hotair--2020-07-23--Truce? Trump calls Lightfoot to coordinate agreement on federal deployment in Chicago

Yesterday evening , Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot angrily declared Operation Legend and Donald Trump ’ s inclusion of victim families in its rollout a “ political stunt.
” Rather than send federal police to the Windy City , Lightfoot demanded that Trump endorse gun-control legislation instead — while not mentioning that Illinois already has one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the US .
By late evening , however , Lightfoot ended up capitulating when Trump called her to discuss the deployment and its focus on support rather than confrontation .
Maybe a call earlier — in either direction — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After throwing a national spotlight on violent crime in Chicago from the White House – and trashing Democratic mayors in fiery campaign-style remarks – President Donald Trump talked to Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Wednesday evening to discuss the 200 federal agents he is sending to the city .
Trump on Wednesday said he is expanding “ Operation Legend , ” with the agents heading to Chicago to bolster existing law enforcement efforts — not create a Portland-style camouflaged paramilitary strike force that is attracting widespread criticism .
The agents will work in partnership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office under the direction of U.S. Attorney John Lausch , who Lightfoot , a former federal prosecutor , knows and trusts .
Trump and Lightfoot are in agreement over the strategy of sending in agents to plug into existing operations .
Trump , who has bragged since his 2016 campaign he knows how to easily solve crime in Chicago , did not take a future heavier handed response off the table .
That ’ s why Lightfoot is wary .
Lightfoot may be wary , but she doesn ’ t have much choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over its sites , and while they generally rely on local police to deal with crime at those locations , they do have authority to patrol those themselves .
Despite declaring on Twitter earlier this week that “ Under no circumstances will I allow Donald Trump ’ s troops to come to Chicago and terrorize our residents , ” Lightfoot has no legal way to keep them out .
Besides , the plan could end up benefiting all sides .
The effort will focus on providing more resources on existing local-federal investigations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local resources to deal with local crime .
Lausch ’ role will be to keep that focus and act as a guarantor of good will , of sorts .
That doesn ’ t necessarily mean that federal agents won ’ t act if crimes get committed on federal property in Chicago , but it does mean that the patrols seen in Portland won ’ t be duplicated in Chicago — at least for now .
For his part , Lausch has publicly committed to that discipline : Lightfoot ’ s capitulation might also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems within the city .
Her refusal to act during the riots got plenty of criticism from local politicians , National Review recalls , which might make her more of a bad guy than Trump at the moment : During riots that followed the death of George Floyd during his arrest by Minneapolis police officers , Chicago city council members criticized Lightfoot for refusing to deploy the National Guard outside the city ’ s business district .
“ My ward is a s–t show , ” complained Alderwoman Susan Sadlowski-Garza in a conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police .
I have never seen the likes of this .
I ’ m scared.
” Alderman Raymond Lopez , a frequent critic of Lightfoot , said his district was ‘ “ a virtual war zone , ” to which Lightfoot responded Lopez was “ 100 percent full of s–t.
” “ Well , f–k you then , ” Lopez shot back .
“ Mayor you need to check your f—–g attitude.
” At any rate , this is a relatively low-risk proposal for both Lightfoot and Trump , and a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump made it sound like he wanted to take over policing in Chicago , which would require invoking the Insurrection Act and embracing all of the political risk for crime in the streets .
There ’ s still some risk involved here if this intervention doesn ’ t result in a downtick of violence , but it ’ s now minimal thanks to a minimal involvement in municipal policing .
Lightfoot now has more resources to commit to prevention , at least nominally , so she also has some incentive to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This seems like a win-win .
That raises a question as to why both sides went to war with each other first , rather than work out this kind of compromise first .

Yesterday evening, Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot angrily declared Operation Legend and Donald Trump’s inclusion of victim families in its rollout a “political stunt.” Rather than send federal police to the Windy City, Lightfoot demanded that Trump endorse gun-control legislation instead — while not mentioning that Illinois already has one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the US. By late evening, however, Lightfoot ended up capitulating when Trump called her to discuss the deployment and its focus on support rather than confrontation.
Maybe a call earlier — in either direction — would have been a good idea:
After throwing a national spotlight on violent crime in Chicago from the White House – and trashing Democratic mayors in fiery campaign-style remarks – President Donald Trump talked to Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Wednesday evening to discuss the 200 federal agents he is sending to the city. Trump on Wednesday said he is expanding “Operation Legend,” with the agents heading to Chicago to bolster existing law enforcement efforts — not create a Portland-style camouflaged paramilitary strike force that is attracting widespread criticism. The agents will work in partnership with Chicago police and Lightfoot’s office under the direction of U.S. Attorney John Lausch, who Lightfoot, a former federal prosecutor, knows and trusts. Trump and Lightfoot are in agreement over the strategy of sending in agents to plug into existing operations. Trump, who has bragged since his 2016 campaign he knows how to easily solve crime in Chicago, did not take a future heavier handed response off the table. That’s why Lightfoot is wary.
Lightfoot may be wary, but she doesn’t have much choice either. The federal government has jurisdiction over its sites, and while they generally rely on local police to deal with crime at those locations, they do have authority to patrol those themselves. Despite declaring on Twitter earlier this week that “Under no circumstances will I allow Donald Trump’s troops to come to Chicago and terrorize our residents,” Lightfoot has no legal way to keep them out.
Besides, the plan could end up benefiting all sides. The effort will focus on providing more resources on existing local-federal investigations and enforcement efforts, thereby freeing up more local resources to deal with local crime. Lausch’ role will be to keep that focus and act as a guarantor of good will, of sorts. That doesn’t necessarily mean that federal agents won’t act if crimes get committed on federal property in Chicago, but it does mean that the patrols seen in Portland won’t be duplicated in Chicago — at least for now.
For his part, Lausch has publicly committed to that discipline:
“This is not patrol. This is not against civil unrest,” Lausch told the outlet ahead of Trump’s announcement. “This is working with the Chicago Police Department to do what we can to reduce the staggering violent crime we’re facing right now.” The federal teams will focus on “gangs, guns and drugs,” he said.
Lightfoot’s capitulation might also be an indication of her own political problems within the city. Her refusal to act during the riots got plenty of criticism from local politicians, National Review recalls, which might make her more of a bad guy than Trump at the moment:
During riots that followed the death of George Floyd during his arrest by Minneapolis police officers, Chicago city council members criticized Lightfoot for refusing to deploy the National Guard outside the city’s business district. “My ward is a s–t show,” complained Alderwoman Susan Sadlowski-Garza in a conference call. “They are shooting at the police. I have never seen the likes of this. I’m scared.” Alderman Raymond Lopez, a frequent critic of Lightfoot, said his district was ‘“a virtual war zone,” to which Lightfoot responded Lopez was “100 percent full of s–t.” “Well, f–k you then,” Lopez shot back. “Mayor you need to check your f—–g attitude.”
At any rate, this is a relatively low-risk proposal for both Lightfoot and Trump, and a bit of a retreat for both as well. Trump made it sound like he wanted to take over policing in Chicago, which would require invoking the Insurrection Act and embracing all of the political risk for crime in the streets. There’s still some risk involved here if this intervention doesn’t result in a downtick of violence, but it’s now minimal thanks to a minimal involvement in municipal policing. Lightfoot now has more resources to commit to prevention, at least nominally, so she also has some incentive to show that she can make that work.
This seems like a win-win. That raises a question as to why both sides went to war with each other first, rather than work out this kind of compromise first.


hotair--2020-07-23--Freaky: Are you ready for virtual baseball fans?

A though on Opening Day : The only thing more boring than modern baseball with fans in the stands is— I was going to say “ modern baseball without fans in the stands , ” but it ’ s soccer .
Soccer is more boring .
But just a notch below soccer on the boring-o-meter is modern baseball without fans in the stands .
Fox Sports has solved that problem .
Networks have been adding virtual enhancements to sports broadcasts for years , like overlaying the first-down marker on the turf in football games , so why not add a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of otherwise vacant stadiums when airing baseball games this fall ?
“ It seems like more of a scrimmage , ” said Fox Sports ’ s executive producer when asked about games played before empty stands , which I think is true .
I watched a few minutes of the recent Mets/Yankees exhibition that resorted to adding cardboard cutouts of people behind the plate to “ simulate ” a crowd and it did feel like something less than a pro game .
Virtual fans are a simple cue to help viewers immerse themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grim dystopian nightmare in which we actually find ourselves .
The leagues seem to be on board .
Major League Baseball has distributed around 75 different sound effects culled from the audio files of a MLB-sanctioned video game from Sony .
Among the reactions available for use : cheering , roaring , disappointment and regular crowd buzz , according to a league spokeswoman… The job is tougher for baseball than it would be for other sports , says Zager .
Fox must offer several different views of the crowd that other games may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We don ’ t have a single-game camera , something that ’ s centered at mid-court .
In baseball , you see the view from center field .
You see the action at home , or high over first or third .
This is a 360-degree environment.
” They can customize crowds too : Fox has the ability to decide the attendance .
At Nationals Park on Saturday , it can program whether it wants 30 percent or whatever of the crowd to be Yankees fans .
The fans will dress according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what happens in the game… They will not be able to catch a home run ball or , when the Yankees are at home , do a Bleacher Creature chant yet .
They can , however , do the wave , as you ’ ll see below .
Purists will sneer at that but we mustn ’ t begrudge virtual fans a way to amuse themselves while watching a sport where the ball is put in play roughly once every 20 minutes anymore .
There are other advantages to virtual fans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only way the Marlins and Rays will ever draw anything close to a full house .
And depending on how creative the producers want to be with the technology , it ’ s a potential source of endless comic fun to brighten up broadcasts .
They could have a drunk sim run out on the field during the seventh-inning stretch and be chased down by virtual security .
They could have virtual crowds deliver standing ovations whenever Jose Altuve or one of the other Astros is plunked for stealing signs in 2017 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtual batteries at Bryce Harper in right field when his average slips to .240 .
I want them to round out the illusion , though , by providing a backstory for why there ’ s no COVID in this virtual reality .
Have Joe Buck explain before the broadcast what happened differently in this alternate timeline to spare the sims from mass illness and death .
Did the Tiananmen protesters prevail 30 years ago , forming a democratic Chinese government that responded far more responsibly when the virus first emerged ?
Did Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone masking up immediately before the virus arrived in the U.S. instead of mumbling about how it ’ ll go away on its own ?
Did all of the Gen Z idiots who celebrated the end of lockdown in June by tossing social-distancing rules out the window decide to behave like minimally conscientious adults instead by keeping their distance ?
What saved the sims ?

A though on Opening Day: The only thing more boring than modern baseball with fans in the stands is—
I was going to say “modern baseball without fans in the stands,” but it’s soccer. Soccer is more boring.
But just a notch below soccer on the boring-o-meter is modern baseball without fans in the stands.
Fox Sports has solved that problem. Networks have been adding virtual enhancements to sports broadcasts for years, like overlaying the first-down marker on the turf in football games, so why not add a packed house of cheering sims to shots of otherwise vacant stadiums when airing baseball games this fall? “It seems like more of a scrimmage,” said Fox Sports’s executive producer when asked about games played before empty stands, which I think is true. I watched a few minutes of the recent Mets/Yankees exhibition that resorted to adding cardboard cutouts of people behind the plate to “simulate” a crowd and it did feel like something less than a pro game. Virtual fans are a simple cue to help viewers immerse themselves in a reality fully detached from the grim dystopian nightmare in which we actually find ourselves.
The leagues seem to be on board. Major League Baseball has distributed around 75 different sound effects culled from the audio files of a MLB-sanctioned video game from Sony. Among the reactions available for use: cheering, roaring, disappointment and regular crowd buzz, according to a league spokeswoman… The job is tougher for baseball than it would be for other sports, says Zager. Fox must offer several different views of the crowd that other games may not be obligated to show. “We don’t have a single-game camera, something that’s centered at mid-court. In baseball, you see the view from center field. You see the action at home, or high over first or third. This is a 360-degree environment.”
They can customize crowds too:
Fox has the ability to decide the attendance. At Nationals Park on Saturday, it can program whether it wants 30 percent or whatever of the crowd to be Yankees fans. The fans will dress according to the weather and will show emotion depending on what happens in the game… They will not be able to catch a home run ball or, when the Yankees are at home, do a Bleacher Creature chant yet.
They can, however, do the wave, as you’ll see below. Purists will sneer at that but we mustn’t begrudge virtual fans a way to amuse themselves while watching a sport where the ball is put in play roughly once every 20 minutes anymore.
There are other advantages to virtual fans. For instance, it’s the only way the Marlins and Rays will ever draw anything close to a full house. And depending on how creative the producers want to be with the technology, it’s a potential source of endless comic fun to brighten up broadcasts. They could have a drunk sim run out on the field during the seventh-inning stretch and be chased down by virtual security. They could have virtual crowds deliver standing ovations whenever Jose Altuve or one of the other Astros is plunked for stealing signs in 2017.
They could have virtual Phillies fans throw virtual batteries at Bryce Harper in right field when his average slips to .240.
I want them to round out the illusion, though, by providing a backstory for why there’s no COVID in this virtual reality. Have Joe Buck explain before the broadcast what happened differently in this alternate timeline to spare the sims from mass illness and death. Did the Tiananmen protesters prevail 30 years ago, forming a democratic Chinese government that responded far more responsibly when the virus first emerged? Did Trump go on a tear in February about everyone masking up immediately before the virus arrived in the U.S. instead of mumbling about how it’ll go away on its own? Did all of the Gen Z idiots who celebrated the end of lockdown in June by tossing social-distancing rules out the window decide to behave like minimally conscientious adults instead by keeping their distance? What saved the sims?


hotair--2020-07-23--Rep. Rashida Tlaib presides over House vote to repeal Trump's travel ban

The Democrat-led House of Representatives voted in favor of repealing the travel ban put into place by President Trump .
The vote taken Wednesday passed by a vote of 233 – 183 .
Rep. Rashida Tlaib , one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress , presided over the vote .
Rep. Tlaib was so excited over the vote tally that she clapped when the results were announced .
I bet Joe Biden was happy , too , if anyone bothered to tell him .
Just a couple of days ago I wrote about his promise to Muslim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim ban ” on his first day in office .
The irony , of course , in Biden ’ s pander to Muslims is that Trump ’ s travel ban ( not Muslim ban ) expands on the travel ban put into place by President Obama during the days of the Obama-Biden administration .
She posted about her happiness on Twitter .
As with most votes in the House , this vote mostly fell along party lines .
The vote fell largely along party lines , with just two Republicans – Reps. Brian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Texas ) – voting in favor .
Republican-turned-independent Rep. Justin Amash ( Mich. ) voted against the measure .
Fourteen Republicans did not vote .
Rep. Judy Chu ( D-Calif. ) , who introduced the original NO BAN Act last year , celebrated with a tweet : “ And with 233 votes , history has been made as the House of Representatives votes to repeal Donald Trump ’ s hateful Muslim Ban !
Now onto you , Senate.
” The NO BAN Act adds layers to the process of a travel ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed ” would be able to sue in federal court .
Under the NO BAN Act , the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security would have to consult with Congress before imposing a restriction , otherwise , the directive would be immediately terminated .
Individuals “ unlawfully harmed ” by such restrictions would be able to sue in federal court .
Rep. Nadler referred to the travel ban as “ one of the original sins of the Trump administration.
” Orange Man bad , you know .
House Judiciary Committee Chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill , formally titled the “ National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act , ” as “ critical legislation that will stop executive overreach , defend Congress ’ role in establishing our nation ’ s immigration laws , and right one of the original sins of the Trump administration — the Muslim ban.
” “ When the Trump administration issued its first version of the ban in January 2017 , it was immediately apparent it was unconstitutional , discriminatory and morally reprehensible .
Its chaotic rollout undermined the cruelty of this policy , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans argued against the bill for national security reasons , including against restrictions that may be necessary due to public health concerns like the coronavirus pandemic .
The bill was originally scheduled for a vote in March but was pulled due to the coronavirus .
That move shows that the ability for the president to use a travel ban for public health concerns is essential , and the Democrats know it .
“ We are spending our time with this bill that would limit it and make it more difficult for the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just because some people don ’ t like this president , they are going to make it harder for any president — to keep Americans safe , whether it ’ s from terrorists abroad or whether it ’ s for health pandemics that might break out again in the future .
This is lunacy , ” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-La . )
said during debate .
So , the language was added into the legislation to address pandemics like COVID-19 .
We know if this was during the previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it .
Democrats are playing politics with the coronavirus pandemic as they have from the very beginning .
The measure , however , includes language to ensure that it would not impact the ability of the US to respond to public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic .
It grants the President temporary authority to suspend and impose restrictions on entry of anyone determined to “ undermine the security or public safety of the United States , ” a provision that Democrats say would allow for any necessary action to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
The original text of the legislation was also amended to further underscore that point by stating that its public safety provision “ includes efforts necessary to contain a communicable disease of public health significance , ” such as Covid-19 .
“ This would not prevent action in the case of a disease like Covid-19 where public health is threatened , ” Chu said .
Democrats know that though the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration ’ s first attempts at expanding Obama ’ s travel ban , in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the travel ban .
Yet , since there is an election coming , Democrats wanted to do some grandstanding on the subject and use a Muslim congresswoman to get their message out .
It ’ s political theatre , as the Senate has no plans to take the matter up .
Joe Biden will need those Muslim voters ’ support in November , especially in Michigan , where Congresswoman Tlaib represents .

The Democrat-led House of Representatives voted in favor of repealing the travel ban put into place by President Trump. The vote taken Wednesday passed by a vote of 233 – 183. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, presided over the vote.
Rep. Tlaib was so excited over the vote tally that she clapped when the results were announced. I bet Joe Biden was happy, too, if anyone bothered to tell him. Just a couple of days ago I wrote about his promise to Muslim voters that he would end the “Muslim ban” on his first day in office. The irony, of course, in Biden’s pander to Muslims is that Trump’s travel ban (not Muslim ban) expands on the travel ban put into place by President Obama during the days of the Obama-Biden administration.
She posted about her happiness on Twitter.
🚨 BREAKING🚨: The House just passed the #NOBANAct with me, a proud Muslim member of Congress, presiding over the vote! pic.twitter.com/8Brclfxm6P — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) July 22, 2020
A heartfelt thanks to my colleagues who voted to loudly and clearly tell the President: your Muslim and African ban, a federal endorsement of discrimination, will not stand. And special thanks to @MuslimAdvocates and other champions who made this historic vote possible. #NOBANAct — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) July 22, 2020
As with most votes in the House, this vote mostly fell along party lines.
The vote fell largely along party lines, with just two Republicans – Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Will Hurd (Texas) – voting in favor. Republican-turned-independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) voted against the measure. Fourteen Republicans did not vote. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), who introduced the original NO BAN Act last year, celebrated with a tweet: “And with 233 votes, history has been made as the House of Representatives votes to repeal Donald Trump’s hateful Muslim Ban! Now onto you, Senate.”
The NO BAN Act adds layers to the process of a travel ban. And people who feel “unlawfully harmed” would be able to sue in federal court.
Under the NO BAN Act, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security would have to consult with Congress before imposing a restriction, otherwise, the directive would be immediately terminated. Individuals “unlawfully harmed” by such restrictions would be able to sue in federal court. Rep. Nadler referred to the travel ban as “one of the original sins of the Trump administration.” Orange Man bad, you know.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) described the bill, formally titled the “National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act,” as “critical legislation that will stop executive overreach, defend Congress’ role in establishing our nation’s immigration laws, and right one of the original sins of the Trump administration — the Muslim ban.” “When the Trump administration issued its first version of the ban in January 2017, it was immediately apparent it was unconstitutional, discriminatory and morally reprehensible. Its chaotic rollout undermined the cruelty of this policy,” he said on the House floor.
Republicans argued against the bill for national security reasons, including against restrictions that may be necessary due to public health concerns like the coronavirus pandemic. The bill was originally scheduled for a vote in March but was pulled due to the coronavirus. That move shows that the ability for the president to use a travel ban for public health concerns is essential, and the Democrats know it.
“We are spending our time with this bill that would limit it and make it more difficult for the president of the United States — any president, just because some people don’t like this president, they are going to make it harder for any president — to keep Americans safe, whether it’s from terrorists abroad or whether it’s for health pandemics that might break out again in the future. This is lunacy,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said during debate.
So, the language was added into the legislation to address pandemics like COVID-19. We know if this was during the previous administration, Democrats would have no problem with it. Democrats are playing politics with the coronavirus pandemic as they have from the very beginning.
The measure, however, includes language to ensure that it would not impact the ability of the US to respond to public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic.
It grants the President temporary authority to suspend and impose restrictions on entry of anyone determined to “undermine the security or public safety of the United States,” a provision that Democrats say would allow for any necessary action to be taken to protect American citizens during the pandemic. The original text of the legislation was also amended to further underscore that point by stating that its public safety provision “includes efforts necessary to contain a communicable disease of public health significance,” such as Covid-19. “This would not prevent action in the case of a disease like Covid-19 where public health is threatened,” Chu said.
Democrats know that though the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s first attempts at expanding Obama’s travel ban, in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the third version of the travel ban. Yet, since there is an election coming, Democrats wanted to do some grandstanding on the subject and use a Muslim congresswoman to get their message out. It’s political theatre, as the Senate has no plans to take the matter up. Joe Biden will need those Muslim voters’ support in November, especially in Michigan, where Congresswoman Tlaib represents.


hotair--2020-07-23--Canadian judge cancels safe third country agreement with US

To be clear , the issue mentioned in the title isn ’ t some new policy enacted by Canada ’ s legislature or executive action by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau .
The “ cancellation ” of our Safe Third Country asylum agreement with our neighbors to the north came from a single judge who essentially ruled the treaty provision unconstitutional .
And she ’ s not ordering the agreement to be terminated immediately .
The government will have six months to wrestle these issues to the ground and either appeal the ruling or create some remedy to remove the constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to some of you to be an attempted slap in the face to Washington , I would argue that it could be a tremendous gift .
( More on that in a moment ) The Associated Press has the details .
A Canadian court Wednesday invalidated the country ’ s Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States , ruling elements of the law violate Canadian constitutional guarantees of life , liberty and security .
But Federal Court Justice Ann Marie McDonald delayed the implementation of her decision six months .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe third country agreement ) infringe the guarantees in section 7 of the Charter , ” McDonald wrote in her decision , referring to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom , part of Canada ’ s Constitution .
“ I have also concluded that the infringement is not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
” Before anyone breaks out their “ Blame Canada ” t-shirts or starts protesting too loudly , we should take a closer look at what such an agreement would mean for both countries .
I say this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this could actually work out to our favor .
Under the current agreement , any potential immigrants , legal or illegal , who present themselves at an authorized border-crossing station requesting asylum are sent back to the United States ( being the “ Safe Third Country ” in this instance ) to wait here while their claims are processed .
But if they cross illegally at any location other than a recognized border-crossing station and then present themselves to authorities , they are released in Canada while their case is considered .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a backlog of requests , though not as many as we have in America on the southern border .
The migrants can wind up waiting for months or even years before a decision is made .
And the Canadians have extremely generous social welfare programs that these migrants can take advantage of while they wait .
That ’ s clearly a much more desirable situation than having to deal with ICE in the United States , so some of them were going to court in Canada to be allowed to stay even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The judge appears to agree .
So with all of that said , where is the downside for the United States ?
We ’ ve already got tens of millions more illegal aliens in our country than we know what to do with and there aren ’ t enough immigration enforcement agents in the world to detain and deport them all in a reasonable amount of time .
If any of these migrants prefer to go be a burden on Canada ’ s resources rather than ours , why fight this decision ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States saying they have to take them .
This is a Canadian decision .
You want them ?
Hey… keep them .
The more the merrier on the Canadian side of the border as far as I ’ m concerned .
Rather than complaining about this judge ’ s decision , I think we should all lift a cocktail to the north and toast her wise , compassionate approach to the subject .
Here ’ s to you , Judge McDonald .
Cheers !

To be clear, the issue mentioned in the title isn’t some new policy enacted by Canada’s legislature or executive action by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The “cancellation” of our Safe Third Country asylum agreement with our neighbors to the north came from a single judge who essentially ruled the treaty provision unconstitutional. And she’s not ordering the agreement to be terminated immediately. The government will have six months to wrestle these issues to the ground and either appeal the ruling or create some remedy to remove the constitutional issues. But while it may appear to some of you to be an attempted slap in the face to Washington, I would argue that it could be a tremendous gift. (More on that in a moment) The Associated Press has the details.
A Canadian court Wednesday invalidated the country’s Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, ruling elements of the law violate Canadian constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and security. But Federal Court Justice Ann Marie McDonald delayed the implementation of her decision six months. “I conclude that the provisions enacting the (safe third country agreement) infringe the guarantees in section 7 of the Charter,” McDonald wrote in her decision, referring to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, part of Canada’s Constitution. “I have also concluded that the infringement is not justified under section 1 of the Charter.”
Before anyone breaks out their “Blame Canada” t-shirts or starts protesting too loudly, we should take a closer look at what such an agreement would mean for both countries. I say this because, believe it or not, this could actually work out to our favor.
Under the current agreement, any potential immigrants, legal or illegal, who present themselves at an authorized border-crossing station requesting asylum are sent back to the United States (being the “Safe Third Country” in this instance) to wait here while their claims are processed. But if they cross illegally at any location other than a recognized border-crossing station and then present themselves to authorities, they are released in Canada while their case is considered.
As the AP notes, Canada has quite a backlog of requests, though not as many as we have in America on the southern border. The migrants can wind up waiting for months or even years before a decision is made. And the Canadians have extremely generous social welfare programs that these migrants can take advantage of while they wait. That’s clearly a much more desirable situation than having to deal with ICE in the United States, so some of them were going to court in Canada to be allowed to stay even if they crossed at a border-crossing station. The judge appears to agree.
So with all of that said, where is the downside for the United States? We’ve already got tens of millions more illegal aliens in our country than we know what to do with and there aren’t enough immigration enforcement agents in the world to detain and deport them all in a reasonable amount of time. If any of these migrants prefer to go be a burden on Canada’s resources rather than ours, why fight this decision? After all, it’s not the United States saying they have to take them. This is a Canadian decision.
You want them? Hey… keep them. The more the merrier on the Canadian side of the border as far as I’m concerned. Rather than complaining about this judge’s decision, I think we should all lift a cocktail to the north and toast her wise, compassionate approach to the subject. Here’s to you, Judge McDonald. Cheers!


hotair--2020-07-23--Maryland county Police Chief resigns citing "reforms" that will make cops and residents unsafe

Anne Arundel County in Maryland borders Baltimore on the city ’ s south side and runs down along the Chesapeake Bay .
Their crime problems aren ’ t quite as bad as what ’ s regularly seen in Charm City , but they have issues of their own , given their close proximity to the city .
And now they ’ ve developed yet another situation to deal with since they ’ ll be looking for a new Chief of Police .
Their current top cop , Timothy Altomare , unexpectedly announced his early retirement on Tuesday night .
Nobody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of office , however .
In his announcement , he cited the fact that he was not going to stand by and watch so-called police reforms “ remove the teeth from policing.
” ( Baltimore Sun ) Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare announced his retirement in a surprise move Tuesday night , ending two decades with the department in which he worked his way up from patrolman to top cop .
Altomare ’ s retirement is effective Aug. 1 .
He said he was calling it quits because he won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the teeth from policing , a movement he believes will endanger the public and police , citing a spike in violent crime .
His announcement is set amid national unrest following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers , which sparked protests against police brutality and systemic racism .
Anne Arundel County has seen surprisingly few issues arising between the county Police Department and the citizens they serve and protect , particularly when compared to America ’ s larger cities .
Much of that success is credited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he took over the top job in 2014 .
He began his law enforcement career working a beat for five years with the Annapolis Police Department before joining the Anne Arundel County PD in 1998 .
From there he worked his way up the chain to become a sergeant in narcotics and special ops .
He eventually became a captain under the previous Chief before assuming the office himself in 2014 .
To see somebody in law enforcement with that sort of record and the respect of both the cops and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say the least .
But both the state and county legislatures are currently ramming through “ reforms ” for the police in response to the mobs ruling the streets and Altomare doesn ’ t care for them at all .
Taking the bite out of the law enforcement power of the cops will only make the police less safe and effective themselves while making the community more at risk from crime and violence .
The Chief has learned these lessons after nearly thirty years serving the public and apparently doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline of the system he worked so hard to build .
Why do we bring up the administrative affairs of one county police department in Maryland ?
Because this could very easily be viewed as the canary in the coal mine in terms of the future of policing in America .
We ’ re already seeing cops retiring in droves in Minnesota or simply quitting the force altogether .
The same thing has been happening in New York City .
A report from CNN last month found spiking resignations and retirements in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These aren ’ t bad cops being forced out or arrested after questionable use of force incidents .
These are good cops who are tired of being painted as the bad guys and having their own government treating them as suspects rather than the criminals they are charged with locking up .
The more we see officers quitting , the harder it will be to recruit good people to replace them .
And if you ever hope to see an end to the mobs currently running riot in the streets , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement personnel at all levels to eventually restore order .
Once you ’ ve lost the thin blue line , it ’ s pretty much every man or woman for themself .

Anne Arundel County in Maryland borders Baltimore on the city’s south side and runs down along the Chesapeake Bay. Their crime problems aren’t quite as bad as what’s regularly seen in Charm City, but they have issues of their own, given their close proximity to the city. And now they’ve developed yet another situation to deal with since they’ll be looking for a new Chief of Police. Their current top cop, Timothy Altomare, unexpectedly announced his early retirement on Tuesday night. Nobody was trying to force the popular Chief out of office, however. In his announcement, he cited the fact that he was not going to stand by and watch so-called police reforms “remove the teeth from policing.” (Baltimore Sun)
Anne Arundel County Police Chief Timothy Altomare announced his retirement in a surprise move Tuesday night, ending two decades with the department in which he worked his way up from patrolman to top cop. Altomare’s retirement is effective Aug. 1. He said he was calling it quits because he won’t stand for efforts to remove the teeth from policing, a movement he believes will endanger the public and police, citing a spike in violent crime. His announcement is set amid national unrest following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, which sparked protests against police brutality and systemic racism.
Anne Arundel County has seen surprisingly few issues arising between the county Police Department and the citizens they serve and protect, particularly when compared to America’s larger cities. Much of that success is credited to Chief Altomare and the reforms he instituted when he took over the top job in 2014. He began his law enforcement career working a beat for five years with the Annapolis Police Department before joining the Anne Arundel County PD in 1998. From there he worked his way up the chain to become a sergeant in narcotics and special ops. He eventually became a captain under the previous Chief before assuming the office himself in 2014.
To see somebody in law enforcement with that sort of record and the respect of both the cops and the community walk out the door is alarming to say the least. But both the state and county legislatures are currently ramming through “reforms” for the police in response to the mobs ruling the streets and Altomare doesn’t care for them at all. Taking the bite out of the law enforcement power of the cops will only make the police less safe and effective themselves while making the community more at risk from crime and violence. The Chief has learned these lessons after nearly thirty years serving the public and apparently doesn’t want to stick around to watch the decline of the system he worked so hard to build.
Why do we bring up the administrative affairs of one county police department in Maryland? Because this could very easily be viewed as the canary in the coal mine in terms of the future of policing in America. We’re already seeing cops retiring in droves in Minnesota or simply quitting the force altogether. The same thing has been happening in New York City. A report from CNN last month found spiking resignations and retirements in a half dozen cities around the country.
These aren’t bad cops being forced out or arrested after questionable use of force incidents. These are good cops who are tired of being painted as the bad guys and having their own government treating them as suspects rather than the criminals they are charged with locking up. The more we see officers quitting, the harder it will be to recruit good people to replace them. And if you ever hope to see an end to the mobs currently running riot in the streets, we’re going to need the police and law enforcement personnel at all levels to eventually restore order. Once you’ve lost the thin blue line, it’s pretty much every man or woman for themself.


hotair--2020-07-23--Politico: "Huge spike" in gun-sales rejections on background checks in March

Yuuuuuuuge , Politico says … in a story spoon-fed to them by a gun-control group .
The numbers came from a FOIA request filed by the Michael Bloomberg-funded group Everytown for Gun Safety , a group which just poured $ 15 million into eight key races as part of their campaign to flip the Senate and beat Donald Trump .
Not only didn ’ t they bother to do the math , both they and Politico then make an assertion that is flatly contradicted by the numbers they promote .
The quasi-press release starts off promising a “ jarring new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of people trying to buy guns who can ’ t legally own them has skyrocketed.
” But what do the numbers actually say ?
In March 2019 , the FBI ’ s National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ) ran background checks on 823,273 attempted gun buys ( the system immediately greenlights the vast majority of transactions ) .
This past March , however , NICS processed more than 1.4 million background checks––a massive spike .
The most dramatic shift , though , might be in how many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In March 2019 and February 2020 , the NICS system blocked about 9,500 and 9,700 , respectively .
But in March 2020 , it blocked more than double that amount : a whopping 23,692 gun sales .
“ Whopping ” ?
Is that a technical term , a mathematical term , or a press-release term ?
It ’ s not mathematical , we can be sure .
If we do the math , we see an increase in background checks between the two Marches of almost exactly 70 % .
Rejections did increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much higher .
The March 2019 rejection rate was 1.15 % , and that increased in March 2020 to , er , 1.7 % .
The better story here might be that over 98 % of people who wanted to buy firearms in March 2020 were lawful purchasers even with the massive spike in demand .
That point doesn ’ t come up at all in this analysis , however , nor does anyone bother to do the basic math to come up with the rejection rates .
To do either would undercut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
Instead , they cut away from the numbers to focus on speculation : If NICS can ’ t finish someone ’ s background check in three days , the gun sale can proceed .
The data shows that more than twice as many gun background checks were immediately delayed in March 2020 than March 2019 .
The surge in gun purchases came as the coronavirus pandemic surged in the U.S. An FBI spokesperson told POLITICO that NICS “ has reallocated resources to address the incoming volume of NICS transactions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear that America ’ s background check system is completely overwhelmed , which means that more guns are slipping through the cracks and being sold to prohibited purchasers , ” John Feinblatt , the president of Everytown , said in a statement .
“ Mitch McConnell can stop this by taking action to close the Charleston loophole , but he ’ s too scared of the gun lobby ’ s waning political power to do anything , even as gun violence rises in the midst of a pandemic.
” The DoJ asked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Politico noted at that time that House Democrats didn ’ t consider it a priority .
In fact , that ’ s been the dirty little secret about background checks in general — no one follows up on the rejections , especially when the background check system stops the sale .
The Trump administration has tried to fix that problem , especially this year .
This is one of the issues that gun-rights advocates routinely raise when gun-control groups want to pass new restrictions ; they point out that this basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except at the point of sale .
In other words , this isn ’ t a new problem , and it ’ s not even a statistically significant increase in it .
This issue certainly shouldn ’ t stop the 98 % -plus applicants from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense , especially at a time when violence of all kinds has risen in the pandemic — none of which has to do with increased gun sales to lawful owners or the pandemic .
The rise in violence comes from the retreat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd , neither of which was related to COVID-19 .
Everytown ’ s argument blaming legal , background-checked gun ownership is absurd and grotesque , as is Politico ’ s journalistic dictation from this partisan interest group .
Tom Lehrer once sang about New Math .
Maybe we should call it News Math .

Yuuuuuuuge, Politico says … in a story spoon-fed to them by a gun-control group. The numbers came from a FOIA request filed by the Michael Bloomberg-funded group Everytown for Gun Safety, a group which just poured $15 million into eight key races as part of their campaign to flip the Senate and beat Donald Trump. Not only didn’t they bother to do the math, both they and Politico then make an assertion that is flatly contradicted by the numbers they promote.
The quasi-press release starts off promising a “jarring new stat,” and claims that “the number of people trying to buy guns who can’t legally own them has skyrocketed.” But what do the numbers actually say?
In March 2019, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) ran background checks on 823,273 attempted gun buys (the system immediately greenlights the vast majority of transactions). This past March, however, NICS processed more than 1.4 million background checks––a massive spike. The most dramatic shift, though, might be in how many people the system blocked from buying guns. In March 2019 and February 2020, the NICS system blocked about 9,500 and 9,700, respectively. But in March 2020, it blocked more than double that amount: a whopping 23,692 gun sales.
“Whopping”? Is that a technical term, a mathematical term, or a press-release term? It’s not mathematical, we can be sure. If we do the math, we see an increase in background checks between the two Marches of almost exactly 70%. Rejections did increase at a higher rate … but not much higher. The March 2019 rejection rate was 1.15%, and that increased in March 2020 to, er, 1.7%.
Whopping, I tell ya.
The better story here might be that over 98% of people who wanted to buy firearms in March 2020 were lawful purchasers even with the massive spike in demand. That point doesn’t come up at all in this analysis, however, nor does anyone bother to do the basic math to come up with the rejection rates. To do either would undercut the motive for citing these numbers in the first place.
Instead, they cut away from the numbers to focus on speculation:
If NICS can’t finish someone’s background check in three days, the gun sale can proceed. The data shows that more than twice as many gun background checks were immediately delayed in March 2020 than March 2019. The surge in gun purchases came as the coronavirus pandemic surged in the U.S. An FBI spokesperson told POLITICO that NICS “has reallocated resources to address the incoming volume of NICS transactions.” “This FBI data confirms our fear that America’s background check system is completely overwhelmed, which means that more guns are slipping through the cracks and being sold to prohibited purchasers,” John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown, said in a statement. “Mitch McConnell can stop this by taking action to close the Charleston loophole, but he’s too scared of the gun lobby’s waning political power to do anything, even as gun violence rises in the midst of a pandemic.”
The DoJ asked for money to retrieve these weapons in May, but Politico noted at that time that House Democrats didn’t consider it a priority. In fact, that’s been the dirty little secret about background checks in general — no one follows up on the rejections, especially when the background check system stops the sale. The Trump administration has tried to fix that problem, especially this year. This is one of the issues that gun-rights advocates routinely raise when gun-control groups want to pass new restrictions; they point out that this basic law has never been fully enforced, except at the point of sale.
In other words, this isn’t a new problem, and it’s not even a statistically significant increase in it. This issue certainly shouldn’t stop the 98%-plus applicants from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense, especially at a time when violence of all kinds has risen in the pandemic — none of which has to do with increased gun sales to lawful owners or the pandemic. The rise in violence comes from the retreat of police after the killing of George Floyd, neither of which was related to COVID-19. Everytown’s argument blaming legal, background-checked gun ownership is absurd and grotesque, as is Politico’s journalistic dictation from this partisan interest group.
Tom Lehrer once sang about New Math. Maybe we should call it News Math.


hotair--2020-07-24--The latest NY Times "bombshell" UFO article sounded great, but...

For more than a month now , there has been some wild-eyed speculation in the ufology community that a new “ bombshell ” article about UFOs was about to drop from the New York Times .
( Something we discussed here a few weeks ago . )
There had been enough of the regular players in the ufology zone contacted by the paper to assume they were working on something , but what it might be and if it would ever see the light of day was unknown .
Rumors had been swirling , ranging from claims that the editors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suggestions that the Pentagon wanted to shut it down .
All of that was cleared up last night when the article finally dropped .
The byline cited Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal , two of the reporters who brought us the paper ’ s original bombshell UFO article in December of 2017 , revealing the existence of the AATIP program .
This new piece certainly had an intriguing title .
“ No Longer in Shadows , Pentagon ’ s U.F.O .
Unit Will Make Some Findings Public.
” But as tantalizing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were somewhat underwhelming , at least for those who follow the subject on a regular basis .
Still , the reporters at least mentioned some intriguing possibilities .
Pentagon officials will not discuss the program , which is not classified but deals with classified matters .
Yet it appeared last month in a Senate committee report outlining spending on the nation ’ s intelligence agencies for the coming year .
The report said the program , the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force , was “ to standardize collection and reporting ” on sightings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to report at least some of its findings to the public every six months .
While retired officials involved with the effort — including Harry Reid , the former Senate majority leader — hope the program will seek evidence of vehicles from other worlds , its main focus is on discovering whether another nation , especially any potential adversary , is using breakout aviation technology that could threaten the United States .
Senator Marco Rubio , the Florida Republican who is the acting chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was primarily concerned about reports of unidentified aircraft over American military bases — and that it was in the government ’ s interest to find out who was responsible .
The article invokes the phrase “ vehicles from other worlds ” fairly early on , later bringing up “ crash artifacts ” and “ extraterrestrial explanations.
” But each time , the phrases are placed in carefully couched prose that reminds us that – of course – none of this has been verified .
That ’ s probably the biggest sticking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of the online debate I mentioned above was a claim that this blockbuster article was going to “ blow the lid ” off of a subject of intense speculation .
The now infamous Wilson-Davis documents , which allegedly point to the existence of a deeply hidden , black budget project involving a Pentagon UFO “ crash retrieval program.
” Some proponents of this concept in the ufology community , frequently championed by Joe Murgia ( better known as UFO Joe ) among others , were nearly 100 % positive that this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was the big enchilada .
The proof that the government has been hiding crashed UFOs and possibly even the bodies of extraterrestrials .
Sadly , the article only dips a pinky toe into that subject once and points out that no proof of any such things has been offered .
The idea is highlighted as part of a quote from Luis Elizondo , the former director of AATIP and now a member of To The Stars Academy .
( Emphasis added ) This is the tone the article takes when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if anything , the government has in its possession in terms of crashed alien craft or extraterrestrials .
“ Without presenting physical proof.
” Also , “ say they are convinced.
” The implication from the Times is obvious .
Sure , it ’ s a fascinating idea .
But even the folks pushing it the hardest haven ’ t been able to come up with any hard evidence .
It ’ s just their “ beliefs.
” You can read the rest of it for yourself , but the reality is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new .
If you follow the online work of researchers like Danny Silva and Andreas Freeman Stahl ( and too many others to list here ) or keep up with the more mainstream reporting of investigative journalists like Tim McMillan or M.J. Banias ( again , along with many others ) at outlets such as Popular Mechanics , Vice , and the War zone , you would have already been aware of nearly everything covered in this article .
Aside from a couple of fresh quotes from some of the key players , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been reported on before .
Does all of this mean that the Times ‘ article was a waste of time or without value ?
Not at all .
The vast majority of news consumers still rely exclusively on mainstream outlets like the Gray Lady , the WaPo , CNN , and the rest for their news and never delve into the darker corners of the media where these subjects are discussed at length .
The Times does the public a great service by bringing all of those readers into the conversation , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we actually know anything ) of what their government is up to when it comes to baffling things flitting around in our airspace .
For that , they should be congratulated .
But in terms of any sort of paradigm-shifting revelations about government secrecy and UFOs , that simply hasn ’ t been offered or even suggested as a likely possibility .
So yet again , we wait .
Perhaps we ’ ll learn something if the public report from the Pentagon requested by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ever sees the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m even dubious about that prospect , personally .
But in closing , is there more to come ?
The following item suggests that Ralph Blumenthal himself has more in the bag that hasn ’ t dropped .
Assuming the quote is authentic , he rattles the closet door yet again by saying “ not everything can be reported all at once.
” Those eight words should keep the juices flowing for months to come at least .

For more than a month now, there has been some wild-eyed speculation in the ufology community that a new “bombshell” article about UFOs was about to drop from the New York Times. (Something we discussed here a few weeks ago.) There had been enough of the regular players in the ufology zone contacted by the paper to assume they were working on something, but what it might be and if it would ever see the light of day was unknown. Rumors had been swirling, ranging from claims that the editors at the Times had killed the article to suggestions that the Pentagon wanted to shut it down.
All of that was cleared up last night when the article finally dropped. The byline cited Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal, two of the reporters who brought us the paper’s original bombshell UFO article in December of 2017, revealing the existence of the AATIP program. This new piece certainly had an intriguing title. “No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public.” But as tantalizing as it may sound, the full contents were somewhat underwhelming, at least for those who follow the subject on a regular basis. Still, the reporters at least mentioned some intriguing possibilities.
Pentagon officials will not discuss the program, which is not classified but deals with classified matters. Yet it appeared last month in a Senate committee report outlining spending on the nation’s intelligence agencies for the coming year. The report said the program, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force, was “to standardize collection and reporting” on sightings of unexplained aerial vehicles, and was to report at least some of its findings to the public every six months. While retired officials involved with the effort — including Harry Reid, the former Senate majority leader — hope the program will seek evidence of vehicles from other worlds, its main focus is on discovering whether another nation, especially any potential adversary, is using breakout aviation technology that could threaten the United States. Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who is the acting chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told a CBS affiliate in Miami this month that he was primarily concerned about reports of unidentified aircraft over American military bases — and that it was in the government’s interest to find out who was responsible.
The article invokes the phrase “vehicles from other worlds” fairly early on, later bringing up “crash artifacts” and “extraterrestrial explanations.” But each time, the phrases are placed in carefully couched prose that reminds us that – of course – none of this has been verified. That’s probably the biggest sticking point in this report. At the heart of the online debate I mentioned above was a claim that this blockbuster article was going to “blow the lid” off of a subject of intense speculation. The now infamous Wilson-Davis documents, which allegedly point to the existence of a deeply hidden, black budget project involving a Pentagon UFO “crash retrieval program.”
Some proponents of this concept in the ufology community, frequently championed by Joe Murgia (better known as UFO Joe) among others, were nearly 100% positive that this is what the Times was set to reveal. This was the big enchilada. The proof that the government has been hiding crashed UFOs and possibly even the bodies of extraterrestrials. Sadly, the article only dips a pinky toe into that subject once and points out that no proof of any such things has been offered. The idea is highlighted as part of a quote from Luis Elizondo, the former director of AATIP and now a member of To The Stars Academy. (Emphasis added)
“It no longer has to hide in the shadows,” Mr. Elizondo said. “It will have a new transparency.” Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study.
This is the tone the article takes when it comes to the ultimate questions of what, if anything, the government has in its possession in terms of crashed alien craft or extraterrestrials. “Without presenting physical proof.” Also, “say they are convinced.” The implication from the Times is obvious. Sure, it’s a fascinating idea. But even the folks pushing it the hardest haven’t been able to come up with any hard evidence. It’s just their “beliefs.”
You can read the rest of it for yourself, but the reality is that virtually none of this information is new. If you follow the online work of researchers like Danny Silva and Andreas Freeman Stahl (and too many others to list here) or keep up with the more mainstream reporting of investigative journalists like Tim McMillan or M.J. Banias (again, along with many others) at outlets such as Popular Mechanics, Vice, and the War zone, you would have already been aware of nearly everything covered in this article. Aside from a couple of fresh quotes from some of the key players, this is all information that’s been reported on before.
Does all of this mean that the Times‘ article was a waste of time or without value? Not at all. The vast majority of news consumers still rely exclusively on mainstream outlets like the Gray Lady, the WaPo, CNN, and the rest for their news and never delve into the darker corners of the media where these subjects are discussed at length. The Times does the public a great service by bringing all of those readers into the conversation, making them aware (to the extent that we actually know anything) of what their government is up to when it comes to baffling things flitting around in our airspace. For that, they should be congratulated.
But in terms of any sort of paradigm-shifting revelations about government secrecy and UFOs, that simply hasn’t been offered or even suggested as a likely possibility. So yet again, we wait. Perhaps we’ll learn something if the public report from the Pentagon requested by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ever sees the light of day, but I’m even dubious about that prospect, personally. But in closing, is there more to come? The following item suggests that Ralph Blumenthal himself has more in the bag that hasn’t dropped. Assuming the quote is authentic, he rattles the closet door yet again by saying “not everything can be reported all at once.” Those eight words should keep the juices flowing for months to come at least.


hotair--2020-07-23--Baltimore and Philly DAs: If Trump tries to pull a Portland in our cities, we'll arrest his federal

Baltimore and Philly DAs: If Trump tries to pull a Portland in our cities, we'll arrest his federal agents

In case you thought 2020 wasn ’ t insane enough , imagine Philly P.D .
trying to take armed DHS agents kitted out like U.S. soldiers into custody as hordes of protesters and Antifa jeer both of them .
That ’ s really all we need to round off our new dystopian reality .
An occasional gun battle or two between the feds and state cops .
Whether Philly DA Larry Krasner and Baltimore DA Marilyn Mosby really do have the power to charge federal agents acting in the course of their official duties is above my pay grade legally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent for doing so in an interview with Bloomberg , but corruption is a much clearer case than a DHS agent wounding someone by firing a tear-gas canister as a mob advances on a federal building .
Lawyers are encouraged to weigh in on the Supremacy Clause implications in the comments .
Krasner and Mosby certainly believe they have the authority to do it , per their new joint op-ed in WaPo : Should Trump send federal agents who engage in the same illegal vigilante activities , unlawfully assaulting and kidnapping people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offices .
The authority of city officials to prosecute federal law enforcement officials is clear .
While 28 U.S. Code § 1442 provides that federal law enforcement officers may remove such charges to federal court in limited circumstances , it does not stop the local prosecution .
We do not believe that the agents in Portland came close to meeting the standard required to prevent local prosecution , and officers exhibiting such behavior in our cities are similarly unlikely to meet this threshold .
Local authorities have the power to initiate an arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defer prosecutions , we could hold off on proceeding until after the November election .
Obtaining cooperation and evidence from federal authorities would presumably revert to pre-Trump norms under a new administration .
In the meantime , local prosecutors would have the authority to subpoena individuals and make them appear before a grand jury .
Finally , these crimes would be offenses against the residents of our respective states — not federal offenses — and , therefore , the president would have no capacity to pardon those we might prosecute .
All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not stand idly by while the president illegally turns loose paramilitary forces to commit criminal acts and violate the constitutional rights of innocent Americans for the purpose of energizing his base and improving his poll numbers .
Although the president claims to be a champion of the 10th Amendment , his administration has treaded alarmingly on the rights of states and localities .
They ’ re not saying they ’ ll arrest the feds on the spot if they show their faces in town .
Obviously they can ’ t do that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest them if they behave as they ’ ve behaved in Portland , whether injuring people using non-lethal rounds or detaining them without probable cause to believe they ’ ve committed a crime .
Krasner has used the term “ kidnapping ” more than once to describe the now-famous incident caught on video of them tossing a protester who swore he ’ d done nothing wrong into an unmarked car for questioning .
Criminal law prof Andrew Crespo looked at the comments made by DHS officials in defense of agents ’ conduct during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it sounds like they didn ’ t have probable cause : DHS tried to clean that up in the same news conference by claiming that , in any event , the protester wasn ’ t technically arrested because he was quickly released .
But he was , says Crespo , according to relevant precedent : It ’ s not an arrest if the cops stroll up to you on the street and question you there , but if you ’ re in custody and not free to leave then you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause existed to believe that you were up to no good .
Crespo ’ s takeaway : The wrinkle for Krasner and Mosby is that the feds unquestionably are authorized to protect federal property , which is ostensibly why they ’ re in Portland , and they ’ re further authorized to make arrests for “ any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States ” that they witness while they ’ re doing so .
Even critics acknowledge that the DHS deployment in Portland is legal , however misguided the statutory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump wants to dress them up as soldiers and station them at federal courthouses or post offices or whatever in Philly and Baltimore and hope that their presence attracts a hostile crowd for the cameras , he ’ s entitled to do it .
Of course , as Crespo says , not every arrest being made by DHS is for cognizable felonies — or for any crime at all , it seems .
Presumably any federal agent who makes an unlawful arrest can be charged by state officials for it .
But is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arresting officer is in a case like that , where the agents are unmarked by name , number , or face ?
Krasner and Mosby allude to waiting until Biden takes office to do discovery so that DHS will cooperate , but they ’ re assuming that the department is keeping records right now of how it ’ s operating that might be subpoenaed later .
Maybe they aren ’ t , considering how irregular this operation has been already and how much public scrutiny they ’ re under .
To give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , by the way , here he is today discussing his intentions to charge rogue feds on Democracy Now .
That ’ s where you go when MSNBC is waaaay too centrist for you .
He spent his career as a public defender before running a longshot campaign for D.A .
promising to reform prosecutions in Philly .
He succeeded thanks to a generous contribution from George Soros .

In case you thought 2020 wasn’t insane enough, imagine Philly P.D. trying to take armed DHS agents kitted out like U.S. soldiers into custody as hordes of protesters and Antifa jeer both of them.
That’s really all we need to round off our new dystopian reality. An occasional gun battle or two between the feds and state cops.
Whether Philly DA Larry Krasner and Baltimore DA Marilyn Mosby really do have the power to charge federal agents acting in the course of their official duties is above my pay grade legally. Krasner pointed to corruption cases as precedent for doing so in an interview with Bloomberg, but corruption is a much clearer case than a DHS agent wounding someone by firing a tear-gas canister as a mob advances on a federal building. Lawyers are encouraged to weigh in on the Supremacy Clause implications in the comments. Krasner and Mosby certainly believe they have the authority to do it, per their new joint op-ed in WaPo:
Should Trump send federal agents who engage in the same illegal vigilante activities, unlawfully assaulting and kidnapping people, they will face criminal charges from our offices. The authority of city officials to prosecute federal law enforcement officials is clear. While 28 U.S. Code § 1442 provides that federal law enforcement officers may remove such charges to federal court in limited circumstances, it does not stop the local prosecution. We do not believe that the agents in Portland came close to meeting the standard required to prevent local prosecution, and officers exhibiting such behavior in our cities are similarly unlikely to meet this threshold. Local authorities have the power to initiate an arrest and prosecution. Under our authority to defer prosecutions, we could hold off on proceeding until after the November election. Obtaining cooperation and evidence from federal authorities would presumably revert to pre-Trump norms under a new administration. In the meantime, local prosecutors would have the authority to subpoena individuals and make them appear before a grand jury. Finally, these crimes would be offenses against the residents of our respective states — not federal offenses — and, therefore, the president would have no capacity to pardon those we might prosecute. All of this is to say, we will not stand idly by while the president illegally turns loose paramilitary forces to commit criminal acts and violate the constitutional rights of innocent Americans for the purpose of energizing his base and improving his poll numbers. Although the president claims to be a champion of the 10th Amendment, his administration has treaded alarmingly on the rights of states and localities.
They’re not saying they’ll arrest the feds on the spot if they show their faces in town. Obviously they can’t do that. They’re saying they’ll arrest them if they behave as they’ve behaved in Portland, whether injuring people using non-lethal rounds or detaining them without probable cause to believe they’ve committed a crime. Krasner has used the term “kidnapping” more than once to describe the now-famous incident caught on video of them tossing a protester who swore he’d done nothing wrong into an unmarked car for questioning. Criminal law prof Andrew Crespo looked at the comments made by DHS officials in defense of agents’ conduct during that incident. By their own admission, it sounds like they didn’t have probable cause:
I don’t know if shining a laser at someone is a federal crime. It doesn’t matter. The police do not have probable cause to arrest you just because you are standing near someone else who may have committed a crime. — Andrew Crespo (@AndrewMCrespo) July 22, 2020
DHS tried to clean that up in the same news conference by claiming that, in any event, the protester wasn’t technically arrested because he was quickly released. But he was, says Crespo, according to relevant precedent:
The answer is yes. pic.twitter.com/Xr592ZzzDU — Andrew Crespo (@AndrewMCrespo) July 22, 2020
It’s not an arrest if the cops stroll up to you on the street and question you there, but if you’re in custody and not free to leave then you’re only supposed to be there if probable cause existed to believe that you were up to no good. Crespo’s takeaway:
And if the Deputy Director of this new federal force will say on national TV that what these officers did was legal because "this wasn't an arrest," that raises serious concerns about what his officers are doing out on the street. When the cameras are on, and when they’re not. — Andrew Crespo (@AndrewMCrespo) July 22, 2020
The wrinkle for Krasner and Mosby is that the feds unquestionably are authorized to protect federal property, which is ostensibly why they’re in Portland, and they’re further authorized to make arrests for “any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States” that they witness while they’re doing so. Even critics acknowledge that the DHS deployment in Portland is legal, however misguided the statutory authority for it may be. If Trump wants to dress them up as soldiers and station them at federal courthouses or post offices or whatever in Philly and Baltimore and hope that their presence attracts a hostile crowd for the cameras, he’s entitled to do it.
Of course, as Crespo says, not every arrest being made by DHS is for cognizable felonies — or for any crime at all, it seems. Presumably any federal agent who makes an unlawful arrest can be charged by state officials for it. But is there any way to find out who the arresting officer is in a case like that, where the agents are unmarked by name, number, or face? Krasner and Mosby allude to waiting until Biden takes office to do discovery so that DHS will cooperate, but they’re assuming that the department is keeping records right now of how it’s operating that might be subpoenaed later. Maybe they aren’t, considering how irregular this operation has been already and how much public scrutiny they’re under.
To give you a sense of how far-left Krasner is, by the way, here he is today discussing his intentions to charge rogue feds on Democracy Now. That’s where you go when MSNBC is waaaay too centrist for you. He spent his career as a public defender before running a longshot campaign for D.A. promising to reform prosecutions in Philly. He succeeded thanks to a generous contribution from George Soros.


hotair--2020-07-23--Former DHS Secretary trashes Trump's “reality TV approach” to Portland violence

The first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security , Tom Ridge , has weighed in on President Trump ’ s decision to send in federal agents into Portland , Oregon to protect federal buildings and property .
The city is on fire from almost two months of consecutive demonstrations and rioting by Antifa and other anarchists .
Tom Ridge is doing what many Never Trump Republicans do – they side with the other side against Trump .
Unfortunately , in this case , the other side are domestic terrorists and feckless Democrat city and state officials .
He appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision “ a very disappointing response to a serious problem ” .
Then he made a dig at Trump using his former reality television gig .
“ I ’ m not even sure they have a plan .
Have they talked to the mayor ?
Have they talked to the chief of police ?
Have they talked to the US attorney ?
They ’ ll leave in a couple of weeks and the lawlessness will reemerge , and they still haven ’ t dealt with the social and economic conditions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN ’ s John Berman on “ Anderson Cooper 360.
” “ It ’ s a very disappointing response to a serious problem , but it ’ s typical of somebody who thinks reality TV is real.
” Ridge went on to question not only Trump ’ s idea of a sending a “ surge ” of federal law enforcement officers to Chicago and other American cities to quell the violence but if Trump has any other kind of plan besides overreaching his authority .
“ They aren ’ t his personal militia.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV approach , ” Ridge said .
“ Let ’ s check this out : 200 officers and by the way , they are not his personal militia , but he ’ s going to send in 200 officers , good men and women , no doubt about that , to work with 13,000 police , men and women , no doubt with a sudden surge and they may have a few arrests and may have a few imprisonments but they ’ re not going to sustain that commitment , and nothing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure they have a plan .
When the host questioned Ridge ’ s characterization of the officers as Trump ’ s “ personal militia ” .
Trump hasn ’ t referred to them as that but Ridge assumed Trump was using the officers as such .
It was a particularly nasty way of framing the argument .
“ I mean that the men and women in not only DHS but throughout the federal law enforcement agencies and many , many agencies go to work every single day to try to provide safe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Ridge responded .
“ But you can not secure the country from inside the beltway .
So the best thing you can do is deploy these federal agents , good men and women to work in cooperation with the state and local law enforcement .
But you just don ’ t pick up the phone and order them into any community , and , I would say — rarely will I speak for Republicans or Democrats or anybody in elected office — I doubt if there is a Republican or Democrat today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t contest the unilateral incursion of federal agents without coordination with state and local law enforcement officials .
I just don ’ t think that would happen .
Nor should it , by the way .
” Tom Ridge has always been a Never Trumper .
He used the same term , personal militia , earlier in the week during a radio interview with another CNN show host .
Speaking to CNN ’ s Michael Smerconish on SiriusXM radio Tuesday , Ridge stressed that the Department of Homeland Security “ was established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global terrorism .
It was not established to be the President ’ s personal militia.
” “ It would be a cold day in hell before I would give consent to a unilateral , uninvited intervention into one of my cities , ” he continued .
Asked about those comments Wednesday , Ridge declared that “ you just don ’ t pick up the phone and order ” federal agents into any community .
“ I would dare say this — and rarely will I speak for Republicans or Democrats or anybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a Republican or Democrat today , mayor or governor , that wouldn ’ t contest the unilateral incursion of federal agents without coordination with state and local law enforcement officials , ” he said .
“ I just don ’ t think that would happen .
Nor should it , by the way.
” Ridge ’ s distaste of Trump skews logic , though .
Trump waited almost two months as Portland burned before sending in federal agents .
These professionals , as Ridge himself describes them , are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , or rogue agents taking away protesters ’ Fourth Amendment rights .
They are protecting federal property and assisting local law enforcement who have been hamstrung by local elected officials , the Democrats in charge .
Ridge may like to talk tough but he ’ s in some kind of bubble where it is acceptable to criticize the president without offering his own solutions , as the former head of DHS .
That is politics , not out of concern for public safety .
These people are not Gestapo or thugs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and putting themselves at risk in the line of duty .
To hear Ridge talk , he would do as the feckless Democrats are doing and remain silent or speak up with support for those destroying Portland .

The first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, has weighed in on President Trump’s decision to send in federal agents into Portland, Oregon to protect federal buildings and property. The city is on fire from almost two months of consecutive demonstrations and rioting by Antifa and other anarchists.
Tom Ridge is doing what many Never Trump Republicans do – they side with the other side against Trump. Unfortunately, in this case, the other side are domestic terrorists and feckless Democrat city and state officials. He appeared on CNN on Wednesday and called Trump’s decision “a very disappointing response to a serious problem”. Then he made a dig at Trump using his former reality television gig.
“I’m not even sure they have a plan. Have they talked to the mayor? Have they talked to the chief of police? Have they talked to the US attorney? They’ll leave in a couple of weeks and the lawlessness will reemerge, and they still haven’t dealt with the social and economic conditions that underpin the lawlessness,” Ridge told CNN’s John Berman on “Anderson Cooper 360.” “It’s a very disappointing response to a serious problem, but it’s typical of somebody who thinks reality TV is real.”
Ridge went on to question not only Trump’s idea of a sending a “surge” of federal law enforcement officers to Chicago and other American cities to quell the violence but if Trump has any other kind of plan besides overreaching his authority. “They aren’t his personal militia.”
“It seems like a reality TV approach,” Ridge said. “Let’s check this out: 200 officers and by the way, they are not his personal militia, but he’s going to send in 200 officers, good men and women, no doubt about that, to work with 13,000 police, men and women, no doubt with a sudden surge and they may have a few arrests and may have a few imprisonments but they’re not going to sustain that commitment, and nothing in this plan, I’m not sure they have a plan.
When the host questioned Ridge’s characterization of the officers as Trump’s “personal militia”. Trump hasn’t referred to them as that but Ridge assumed Trump was using the officers as such. It was a particularly nasty way of framing the argument.
“I mean that the men and women in not only DHS but throughout the federal law enforcement agencies and many, many agencies go to work every single day to try to provide safe and secure communities all around this country,” Ridge responded. “But you cannot secure the country from inside the beltway. So the best thing you can do is deploy these federal agents, good men and women to work in cooperation with the state and local law enforcement. But you just don’t pick up the phone and order them into any community, and, I would say — rarely will I speak for Republicans or Democrats or anybody in elected office — I doubt if there is a Republican or Democrat today, mayor or governor, that wouldn’t contest the unilateral incursion of federal agents without coordination with state and local law enforcement officials. I just don’t think that would happen. Nor should it, by the way. ”
Tom Ridge has always been a Never Trumper. He used the same term, personal militia, earlier in the week during a radio interview with another CNN show host.
Speaking to CNN’s Michael Smerconish on SiriusXM radio Tuesday, Ridge stressed that the Department of Homeland Security “was established to protect America from the ever-present threat of global terrorism. It was not established to be the President’s personal militia.” “It would be a cold day in hell before I would give consent to a unilateral, uninvited intervention into one of my cities,” he continued. Asked about those comments Wednesday, Ridge declared that “you just don’t pick up the phone and order” federal agents into any community. “I would dare say this — and rarely will I speak for Republicans or Democrats or anybody in elected office — I doubt if there’s a Republican or Democrat today, mayor or governor, that wouldn’t contest the unilateral incursion of federal agents without coordination with state and local law enforcement officials,” he said. “I just don’t think that would happen. Nor should it, by the way.”
Ridge’s distaste of Trump skews logic, though. Trump waited almost two months as Portland burned before sending in federal agents. These professionals, as Ridge himself describes them, are not “stormtroopers” as Nancy Pelosi described them, or rogue agents taking away protesters’ Fourth Amendment rights. They are protecting federal property and assisting local law enforcement who have been hamstrung by local elected officials, the Democrats in charge. Ridge may like to talk tough but he’s in some kind of bubble where it is acceptable to criticize the president without offering his own solutions, as the former head of DHS. That is politics, not out of concern for public safety. These people are not Gestapo or thugs. They are doing what is asked of them and putting themselves at risk in the line of duty. To hear Ridge talk, he would do as the feckless Democrats are doing and remain silent or speak up with support for those destroying Portland.
Trump responded to Ridge on Thursday morning.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1286299924141932550


hotair--2020-07-24--Birx on the southern surge in COVID cases: What we have right now are three New Yorks

This is an unfortunate description , as it risks leading the uninformed to believe that deaths are piling up in Arizona , Florida , and Texas on the same scale as New York saw in March and April .
That ’ s not true and never has been .
Yesterday all three states combined for around 450 deaths , which is a bit more than half the daily total in New York at its peak even though their combined population is much larger than New York State ’ s is .
All three states also appear to be past their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that deaths should start to decline within a few weeks .
I don ’ t think Birx meant to mislead .
All she meant was that America now has three states with challenging epidemics to control whereas in early April it had only one .
( Well , two , unless you consider New Jersey an entity meaningfully distinct from New York . )
But it ’ s jarring to hear her use language like that when one of the distinguishing features of the summer “ second wave ” we ’ re experiencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite the same fearsome death toll that we saw in the spring .
“ Why ?
” is one of the great mysteries of the pandemic .
Watching everyone freak out this morning about Fauci ’ s maskless moments at the Nats game yesterday reminded me of one of the ironies of the White House ’ s COVID response .
He ’ s the lightning rod for praise and criticism among the public but to all appearances it ’ s Birx who ’ s been the more meaningful contributor behind the scenes — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It didn ’ t get much attention online but this NYT story from a few days ago accused Birx of having miscalculated the trajectory of the pandemic back in April in a fateful way .
She thought America ’ s curve would look like Italy ’ s , which would mean case counts would completely collapse within a few weeks of passing the peak and opening up would be safe .
She was sort of right : New York ’ s epidemic curve ended up looking like Italy ’ s .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned out to be misplaced .
Whether he would have been more cautious about that if Birx had been more skeptical is a question for historians , but his decision to move ahead when he did may end up costing him the presidency : “ All metros are stabilizing , ” she would tell [ White House staff this past spring ] , describing the virus as having hit its “ peak ” around mid-April .
The New York area accounted for half of the total cases in the country , she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right direction .
“ We ’ re behind the worst of it.
” She endorsed the idea that the death counts and hospitalization numbers could be inflated .
For Dr. Birx , Italy ’ s experience was a particularly telling — and positive — comparison .
She routinely told colleagues that the United States was on the same trajectory as Italy , which had huge spikes before infections and deaths flattened to close to zero… Dr. Birx would roam the halls of the White House , talking to Mr. Kushner , Ms. Hicks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bolster her case .
“ We ’ ve hit our peak , ” she would say , and that message would find its way back to Mr. Trump .
Dr. Birx began using versions of the phrase “ putting out the embers , ” wording that was later picked up by the press secretary , Kayleigh McEnany , and by Mr. Trump himself .
By the middle of May , the task force believed that another resurgence was not likely until the fall , senior administration officials said .
The difference between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , is that Italians diligently followed lockdown orders and social-distancing rules until cases were crushed whereas Americans , being Americans , decided that the worst was behind us circa late April and it was time to get back to normal .
Fast-forward to this week and Birx is now warning the public about “ three New Yorks ” and reportedly warning state and local officials that there are 11 major cities whose positivity rates are rising and which need to act aggressively immediately to halt the spread .
At this stage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curve nationally before the expected true “ second wave ” of COVID-19 arrives in the fall are basically zero .
We ’ re now at the point of such collective exasperation about controlling the virus that 56 percent of Americans who say that the economy is their most important issue nonetheless would support states closing down sectors of their economies in the name of containing the spread .
Various other surveys show that hardly any American adults support completely in-person instruction for kids in schools this fall even though it ’ s universally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their educational and emotional development than remote learning .
Gallup also published a poll today showing that pessimism about the state of the pandemic has reached a new high : Trump ’ s polling against Biden began to collapse during the first week of June , not coincidentally right around the time that pessimism about the COVID situation began to grow among Americans .
God knows there ’ s plenty of blame to go around on the U.S. response , but if you ’ re the head of a national task force that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d say that your task force had failed : Another question for historians : Did Birx believe her own models in April all along or did the White House ’ s political urgency to reopen as soon as possible lead her towards an overly optimistic interpretation of the data ?
I ask that because the CDC finally issued its guidelines on reopening schools this afternoon and , wouldn ’ t you know it , they ’ re also right in line with Trump ’ s “ reopen everything ” agenda .
Historians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Redfield ’ s contribution to the U.S. “ response ” as well .
The one bright spot right now is that testing continues to increase .
The U.S. recorded more than 900,000 tests today , easily its best showing ever .
The less bright spot is that the total number of hospitalizations nationwide is about where it was during the worst of the spring epidemic .
Deaths still aren ’ t as high as they used to be , thankfully , but they ’ ve been consistently north of 1,000 per day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereabouts in late June/early July .
Hopefully next week will be better .

This is an unfortunate description, as it risks leading the uninformed to believe that deaths are piling up in Arizona, Florida, and Texas on the same scale as New York saw in March and April. That’s not true and never has been. Yesterday all three states combined for around 450 deaths, which is a bit more than half the daily total in New York at its peak even though their combined population is much larger than New York State’s is. All three states also appear to be past their peaks in new cases, which means that deaths should start to decline within a few weeks.
I don’t think Birx meant to mislead. All she meant was that America now has three states with challenging epidemics to control whereas in early April it had only one. (Well, two, unless you consider New Jersey an entity meaningfully distinct from New York.) But it’s jarring to hear her use language like that when one of the distinguishing features of the summer “second wave” we’re experiencing is that it *hasn’t* produced quite the same fearsome death toll that we saw in the spring. “Why?” is one of the great mysteries of the pandemic.
Watching everyone freak out this morning about Fauci’s maskless moments at the Nats game yesterday reminded me of one of the ironies of the White House’s COVID response. He’s the lightning rod for praise and criticism among the public but to all appearances it’s Birx who’s been the more meaningful contributor behind the scenes — and not necessarily in a good way. It didn’t get much attention online but this NYT story from a few days ago accused Birx of having miscalculated the trajectory of the pandemic back in April in a fateful way. She thought America’s curve would look like Italy’s, which would mean case counts would completely collapse within a few weeks of passing the peak and opening up would be safe. She was sort of right: New York’s epidemic curve ended up looking like Italy’s. But the confidence she gave Trump on reopening turned out to be misplaced. Whether he would have been more cautious about that if Birx had been more skeptical is a question for historians, but his decision to move ahead when he did may end up costing him the presidency:
“All metros are stabilizing,” she would tell [White House staff this past spring], describing the virus as having hit its “peak” around mid-April. The New York area accounted for half of the total cases in the country, she said. The slope was heading in the right direction. “We’re behind the worst of it.” She endorsed the idea that the death counts and hospitalization numbers could be inflated. For Dr. Birx, Italy’s experience was a particularly telling — and positive — comparison. She routinely told colleagues that the United States was on the same trajectory as Italy, which had huge spikes before infections and deaths flattened to close to zero… Dr. Birx would roam the halls of the White House, talking to Mr. Kushner, Ms. Hicks and others, sometimes passing out diagrams to bolster her case. “We’ve hit our peak,” she would say, and that message would find its way back to Mr. Trump. Dr. Birx began using versions of the phrase “putting out the embers,” wording that was later picked up by the press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, and by Mr. Trump himself. By the middle of May, the task force believed that another resurgence was not likely until the fall, senior administration officials said.
The difference between Italy and the U.S., notes the Times, is that Italians diligently followed lockdown orders and social-distancing rules until cases were crushed whereas Americans, being Americans, decided that the worst was behind us circa late April and it was time to get back to normal. Fast-forward to this week and Birx is now warning the public about “three New Yorks” and reportedly warning state and local officials that there are 11 major cities whose positivity rates are rising and which need to act aggressively immediately to halt the spread. At this stage, the odds of the U.S. crushing the curve nationally before the expected true “second wave” of COVID-19 arrives in the fall are basically zero.
We’re now at the point of such collective exasperation about controlling the virus that 56 percent of Americans who say that the economy is their most important issue nonetheless would support states closing down sectors of their economies in the name of containing the spread. Various other surveys show that hardly any American adults support completely in-person instruction for kids in schools this fall even though it’s universally agreed that that would be better for their educational and emotional development than remote learning. Gallup also published a poll today showing that pessimism about the state of the pandemic has reached a new high:
Trump’s polling against Biden began to collapse during the first week of June, not coincidentally right around the time that pessimism about the COVID situation began to grow among Americans.
God knows there’s plenty of blame to go around on the U.S. response, but if you’re the head of a national task force that’s overseen this outcome, I’d say that your task force had failed:
The surge in the United States is so extreme that, once adjusted for population, 10 states are recording more new cases than any country in the world. @LaurenLeatherby https://t.co/YAuicThA7F — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) July 24, 2020
Another question for historians: Did Birx believe her own models in April all along or did the White House’s political urgency to reopen as soon as possible lead her towards an overly optimistic interpretation of the data? I ask that because the CDC finally issued its guidelines on reopening schools this afternoon and, wouldn’t you know it, they’re also right in line with Trump’s “reopen everything” agenda. Historians will be taking a hard look at Robert Redfield’s contribution to the U.S. “response” as well.
The one bright spot right now is that testing continues to increase. The U.S. recorded more than 900,000 tests today, easily its best showing ever. The less bright spot is that the total number of hospitalizations nationwide is about where it was during the worst of the spring epidemic. Deaths still aren’t as high as they used to be, thankfully, but they’ve been consistently north of 1,000 per day lately after having dropped to 600 or thereabouts in late June/early July. Hopefully next week will be better.