hotair--2020-07-22--Can the President really delete illegal immigrants from the Census count?

This story has been knocking around the media landscape for a few days , ever since the President signed an Executive Order saying that illegal immigrants would not be counted in the Census this year in terms of the allocation of federal funding and determining congressional apportionment among the states .
The two most common classes of responses I saw to this news could be summed up into the categories of , “ Wait… can he do that ?
” or , “ There ’ s no way he can do that.
” Falling firmly into the latter camp are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I know… you ’ re shocked ) who summarized the situation as follows .
President Trump on Tuesday directed his administration to exclude immigrants who are in the country illegally when calculating congressional representation , a decision that critics describe as unconstitutional and will likely face a swift court challenge .
“ Respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base , ” the president ’ s memo says .
The Constitution mandates an “ actual Enumeration ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in the country , but the president has repeatedly tried to limit who is counted .
He ’ s sided with nativist groups that have argued that the constitutional language was not intended to include people in the country without legal authorization .
I didn ’ t write about this news item immediately , primarily because I felt like a needed a little while to let it sink in .
I ’ ve heard some of the arguments from people who agree with Trump on this , but they all seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Founders rather than their actual words .
With that in mind , I ’ ll confess to being a bit dubious .
You can say that Madison and his historic companions didn ’ t *intend ” for people in the country illegally to be counted , but any solid proof for that idea seems to be thin at best .
First of all , we still hadn ’ t really crafted a full and coherent policy regarding immigration at the time the Constitution was written .
People were still just showing up on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those arrivals were recorded , though not in any sort of formal government records , but many times there was no record of these arrivals at all unless you manage to locate ships manifests , personal letters or similar documents .
While we did already have the concept of formal citizenship ( “ all persons born or naturalized ” ) we were still hammering out a lot of the details .
Federalist 54 goes on at great length about the debate over who would or wouldn ’ t be counted in the Census @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely on the question of whether or not to count slaves .
And it breaks down into the questions of whether the enumeration is being applied toward taxation or toward representation .
( Are the slaves people or are they property ? )
But even in that aspect of the debate , while property was looked at differently in terms of taxation , the slaves , having virtually no other rights of any kind , were still regarded as people , “ being considered by our laws , in some respects , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property.
” Carrying this forward , unless you ’ re trying to make the argument that illegal aliens aren ’ t technically people , it seems like a rather tenuous hook to hang your hat on .
There ’ s also the practicality of this order to consider .
Everyone receiving the short form this year ( roughly 83 % ) was not asked about their citizenship status .
Many of those who were asked are expected to have failed to return their forms .
How are we supposed to figure out which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure setting up a small group of people who throw a dart at a wall to guesstimate the number of illegal aliens who answered the Census is going to fly .
This executive order was already being challenged before the ink in Trump ’ s signature was dry .
And honestly , I ’ m having a hard time seeing how even any of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court would wind up going along with him here .

This story has been knocking around the media landscape for a few days, ever since the President signed an Executive Order saying that illegal immigrants would not be counted in the Census this year in terms of the allocation of federal funding and determining congressional apportionment among the states. The two most common classes of responses I saw to this news could be summed up into the categories of, “Wait… can he do that?” or, “There’s no way he can do that.” Falling firmly into the latter camp are the editors at the Los Angeles Times (I know… you’re shocked) who summarized the situation as follows.
President Trump on Tuesday directed his administration to exclude immigrants who are in the country illegally when calculating congressional representation, a decision that critics describe as unconstitutional and will likely face a swift court challenge. “Respect for the law and protection of the integrity of the democratic process warrant the exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base,” the president’s memo says. The Constitution mandates an “actual Enumeration” every 10 years of “all persons” in the country, but the president has repeatedly tried to limit who is counted. He’s sided with nativist groups that have argued that the constitutional language was not intended to include people in the country without legal authorization.
I didn’t write about this news item immediately, primarily because I felt like a needed a little while to let it sink in. I’ve heard some of the arguments from people who agree with Trump on this, but they all seem to rely on interpreting the intent of the Founders rather than their actual words. With that in mind, I’ll confess to being a bit dubious.
You can say that Madison and his historic companions didn’t *intend” for people in the country illegally to be counted, but any solid proof for that idea seems to be thin at best. First of all, we still hadn’t really crafted a full and coherent policy regarding immigration at the time the Constitution was written. People were still just showing up on ships from around the world. Sometimes those arrivals were recorded, though not in any sort of formal government records, but many times there was no record of these arrivals at all unless you manage to locate ships manifests, personal letters or similar documents. While we did already have the concept of formal citizenship (“all persons born or naturalized”) we were still hammering out a lot of the details.
Federalist 54 goes on at great length about the debate over who would or wouldn’t be counted in the Census, though the focus is pretty much entirely on the question of whether or not to count slaves. And it breaks down into the questions of whether the enumeration is being applied toward taxation or toward representation. (Are the slaves people or are they property?) But even in that aspect of the debate, while property was looked at differently in terms of taxation, the slaves, having virtually no other rights of any kind, were still regarded as people, “being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property.”
Carrying this forward, unless you’re trying to make the argument that illegal aliens aren’t technically people, it seems like a rather tenuous hook to hang your hat on.
There’s also the practicality of this order to consider. Everyone receiving the short form this year (roughly 83%) was not asked about their citizenship status. Many of those who were asked are expected to have failed to return their forms. How are we supposed to figure out which are which? I’m not sure setting up a small group of people who throw a dart at a wall to guesstimate the number of illegal aliens who answered the Census is going to fly.
This executive order was already being challenged before the ink in Trump’s signature was dry. And honestly, I’m having a hard time seeing how even any of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court would wind up going along with him here.


hotair--2020-07-22--Hmm: Did a Google glitch expose a blacklist of conservative sites?

If so , that would be quite a coincidence .
Last week , a cryptocurrency-scam hack on Twitter inadvertently exposed the capability for “ shadowbanning , ” a practice that the platform insists it does not have or use .
Yesterday , a short-lived problem on Google ’ s core search function blocked results from a number of conservative websites — and that was no accident , a former Google engineer told Mediaite : “ It appears to have revealed the existence of another blacklist that disproportionately targets conservatives , ” Mike Wacker theorized in a message to Mediaite .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this blacklist disappeared from Google search results , but the existence of the list is very much by design .
And that raises a major question : Why was this blacklist created in the first place , and what else is it used for ?
” The issue was evident only briefly on Tuesday morning and early afternoon before it was resolved .
However , it was long enough for users to note that they were unable to access websites including Breitbart , The National Pulse , The Drudge Report , Newsbusters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least one left-leaning website , Occupy Democrats , was also affected .
Legacy media outlets — including The New York Times and Washington Post — did not appear to be harmed .
Dr. Robert Epstein , a researcher who has argued Google has the power to sway up to 10 percent of American voters in the 2020 election , concurred with Wacker .
“ It ’ s likely that a person or algorithm at Google added ‘ breitbart.com ’ and other URLs to one or more of the company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , perhaps after some pushback , someone pulled those URLs off the blacklists.
” The “ glitch ” in this case may not have been something breaking , but something working too well .
Wacker explains to Mediate that it appears these sites are already being penalized in search results , but subtly enough to escape notice .
Somehow , Wacker theorizes , the penalties got ramped up too high and took them out of the results entirely — and the specific nature of the websites impacted make it more likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list invoked by the momentary change yesterday .
If true , that might put Google ’ s CEO in a legal pickle : Coincidentally or not , last week ’ s hack suggested that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey might have the same legal liability .
Both told Congress that they do not restrict access or impose censorship based on political views .
If evidence emerges of interventions on that basis , they could face investigations of lying to Congress , which carries the same penalties as perjury in federal court .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate committee or two to begin new investigations into social media platforms .
Those might get accompanied by the kinds of subpoenas that will settle these questions once and for all .
And one has to wonder whether these incidents are coincidences at all , or are part of a campaign to expose manipulations by social-media platforms .

If so, that would be quite a coincidence. Last week, a cryptocurrency-scam hack on Twitter inadvertently exposed the capability for “shadowbanning,” a practice that the platform insists it does not have or use. Yesterday, a short-lived problem on Google’s core search function blocked results from a number of conservative websites — and that was no accident, a former Google engineer told Mediaite:
“It appears to have revealed the existence of another blacklist that disproportionately targets conservatives,” Mike Wacker theorized in a message to Mediaite. “The glitch is that sites on this blacklist disappeared from Google search results, but the existence of the list is very much by design. And that raises a major question: Why was this blacklist created in the first place, and what else is it used for?” The issue was evident only briefly on Tuesday morning and early afternoon before it was resolved. However, it was long enough for users to note that they were unable to access websites including Breitbart, The National Pulse, The Drudge Report, Newsbusters, The Bongino Report, and Human Events. At least one left-leaning website, Occupy Democrats, was also affected. Legacy media outlets — including The New York Times and Washington Post — did not appear to be harmed. Dr. Robert Epstein, a researcher who has argued Google has the power to sway up to 10 percent of American voters in the 2020 election, concurred with Wacker. “It’s likely that a person or algorithm at Google added ‘breitbart.com’ and other URLs to one or more of the company’s blacklists,” Epstein said. “Then, perhaps after some pushback, someone pulled those URLs off the blacklists.”
The “glitch” in this case may not have been something breaking, but something working too well. Wacker explains to Mediate that it appears these sites are already being penalized in search results, but subtly enough to escape notice. Somehow, Wacker theorizes, the penalties got ramped up too high and took them out of the results entirely — and the specific nature of the websites impacted make it more likely that they’re on some sort of list invoked by the momentary change yesterday.
If true, that might put Google’s CEO in a legal pickle:
Any manual manipulation would conflict with testimony Google CEO Sundar Pichai delivered to Congress in December 2018, when he told a House committee the company did not “manually intervene on any search result.”
Coincidentally or not, last week’s hack suggested that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey might have the same legal liability. Both told Congress that they do not restrict access or impose censorship based on political views. If evidence emerges of interventions on that basis, they could face investigations of lying to Congress, which carries the same penalties as perjury in federal court.
At the very least, it might convince a Senate committee or two to begin new investigations into social media platforms. Those might get accompanied by the kinds of subpoenas that will settle these questions once and for all. And one has to wonder whether these incidents are coincidences at all, or are part of a campaign to expose manipulations by social-media platforms.


hotair--2020-07-22--Patricia McCloskey's gun didn't work so a prosecutor ordered it reassembled and then declared it let

Patricia McCloskey's gun didn't work so a prosecutor ordered it reassembled and then declared it lethal

As you ’ ve probably heard by now , Mark and Patricia McCloskey are each being charged with a felony count of unlawful use of a weapon for stepping outside of their home with guns as protesters marched down a private street on their way to the Mayor ’ s house .
Yesterday a new wrinkle was added this story .
In order to bring the unlawful use charges against the McCloskeys , police have to verify that the guns actually posed a threat .
The McCloskey ’ s guns were seized but when police tested Patricia McCloskeys silver handgun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So an assistant Circuit Attorney ordered the police crime lab to dissemble the gun and then reassembled it so that it could be fired .
The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab , but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner ’ s staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “ readily capable of lethal use ” in charging documents filed Monday , 5 On Your Side has learned .
In Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a weapon is “ readily ” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged .
Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly .
Specifically , the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin , which was backward , and made the gun incapable of firing , according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side .
According to the McCloskeys , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t an accident .
The same gun had been used as a “ prop ” in a previous lawsuit and the McCloskeys had rendered it inoperable so that it could be brought into a courtroom .
In short , the McCloskeys claim they knew the gun was non-functioning when Patricia McCloskey took it outside that day .
Mark McCloskey appeared on Tucker Carlson ’ s show earlier this week and was asked about his guns being seized .
He mentioned the requirement that police show the gun was capable of lethal use and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revelations that come out about that.
” He didn ’ t say at the time what those revelations would be but in retrospect it ’ s clear he was alluding to the fact that Mrs. McCloskey ’ s gun was non-functional .
The McCloskeys ’ attorney said of prosecutor ’ s decision to reassemble the gun and then declare it lethal , “ It ’ s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community.
” The charges brought by St. Louis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t matter in the end anyway since Missouri Gov .
Mike Parson told a radio station this week that he would likely pardon the McCloskey ’ s if they were convicted .
Two videos to close with .
First , NBC 5 ’ s report on the police lab ’ s reassembly of the gun .
Below that is an earlier clip in which a law professor from St. Louis University explains that because the street on which protesters were marching was private property , the McCloskeys were probably within their rights under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come outside with their guns and demand protesters leave .

As you’ve probably heard by now, Mark and Patricia McCloskey are each being charged with a felony count of unlawful use of a weapon for stepping outside of their home with guns as protesters marched down a private street on their way to the Mayor’s house. Yesterday a new wrinkle was added this story. In order to bring the unlawful use charges against the McCloskeys, police have to verify that the guns actually posed a threat. The McCloskey’s guns were seized but when police tested Patricia McCloskeys silver handgun they found that it would not fire. So an assistant Circuit Attorney ordered the police crime lab to dissemble the gun and then reassembled it so that it could be fired.
The gun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable when it arrived at the St. Louis police crime lab, but a member of Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s staff ordered crime lab experts to disassemble and reassemble it and wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use” in charging documents filed Monday, 5 On Your Side has learned. In Missouri, police and prosecutors must prove that a weapon is “readily” capable of lethal use when it is used in the type of crime with which the McCloskeys have been charged. Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley ordered crime lab staff members to field strip the handgun and found it had been assembled incorrectly. Specifically, the firing pin spring was put in front of the firing pin, which was backward, and made the gun incapable of firing, according to documents obtained by 5 On Your Side.
According to the McCloskeys, the incorrect assembly of the gun wasn’t an accident. The same gun had been used as a “prop” in a previous lawsuit and the McCloskeys had rendered it inoperable so that it could be brought into a courtroom. In short, the McCloskeys claim they knew the gun was non-functioning when Patricia McCloskey took it outside that day.
Mark McCloskey appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show earlier this week and was asked about his guns being seized. He mentioned the requirement that police show the gun was capable of lethal use and said, “there will be some revelations that come out about that.” He didn’t say at the time what those revelations would be but in retrospect it’s clear he was alluding to the fact that Mrs. McCloskey’s gun was non-functional.
The McCloskeys’ attorney said of prosecutor’s decision to reassemble the gun and then declare it lethal, “It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community.” The charges brought by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner probably won’t matter in the end anyway since Missouri Gov. Mike Parson told a radio station this week that he would likely pardon the McCloskey’s if they were convicted.
Two videos to close with. First, NBC 5’s report on the police lab’s reassembly of the gun. Below that is an earlier clip in which a law professor from St. Louis University explains that because the street on which protesters were marching was private property, the McCloskeys were probably within their rights under the state’s castle doctrine to come outside with their guns and demand protesters leave.


hotair--2020-07-22--Teenage Afghan girl kills Taliban fighters who murdered her parents

This is a story that encompasses both a deadly tragedy and an act of bravery and heroism .
It comes to us from Ghor province in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan , well to the west of Kabul .
The events in question took place in the middle of the night last Friday at the home of 16-year-old Qamar Gul , her parents and her 12-year-old brother .
At one o ’ clock in the morning , roughly 40 Taliban fighters entered their town and began assaulting people in their homes .
Qamar ’ s father was the chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the current government and the American forces backing it up .
Some of the terrorists began beating on the Guls ’ door and things went downhill from there quickly .
( NY Post ) They knocked on the door around 1 a.m. on July 17 , according to the report .
“ The insurgents came to their doorstep and her mother went to see who was knocking , ” provincial governor spokesman Mohamed Aref Aber told the outlet .
“ When she saw that they were armed , she refused to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gul ’ s mother , and then barged into the home where they fired at her father , according to Aber .
But thankfully the story didn ’ t end there .
The teenage girl picked up her father ’ s AK-47 and gave as good as or better than she got .
She killed at least two of the terrorists and injured several others .
By then the village residents had marshaled a counterattack and the Taliban were forced to retreat .
“ Qamar Gul , who was inside the house , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and first shot dead the two Taliban fighters who killed her parents , and then injured a few others , ” the police official told AFP .
The Guardian later reported that three insurgents were killed , citing Aber .
Several other Taliban fighters later showed up to attack the home , but a group of villagers and pro-government militiamen engaged them in a gunfight , forcing them to retreat .
While revenge may seem appealing at the moment , nothing will replace the loss of the children ’ s parents .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on her back , probably for the rest of her life .
Having fought back and killed some of the Taliban fighters was probably bad enough in the minds of the terrorists .
But for a girl to do it… and a child , no less .
Well , that ’ s not going to go over well with the Taliban .
Local officials said that Qamar and her brother had been moved to a safer location for the time being and they have only one other relative living in that village .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the Taliban has been known to strike many years after a perceived slight , so both of the children would likely be much safer if they could be relocated out of the country .
This incident should serve as a reminder that little or nothing has changed about the Taliban since the United States military first arrived there nearly 20 years ago .
The terrorists are not just located in groups near where the fighting with the government and allied forces is taking place .
They ’ re all over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own people even more than they do their sworn enemies .
Qamar ’ s father wasn ’ t any sort of soldier who had spilled the blood of the Taliban , at least according to this report .
His only “ sin ” was to express support for the current American-backed government .
And that was enough to bring a death sentence down upon his head .
But even in that darkest of moments , one young girl found something inside of her allowing her to stand up to the militants and keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s now being celebrated as a heroic figure .
I only pray that she lives long enough to get through her grieving and move on with her life .

This is a story that encompasses both a deadly tragedy and an act of bravery and heroism. It comes to us from Ghor province in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan, well to the west of Kabul. The events in question took place in the middle of the night last Friday at the home of 16-year-old Qamar Gul, her parents and her 12-year-old brother. At one o’clock in the morning, roughly 40 Taliban fighters entered their town and began assaulting people in their homes. Qamar’s father was the chief of the village and a known supporter of the current government and the American forces backing it up. Some of the terrorists began beating on the Guls’ door and things went downhill from there quickly. (NY Post)
They knocked on the door around 1 a.m. on July 17, according to the report. “The insurgents came to their doorstep and her mother went to see who was knocking,” provincial governor spokesman Mohamed Aref Aber told the outlet. “When she saw that they were armed, she refused to open the door.” The attackers quickly shot Gul’s mother, and then barged into the home where they fired at her father, according to Aber.
But thankfully the story didn’t end there. The teenage girl picked up her father’s AK-47 and gave as good as or better than she got. She killed at least two of the terrorists and injured several others. By then the village residents had marshaled a counterattack and the Taliban were forced to retreat.
“Qamar Gul, who was inside the house, took an AK-47 gun the family had and first shot dead the two Taliban fighters who killed her parents, and then injured a few others,” the police official told AFP. The Guardian later reported that three insurgents were killed, citing Aber. Several other Taliban fighters later showed up to attack the home, but a group of villagers and pro-government militiamen engaged them in a gunfight, forcing them to retreat.
While revenge may seem appealing at the moment, nothing will replace the loss of the children’s parents. Even worse, Qamar now has a target on her back, probably for the rest of her life. Having fought back and killed some of the Taliban fighters was probably bad enough in the minds of the terrorists. But for a girl to do it… and a child, no less. Well, that’s not going to go over well with the Taliban.
Local officials said that Qamar and her brother had been moved to a safer location for the time being and they have only one other relative living in that village. That situation may hold for a while, but the Taliban has been known to strike many years after a perceived slight, so both of the children would likely be much safer if they could be relocated out of the country.
This incident should serve as a reminder that little or nothing has changed about the Taliban since the United States military first arrived there nearly 20 years ago. The terrorists are not just located in groups near where the fighting with the government and allied forces is taking place. They’re all over the country and they murder and terrorize their own people even more than they do their sworn enemies. Qamar’s father wasn’t any sort of soldier who had spilled the blood of the Taliban, at least according to this report. His only “sin” was to express support for the current American-backed government. And that was enough to bring a death sentence down upon his head.
But even in that darkest of moments, one young girl found something inside of her allowing her to stand up to the militants and keep her brother and herself alive. She’s now being celebrated as a heroic figure. I only pray that she lives long enough to get through her grieving and move on with her life.


hotair--2020-07-22--Today's topics on Relevant Radio®: Planned Parenthood's retreat, Hollywood defeat, Turkey's repeat,

Today's topics on Relevant Radio®: Planned Parenthood's retreat, Hollywood defeat, Turkey's repeat, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Has Planned Parenthood finally become embarrassed by its origin in eugenics ?
Abby Johnson discusses the New York chapter ’ s disavowal of Margaret Sanger , and what it means — and doesn ’ t mean .
• Lawsuits keep getting filed over Catholic hospitals ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Knifflin brings us up to speed on the lates .
• Father Ed Looney explains the new Vatican document on parishes • Will theaters stay closed this year ?
Christian Toto reports on a sudden about-face from Hollywood .
• Turkey will convert the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque .
Dr. Jeff Gardner explains why , and what that portends for Turkey ’ s decades-long commitment to secular government .
• And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Has Planned Parenthood finally become embarrassed by its origin in eugenics? Abby Johnson discusses the New York chapter’s disavowal of Margaret Sanger, and what it means — and doesn’t mean.
Lawsuits keep getting filed over Catholic hospitals’ refusal to conduct transgender surgeries. Eric Knifflin brings us up to speed on the lates.
Father Ed Looney explains the new Vatican document on parishes
Will theaters stay closed this year? Christian Toto reports on a sudden about-face from Hollywood.
Turkey will convert the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque. Dr. Jeff Gardner explains why, and what that portends for Turkey’s decades-long commitment to secular government.
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-07-22--De Blasio: We'll sue if Trump orders federal police to defend federal property in NYC

Alternative headline : Bill de Blasio enjoys new hobby of losing in court .
Earlier this morning , the mayor threatened to sue if Donald Trump used federal law enforcement in New York City .
On MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe , de Blasio specifically cited DHS action in Portland in claiming that Trump is “ tearing up the Constitution , ” and that he ’ d sue to stop a similar action in the Big Apple : MAYOR DE BLASIO : I still believe in the rule of law in this country , and we would go to court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing is unconstitutional .
I thought that quote from Tom Ridge was really important to recognize this is not the place of federal agencies to get involved in repressing the right to free speech , disrupting the right to protest , which is an American right .
… MAYOR DE BLASIO : So right now what the President is doing is he ’ s tearing up the Constitution .
What he did in Portland is already a horrible step in the wrong direction , and it ’ s been counterproductive .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm , more protest .
So in the end , if one of these federal officers steps foot in New York City with the intention of denying the first amendment rights of New Yorkers , we will be in court immediately .
And we will win because every time they ’ ve tried an unconstitutional act , every time the Trump administration has tried to bend the Constitution to their will , they have lost in court .
And mayors all over the country feel it .
De Blasio made the same vow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor blasted Trump ’ s threat as “ bluster ” at his daily press briefing .
“ If he tried to do it , it would only create more problems , ” the mayor said .
“ We would immediately take action in court to stop it.
” De Blasio later added , “ I do believe it ’ s bluster .
I do believe we can beat him in court .
It would just create a lot of pain and confusion .
Maybe that ’ s what he wants.
” On Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuomo to end the recent crime spree in the Big Apple , saying , “ if the governor is not going to do something about it , we ’ ll do something about it.
” Trump also floated the idea of sending in federal law enforcement officers — like he did last week in response to violent protests in Portland , Oregon .
Officials there have said the presence of federal agents has only exacerbated the riots , which have been raging for more than 50 nights .
I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost two months of violence .
It might have made Portland officials a little more uncomfortable in the national spotlight , exacerbating their political peril , which is not at all the same thing .
De Blasio might want to prevent the same thing from happening with this threat , but it would be more effective to simply enforce the law up front so that the administration doesn ’ t have to take additional action to protect federal property .
One might think that the embarrassing loss in court over unconstitutional and arbitrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blasio from accusing anyone else of “ tearing up the Constitution.
” No such luck , and as Jonathan Turley wrote yesterday , de Blasio may be teeing up another such embarrassment .
While there is no constitutional role for the federal government in normal municipal policing , Turley points out the obvious jurisdiction it has over its own property no matter where it ’ s located : What [ Trump ] can clearly do is what he did in Portland .
Send in federal forces to protect federal buildings and arrest those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead to an expanding presence .
As more protesters respond to the federal presence , the federal forces can be expanded at their discretion to meet that challenge .
It can become a cause-and-effect controversy like the one being raised in Portland .
However , a judge who orders the federal forces reduced or out of the city would face a rapid appeal and reversal in my view .
That type of deployment to protect federal enclaves and buildings can be done without any special proclamations or orders .
It is part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Indeed , it does not even require a special executive order .
The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may deployed federal officials to protect buildings , support law enforcement activities , or carry out arrests .
These are not military troops , but law enforcement personnel being assigned law enforcement duties .
Being law enforcement , however , Turley reminds readers that they have to obey normal law-enforcement restrictions : There should be an investigation into the conduct of the federal officers to confirm the basis for these arrests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in federal custody .
It is not per se unlawful to use unmarked cars for arrests .
Indeed , it happens all the time .
However , local officials and protesters are alleging that people have been effectively snatched off the streets and taken away blindfolded — only to be released hours later .
The federal officials deny these allegations and insist that these were individual suspects taken into custody on specific alleged federal crimes .
They also note that the officers were clearly marked as police and insist that they told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can create case-by-case challenges , just as it would if municipal police acted in the same manner .
However , Trump and the federal executive branch has clear authority and jurisdiction to send its own personnel to enforce the law and protect property on federal grounds .
Suing Trump makes for great “ bluster , ” a quality de Blasio accuses Trump of having , but it will go nowhere .
Rather than looking for new ways of losing in federal court , shouldn ’ t mayors look for new ways to enforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their cities ?
That way , federal agencies won ’ t have to deploy to protect their facilities in those cities , and the mayors won ’ t have to worry about them .
Problem solved , although it does mean that de Blasio will have to do his job rather than emote all over the television screen while his city burns , another of his favorite hobbies .

Alternative headline: Bill de Blasio enjoys new hobby of losing in court. Earlier this morning, the mayor threatened to sue if Donald Trump used federal law enforcement in New York City. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, de Blasio specifically cited DHS action in Portland in claiming that Trump is “tearing up the Constitution,” and that he’d sue to stop a similar action in the Big Apple:
MAYOR DE BLASIO: I still believe in the rule of law in this country, and we would go to court immediately. I believe what the president is doing is unconstitutional. I thought that quote from Tom Ridge was really important to recognize this is not the place of federal agencies to get involved in repressing the right to free speech, disrupting the right to protest, which is an American right. … MAYOR DE BLASIO: So right now what the President is doing is he’s tearing up the Constitution. What he did in Portland is already a horrible step in the wrong direction, and it’s been counterproductive. It’s created more violence, more harm, more protest. So in the end, if one of these federal officers steps foot in New York City with the intention of denying the first amendment rights of New Yorkers, we will be in court immediately. And we will win because every time they’ve tried an unconstitutional act, every time the Trump administration has tried to bend the Constitution to their will, they have lost in court. And mayors all over the country feel it.
De Blasio made the same vow yesterday in his daily briefing:
The mayor blasted Trump’s threat as “bluster” at his daily press briefing. “If he tried to do it, it would only create more problems,” the mayor said. “We would immediately take action in court to stop it.” De Blasio later added, “I do believe it’s bluster. I do believe we can beat him in court. It would just create a lot of pain and confusion. Maybe that’s what he wants.” On Monday, Trump called on Gov. Andrew Cuomo to end the recent crime spree in the Big Apple, saying, “if the governor is not going to do something about it, we’ll do something about it.” Trump also floated the idea of sending in federal law enforcement officers — like he did last week in response to violent protests in Portland, Oregon. Officials there have said the presence of federal agents has only exacerbated the riots, which have been raging for more than 50 nights.
I don’t think that it “exacerbated” anything after almost two months of violence. It might have made Portland officials a little more uncomfortable in the national spotlight, exacerbating their political peril, which is not at all the same thing. De Blasio might want to prevent the same thing from happening with this threat, but it would be more effective to simply enforce the law up front so that the administration doesn’t have to take additional action to protect federal property.
One might think that the embarrassing loss in court over unconstitutional and arbitrary restrictions on religious expression would keep de Blasio from accusing anyone else of “tearing up the Constitution.” No such luck, and as Jonathan Turley wrote yesterday, de Blasio may be teeing up another such embarrassment. While there is no constitutional role for the federal government in normal municipal policing, Turley points out the obvious jurisdiction it has over its own property no matter where it’s located:
What [Trump] can clearly do is what he did in Portland. Send in federal forces to protect federal buildings and arrest those who commit federal offenses. That can lead to an expanding presence. As more protesters respond to the federal presence, the federal forces can be expanded at their discretion to meet that challenge. It can become a cause-and-effect controversy like the one being raised in Portland. However, a judge who orders the federal forces reduced or out of the city would face a rapid appeal and reversal in my view. That type of deployment to protect federal enclaves and buildings can be done without any special proclamations or orders. It is part of the inherent authority vested in the federal government. Indeed, it does not even require a special executive order. The Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security may deployed federal officials to protect buildings, support law enforcement activities, or carry out arrests. These are not military troops, but law enforcement personnel being assigned law enforcement duties.
Being law enforcement, however, Turley reminds readers that they have to obey normal law-enforcement restrictions:
There should be an investigation into the conduct of the federal officers to confirm the basis for these arrests and how these individuals were treated while in federal custody. It is not per se unlawful to use unmarked cars for arrests. Indeed, it happens all the time. However, local officials and protesters are alleging that people have been effectively snatched off the streets and taken away blindfolded — only to be released hours later. The federal officials deny these allegations and insist that these were individual suspects taken into custody on specific alleged federal crimes. They also note that the officers were clearly marked as police and insist that they told the suspects who they were.
Those issues can create case-by-case challenges, just as it would if municipal police acted in the same manner. However, Trump and the federal executive branch has clear authority and jurisdiction to send its own personnel to enforce the law and protect property on federal grounds. Suing Trump makes for great “bluster,” a quality de Blasio accuses Trump of having, but it will go nowhere.
Rather than looking for new ways of losing in federal court, shouldn’t mayors look for new ways to enforce the law and keep the peace in their cities? That way, federal agencies won’t have to deploy to protect their facilities in those cities, and the mayors won’t have to worry about them. Problem solved, although it does mean that de Blasio will have to do his job rather than emote all over the television screen while his city burns, another of his favorite hobbies.


hotair--2020-07-22--Poll: Americans say cancel culture has had a negative impact on balance, 27/49

This is interesting and encouraging , but you come away wondering if it all boils down to how each person defines “ cancel culture ” for themselves .
Is it just a byword for “ political correctness ” for most people ?
When Trump fantasized a few years ago about NFL owners firing players who kneel during the national anthem , was that “ cancel culture ” ?
It ’ s not an example most people would think of when the term is used , I expect , because it represents right-wing orthodoxy , not left-wing orthodoxy .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of when they think of political correctness and the increasingly draconian ways in which it ’ s informally enforced .
But Trump did in fact want guys like Colin Kaepernick canceled , i.e .
unemployed , because of how they chose to protest .
So what does “ cancel culture ” mean ?
The good news is that , however it ’ s defined , Americans seem to believe that sanctioning people for their “ incorrect ” beliefs has gone too far .
Asked if cancel culture has gone too far or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Who are the 10 percent who think we should be canceling more people ? )
Also : Twenty-seven percent of voters said cancel culture had a somewhat positive or very positive impact on society , but almost half ( 49 % ) said it had a somewhat negative or very negative impact… The poll also suggests that the public at large is more forgiving than the gladiators on social media .
When asked about controversial or offensive statements from public figures , the longer ago the comment was made the less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problematic statement made a year ago was likely to “ completely ” or “ somewhat ” change their opinion of the person , versus 29 % who said it would “ change a little bit ” or “ not change at all.
” For statements as far back as 15 years ago the results were almost reversed : 26 % said there would be a change versus 53 % who said there would be little or no change .
More than half of younger adults say they ’ ve participated in cancel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who say so .
It could be that that ’ s a pure function of social-media demographics : “ Cancel culture ” is a subset of the garbage online culture of Twitter and Facebook , which thrives on outrage .
We have more younger adults than older adults using social media so go figure that we have more younger adults than older adults practicing “ cancel culture.
” More optimistically , though , it ’ s possible that older adults are simply a bit wiser than younger ones about how one ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some subset of older social-media users are less prone to be judgmental about the thoughtcrimes of others because they used to believe some weird stuff too before reconsidering .
No one is as completely assured of their righteousness as a naif .
Here ’ s why it ’ s hard to find today ’ s results too encouraging , though .
Check this out : A majority of Americans are fine with imposing “ social consequences ” for unpopular views .
Actually , 100 percent of Americans are fine with it depending on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of us find certain political views repulsive enough that we wouldn ’ t want to have beers with people who hold them — but not so repulsive that we ’ d want to see them lose their jobs and have their lives ruined because of them .
In extreme cases , though , there *are* views so outlandish that we ’ d tolerate even a penalty as ruthless as that on the theory that a business shouldn ’ t be forced to employ someone so obnoxious that their presence might scare customers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threshold of which views are so “ offensive ” that penalties should kick in .
“ What we ’ re seeing described as cancel culture isn ’ t so much a new kind of behavior but a new set of actors in our political discourse who get to say what isn ’ t ok — young people , African Americans , transgender people , ” said TNR writer Osita Nwanevu to Politico .
“ They now have the power to have their voices heard .
Everyone thinks there are lines .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who gets to draw them.
” Precisely .
What we ’ re arguing about when we argue about “ cancel culture ” is who gets to decide where the Overton window is set .
At the New York Times , the wokesters have amassed enough institutional power that even a perfectly mainstream centrist liberal like Bari Weiss is now outside the window .
That also helps explain why the partisan splits in the table above are what they are .
A plurality of Republicans ( 48/37 ) say there shouldn ’ t ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong majority of Democrats ( 18/68 ) say there should be .
The momentum on setting the Overton window is leftward .
Naturally Democrats have less to fear from it than Republicans do .
If you want a poll that ’ ll sober you up about cancel culture , skip Politico ’ s and go skim the results from the Cato Institute ’ s new survey on free speech and intimidation .
Who would have guessed that only “ strong liberals ” feel perfectly free to state their beliefs publicly without fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they feel prevented from stating their beliefs for fear that others might find them offensive .
That number has increased in all five ideological groups listed in the graph above since 2017 — and most interestingly , it ’ s increased by the widest margin among “ strong liberals , ” the one group that feels safe-ish in saying what they think .
Which makes a certain sense .
If you ’ re conservative , you ’ ve always assumed that the woke brigades will gripe if you speak up too much .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the woke brigades yourself , it must be disorienting trying to navigate the ever-changing orthodoxy .
Until yesterday Margaret Sanger was a revered figure celebrated by Planned Parenthood for her role in mainstreaming birth control .
Today she ’ s canceled due to her support for eugenics .
If you ’ re a progressive who moves in progressive circles , you never know when you might discover that one of your own beliefs has suddenly become double-plus-ungood .
You should read Cato ’ s entire report but here ’ s one more fascinating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that cancel culture is really a species of elite culture .
No one ’ s trying to get the local Walmart cashier canceled for her views ; cancellation is chiefly reserved for those “ who should know better , ” members of the educated upper-middle-class populated by media types and other professionals who have the numbers to insist upon an Overton window that skews decidedly left .
You ’ re seeing a reflection of that in the graph above .
Which may also explain why a huge chunk of people in Politico ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture or didn ’ t know much about it : Someone who ’ s blue-collar naturally wouldn ’ t devote as much energy to focusing on an internecine dispute among self-important white-collar jerkoffs .
Just to bring this post full circle , Fox News ’ s latest poll finds that public opinion on whether kneeling during the anthem is appropriate or inappropriate has moved from 32/61 in 2016 to 44/52 in 2017 to 48/44 now — plurality support .
Trump ’ s own effort at cancel culture has been , er , cancelled @

This is interesting and encouraging, but you come away wondering if it all boils down to how each person defines “cancel culture” for themselves. Is it just a byword for “political correctness” for most people?
When Trump fantasized a few years ago about NFL owners firing players who kneel during the national anthem, was that “cancel culture”? It’s not an example most people would think of when the term is used, I expect, because it represents right-wing orthodoxy, not left-wing orthodoxy. And it’s left-wing orthodoxy most Americans think of when they think of political correctness and the increasingly draconian ways in which it’s informally enforced.
But Trump did in fact want guys like Colin Kaepernick canceled, i.e. unemployed, because of how they chose to protest. So what does “cancel culture” mean?
The good news is that, however it’s defined, Americans seem to believe that sanctioning people for their “incorrect” beliefs has gone too far. Asked if cancel culture has gone too far or not far enough, respondents split 46/10. (Who are the 10 percent who think we should be canceling more people?) Also:
Twenty-seven percent of voters said cancel culture had a somewhat positive or very positive impact on society, but almost half (49%) said it had a somewhat negative or very negative impact… The poll also suggests that the public at large is more forgiving than the gladiators on social media. When asked about controversial or offensive statements from public figures, the longer ago the comment was made the less likely it mattered. Fifty-four percent said that a problematic statement made a year ago was likely to “completely” or “somewhat” change their opinion of the person, versus 29% who said it would “change a little bit” or “not change at all.” For statements as far back as 15 years ago the results were almost reversed: 26% said there would be a change versus 53% who said there would be little or no change.
More than half of younger adults say they’ve participated in cancel culture versus a third of senior citizens who say so. It could be that that’s a pure function of social-media demographics: “Cancel culture” is a subset of the garbage online culture of Twitter and Facebook, which thrives on outrage. We have more younger adults than older adults using social media so go figure that we have more younger adults than older adults practicing “cancel culture.” More optimistically, though, it’s possible that older adults are simply a bit wiser than younger ones about how one’s views can evolve over time. Maybe some subset of older social-media users are less prone to be judgmental about the thoughtcrimes of others because they used to believe some weird stuff too before reconsidering. No one is as completely assured of their righteousness as a naif.
Here’s why it’s hard to find today’s results too encouraging, though. Check this out:
A majority of Americans are fine with imposing “social consequences” for unpopular views. Actually, 100 percent of Americans are fine with it depending on how we define “social consequences.” All of us find certain political views repulsive enough that we wouldn’t want to have beers with people who hold them — but not so repulsive that we’d want to see them lose their jobs and have their lives ruined because of them. In extreme cases, though, there *are* views so outlandish that we’d tolerate even a penalty as ruthless as that on the theory that a business shouldn’t be forced to employ someone so obnoxious that their presence might scare customers away. The question is simply defining the threshold of which views are so “offensive” that penalties should kick in. “What we’re seeing described as cancel culture isn’t so much a new kind of behavior but a new set of actors in our political discourse who get to say what isn’t ok — young people, African Americans, transgender people,” said TNR writer Osita Nwanevu to Politico. “They now have the power to have their voices heard. Everyone thinks there are lines. The question is where are those lines and who gets to draw them.”
Precisely. What we’re arguing about when we argue about “cancel culture” is who gets to decide where the Overton window is set. At the New York Times, the wokesters have amassed enough institutional power that even a perfectly mainstream centrist liberal like Bari Weiss is now outside the window. That also helps explain why the partisan splits in the table above are what they are. A plurality of Republicans (48/37) say there shouldn’t ever be social consequences for outlandish opinions whereas a strong majority of Democrats (18/68) say there should be. The momentum on setting the Overton window is leftward. Naturally Democrats have less to fear from it than Republicans do.
If you want a poll that’ll sober you up about cancel culture, skip Politico’s and go skim the results from the Cato Institute’s new survey on free speech and intimidation. Who would have guessed that only “strong liberals” feel perfectly free to state their beliefs publicly without fear of repercussions?
Overall 62 percent say they feel prevented from stating their beliefs for fear that others might find them offensive. That number has increased in all five ideological groups listed in the graph above since 2017 — and most interestingly, it’s increased by the widest margin among “strong liberals,” the one group that feels safe-ish in saying what they think. Which makes a certain sense. If you’re conservative, you’ve always assumed that the woke brigades will gripe if you speak up too much. But if you’re part of the woke brigades yourself, it must be disorienting trying to navigate the ever-changing orthodoxy. Until yesterday Margaret Sanger was a revered figure celebrated by Planned Parenthood for her role in mainstreaming birth control. Today she’s canceled due to her support for eugenics. If you’re a progressive who moves in progressive circles, you never know when you might discover that one of your own beliefs has suddenly become double-plus-ungood.
You should read Cato’s entire report but here’s one more fascinating result:
Others have made the point that cancel culture is really a species of elite culture. No one’s trying to get the local Walmart cashier canceled for her views; cancellation is chiefly reserved for those “who should know better,” members of the educated upper-middle-class populated by media types and other professionals who have the numbers to insist upon an Overton window that skews decidedly left. You’re seeing a reflection of that in the graph above. Which may also explain why a huge chunk of people in Politico’s poll had no opinion about cancel culture or didn’t know much about it: Someone who’s blue-collar naturally wouldn’t devote as much energy to focusing on an internecine dispute among self-important white-collar jerkoffs.
Just to bring this post full circle, Fox News’s latest poll finds that public opinion on whether kneeling during the anthem is appropriate or inappropriate has moved from 32/61 in 2016 to 44/52 in 2017 to 48/44 now — plurality support. Trump’s own effort at cancel culture has been, er, cancelled.


hotair--2020-07-22--Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf's home vandalized, hours later she votes to protect police funding

Sometime late Monday night a group of protesters showed up at Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff ’ s home and vandalized it with Black Lives Matter slogans .
The fact that Schaff ’ s home had a BLM sign in the window didn ’ t seem to matter to the vandals .
Here are a few more images of what that looked like : Schaff ’ s home was the main target but her neighbors weren ’ t too happy either as the vandals arrived around 2 am and were banging on drums and setting off large fireworks .
They also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes .
“ This crosses the line , because it ’ s someone ’ s house and property , ” 15-year-old neighbor Alexandra Wright said .
“ It ’ s not exactly okay .
It ’ s not okay on any level.
” Alexandra ’ s mom , Amy , said this kind of activism doesn ’ t further social justice .
I love these well-off progressives with BLM signs in the windows who are shocked to discover that the same mob which has been marauding through Oakland vandalizing businesses and public property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vandalizing private homes .
Guess what ?
Many of these people are socialists/anarchists who don ’ t respect private property .
It ’ s not like this is a big secret at this point .
Pay attention !
A spokesperson for the mayor issued a statement saying , “ This attack , designed to intimidate the Mayor and strike fear into her family , will not stop her from advocating for the policies she believes are in the best long-term interests of her beloved hometown.
” Hours after the graffiti was discovered Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting to debate slashing the Oakland police budget by $ 150 million .
The President of the Oakland Police Officers Association argued that , with crime on the rise , now was not the time to slash the budget in half : “ We had another murder again last night , three murders over the weekend making it four since just Friday , ” said Oakland Police Officers Association President Barry Donelan .
“ A more than 20 percent increase in murders and shootings combined.
” “ You know , adding resources to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all positive , ” Donelan said .
“ But the idea of taking it from the police department that is already strapped , dealing with those issues in public safety as it is , just seems foolhardy.
” The police officers ’ union has warned against additional cuts , as has the chief of police .
“ We did furloughs , layoffs , and we still have not caught up , ” said Chief Susan Manheimer .
“ We have over 60 openings.
” When the city council deadlocked around 11 pm Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote against cutting the police budget .
To be clear , she was probably going to vote this way anyway which is probably why the vandals showed up to apply pressure on her .
Still , I wonder if the vandalism didn ’ t reinforce for Mayor Schaaf that the city needs a police force to prevent everything from descending into mob rule .
Last month , Oakland ’ s city council voted to approve a new budget with $ 14 million removed from the police budget .
Most of that money , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from shifting certain items out of the police budget , but a couple million will come directly from the police budget .
As things stand now , the council has agreed to study the feasibility of a 50 % cut to the police budget in advance of the next budget meeting .
So this very bad idea isn ’ t dead yet .
Here ’ s a local news report on the Mayor ’ s deciding vote to protect the police budget .

Sometime late Monday night a group of protesters showed up at Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff’s home and vandalized it with Black Lives Matter slogans. The fact that Schaff’s home had a BLM sign in the window didn’t seem to matter to the vandals.
Oakland authorities are investigating vandalism that appeared overnight on the front of Mayor Libby Schaaf’s home. Graffiti tagged on the garage door, walls, driveway and pathway appeared to be related to the recent George Floyd protests and the economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic. The writing features phrases like “Defund the police,” “Cancel rent,” “Homes for all,” and “Blood on your hands.”
Here are a few more images of what that looked like:
The home of Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf vandalized over night. Fireworks also set off in street. @kron4news pic.twitter.com/sh8IebCEod — Chuck Clifford (@chuckclifford) July 21, 2020
Schaff’s home was the main target but her neighbors weren’t too happy either as the vandals arrived around 2 am and were banging on drums and setting off large fireworks. They also left some graffiti in front of other homes.
“This crosses the line, because it’s someone’s house and property,” 15-year-old neighbor Alexandra Wright said. “It’s not exactly okay. It’s not okay on any level.” Alexandra’s mom, Amy, said this kind of activism doesn’t further social justice.
I love these well-off progressives with BLM signs in the windows who are shocked to discover that the same mob which has been marauding through Oakland vandalizing businesses and public property don’t draw the line at vandalizing private homes. Guess what? Many of these people are socialists/anarchists who don’t respect private property. It’s not like this is a big secret at this point. Pay attention!
A spokesperson for the mayor issued a statement saying, “This attack, designed to intimidate the Mayor and strike fear into her family, will not stop her from advocating for the policies she believes are in the best long-term interests of her beloved hometown.”
Hours after the graffiti was discovered Tuesday morning, the city council held a meeting to debate slashing the Oakland police budget by $150 million. The President of the Oakland Police Officers Association argued that, with crime on the rise, now was not the time to slash the budget in half:
“We had another murder again last night, three murders over the weekend making it four since just Friday,” said Oakland Police Officers Association President Barry Donelan. “A more than 20 percent increase in murders and shootings combined.” “You know, adding resources to things like mental health and homelessness are all positive,” Donelan said. “But the idea of taking it from the police department that is already strapped, dealing with those issues in public safety as it is, just seems foolhardy.” The police officers’ union has warned against additional cuts, as has the chief of police. “We did furloughs, layoffs, and we still have not caught up,” said Chief Susan Manheimer. “We have over 60 openings.”
When the city council deadlocked around 11 pm Tuesday night, Mayor Schaff cast the deciding vote against cutting the police budget. To be clear, she was probably going to vote this way anyway which is probably why the vandals showed up to apply pressure on her. Still, I wonder if the vandalism didn’t reinforce for Mayor Schaaf that the city needs a police force to prevent everything from descending into mob rule.
Last month, Oakland’s city council voted to approve a new budget with $14 million removed from the police budget. Most of that money, more than $10 million, comes from shifting certain items out of the police budget, but a couple million will come directly from the police budget. As things stand now, the council has agreed to study the feasibility of a 50% cut to the police budget in advance of the next budget meeting. So this very bad idea isn’t dead yet.
Here’s a local news report on the Mayor’s deciding vote to protect the police budget.


hotair--2020-07-22--CDC director: "Absolutely" I'd send my grandchildren back to school in September

Quite a few items to unpack from Dr. Robert Redfield ’ s appearance on Good Morning America , but ABC does get the headline correct .
The big news in terms of public policy is reopening schools , and the director of the CDC endorses that policy both professionally and personally .
Redfield declares he would “ absolutely ” be comfortable seeing his grandchildren go back to school in the fall , with an exception for the one suffering from cystic fibrosis .
Even that case depends on accommodation , Redfield says : As the new school year nears , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be comfortable with his grandchildren heading back to their classrooms .
Redfield added he only may have “ some reservation ” about his grandson with cystic fibrosis , “ depending on how he could be accommodated in the school.
” “ I think it ’ s really important to get our schools open , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not public health versus opening the schools or the economy — it ’ s public health versus public health .
I think there really are a number of negative public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ students ] by having schools closed.
” “ So it ’ s so important now to work together with school districts to figure out how they can take our guidelines and operationalize them in a practical way and to do it in a way that is safe , ” he continued .
Unfortunately , we have to sit through a less-than-serious argument about a national mask mandate before we get to this declaration .
Redfield says that “ the most powerful tool we have against this outbreak ” is a “ simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it universally while out in public , Redfield says , we could greatly reduce transmission of the virus and hasten reopening , even before a vaccine emerges .
Noting that Redfield called it a “ social responsibility ” to wear masks , the GMA hosts says , “ So are seatbelts , so are laws against driving and — drinking and driving , that ’ s also part of social responsibility .
Is a national mask mandate not imperative at this moment ?
” It apparently escapes her notice that the laws she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws .
Those laws got passed by states , under some pressure from Congress by use of highway funds to be sure , but are still state laws enforced by the states .
And state governments have the authority now to impose such mask mandates — if they want to spend the time and money enforcing them .
I ’ m an early adopter of masks , having argued for them before even Redfield thought it was cool , so this isn ’ t an anti-mask argument .
Rather , I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media over the nonsensical question of a national mask mandate .
Is anyone asking Nancy Pelosi why Congress isn ’ t passing a bill requiring masks to be worn , and for the federal government to enforce it — or even tying federal health-care funds for states to state-issued mask mandates ?
No , they aren ’ t , even though that would make more sense than demanding a mandate from the executive branch .
And how would the federal government enforce such a mandate ?
The media is in full freak-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Portland , where the federal government has clear jurisdiction .
Does this host propose that we send DHS officials into every city , every grocery store , to enforce a mask mandate ?
Or would Good Morning America lead the new freakout if they tried it ?
I know which way I ’ d bet on that question .
To get back to Redfield ’ s more important point , we need to reopen the schools as soon as we possibly can manage it .
There ’ s clearly an educational crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this interview proves .

Quite a few items to unpack from Dr. Robert Redfield’s appearance on Good Morning America, but ABC does get the headline correct. The big news in terms of public policy is reopening schools, and the director of the CDC endorses that policy both professionally and personally. Redfield declares he would “absolutely” be comfortable seeing his grandchildren go back to school in the fall, with an exception for the one suffering from cystic fibrosis. Even that case depends on accommodation, Redfield says:
.@ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: @CDCDirector Dr. Robert Redfield on how bad the COVID-19 crisis could get. “It is very hard to predict.”https://t.co/aQQ6s3kY6z pic.twitter.com/PbiMPVNNHQ — Good Morning America (@GMA) July 22, 2020
As the new school year nears, Redfield said he would “absolutely” be comfortable with his grandchildren heading back to their classrooms. Redfield added he only may have “some reservation” about his grandson with cystic fibrosis, “depending on how he could be accommodated in the school.” “I think it’s really important to get our schools open,” he said. “It’s not public health versus opening the schools or the economy — it’s public health versus public health. I think there really are a number of negative public health consequences that have happened to our K-12 [students] by having schools closed.” “So it’s so important now to work together with school districts to figure out how they can take our guidelines and operationalize them in a practical way and to do it in a way that is safe,” he continued.
Unfortunately, we have to sit through a less-than-serious argument about a national mask mandate before we get to this declaration. Redfield says that “the most powerful tool we have against this outbreak” is a “simple face mask.” If Americans would adopt it universally while out in public, Redfield says, we could greatly reduce transmission of the virus and hasten reopening, even before a vaccine emerges.
Noting that Redfield called it a “social responsibility” to wear masks, the GMA hosts says, “So are seatbelts, so are laws against driving and — drinking and driving, that’s also part of social responsibility. Is a national mask mandate not imperative at this moment?” It apparently escapes her notice that the laws she just cited are not in fact federal laws. Those laws got passed by states, under some pressure from Congress by use of highway funds to be sure, but are still state laws enforced by the states. And state governments have the authority now to impose such mask mandates — if they want to spend the time and money enforcing them.
I’m an early adopter of masks, having argued for them before even Redfield thought it was cool, so this isn’t an anti-mask argument. Rather, I’m pointing out the idiotic demagoguery attendant in the media over the nonsensical question of a national mask mandate. Is anyone asking Nancy Pelosi why Congress isn’t passing a bill requiring masks to be worn, and for the federal government to enforce it — or even tying federal health-care funds for states to state-issued mask mandates? No, they aren’t, even though that would make more sense than demanding a mandate from the executive branch.
And how would the federal government enforce such a mandate? The media is in full freak-out mode over DHS personnel defending federal property in Portland, where the federal government has clear jurisdiction. Does this host propose that we send DHS officials into every city, every grocery store, to enforce a mask mandate? Or would Good Morning America lead the new freakout if they tried it? I know which way I’d bet on that question.
To get back to Redfield’s more important point, we need to reopen the schools as soon as we possibly can manage it. There’s clearly an educational crisis in America at the moment, as this interview proves.


hotair--2020-07-22--Ted Yoho on House floor: I apologize to AOC for the "abrupt manner" of our conversation on Monday; <

Ted Yoho on House floor: I apologize to AOC for the "abrupt manner" of our conversation on Monday; Update: Not accepted, says AOC

I wonder how hard his arm had to be twisted by the House GOP leadership to get him to do this .
Normally it ’ s an ironclad rule of Trump-era populist politics : You do not apologize , ever .
Especially to the most famous hard-left Democrat in the United States .
As you ’ ll see , Yoho doesn ’ t apologize for allegedly calling her a “ f***ing b*tch , ” as a reporter who overheard their conversation on the Capitol steps claims he did as he was walking away .
Never happened , he told a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the word BS .
I said it ’ s a bunch of BS about her policies .
And there was two reporters , like I said , at the base of the steps , and I was 25 to 30 feet away .
My back was to them .
And so they said ‘ Well , can you tell us what your conversation was ?
’ I said , ‘ No comment , ‘ ” Yoho told News4Jax… “ I can ’ t apologize because I didn ’ t say that [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Could I have handled this differently ?
Yeah .
You know , like I said I could have set up a meeting and say ‘ Hey , I ’ d like to talk to you about your , your policies.
’ And , you know , for that , if I ’ ve embarrassed my constituents , I apologize for that .
And we ’ re going to make a statement on the House floor tomorrow ( Wednesday ) .
” He got called to the principal ’ s office about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said earlier in the day of the incident , “ We think everybody should show respect to one another.
” For McCarthy , I think it was a simple matter of the incident being more trouble than it ’ s worth .
He knew Democrats were planning a “ response ” if Yoho didn ’ t apologize , as Karen Bass said yesterday , and he didn ’ t want to let them and sympathetic commentators drag this out to make some “ war on women ” hay out of it before November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ female voters right now that they don ’ t need a media passion play starring AOC to deepen the challenge .
Best just to have Yoho , who ’ s retiring in a few months anyway , eat a small dish of crow publicly .
Watching him deliver his speech in the clip , I wonder if he was reading it for the first time on the House floor .
Clearly there was some personal input from him or his office , per the passage about him and his wife in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be that McCarthy ’ s office put this together and told him , “ Here ’ s what you ’ re going to say , Ted.
” That ’ s followed below by Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer sounding slightly deflated that he won ’ t get more mileage out of this episode .
He ’ s careful to praise AOC and get a shot in at Trump just to score whatever few points are left on the board .
Update : I wonder if Hoyer , who called Yoho ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he sees this .
Remember , AOC told Yahoo News yesterday that she didn ’ t hear him call her an F ’ n B herself .
She ’ s assuming the worst simply to score a political point .
Naturally this incident was destined to end in the most ungracious way possible .

I wonder how hard his arm had to be twisted by the House GOP leadership to get him to do this. Normally it’s an ironclad rule of Trump-era populist politics: You do not apologize, ever.
Especially to a Democrat.
Especially to the most famous hard-left Democrat in the United States.
As you’ll see, Yoho doesn’t apologize for allegedly calling her a “f***ing b*tch,” as a reporter who overheard their conversation on the Capitol steps claims he did as he was walking away. Never happened, he told a local news outlet yesterday:
“It was the word BS. I said it’s a bunch of BS about her policies. And there was two reporters, like I said, at the base of the steps, and I was 25 to 30 feet away. My back was to them. And so they said ‘Well, can you tell us what your conversation was?’ I said, ‘No comment,‘” Yoho told News4Jax… “I can’t apologize because I didn’t say that [the profanity],” Yoho said. “Could I have handled this differently? Yeah. You know, like I said I could have set up a meeting and say ‘Hey, I’d like to talk to you about your, your policies.’ And, you know, for that, if I’ve embarrassed my constituents, I apologize for that. And we’re going to make a statement on the House floor tomorrow (Wednesday).”
He got called to the principal’s office about it yesterday afternoon anyway after Kevin McCarthy said earlier in the day of the incident, “We think everybody should show respect to one another.”
.@GOPLeader says he will meet with @RepTedYoho this afternoon to discuss reports Yoho referred to @AOC as a “f-cking bitch.” — Kasie Hunt (@kasie) July 21, 2020
For McCarthy, I think it was a simple matter of the incident being more trouble than it’s worth. He knew Democrats were planning a “response” if Yoho didn’t apologize, as Karen Bass said yesterday, and he didn’t want to let them and sympathetic commentators drag this out to make some “war on women” hay out of it before November. Republicans have enough problems winning over female voters right now that they don’t need a media passion play starring AOC to deepen the challenge. Best just to have Yoho, who’s retiring in a few months anyway, eat a small dish of crow publicly.
Watching him deliver his speech in the clip, I wonder if he was reading it for the first time on the House floor. Clearly there was some personal input from him or his office, per the passage about him and his wife in the early days of their marriage, but it may be that McCarthy’s office put this together and told him, “Here’s what you’re going to say, Ted.”
That’s followed below by Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer sounding slightly deflated that he won’t get more mileage out of this episode. He’s careful to praise AOC and get a shot in at Trump just to score whatever few points are left on the board.
.@RepTedYoho on confrontation with @RepAOC @AOC: "I rise to apologize for the abrupt manner of the conversation I had with my colleague from New York…The offensive name calling words attributed to me by the press were never spoken to my colleagues." pic.twitter.com/0Q1ZC71Vfh — CSPAN (@cspan) July 22, 2020
.@LeaderHoyer on @RepTedYoho: "He ought to remember and acknowledge that the person to whom he spoke so inappropriately was one of the strongest fighters in this Congress for those with the least…the apology was appropriate. I hope that Mr. Yoho feels that apology sincerely." pic.twitter.com/vQHLi3btzS — CSPAN (@cspan) July 22, 2020
Update: I wonder if Hoyer, who called Yoho’s apology appropriate, will feel awkward once he sees this.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1285963001326178304
– Does not apologize or name any action he did
– Does not accept responsibility
– Lies (this was not a “conversation,” it was verbal assault)
– Distracts by making it abt poverty (ironically)
– Says everyone else is wrong and the incident never happened. This is not an apology. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 22, 2020
Remember, AOC told Yahoo News yesterday that she didn’t hear him call her an F’n B herself. She’s assuming the worst simply to score a political point. Naturally this incident was destined to end in the most ungracious way possible.


hotair--2020-07-22--Pelosi on CNN: America is suffering from "Trump's virus", you know

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been on a roll lately .
Her verbal attacks on President Trump and his administration have noticeably escalated and her words are more coarse than ever .
Her latest off-the-wall remarks happened Tuesday on CNN .
Nancy Pelosi seems to be upset that President Trump has begun Season Two of the coronavirus press briefings .
By most accounts , the first briefing held Tuesday after a several month-long hiatus went quite well for the president .
There was one bizarre remark when he was asked about Jeffrey Epstein ’ s alleged pimp and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he “ wishes her well ” .
Why ?
I think it was just an off the cuff remark meant to nip that line of questioning in the bud .
Otherwise , Trump handled the press briefing well .
It was brief , by Trump ’ s standards , and even when the press corps chose to simply personally attack him instead of asking pertinent questions , he stayed on topic .
So , Pelosi went on CNN to up the ante and label the coronavirus as “ Trump ’ s virus ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , Pelosi suggested that the president ’ s efforts are too little , too late .
“ I think with the president ’ s comments today , he has recognized the mistakes that he has made by now embracing mask-wearing and the recognition that this is not a hoax , it is a pandemic that has gotten worse before it gets better because of his inaction and , in fact , clearly , it is the Trump virus , ” Pelosi said .
“ Well , what do you mean when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked .
“ The Trump virus , ” Pelosi reiterated .
“ If he had said months ago ‘ Let ’ s wear a mask , let ’ s socially-distance ’ instead of having rallies or political whatever they were , then more people would have followed his lead .
He ’ s the president of the United States , instead of being a bad example , making it like a manhood thing not to wear a mask.
” Here is the problem with San Fran Nan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was further behind in encouraging the wearing of masks than Trump and his coronavirus task force was from the beginning .
He did , in fact , say months ago that people should wear masks as the policy reversed from the original guidance from medical experts across the board .
CDC , Dr. Fauci , the Surgeon General , and others in the public eye during the coronavirus pandemic outbreak all said that face masks were not necessary in the beginning .
By April , though , that guidance changed and Trump delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dinged for not embracing wearing a face mask himself to set an example but Pelosi is wrong when she blames him for not encouraging others to wear a face mask .
On April 3 , the Trump administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed their policies on face masks and said all Americans — not , as they previously said , just medical workers — should wear cloth face coverings .
As of Wednesday , COVID-19 had claimed at least 140,909 lives in the U.S. and infected more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Bill de Blasio ‘ s mandate to wear masks in stores , however , the federal government ’ s recommendations are voluntary .
What ’ s more , Trump at the time signaled his staunch resistance to wearing a mask .
“ I don ’ t think I ’ m going to be doing it , ” he said .
“ Wearing a face mask as I greet presidents , prime ministers , dictators , kings , queens — I just don ’ t see it.
” Trump ’ s vanity sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now embracing face masks as a tool to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus .
He acknowledged that the epidemic will get worse before it gets better .
His tone was somber during the press conference .
Pelosi sounds like a partisan hack instead of someone in one of the highest positions in the U.S. government .
Nancy Pelosi was walking supporters through the streets of Chinatown in San Francisco while the White House Coronavirus Task Force correctly identified the origins of the virus as Chinese .
Pelosi and Democrats were upset that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the virus spread across the globe .
This was at the time the task force was beginning to warn Americans to social distance and protect themselves .
Pelosi also didn ’ t require members of Congress to wear face masks until mid-June .
She can ’ t have this argument both ways .
She blasts Trump for not listening to the science community but from the very beginning – at the end of January – Trump formed the White House Coronavirus Task Force .
Coordinated by Vice-President Pence , who had some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the MERS outbreak , the task force is led by Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Fauci , both experts in viruses and pandemics .
There is no shortage of scientific input .
Pelosi knows that Season One of the coronavirus press briefings were huge rating successes .
CNN got so frustrated that the network just stopped carrying them .
Imagine a cable network not carrying such important public health briefings out of spite against a president it despises .
It is no wonder CNN has such low ratings across the board .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pointing the finger at President Trump for the thousands of deaths of Americans from the coronavirus , she said yes .
That is the Democrat line – blame Trump , not the Communist Chinese .
She also has remained silent as some state and local leaders have made some really tragic decisions , like Governor Cuomo who killed so many elderly people in nursing homes by moving COVID-19 patients into those facilities , or Mayor de Blasio who left subways and other public transportation running at full capacity .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi just wants to point to Trump and not honestly acknowledge other mistakes .
The 2020 election playbook for Democrats is clear – blame Trump for the coronavirus and for the economic disaster that the pandemic brought .
Trump was cruising to re-election before the coronavirus outbreak and she knows it .
Biden is having a problem garnering enthusiasm for his candidacy and his best campaign strategy is to remain hidden away in his basement .
The last thing Democrats want is for the country to begin re-opening and learning to cope with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs are available .
Democrats are actually pinning their hopes on America ’ s woes , not successes .
As I mentioned , Pelosi has been on a roll .
She refers to the law enforcement officers sent to Portland as Trump ’ s “ stormtroopers ” .
She also said , “ fumigation ” may be needed to remove President Trump from the White House if he loses the election in November ” because he may refuse to leave if he loses in his re-election bid .
Pelosi is not just any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviews .
She is the Speaker of the House .
If she is so concerned about President Trump setting a good example , perhaps she should take stock of how she conducts herself .
Pot/kettle , Nancy .

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been on a roll lately. Her verbal attacks on President Trump and his administration have noticeably escalated and her words are more coarse than ever. Her latest off-the-wall remarks happened Tuesday on CNN.
Nancy Pelosi seems to be upset that President Trump has begun Season Two of the coronavirus press briefings. By most accounts, the first briefing held Tuesday after a several month-long hiatus went quite well for the president. There was one bizarre remark when he was asked about Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged pimp and partner, Ghislaine Maxwell. Trump said he “wishes her well”. Why? I think it was just an off the cuff remark meant to nip that line of questioning in the bud. Otherwise, Trump handled the press briefing well. It was brief, by Trump’s standards, and even when the press corps chose to simply personally attack him instead of asking pertinent questions, he stayed on topic. So, Pelosi went on CNN to up the ante and label the coronavirus as “Trump’s virus”.
During an interview on CNN, though, Pelosi suggested that the president’s efforts are too little, too late. “I think with the president’s comments today, he has recognized the mistakes that he has made by now embracing mask-wearing and the recognition that this is not a hoax, it is a pandemic that has gotten worse before it gets better because of his inaction and, in fact, clearly, it is the Trump virus,” Pelosi said. “Well, what do you mean when you say the ‘Trump virus,'” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked. “The Trump virus,” Pelosi reiterated. “If he had said months ago ‘Let’s wear a mask, let’s socially-distance’ instead of having rallies or political whatever they were, then more people would have followed his lead. He’s the president of the United States, instead of being a bad example, making it like a manhood thing not to wear a mask.”
Here is the problem with San Fran Nan’s criticism about face masks – Pelosi was further behind in encouraging the wearing of masks than Trump and his coronavirus task force was from the beginning. He did, in fact, say months ago that people should wear masks as the policy reversed from the original guidance from medical experts across the board. CDC, Dr. Fauci, the Surgeon General, and others in the public eye during the coronavirus pandemic outbreak all said that face masks were not necessary in the beginning. By April, though, that guidance changed and Trump delivered his message, too. He can be dinged for not embracing wearing a face mask himself to set an example but Pelosi is wrong when she blames him for not encouraging others to wear a face mask.
On April 3, the Trump administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reversed their policies on face masks and said all Americans — not, as they previously said, just medical workers — should wear cloth face coverings. As of Wednesday, COVID-19 had claimed at least 140,909 lives in the U.S. and infected more than 3.9 million people. Unlike New York Mayor Bill de Blasio‘s mandate to wear masks in stores, however, the federal government’s recommendations are voluntary. What’s more, Trump at the time signaled his staunch resistance to wearing a mask. “I don’t think I’m going to be doing it,” he said. “Wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens — I just don’t see it.”
Trump’s vanity sometimes gets in the way but he is now embracing face masks as a tool to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. He acknowledged that the epidemic will get worse before it gets better. His tone was somber during the press conference. Pelosi sounds like a partisan hack instead of someone in one of the highest positions in the U.S. government.
Nancy Pelosi was walking supporters through the streets of Chinatown in San Francisco while the White House Coronavirus Task Force correctly identified the origins of the virus as Chinese. Pelosi and Democrats were upset that the Chinese government was labeled the culprit as the virus spread across the globe. This was at the time the task force was beginning to warn Americans to social distance and protect themselves. Pelosi also didn’t require members of Congress to wear face masks until mid-June. She can’t have this argument both ways. She blasts Trump for not listening to the science community but from the very beginning – at the end of January – Trump formed the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Coordinated by Vice-President Pence, who had some experience on pandemics as Governor of Indiana during the MERS outbreak, the task force is led by Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Fauci, both experts in viruses and pandemics. There is no shortage of scientific input.
Pelosi knows that Season One of the coronavirus press briefings were huge rating successes. CNN got so frustrated that the network just stopped carrying them. Imagine a cable network not carrying such important public health briefings out of spite against a president it despises. It is no wonder CNN has such low ratings across the board.
When asked by Wolf Blitzer if she is pointing the finger at President Trump for the thousands of deaths of Americans from the coronavirus, she said yes. That is the Democrat line – blame Trump, not the Communist Chinese. She also has remained silent as some state and local leaders have made some really tragic decisions, like Governor Cuomo who killed so many elderly people in nursing homes by moving COVID-19 patients into those facilities, or Mayor de Blasio who left subways and other public transportation running at full capacity. There’s plenty of blame to go around, Pelosi just wants to point to Trump and not honestly acknowledge other mistakes.
The 2020 election playbook for Democrats is clear – blame Trump for the coronavirus and for the economic disaster that the pandemic brought. Trump was cruising to re-election before the coronavirus outbreak and she knows it. Biden is having a problem garnering enthusiasm for his candidacy and his best campaign strategy is to remain hidden away in his basement. The last thing Democrats want is for the country to begin re-opening and learning to cope with the virus until a vaccine or therapeutic drugs are available. Democrats are actually pinning their hopes on America’s woes, not successes.
As I mentioned, Pelosi has been on a roll. She refers to the law enforcement officers sent to Portland as Trump’s “stormtroopers”. She also said, “fumigation” may be needed to remove President Trump from the White House if he loses the election in November” because he may refuse to leave if he loses in his re-election bid. Pelosi is not just any ordinary anti-Trump Democrat flapping her gums in interviews. She is the Speaker of the House. If she is so concerned about President Trump setting a good example, perhaps she should take stock of how she conducts herself. Pot/kettle, Nancy.