. Last week Cuomo’s administration published a report attempting to clear his name once and for all. The report flatly claims “nursing home admissions from hospitals were not a driver of nursing home infections or fatalities.” Instead, the report blames the spread of the virus on health care workers and notes that 80% of the homes that took in COVID patients already had someone who had tested positive for the virus. But the report isn’t a scientific study and medical professionals contacted by the Associated Press said it looked more like a political document.
“I think they got a lot of political pushback and so their response was, ‘This isn’t a problem. Don’t worry about it,’” said Rupak Shivakoti, an epidemiologist at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “It seems like the Department of Health is trying to justify what was an untenable policy,” added Charlene Harrington, a professor emerita of nursing and sociology at the University of California at San Francisco.
Cuomo has claimed the attacks on his nursing home policy are just “ugly politics” and furthermore that the report vindicates him. But when the Associated Press asked experts to look at it, they noticed that it really sidesteps the central question: What impact did the order have on deaths in nursing homes?
Among the questions not answered: If 80% of the 310 nursing homes that took coronavirus patients already had cases before the order, what was the effect of the released patients on the other 62 homes?… Among the holes in the study highlighted by University of Texas, Houston, epidemiologist Catherine Troisi was a lack of data on what happened at dozens of nursing homes that had no COVID-19 infections before those sick with the virus were sent to them. “Would this get published in an academic journal? No,” Troisi said… “They really need to own the fact that they made a mistake, that it was never right to send COVID patients into nursing homes and that people died because of it,” said Dr. Michael Wasserman, president of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.
Rep. Steve Scalise sent a letter to Cuomo criticizing the report as “half-baked data manipulations.” But a spokesman for Cuomo responded that Republicans were “denying science” and claimed “no one is buying it.” Could it be any more clear that Cuomo is trying to use a veneer of “science” to cloud the issue?
What today’s Associated Press report shows is that Cuomo’s spokesperson has it backwards. The report issued by the state isn’t “science” and actual medical professionals are the ones who are not buying what Cuomo is selling.


hotair--2020-07-14--Group holds "love march" in Chicago to end gang violence without more police

Over the past several weeks , the number of people either injured or murdered in shootings in Chicago has rapidly grown too large to keep track of .
And as almost always happens with gang violence in poorer urban areas , the vast majority of the victims are Black or Hispanic .
Now , some residents of those very neighborhoods in the Windy City are growing exasperated with the inability of the city to tame the violence and are hoping to do something about it themselves .
While their methods and theory may be a bit dubious ( more on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals are clearly in the right place .
A group named GoodKids MadCity has been working to shut down some of the violence through mutual cooperation and communication .
One organizer , 22-year-old Nita Tennyson , who lost one of her best friends in a shooting last weekend , helped to organize a “ love march ” in an effort to get the community engaged in the process .
( CBS Chicago ) In the Greater Grand Crossing neighborhood on Saturday , youth from GoodKids MadCity led a “ love march.
” … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Peacebook Ordinance .
“ You need to fund the right things .
You need to fund the community .
You need to bring healing processes to the community , and that starts with mental health .
That starts with getting all the resources you need , ” Nita Tennyson said .
“ That starts with being able to take care of yourself , your children , making sure your family is safe , they can walk home , they can go to the store .
Making sure there ’ s a store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no resources , we can ’ t do anything.
” Young Ms. Tennyson has my sympathies for her recent loss and my encouragement in her efforts to address the underlying problems .
As I ’ ve said during previous eruptions of similar gang violence in other cities , the real solution to endemic organized criminal violence has to start with the families , the churches and the social fabric of these communities .
The police can ’ t do it all on their own .
They need support from law-abiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tide of criminal activity .
With that said , a few points in the GoodKids MadCity plan might need a bit of fine-tuning .
GKMC has developed a plan they refer to as the “ peacebook.
” They ’ re looking for the municipal government to fund greater investment in the communities , supposedly removing the incentive for gang activity to proliferate .
They want to “ tackle gun violence by providing resources to struggling Black and Brown communities in Chicago.
” They further claim that their actions should “ incentivize street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restorative justice process , so they can be accountable and heal from their trauma.
” Another organizer said that the gangs will “ come to terms , and agree to peace treaties , and end the cycle of violence that has claimed the lives of women and children.
” Not for nothing here , but as lovely as this idea sounds , I ’ m not sure any of the street gangs in Chicago , Baltimore or elsewhere are really in the market for peaceful “ restorative justice.
” And while ceasefires and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unheard of , they don ’ t generally tend to last long .
Too many disputes are settled by someone not living to walk away from the negotiating table .
Who from GKMC is going to meet with these gang leaders and hammer out the terms ?
And where will the funding for these resource initiatives come from ?
According to the organizers , they are asking the city to “ commit more resources to their communities , not just to more officers on the streets.
” In other words , they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and put that money into community aid efforts .
I ’ m sorry , but with a problem of this magnitude , you need both the long arm of the law and the cooperative , positive efforts of the community .
One can ’ t come at the expense of the other because someone needs to keep the gang ’ s major shooters off the streets while you try to work out a peace plan .
But as I said at the top , I wish them the best of luck .
God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of help .

Over the past several weeks, the number of people either injured or murdered in shootings in Chicago has rapidly grown too large to keep track of. And as almost always happens with gang violence in poorer urban areas, the vast majority of the victims are Black or Hispanic. Now, some residents of those very neighborhoods in the Windy City are growing exasperated with the inability of the city to tame the violence and are hoping to do something about it themselves. While their methods and theory may be a bit dubious (more on that shortly), their hearts and goals are clearly in the right place.
A group named GoodKids MadCity has been working to shut down some of the violence through mutual cooperation and communication. One organizer, 22-year-old Nita Tennyson, who lost one of her best friends in a shooting last weekend, helped to organize a “love march” in an effort to get the community engaged in the process. (CBS Chicago)
In the Greater Grand Crossing neighborhood on Saturday, youth from GoodKids MadCity led a “love march.” … March organizers specifically focused on something called the Peacebook Ordinance. “You need to fund the right things. You need to fund the community. You need to bring healing processes to the community, and that starts with mental health. That starts with getting all the resources you need,” Nita Tennyson said. “That starts with being able to take care of yourself, your children, making sure your family is safe, they can walk home, they can go to the store. Making sure there’s a store for them to go to. If there’s no resources, we can’t do anything.”
Young Ms. Tennyson has my sympathies for her recent loss and my encouragement in her efforts to address the underlying problems. As I’ve said during previous eruptions of similar gang violence in other cities, the real solution to endemic organized criminal violence has to start with the families, the churches and the social fabric of these communities. The police can’t do it all on their own. They need support from law-abiding residents who are willing to beat back the tide of criminal activity.
With that said, a few points in the GoodKids MadCity plan might need a bit of fine-tuning. GKMC has developed a plan they refer to as the “peacebook.” They’re looking for the municipal government to fund greater investment in the communities, supposedly removing the incentive for gang activity to proliferate. They want to “tackle gun violence by providing resources to struggling Black and Brown communities in Chicago.” They further claim that their actions should “incentivize street factions and gangs to go through a restorative justice process, so they can be accountable and heal from their trauma.”
Another organizer said that the gangs will “come to terms, and agree to peace treaties, and end the cycle of violence that has claimed the lives of women and children.”
Not for nothing here, but as lovely as this idea sounds, I’m not sure any of the street gangs in Chicago, Baltimore or elsewhere are really in the market for peaceful “restorative justice.” And while ceasefires and treaties between gangs aren’t entirely unheard of, they don’t generally tend to last long. Too many disputes are settled by someone not living to walk away from the negotiating table. Who from GKMC is going to meet with these gang leaders and hammer out the terms?
And where will the funding for these resource initiatives come from? According to the organizers, they are asking the city to “commit more resources to their communities, not just to more officers on the streets.” In other words, they want to at least partially defund the police and put that money into community aid efforts.
I’m sorry, but with a problem of this magnitude, you need both the long arm of the law and the cooperative, positive efforts of the community. One can’t come at the expense of the other because someone needs to keep the gang’s major shooters off the streets while you try to work out a peace plan. But as I said at the top, I wish them the best of luck. God only knows that Chicago needs a lot of help.


hotair--2020-07-14--McCloskey: We expect to be indicted any day now for standing up to the mob

Will the raid on the McCloskeys and the seizure of their weapons get followed by an indictment for their defense of their home during a Black Lives Matter protest ?
That ’ s pretty clearly what St. Louis County DA Kimberly Gardner has in mind , which is why Mark McCloskey ’ s attorney gave him some good advice — shut up .
Instead , McCloskey spoke with Tucker Carlson last night to urge more Americans to speak out against the mob .
“ The only possible solution ” to mob rule , McCloskey declared , “ is for individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” At least McCloskey , an attorney himself , has been advised what he is risking : “ The police were really very professional and very nice , ” McCloskey said .
“ The cops that came out to issue the search warrant on us , they were almost apologetic .
They didn ’ t want to have to be there .
They were doing their job .
Patty wanted to take a picture to document it , and she asked if they wouldn ’ t mind facing away from the camera so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at them if their faces were shown on TV.
” McCloskey said that the officers did not believe that he and his wife did anything wrong but were being forced to carry out the order by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner , a Democrat , who claimed that the McCloskeys defending their private property was a “ violent assault.
” “ My attorney advised me not to be on the show tonight because the rumor is that we are going to be indicted shortly , ” McCloskey said .
“ Having said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney that released 35 of the protesters that torched and looted in downtown St. Louis but now she wants to indict me .
I didn ’ t shoot anybody .
I just held my ground , protecting my house , and I ’ m sitting here on television tonight instead of dead or putting out the smoldering embers of my home.
” McCloskey argued that the DA doesn ’ t have a case , and that her sense of proportion shows evident bias : “ They , unfortunately , are stuck between a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their own belief that we did absolutely nothing wrong , ” he added .
McCloskey said that because of the lack of law enforcement control during ongoing demonstrations , he and his wife were forced to pull out their weapons and defend themselves because they felt threatened during the encounter .
“ When you have certain elements of society encouraging violence , at the same time asking the police to stand down , what ’ s the only possible result ?
The only possible solution is for individual citizens to stand up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Would Gardner have a case to bring against the McCloskeys ?
Technically , perhaps , but in practical terms it would be a loser .
People get confused over the charge of “ assault , ” which does not actually require a use of force — only the credible threat of force .
Pointing a weapon at anyone or even just brandishing it is technically assault , even if it ’ s not a firearm .
( I was a witness in a case nearly 30 years ago involving a shovel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed-carry class teaches this as a warning to its students never to pull out the weapon unless all the elements of self-defense by lethal force exist .
That ’ s where this case would be a loser .
Consider the context : cities are burning from Minneapolis to New York to Los Angeles .
An angry mob breaks down the gate on the property and begins illegally demonstrating on private property , which the McCloskeys have the right to defend .
What would a reasonable person conclude ?
They would likely conclude that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger , which means they could use lethal force to protect themselves and their property , according to state law .
If Gardner could find twelve jurors to ignore all of that — which I seriously doubt — she won ’ t find an appellate court that will .
The McCloskeys reportedly tend to be litigious too , so the county has to decide whether they want to risk paying out millions in a wrongful prosecution lawsuit just to conduct a stunt trial pour encourager les autres .
Speaking of which , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more of these standoffs in the future .
If mobs start acting with impunity and police keep retreating , people will arm themselves and act to defend themselves and their property .
The spike in gun sales is no coincidence , and the next exercise of mob reaction to mob rule might end a lot more violently than this one with the McCloskeys .
If DAs don ’ t want to see people taking the law into their own hands , then DAs and the cities should start enforcing the law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s literally their most basic responsibility , and they are failing miserably at it .

Will the raid on the McCloskeys and the seizure of their weapons get followed by an indictment for their defense of their home during a Black Lives Matter protest? That’s pretty clearly what St. Louis County DA Kimberly Gardner has in mind, which is why Mark McCloskey’s attorney gave him some good advice — shut up. Instead, McCloskey spoke with Tucker Carlson last night to urge more Americans to speak out against the mob. “The only possible solution” to mob rule, McCloskey declared, “is for individual citizens to stand up and defend themselves.”
At least McCloskey, an attorney himself, has been advised what he is risking:
Mark McCloskey says that he believes that he and his wife are going to be "indicted shortly". pic.twitter.com/8o4xsb82Az — (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) July 14, 2020
“The police were really very professional and very nice,” McCloskey said. “The cops that came out to issue the search warrant on us, they were almost apologetic. They didn’t want to have to be there. They were doing their job. Patty wanted to take a picture to document it, and she asked if they wouldn’t mind facing away from the camera so that people wouldn’t get mad at them if their faces were shown on TV.” McCloskey said that the officers did not believe that he and his wife did anything wrong but were being forced to carry out the order by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, a Democrat, who claimed that the McCloskeys defending their private property was a “violent assault.” “My attorney advised me not to be on the show tonight because the rumor is that we are going to be indicted shortly,” McCloskey said. “Having said that, this is the same circuit attorney that released 35 of the protesters that torched and looted in downtown St. Louis but now she wants to indict me. I didn’t shoot anybody. I just held my ground, protecting my house, and I’m sitting here on television tonight instead of dead or putting out the smoldering embers of my home.”
McCloskey argued that the DA doesn’t have a case, and that her sense of proportion shows evident bias:
“They, unfortunately, are stuck between a circuit attorney that wants to prosecute us in their own belief that we did absolutely nothing wrong,” he added. McCloskey said that because of the lack of law enforcement control during ongoing demonstrations, he and his wife were forced to pull out their weapons and defend themselves because they felt threatened during the encounter. “When you have certain elements of society encouraging violence, at the same time asking the police to stand down, what’s the only possible result? The only possible solution is for individual citizens to stand up and defend themselves,” he said.
Would Gardner have a case to bring against the McCloskeys? Technically, perhaps, but in practical terms it would be a loser. People get confused over the charge of “assault,” which does not actually require a use of force — only the credible threat of force. Pointing a weapon at anyone or even just brandishing it is technically assault, even if it’s not a firearm. (I was a witness in a case nearly 30 years ago involving a shovel, of all things.) A proper concealed-carry class teaches this as a warning to its students never to pull out the weapon unless all the elements of self-defense by lethal force exist.
That’s where this case would be a loser. Consider the context: cities are burning from Minneapolis to New York to Los Angeles. An angry mob breaks down the gate on the property and begins illegally demonstrating on private property, which the McCloskeys have the right to defend. What would a reasonable person conclude? They would likely conclude that their property and maybe their lives were in danger, which means they could use lethal force to protect themselves and their property, according to state law. If Gardner could find twelve jurors to ignore all of that — which I seriously doubt — she won’t find an appellate court that will. The McCloskeys reportedly tend to be litigious too, so the county has to decide whether they want to risk paying out millions in a wrongful prosecution lawsuit just to conduct a stunt trial pour encourager les autres.
Speaking of which, McCloskey is right that we can expect much more of these standoffs in the future. If mobs start acting with impunity and police keep retreating, people will arm themselves and act to defend themselves and their property. The spike in gun sales is no coincidence, and the next exercise of mob reaction to mob rule might end a lot more violently than this one with the McCloskeys. If DAs don’t want to see people taking the law into their own hands, then DAs and the cities should start enforcing the law and keeping the peace themselves. That’s literally their most basic responsibility, and they are failing miserably at it.


hotair--2020-07-14--Cuomo now selling weird poster celebrating New York's coronavirus ... triumph?

There ’ s no difference between this and , say , a scenario in which Bush sold a playfully kitschy poster in late 2005 memorializing the feds ’ response to Hurricane Katrina .
Well , one difference .
Wa-a-a-a-ay more people died on Cuomo ’ s watch in New York from the pandemic than died during the storm 15 years ago .
Believe it or not , this monstrosity is now available for pre-order on New York State ’ s official governor ’ s website .
( At $ 14.50 , it ’ s supposedly being sold at cost , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to memorialize a state government failure with few equals in American history but you also want to do it in an unbearably twee way , reserve your copy now .
Click the image in the tweet for the full image : State senator Zellnor Myrie reacted yesterday with puzzlement when it went online : “ I mean this with 0 % snark : how is this not wildly offensive ?
This is an artful monument to death and tragedy being sold by the state .
I ’ m legit perplexed.
” Myrie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo .
The strangest thing about it isn ’ t that Cuomo would feel the urge to commemorate this catastrophe or even that he ’ d choose to do it in such an offbeat way , although both of those are … really strange .
( The intro on the governor ’ s website begins , “ I love history .
I love poster art.
” ) The strangest thing is how jokey and personal some of the allusions in the poster are .
Cuomo ’ s daughters are depicted , as is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in and you ’ ll find an image of “ boyfriend cliff , ” which no one can make sense of but which I assume refers to some of the parental advice Cuomo would occasionally dispense during his endless “ golden boy ” media tour at the height of New York ’ s crisis .
A Twitter pal notes : That ’ s exactly it .
It looks like something a high-school kid would design for a circle of friends filled with in-jokes to commemorate senior year .
From Cuomo ’ s perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily briefings and his job approval soaring , the pandemic probably does seem a bit like senior year .
It was hard — but fun !
— and by the time it was over everyone had bonded and could have a laugh about it .
Remember , this is a guy who was regularly interviewed about the crisis on a major cable “ news ” network by his own brother .
Of course he has an unserious , egocentric perspective on what his state ’ s just been though .
Or is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuade people that New York ’ s unmatched spike in deaths and Cuomo ’ s disastrous policy of sending infected patients back into nursing homes weren ’ t as terrible as they think is to try to convince them that they should regard what they ’ ve been through as a fond memory .
( “ Honey , remember when we used to snuggle on the couch and watch Cuomo every day at noon to find out how many people had died ?
” ) This isn ’ t the first time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embraced the visual image of a steep epidemic curve even though that ’ s been the worst-case scenario since day one of the pandemic .
The whole point of lockdowns was to flatten the curve and prevent massive death and hospitalizations ; New York moved so belatedly on that that they failed to avert exponential growth , finally seeing a reduction in cases only after tens of thousands of their most vulnerable residents died .
To return to the analogy up top , it ’ d be like Bush highlighting imagery of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response .
I ’ ll leave you with this reaction from Jake Tapper .
The YouTube title for the video of Cuomo ’ s appearance on Fallon last night , by the way , is “ Gov .
Andrew Cuomo on New York Reopening and His Dating Life.
” Senior year , man .
College applications are stressful but hopefully you at least get laid after prom !

There’s no difference between this and, say, a scenario in which Bush sold a playfully kitschy poster in late 2005 memorializing the feds’ response to Hurricane Katrina.
Well, one difference. Wa-a-a-a-ay more people died on Cuomo’s watch in New York from the pandemic than died during the storm 15 years ago.
Believe it or not, this monstrosity is now available for pre-order on New York State’s official governor’s website. (At $14.50, it’s supposedly being sold at cost, not for profit.) If you want to memorialize a state government failure with few equals in American history but you also want to do it in an unbearably twee way, reserve your copy now. Click the image in the tweet for the full image:
Here is a high res version of the Cuomo pandemic poster he unveiled today. pic.twitter.com/3LlcewnuOV — Nick Reisman (@NickReisman) July 13, 2020
State senator Zellnor Myrie reacted yesterday with puzzlement when it went online: “I mean this with 0% snark: how is this not wildly offensive? This is an artful monument to death and tragedy being sold by the state. I’m legit perplexed.” Myrie’s a Democrat, just like Cuomo.
The strangest thing about it isn’t that Cuomo would feel the urge to commemorate this catastrophe or even that he’d choose to do it in such an offbeat way, although both of those are … really strange. (The intro on the governor’s website begins, “I love history. I love poster art.”) The strangest thing is how jokey and personal some of the allusions in the poster are. Cuomo’s daughters are depicted, as is his Pontiac GTO muscle car. Zoom in and you’ll find an image of “boyfriend cliff,” which no one can make sense of but which I assume refers to some of the parental advice Cuomo would occasionally dispense during his endless “golden boy” media tour at the height of New York’s crisis. A Twitter pal notes:
The amazing thing about that Cuomo poster is how much it's like "remember all the great memories we had, and the inside jokes we developed? You'll be so happy to see some 'Easter eggs' in the poster!" As if it's a middle school yearbook designed by students — Alan Cole (@AlanMCole) July 14, 2020
That’s exactly it. It looks like something a high-school kid would design for a circle of friends filled with in-jokes to commemorate senior year. From Cuomo’s perspective, with the media fawning over his daily briefings and his job approval soaring, the pandemic probably does seem a bit like senior year. It was hard — but fun! — and by the time it was over everyone had bonded and could have a laugh about it. Remember, this is a guy who was regularly interviewed about the crisis on a major cable “news” network by his own brother. Of course he has an unserious, egocentric perspective on what his state’s just been though.
Or is this strategic? Maybe the only way to persuade people that New York’s unmatched spike in deaths and Cuomo’s disastrous policy of sending infected patients back into nursing homes weren’t as terrible as they think is to try to convince them that they should regard what they’ve been through as a fond memory. (“Honey, remember when we used to snuggle on the couch and watch Cuomo every day at noon to find out how many people had died?”) This isn’t the first time, in fact, that he’s embraced the visual image of a steep epidemic curve even though that’s been the worst-case scenario since day one of the pandemic. The whole point of lockdowns was to flatten the curve and prevent massive death and hospitalizations; New York moved so belatedly on that that they failed to avert exponential growth, finally seeing a reduction in cases only after tens of thousands of their most vulnerable residents died. To return to the analogy up top, it’d be like Bush highlighting imagery of people drowning to “celebrate” the Katrina response.
I’ll leave you with this reaction from Jake Tapper. The YouTube title for the video of Cuomo’s appearance on Fallon last night, by the way, is “Gov. Andrew Cuomo on New York Reopening and His Dating Life.” Senior year, man. College applications are stressful but hopefully you at least get laid after prom!


hotair--2020-07-14--Democrat operative narcs on Ted Cruz, Mask-shamed on American Airlines flight

One result of the coronavirus pandemic and the mitigation measures taken during its outbreak is the rise of the narc – a busy body ready to tattle on someone who appears to not be following the rules .
Case in point – a Democrat operative took a photo of Senator Ted Cruz on a flight on one of American Airlines ’ domestic regional partners .
Cruz ’ s offense ?
He wasn ’ t wearing a mask at the moment that photo was taken .
Perhaps I should call Hosseh Enad , a Democratic Congressional Committee operative , a Karen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
He posted a picture on social media .
The tweet read , “ Captured today at 10:45am — @ TedCruz on a commercial flight , refusing to wear a mask.
” The problem with that sentence is that Cruz was holding a cup of coffee , meaning he was drinking coffee at the time .
It is unclear if the Democrat operative took the photo or simply used someone else ’ s .
Standard airline policy is that a passenger wears a face mask while on a flight unless drinking or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excuse for not wearing a mask at that moment in his hand .
It is hyperbole to state that Cruz “ refused ” to wear a mask .
Where is the proof of that ?
The man has a cup of coffee and is looking at his phone .
To prove his lame point , Enad lectures about how easy it is to wear a mask and drink at the same time , plus , as a bonus , he includes a photo of Cruz sitting at the gate sans mask .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The swampy operative is on a roll .
“ To help promote safety , Senator Cruz wears a mask when traveling , and practices social distancing where possible .
Consistent with airline policy , he temporarily removes the mask while eating or drinking , ” a Cruz spokesperson told The Hill .
The spokesperson added , “ Yesterday during his flight he removed his mask to drink and put it back on afterward .
We should all practice common sense measures to slow the spread of the virus.
” So , after Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day with the tweet on social media , American Airlines announced it is ‘ reviewing ’ the matter .
The airline has “ reached out ” to Cruz .
A tweet was posted of Cruz wearing a mask on another flight , following airline policy .
It is not clear which airport Cruz was sitting in at the gate without a mask .
Policies vary , depending on the airport .
As of June 30 , masks are required inside 20 of the 30 large hub airports in the U.S .
Senator Cruz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with jurisdiction over U.S. airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration .
This incident shows the problems with inconsistent policies in mitigating the coronavirus .
Since restaurants and other places that serve food and drink re-opened with mask requirements , I ’ ve pondered how exactly the policies would be enforced .
Obviously a person eating or drinking can not keep a face mask on .
As with the case of drinking a cup of coffee , it takes a while to drink it .
Is the person expected to keep covering his or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Off and on , off and on .
Is American Airlines going to decide to ban Senator Cruz from future flights as they do to other passengers not conforming to their mask policy ?
I seriously doubt that .
Meanwhile , the Democrat operative used the viral moment to fundraise for the party .
That is what this is all about – raising money and winning the election in November .
He posted tweets to support LGBTQ candidates and the DCCC ’ s Virtual Action Center .
He knows Cruz wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his job , though , to stir the pot in hopes of raising money for Democrats .
No doubt if Cruz was marching in a BLM protest without wearing a mask , the righteous indignation would not be an issue at all .

One result of the coronavirus pandemic and the mitigation measures taken during its outbreak is the rise of the narc – a busy body ready to tattle on someone who appears to not be following the rules. Case in point – a Democrat operative took a photo of Senator Ted Cruz on a flight on one of American Airlines’ domestic regional partners. Cruz’s offense? He wasn’t wearing a mask at the moment that photo was taken.
Perhaps I should call Hosseh Enad, a Democratic Congressional Committee operative, a Karen. (See what I did there?) He posted a picture on social media. The tweet read, “Captured today at 10:45am — @TedCruz on a commercial flight, refusing to wear a mask.” The problem with that sentence is that Cruz was holding a cup of coffee, meaning he was drinking coffee at the time. It is unclear if the Democrat operative took the photo or simply used someone else’s. Standard airline policy is that a passenger wears a face mask while on a flight unless drinking or eating. The senator literally had his excuse for not wearing a mask at that moment in his hand.
Captured today at 10:45am — @TedCruz on a commercial flight, refusing to wear a mask. pic.twitter.com/h8DM7J4CMi — Hosseh (@hossehenad) July 13, 2020
It is hyperbole to state that Cruz “refused” to wear a mask. Where is the proof of that? The man has a cup of coffee and is looking at his phone. To prove his lame point, Enad lectures about how easy it is to wear a mask and drink at the same time, plus, as a bonus, he includes a photo of Cruz sitting at the gate sans mask. He also posts American Airlines’ policy. The swampy operative is on a roll.
For those trying to argue that he was drinking, it's not hard to have a mask on and undo one side to take a sip then put it back on. Most people take their time drinking coffee. Also, here's a photo of him sitting outside the gate: pic.twitter.com/C7cbm3pQH0 — Hosseh (@hossehenad) July 13, 2020
Cruz’s staff released a response to the tweet.
“To help promote safety, Senator Cruz wears a mask when traveling, and practices social distancing where possible. Consistent with airline policy, he temporarily removes the mask while eating or drinking,” a Cruz spokesperson told The Hill. The spokesperson added, “Yesterday during his flight he removed his mask to drink and put it back on afterward. We should all practice common sense measures to slow the spread of the virus.”
So, after Democrats and other Cruz critics had a field day with the tweet on social media, American Airlines announced it is ‘reviewing’ the matter. The airline has “reached out” to Cruz.
“As we do in all instances like these, we reviewed the details of the matter, and while our policy does not apply while eating or drinking, we have reached out to Sen. Cruz to affirm the importance of this policy as part of our commitment to protecting the health and safety of the traveling public,” an American Airlines spokesperson told The Hill.
A tweet was posted of Cruz wearing a mask on another flight, following airline policy.
SPOTTED: Ted Cruz wearing a mask on a plane when he isn't drinking coffee https://t.co/ma6GVbqIBo pic.twitter.com/7bI8tSGeL8 — Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) July 13, 2020
It is not clear which airport Cruz was sitting in at the gate without a mask. Policies vary, depending on the airport. As of June 30, masks are required inside 20 of the 30 large hub airports in the U.S. Senator Cruz is chairman of the Senate Commerce subcommittee with jurisdiction over U.S. airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration.
This incident shows the problems with inconsistent policies in mitigating the coronavirus. Since restaurants and other places that serve food and drink re-opened with mask requirements, I’ve pondered how exactly the policies would be enforced. Obviously a person eating or drinking cannot keep a face mask on. As with the case of drinking a cup of coffee, it takes a while to drink it. Is the person expected to keep covering his or her mouth and nose between sips? Off and on, off and on.
Is American Airlines going to decide to ban Senator Cruz from future flights as they do to other passengers not conforming to their mask policy? I seriously doubt that. Meanwhile, the Democrat operative used the viral moment to fundraise for the party. That is what this is all about – raising money and winning the election in November. He posted tweets to support LGBTQ candidates and the DCCC’s Virtual Action Center. He knows Cruz wasn’t doing anything wrong. It’s his job, though, to stir the pot in hopes of raising money for Democrats. No doubt if Cruz was marching in a BLM protest without wearing a mask, the righteous indignation would not be an issue at all.


hotair--2020-07-14--More Biden: Ya know what we should spend $2T on right now? Green energy

Yesterday we looked at Joe Biden ’ s plan to make his first priority upon taking office the passage of legislation providing amnesty to a massive number of illegal aliens .
Almost immediately thereafter , Uncle Joe ’ s team rolled out another of the major issues that will be at the top of his to-do list .
Despite what you might think a new president might be most concerned about in the midst of the 2020 Parade of Plagues , the former veep wants to channel vast amounts of taxpayer money into renewable energy sources that are propped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right about now , Greta Thunberg must be smiling in approval .
( Bloomberg ) Joe Biden on Tuesday will call for setting a 100 % clean-electricity standard by 2035 and investing $ 2 trillion over four years on clean energy , two people familiar with his plan said Monday .
The Democratic nominee ’ s new commitments mark a clear shift toward progressives ’ priorities in combating climate change and cutting the use of fossil fuels .
The people briefed on his plan spoke on the condition of anonymity .
Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a climate conservation corps modeled after the work relief program President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created during the Great Depression , according to another person briefed on the initiative .
Even without any details to delve into , you have to wonder what Biden ’ s advisers are thinking .
So he wants to create a “ Climate Conservation Corps ” in the style of FDR ’ s public jobs programs during the Great Depression .
Of course , one of the key differences you should note immediately is that we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term .
If that were the case , some sort of massive public jobs program might start to make sense .
But we ’ re actually a nation with a vast number of jobs waiting to be refilled as soon as the government allows all of the employers to open up again .
The difference is neither subtle nor unimportant .
The plan also calls for massive federal funding to “ encourage ” or incentivize the public into dumping all of their gas-burning cars and rapidly replace them with electric vehicles or hydrogen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t go to an all-electric fleet of vehicles without sufficient charging stations being available , so the taxpayers will also fund a massive expansion of such facilities , particularly in rural areas .
This is an obvious move to try to gin up some excitement among the climate activists in the liberal base .
But much like Biden ’ s initial focus on amnesty for illegals , is this really where the country ’ s priorities are today ?
Thanks to a combination of massive expenditures in pandemic relief and cratering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , we just finished logging a record-shattering expansion of our budget deficit .
We ’ re looking at trillions more in losses before the end of the year .
And now you want to dump another two trillion onto the pile for this ?
What will we be getting in exchange for all of this debt ?
Advances in renewable energy .
And Biden is proposing this at a time when we just recorded the largest production capacity and domestic consumption of natural gas in recorded history .
Oh , and natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low at the same time .
We ’ re swimming in natural gas , a far cleaner and more environmentally friendly fuel than coal or oil .
And we ’ ve got enough of it to take us well into the second half of the century .
But Joe Biden wants to walk away from all of that progress so he can make Greta Thunberg ’ s fans happy .
All the while , we ’ ll be setting additional trillions of dollars of magical money on fire .
This whole shift to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking better and better , isn ’ t it ?

Yesterday we looked at Joe Biden’s plan to make his first priority upon taking office the passage of legislation providing amnesty to a massive number of illegal aliens. Almost immediately thereafter, Uncle Joe’s team rolled out another of the major issues that will be at the top of his to-do list. Despite what you might think a new president might be most concerned about in the midst of the 2020 Parade of Plagues, the former veep wants to channel vast amounts of taxpayer money into renewable energy sources that are propped up by taxpayer funds. Somewhere out there right about now, Greta Thunberg must be smiling in approval. (Bloomberg)
Joe Biden on Tuesday will call for setting a 100% clean-electricity standard by 2035 and investing $2 trillion over four years on clean energy, two people familiar with his plan said Monday. The Democratic nominee’s new commitments mark a clear shift toward progressives’ priorities in combating climate change and cutting the use of fossil fuels. The people briefed on his plan spoke on the condition of anonymity. Biden’s blueprint also calls for the creation of a climate conservation corps modeled after the work relief program President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created during the Great Depression, according to another person briefed on the initiative.
Even without any details to delve into, you have to wonder what Biden’s advisers are thinking. So he wants to create a “Climate Conservation Corps” in the style of FDR’s public jobs programs during the Great Depression. Of course, one of the key differences you should note immediately is that we’re not a nation without jobs in the long-term. If that were the case, some sort of massive public jobs program might start to make sense. But we’re actually a nation with a vast number of jobs waiting to be refilled as soon as the government allows all of the employers to open up again. The difference is neither subtle nor unimportant.
The plan also calls for massive federal funding to “encourage” or incentivize the public into dumping all of their gas-burning cars and rapidly replace them with electric vehicles or hydrogen cell cars. Of course, you can’t go to an all-electric fleet of vehicles without sufficient charging stations being available, so the taxpayers will also fund a massive expansion of such facilities, particularly in rural areas.
This is an obvious move to try to gin up some excitement among the climate activists in the liberal base. But much like Biden’s initial focus on amnesty for illegals, is this really where the country’s priorities are today? Thanks to a combination of massive expenditures in pandemic relief and cratering revenues with the economy still largely shut down, we just finished logging a record-shattering expansion of our budget deficit. We’re looking at trillions more in losses before the end of the year. And now you want to dump another two trillion onto the pile for this?
What will we be getting in exchange for all of this debt? Advances in renewable energy. And Biden is proposing this at a time when we just recorded the largest production capacity and domestic consumption of natural gas in recorded history. Oh, and natural gas prices for consumers hit a record low at the same time. We’re swimming in natural gas, a far cleaner and more environmentally friendly fuel than coal or oil. And we’ve got enough of it to take us well into the second half of the century.
But Joe Biden wants to walk away from all of that progress so he can make Greta Thunberg’s fans happy. All the while, we’ll be setting additional trillions of dollars of magical money on fire. This whole shift to allowing Democrats to run everything is just looking better and better, isn’t it?


hotair--2020-07-14--Hmmm: Georgia expands criminal probe into DA in Rayshard Brooks case -- who's now on his third expla

Hmmm: Georgia expands criminal probe into DA in Rayshard Brooks case -- who's now on his third explanation on subpoenas

Did Paul Howard fraudulently issue grand jury subpoenas against the two officers in the Rayshard Brooks case — and touch off weeks of violence and “ blue flu ” ?
The local Fox News affiliate reported a few days ago that Georgia attorney general has asked the state ’ s Bureau of Investigation to find out how Howard managed to issue the subpoenas when the grand jury was not in session .
The GBI had already opened a probe into Howard for an alleged kickback scheme with former mayor Kasim Reed , and it also adds to the tension between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : But , the I-Team has learned there was more to Howard ’ s investigation .
We obtained a copy of a Grand Jury subpoena , sent from Howard ’ s office to the Atlanta Police department isntructing them to turn over its “ open investigation regarding Garrett Rolfe and the use of force incident.
” The subpoena required that the documents be turned over for the “ Grand Jury , June/July term on the of 14th day of July.
” Other grand jury subpoenas were issued for phone and surveillance camera videos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How can the grand jury issue these subpoenas when there is no grand jury .
It had been suspended on March 13 because of the COVID-19 pandemic .
And , legal experts we ’ ve talked to say Howard ’ s grand jury subpoena with no grand jury in session could be an ethical or possibly criminal issue .
Don ’ t forget that Howard short-circuited the GBI in charging the two officers with homicide in the case .
The GBI publicly objected to that move , announcing that their investigation into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion .
Howard ’ s decision to indict got widespread criticism as a rush to judgment for political purposes , and Atlanta police walked off the job in protest .
There still is a lack of available officers , and crime has exploded in Atlanta in the meantime , with Gov .
Brian Kemp calling up the National Guard to quell the violence .
The Fox affiliate first reported the new probe on Friday .
By last night , Howard was on his third explanation of the subpoenas , all of which contradict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pines points out that Howard told the Fulton County Daily report the subpoenas were sent out for a potential “ future grand jury.
” Explanation Number two : Howard later told FOX 5 an employee thought a “ past grand jury ” was still in session .
Explanation Number three : Friday Howard issued a third statement saying wait – it was neither – there was actually a second grand jury all along that hadn ’ t been dismissed and was still available .
That second grand jury ’ s legal term had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
D ’ oh !
Looks like Howard may have to work on Explanation Number Four .
Perhaps this time , Howard might try checking on his alibis .
If this is representative of the detective work done in Howard ’ s office , perhaps some outside media might start asking Fulton County voters how they managed to put Inspector Clouseau into that office .
This is more serious than funny , of course , and it points up just how political the indictment against the two officers was and is .
Howard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; he didn ’ t even wait for the evidence or the actual legitimate investigation .
Howard cooked the books to issue an indictment in his own personal political interest , not in the interest of justice .
And that cooking is very likely to lead to the dismissal of the case no matter what its merits : ” It absolutely looks like the District Attorney ’ s Office is attempting to sort of cover up their mistakes with band aids that aren ’ t really staying on very well , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law professor at Georgia State University .
She says all three of Paul Howard ’ s explanations for sending out grand jury subpoenas with no grand jury seemingly in place conflict with each other , and none of them make legal sense .
“ For all intents of purposes right now it looks like there ’ s an abuse of process which could completely derail this case , and nobody wants that outcome , ” said Cino .
An abuse of process ?
Certainly seems that way , but for what purpose ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ paint himself as a Black Lives Matter hero — which would be a convenient distraction for voters from the alleged kickback investigation by the same GBI Howard short-circuited .
Now we have incompetence on top of alleged corruption , however , and Howard hasn ’ t yet learned the First Rule of Holes .
Wouldn ’ t it be ironic if Garrett Rolfe went back to law enforcement , and Howard ended up facing twelve in the box ?

Did Paul Howard fraudulently issue grand jury subpoenas against the two officers in the Rayshard Brooks case — and touch off weeks of violence and “blue flu”? The local Fox News affiliate reported a few days ago that Georgia attorney general has asked the state’s Bureau of Investigation to find out how Howard managed to issue the subpoenas when the grand jury was not in session. The GBI had already opened a probe into Howard for an alleged kickback scheme with former mayor Kasim Reed, and it also adds to the tension between the Fulton County DA and the GBI:
But, the I-Team has learned there was more to Howard’s investigation. We obtained a copy of a Grand Jury subpoena, sent from Howard’s office to the Atlanta Police department isntructing them to turn over its “open investigation regarding Garrett Rolfe and the use of force incident.” The subpoena required that the documents be turned over for the “Grand Jury, June/July term on the of 14th day of July.” Other grand jury subpoenas were issued for phone and surveillance camera videos. But there is a problem. How can the grand jury issue these subpoenas when there is no grand jury. It had been suspended on March 13 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. And, legal experts we’ve talked to say Howard’s grand jury subpoena with no grand jury in session could be an ethical or possibly criminal issue.
Don’t forget that Howard short-circuited the GBI in charging the two officers with homicide in the case. The GBI publicly objected to that move, announcing that their investigation into the Brooks shooting had not yet reached its conclusion. Howard’s decision to indict got widespread criticism as a rush to judgment for political purposes, and Atlanta police walked off the job in protest. There still is a lack of available officers, and crime has exploded in Atlanta in the meantime, with Gov. Brian Kemp calling up the National Guard to quell the violence.
The Fox affiliate first reported the new probe on Friday. By last night, Howard was on his third explanation of the subpoenas, all of which contradict each other:
Explanation Number one: Pines points out that Howard told the Fulton County Daily report the subpoenas were sent out for a potential “future grand jury.” Explanation Number two: Howard later told FOX 5 an employee thought a “past grand jury” was still in session. Explanation Number three: Friday Howard issued a third statement saying wait – it was neither – there was actually a second grand jury all along that hadn’t been dismissed and was still available. That second grand jury’s legal term had already ended when the subpoenas were issued.
D’oh! Looks like Howard may have to work on Explanation Number Four. Perhaps this time, Howard might try checking on his alibis. If this is representative of the detective work done in Howard’s office, perhaps some outside media might start asking Fulton County voters how they managed to put Inspector Clouseau into that office.
This is more serious than funny, of course, and it points up just how political the indictment against the two officers was and is. Howard didn’t do a legitimate investigation; he didn’t even wait for the evidence or the actual legitimate investigation. Howard cooked the books to issue an indictment in his own personal political interest, not in the interest of justice. And that cooking is very likely to lead to the dismissal of the case no matter what its merits:
”It absolutely looks like the District Attorney’s Office is attempting to sort of cover up their mistakes with band aids that aren’t really staying on very well,” said Jessica Gable Cino. Cino is a law professor at Georgia State University. She says all three of Paul Howard’s explanations for sending out grand jury subpoenas with no grand jury seemingly in place conflict with each other, and none of them make legal sense. “For all intents of purposes right now it looks like there’s an abuse of process which could completely derail this case, and nobody wants that outcome,” said Cino.
An abuse of process? Certainly seems that way, but for what purpose? Well, it certainly allowed Howard to paint himself as a Black Lives Matter hero — which would be a convenient distraction for voters from the alleged kickback investigation by the same GBI Howard short-circuited. Now we have incompetence on top of alleged corruption, however, and Howard hasn’t yet learned the First Rule of Holes. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Garrett Rolfe went back to law enforcement, and Howard ended up facing twelve in the box?


hotair--2020-07-14--Mysteriously, Minneapolis Police not stopping as many people

We recently learned that as many as 150 officers from the Minneapolis Police Department have filed claims involving PTSD effects and are preparing to leave the force .
Others are moving up their retirement dates if they have sufficient time in service to do so .
But I ’ m sure everything is still okay , right ?
I mean , there are still lots of police on the job and we always have plenty of cops , particularly in a place that ’ s famous for that “ Minnesota Nice ” way of life .
Perhaps not so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still many officers on the beat , but for some reason , they don ’ t seem to be making as many stops and arrests .
That ’ s particularly odd when you consider all of the unrest in the streets along with all of the wanton looting and vandalism taking place .
Shouldn ’ t stops and arrests being going up rather than down ?
But their own records indicate that the opposite is happening .
( Free Beacon ) The embattled Minneapolis Police Department has mostly ceased stopping and searching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are stretched thin by anti-cop protests and surging gun violence .
Official data released by the MPD show that cumulative stops fell 36 percent in the week after 3 officers killed George Floyd , sparking nationwide protests .
That trend has persisted—over the week between July 6 and July 12 , MPD officers made just 193 stops , down 77 percent from the same week in 2019 .
Stops involving searches of people or their vehicles have also plummeted .
MPD conducted just 20 over the week of July 12 , and 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , respectively , from the preceding year .
We ’ re obviously not talking about some momentary glitch in the data here .
Compared to the same period last year , searches of vehicles and individuals are down by nearly half .
And this is taking place at that same time that the city has experienced a nearly unprecedented increase in shootings .
Stops and arrests are down by similar numbers .
The fact that the police aren ’ t doing as many “ stop and frisk ” checks and vehicle inspections is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to take unlicensed firearms off the streets .
When this is looked at in the context of a spike in shootings , we ’ re asking “ coincidence ” to do some awfully heavy lifting to say that the two factors aren ’ t related .
But should this really be coming as a surprise ?
The Minnesota PD is out there on the streets in ground zero for the defund or abolish the police movements .
They ’ re not only facing an increasing volume of violent crime in the community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the men and women in uniform .
At the same time , it ’ s obvious that City Hall and the City Council don ’ t have their backs since they are moving forward with plans to seriously cut their funding if not eliminate the force altogether .
On top of that , the risk factor for the police when stopping anyone has increased significantly and they know it .
Criminals will be emboldened to resist arrest , violently if need be , knowing that the cops will be worried about any repercussions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it apparently takes little more than an accusation whispered to the local media for the officers to suddenly become the ones facing arrest and prosecution .
With all of that in mind , who wants to go out and risk their necks for a community that ’ s decided they don ’ t want to support them and elected officials who are more than willing to throw them under the bus if it avoids another round of riots ?
This is quickly turning into a downward spiral in terms of public safety .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage suspects leads to more violence and crime .
And the cycle continues .
If the City of Minneapolis can ’ t find a way to restore order in the streets soon , they likely won ’ t have much of a city left to operate .

We recently learned that as many as 150 officers from the Minneapolis Police Department have filed claims involving PTSD effects and are preparing to leave the force. Others are moving up their retirement dates if they have sufficient time in service to do so. But I’m sure everything is still okay, right? I mean, there are still lots of police on the job and we always have plenty of cops, particularly in a place that’s famous for that “Minnesota Nice” way of life.
Perhaps not so much. It’s true that there are still many officers on the beat, but for some reason, they don’t seem to be making as many stops and arrests. That’s particularly odd when you consider all of the unrest in the streets along with all of the wanton looting and vandalism taking place. Shouldn’t stops and arrests being going up rather than down? But their own records indicate that the opposite is happening. (Free Beacon)
The embattled Minneapolis Police Department has mostly ceased stopping and searching residents of the city, as resources are stretched thin by anti-cop protests and surging gun violence. Official data released by the MPD show that cumulative stops fell 36 percent in the week after 3 officers killed George Floyd, sparking nationwide protests. That trend has persisted—over the week between July 6 and July 12, MPD officers made just 193 stops, down 77 percent from the same week in 2019. Stops involving searches of people or their vehicles have also plummeted. MPD conducted just 20 over the week of July 12, and 11 the week before—87 and 90 percent declines, respectively, from the preceding year.
We’re obviously not talking about some momentary glitch in the data here. Compared to the same period last year, searches of vehicles and individuals are down by nearly half. And this is taking place at that same time that the city has experienced a nearly unprecedented increase in shootings. Stops and arrests are down by similar numbers.
The fact that the police aren’t doing as many “stop and frisk” checks and vehicle inspections is believed to have dampened their ability to continue to take unlicensed firearms off the streets. When this is looked at in the context of a spike in shootings, we’re asking “coincidence” to do some awfully heavy lifting to say that the two factors aren’t related.
But should this really be coming as a surprise? The Minnesota PD is out there on the streets in ground zero for the defund or abolish the police movements. They’re not only facing an increasing volume of violent crime in the community but rising levels of violence directed against the men and women in uniform. At the same time, it’s obvious that City Hall and the City Council don’t have their backs since they are moving forward with plans to seriously cut their funding if not eliminate the force altogether.
On top of that, the risk factor for the police when stopping anyone has increased significantly and they know it. Criminals will be emboldened to resist arrest, violently if need be, knowing that the cops will be worried about any repercussions from getting physical with them. And it apparently takes little more than an accusation whispered to the local media for the officers to suddenly become the ones facing arrest and prosecution.
With all of that in mind, who wants to go out and risk their necks for a community that’s decided they don’t want to support them and elected officials who are more than willing to throw them under the bus if it avoids another round of riots? This is quickly turning into a downward spiral in terms of public safety. Fewer cops who are less willing to engage suspects leads to more violence and crime. And the cycle continues. If the City of Minneapolis can’t find a way to restore order in the streets soon, they likely won’t have much of a city left to operate.