hotair--2020-07-06--Are we entering the "UFO Summer of Disclosure 2020" now?

For all of you UFO fans out there , something interesting popped up at Medium over the weekend from Bryce Zabel .
He ’ s been reading the various tea leaves in the news recently , both mainstream and among the ufology subculture , and finding that there is once again a growing air of excitement over the possibility that some serious “ big D ” Disclosure on the subject of government secrecy regarding unidentified aerial phenomenon may be on the horizon as we sweat out the sweltering summer heat in the midst of a pandemic and civil unrest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this “ moment ” has come many , many times before , and it ’ s never panned out .
Could this time be different ?
He begins by referencing a friend of his , a pseudonymous “ UFO influencer ” only referred to as John .
It seems that John is convinced that this could be the moment so many have been waiting for .
The government wizard may be preparing to pull back the curtain , if only a little , and let the public know what really going on with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
And perhaps… dare we suggest… extraterrestrial life visiting our world ?
For years now , John has routinely predicted that Disclosure is imminent , and lays out a detailed play for how it will happen on which president ’ s watch and why .
So far , he ’ s never been right .
Eventually , he will be .
That ’ s playing the long game… Is there something different this time , here in the coronavirus summer of 2020 ?
The UAP crowd wonders — can a country as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics really take on The Phenomenon at the same time ?
There may be reason for cautious optimism that conditions are better than ever , they allow themselves to think , but everyone needs to remember how hope was alive before , then faded .
On the other hand , it does pay to lay it out , and look at it for what it is .
Here ’ s a partial list of how the UFO/UAP issue has played out over the last two-to-three months as we approached # UFOSummer2020 .
Bryce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent news on this subject , almost all of which my regular readers are already familiar with .
Those include the Pentagon validating the Navy UFO videos , the recent Senate Intelligence Committee order for a public report on UAPs , President Trump appearing to drop some hints about Roswell , and the increasing coverage of this subject in mainstream outlets in recent months .
But does this add up to anything ?
As Bryce says , in the heat of the summer amid all of this madness , it certainly feels as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air .
But then , for those who have long believed in the idea of Disclosure , it ’ s been feeling like that since the 1950s .
And it ’ s never happened .
The author has a lot more great material , both current and historical in that piece , so the entire thing is well worth a read .
But at the end of the day , one looming question remains .
Okay… check that .
Two looming questions remain .
First , would the government really spill all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant portion of them , whether of their own volition or because of the mainstream media forcing their hand ?
Second comes the potentially more disturbing question , at least for the faithful in the ufology community .
What if the government doesn ’ t have anything of consequence to disclose ?
The first question assumes that the government has been sitting on a ton of information about UFOs and possibly even extraterrestrial lifeforms for more than half a century .
I ’ ll confess , that ’ s always been my belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing out there to confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt .
Bryce touches on a subject I ’ ve mentioned here recently and those of you who follow me on Twitter have probably seen me ranting about at various times .
It ’ s the current rumor that the New York Times is preparing to imminently publish an article detailing a beyond top secret black ops program dealing with UFO crash retrieval and possibly even government possession of alien bodies .
It all deals with the so-called “ Admiral Wilson Documents ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
There are quite a few of the old hands in the ufology news stable who are close to 100 % sure this is true .
Of course , “ imminent ” was thought to be possible as soon as last week .
Nothing yet , but who knows ?
Perhaps it ’ s this week .
Or if this is more like the wave of assurances we received in the 70s , maybe it ’ s still half of a century away .
I spent more than an hour last night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of these seasoned researchers who are in the “ it ’ s coming shortly ” camp .
You can click through and delve into that yourself if you want to take a long swan dive down that particular rabbit hole .
And for all I know , they may turn out to be right , no matter how crazy some of it may sound to me personally .
But then there ’ s that second question I mentioned above .
This whole Disclosure debate hinges on the belief that the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only knows more than they ’ re telling us but very likely have more than they ’ re revealing .
If they actually are in possession of technology created somewhere beyond the Earth and possibly even physical proof of intelligent , extraterrestrial lifeforms , it would be a story that would change the course of human history .
Of course , they ’ d have to come up with one heck of a mea culpa over why they ’ ve been lying all this time , but I think most of us would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But… and this is the tricky part… what if they don ’ t have much of anything ?
What if there were never any crashes ?
What if the aliens never contacted anyone in a position of power ?
After all this time , if all they have is a collection of videos and weird pictures of things that show up in our airspace , well… then they don ’ t really know all that much more than we do .
Maybe the government is just as stymied and frustrated as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , then Disclosure already happened and it was a huge flop .
But even if that turns out to be the truth , there ’ s one more ugly reality to come to grips with .
Nobody in the ufology community is going to believe them .
Everyone will simply assume they ’ re “ still lying.
” Hell ’ s bells , Francis… I ’ ll predict right now that I ’ ll assume they ’ re still lying .
We ’ ll be right back to square one where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where we ’ ve effectively stayed ever since then .
And wouldn ’ t that just be a fine kick in the teeth ?
# UFOSummer2020 indeed .

For all of you UFO fans out there, something interesting popped up at Medium over the weekend from Bryce Zabel. He’s been reading the various tea leaves in the news recently, both mainstream and among the ufology subculture, and finding that there is once again a growing air of excitement over the possibility that some serious “big D” Disclosure on the subject of government secrecy regarding unidentified aerial phenomenon may be on the horizon as we sweat out the sweltering summer heat in the midst of a pandemic and civil unrest. Of course, as Bryce notes, this “moment” has come many, many times before, and it’s never panned out. Could this time be different?
He begins by referencing a friend of his, a pseudonymous “UFO influencer” only referred to as John. It seems that John is convinced that this could be the moment so many have been waiting for. The government wizard may be preparing to pull back the curtain, if only a little, and let the public know what really going on with all of the UFOs we keep hearing about. And perhaps… dare we suggest… extraterrestrial life visiting our world?
For years now, John has routinely predicted that Disclosure is imminent, and lays out a detailed play for how it will happen on which president’s watch and why. So far, he’s never been right. Eventually, he will be. That’s playing the long game… Is there something different this time, here in the coronavirus summer of 2020? The UAP crowd wonders — can a country as torn as ours is by pandemic and politics really take on The Phenomenon at the same time? There may be reason for cautious optimism that conditions are better than ever, they allow themselves to think, but everyone needs to remember how hope was alive before, then faded. On the other hand, it does pay to lay it out, and look at it for what it is. Here’s a partial list of how the UFO/UAP issue has played out over the last two-to-three months as we approached #UFOSummer2020.
Bryce stacks up a number of bits of recent news on this subject, almost all of which my regular readers are already familiar with. Those include the Pentagon validating the Navy UFO videos, the recent Senate Intelligence Committee order for a public report on UAPs, President Trump appearing to drop some hints about Roswell, and the increasing coverage of this subject in mainstream outlets in recent months.
But does this add up to anything? As Bryce says, in the heat of the summer amid all of this madness, it certainly feels as if there’s something in the air. But then, for those who have long believed in the idea of Disclosure, it’s been feeling like that since the 1950s. And it’s never happened. The author has a lot more great material, both current and historical in that piece, so the entire thing is well worth a read. But at the end of the day, one looming question remains. Okay… check that. Two looming questions remain.
First, would the government really spill all of the beans, or at least a significant portion of them, whether of their own volition or because of the mainstream media forcing their hand?
Second comes the potentially more disturbing question, at least for the faithful in the ufology community. What if the government doesn’t have anything of consequence to disclose?
The first question assumes that the government has been sitting on a ton of information about UFOs and possibly even extraterrestrial lifeforms for more than half a century. I’ll confess, that’s always been my belief, though there’s little or nothing out there to confirm it beyond a reasonable doubt. Bryce touches on a subject I’ve mentioned here recently and those of you who follow me on Twitter have probably seen me ranting about at various times. It’s the current rumor that the New York Times is preparing to imminently publish an article detailing a beyond top secret black ops program dealing with UFO crash retrieval and possibly even government possession of alien bodies. It all deals with the so-called “Admiral Wilson Documents” which have long been a subject of hot debate. There are quite a few of the old hands in the ufology news stable who are close to 100% sure this is true.
Of course, “imminent” was thought to be possible as soon as last week. Nothing yet, but who knows? Perhaps it’s this week. Or if this is more like the wave of assurances we received in the 70s, maybe it’s still half of a century away. I spent more than an hour last night listening to a panel discussion among a number of these seasoned researchers who are in the “it’s coming shortly” camp. You can click through and delve into that yourself if you want to take a long swan dive down that particular rabbit hole. And for all I know, they may turn out to be right, no matter how crazy some of it may sound to me personally.
But then there’s that second question I mentioned above. This whole Disclosure debate hinges on the belief that the United States government (and probably others) not only knows more than they’re telling us but very likely have more than they’re revealing. If they actually are in possession of technology created somewhere beyond the Earth and possibly even physical proof of intelligent, extraterrestrial lifeforms, it would be a story that would change the course of human history. Of course, they’d have to come up with one heck of a mea culpa over why they’ve been lying all this time, but I think most of us would forgive them quickly if they came clean.
But… and this is the tricky part… what if they don’t have much of anything? What if there were never any crashes? What if the aliens never contacted anyone in a position of power? After all this time, if all they have is a collection of videos and weird pictures of things that show up in our airspace, well… then they don’t really know all that much more than we do. Maybe the government is just as stymied and frustrated as we are. If that’s the case, then Disclosure already happened and it was a huge flop.
But even if that turns out to be the truth, there’s one more ugly reality to come to grips with. Nobody in the ufology community is going to believe them. Everyone will simply assume they’re “still lying.” Hell’s bells, Francis… I’ll predict right now that I’ll assume they’re still lying. We’ll be right back to square one where we were during the summer of 1947 and where we’ve effectively stayed ever since then. And wouldn’t that just be a fine kick in the teeth? #UFOSummer2020 indeed.


hotair--2020-07-06--Hmmm: Prince Andrew vacationing domestically this year for some reason; <span class='red'>Update: La

Hmmm: Prince Andrew vacationing domestically this year for some reason; Update: Labour leader urges Andrew to cooperate

The United Kingdom can be quite lovely in the summer , but it ’ s not a bout of homesickness that has caused Prince Andrew to cancel his summer plans abroad .
The Sun reported late yesterday that Jeffrey Epstein ’ s years-long associate has decided not to travel to Spain as usual for a golfing holiday .
A “ palace insider ” told their reporter that Andrew has become concerned that he might end up getting extradited to the US if he sets foot outside the UK , a fear that seems connected to the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish golf holiday because he ’ s scared to go abroad during the Epstein investigation .
He stayed at a friend ’ s Costa del Sol mansion last year — days after paedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell .
But a palace insider said Andrew , 60 , has shelved this year ’ s trip as he is “ nervous ” of leaving the UK after the US Justice Department made an official request to question him as a witness about Epstein .
Andrew ’ s pretty convinced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the feds have in mind , however , at least according to this source : “ They know they can ’ t extradite him .
What they ’ re trying to do is get him over voluntarily and , if they think they ’ ve got enough evidence , charge him there .
“ He ’ s not a witness , he ’ s a covert target of this operation.
” The palace insider said it ’ s “ unlikely ” Andrew will leave the UK for some time and will “ never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Prince Andrew that smart ?
Given his choices in the past , I ’ d remain skeptical , especially after his disastrous BBC interview regarding Epstein .
That was so spectacularly stupid that his mother booted Andrew out of the house — well , Buckingham Palace , but still — and Andrew had to publicly withdraw from his duties .
In ages past , that would have prompted a voluntary exile , but with Maxwell arrested and potentially singing , that option has been foreclosed , probably forever .
One does have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” had in mind by leaking this , though .
Is this someone who knows what Andrew is thinking ?
Or is it someone who has a better grip on what the rest of his family is thinking ?
According to a report from the New York Times , Andrew still wants to talk his way out of this — so much so that he tried to hire a lobbyist known for working for some pretty reprehensible clients .
Hard pass , as it turns out : Prince Andrew ’ s lawyers had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Trump administration about the possibility of assisting the prince with fallout from his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein .
Lawyers from the London-based firm Blackfords consulted the lobbyist , Robert Stryk , who represents international figures with sensitive legal or diplomatic issues , in recent weeks about Prince Andrew ’ s situation , according to a person familiar with the circumstances .
Mr. Stryk has a history of taking on clients with unsavory reputations .
But he expressed discomfort about the possibility of assisting Prince Andrew , and talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fizzled , according to the person familiar with the situation .
The issue may not be moral as much as it is legal .
Those clients may have committed crimes , but they didn ’ t do so in US jurisdiction .
If the feds are coming after Prince Andrew for sex trafficking in underage girls , he might not want to get caught in the middle of a prosecution .
The larger point here is that this “ palace insider ” might be less of a leak and more of a harbinger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — internal exile , perhaps perpetual , rather than ongoing attempts to restore his position by working his connections .
But will Ghislaine Maxwell snitch on Andrew specifically ?
Page Six doesn ’ t think so , since Maxwell owed her lifestyle to Andrew ’ s support from the beginning : Steven Hoffenberg , a former business associate of Epstein ’ s ( and who temporarily managed the New York Post in 1993 ) , said , “ She ’ s going to be naming some big names — not only in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein ’ s parties — but also those who made financial agreements with Epstein or benefited from his generosity , including flying on his plane and staying at his homes.
” … “ Ghislaine thought she was untouchable — that she ’ d be protected by the intelligence communities she and Jeffrey helped with information : the Israeli intelligence services , and Les Wexner , who has given millions to Israel ; by Prince Andrew , President Clinton and even by President Trump , who was well-known to be an acquaintance of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maxwell associate , Laura Goldman , believes she would protect Andrew and be more likely to talk about the others .
“ Andrew helped launch Ghislaine into the New York social scene when she was nothing after the death of her father .
She always saw him as a real friend.
” We ’ ll find out soon enough .
Maxwell has yet to be arraigned in New York , but that will come later this week .
Jazz will have more on that later , but the delay in arraignment might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big decisions to be made by the defense .
It ’ s safe to say that Andrew won ’ t be in position to be arrested or prosecuted unless he does something incredible stupid … which puts him at high risk , at least according to his lifelong patterns .
Update : The environment might not be much friendlier at home .
Labour leader Keir Starmer tells a radio host that Prince Andrew should be cooperating with the FBI , and his reluctance to do so is strange : “ Of course he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sir Keir Starmer , the leader of the UK ’ s opposition party , told LBC radio about repeated claims that the royal has refused to meet with investigators across the pond .
“ It doesn ’ t matter who you are , you cooperate with the law enforcement authorities when they require you to do so , ” the Labour Party leader said .
Starmer — who was the nation ’ s Director of Public Prosecutions — said the US used to seek assistance “ all the time ” from the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he was “ disappointed ” that Andrew , 60 , has not cooperated , Starmer said , “ Well , he will have to justify his own actions.
” He won ’ t if he doesn ’ t travel outside the UK .
It ’ s inconceivable that any British government would extradite a member of the royal family , but that doesn ’ t mean Andrew will get a free ride at home , either .
In fact , his brother Charles might have to answer for it if he inherits @ @ @ @ @ @

The United Kingdom can be quite lovely in the summer, but it’s not a bout of homesickness that has caused Prince Andrew to cancel his summer plans abroad. The Sun reported late yesterday that Jeffrey Epstein’s years-long associate has decided not to travel to Spain as usual for a golfing holiday. A “palace insider” told their reporter that Andrew has become concerned that he might end up getting extradited to the US if he sets foot outside the UK, a fear that seems connected to the arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell:
PRINCE Andrew has cancelled his annual Spanish golf holiday because he’s scared to go abroad during the Epstein investigation. He stayed at a friend’s Costa del Sol mansion last year — days after paedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell. But a palace insider said Andrew, 60, has shelved this year’s trip as he is “nervous” of leaving the UK after the US Justice Department made an official request to question him as a witness about Epstein.
Andrew’s pretty convinced that “witness” isn’t what the feds have in mind, however, at least according to this source:
“They know they can’t extradite him. What they’re trying to do is get him over voluntarily and, if they think they’ve got enough evidence, charge him there. “He’s not a witness, he’s a covert target of this operation.” The palace insider said it’s “unlikely” Andrew will leave the UK for some time and will “never travel to the US again”.
Is Prince Andrew that smart? Given his choices in the past, I’d remain skeptical, especially after his disastrous BBC interview regarding Epstein. That was so spectacularly stupid that his mother booted Andrew out of the house — well, Buckingham Palace, but still — and Andrew had to publicly withdraw from his duties. In ages past, that would have prompted a voluntary exile, but with Maxwell arrested and potentially singing, that option has been foreclosed, probably forever.
One does have to wonder what this “palace insider” had in mind by leaking this, though. Is this someone who knows what Andrew is thinking? Or is it someone who has a better grip on what the rest of his family is thinking? According to a report from the New York Times, Andrew still wants to talk his way out of this — so much so that he tried to hire a lobbyist known for working for some pretty reprehensible clients. Hard pass, as it turns out:
Prince Andrew’s lawyers had discussions with a Washington lobbyist with ties to the Trump administration about the possibility of assisting the prince with fallout from his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Lawyers from the London-based firm Blackfords consulted the lobbyist, Robert Stryk, who represents international figures with sensitive legal or diplomatic issues, in recent weeks about Prince Andrew’s situation, according to a person familiar with the circumstances. Mr. Stryk has a history of taking on clients with unsavory reputations. But he expressed discomfort about the possibility of assisting Prince Andrew, and talks about the potential representation appear to have fizzled, according to the person familiar with the situation.
Is Stryk picky? Er …
This year alone, his firm has signed contracts to represent a jailed Saudi prince who had fallen out of favor with his country’s powerful de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as well as the administration of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, which the Trump administration considers illegitimate. Mr. Stryk represents Isabel dos Santos, the daughter of Angola’s former president who is accused of embezzling millions of dollars from a state oil company she once headed. And he had represented the government of the former Congolese president Joseph Kabila, which had faced American sanctions for human rights abuses and corruption.
The issue may not be moral as much as it is legal. Those clients may have committed crimes, but they didn’t do so in US jurisdiction. If the feds are coming after Prince Andrew for sex trafficking in underage girls, he might not want to get caught in the middle of a prosecution. The larger point here is that this “palace insider” might be less of a leak and more of a harbinger of what the palace wants from Andrew — internal exile, perhaps perpetual, rather than ongoing attempts to restore his position by working his connections.
But will Ghislaine Maxwell snitch on Andrew specifically? Page Six doesn’t think so, since Maxwell owed her lifestyle to Andrew’s support from the beginning:
Steven Hoffenberg, a former business associate of Epstein’s (and who temporarily managed the New York Post in 1993), said, “She’s going to be naming some big names — not only in terms of those who abused underage girls at Epstein’s parties — but also those who made financial agreements with Epstein or benefited from his generosity, including flying on his plane and staying at his homes.” … “Ghislaine thought she was untouchable — that she’d be protected by the intelligence communities she and Jeffrey helped with information: the Israeli intelligence services, and Les Wexner, who has given millions to Israel; by Prince Andrew, President Clinton and even by President Trump, who was well-known to be an acquaintance of her and Epstein’s.” But another Maxwell associate, Laura Goldman, believes she would protect Andrew and be more likely to talk about the others. “Andrew helped launch Ghislaine into the New York social scene when she was nothing after the death of her father. She always saw him as a real friend.”
We’ll find out soon enough. Maxwell has yet to be arraigned in New York, but that will come later this week. Jazz will have more on that later, but the delay in arraignment might have something to do with cooperation offers and big decisions to be made by the defense. It’s safe to say that Andrew won’t be in position to be arrested or prosecuted unless he does something incredible stupid … which puts him at high risk, at least according to his lifelong patterns.
Update: The environment might not be much friendlier at home. Labour leader Keir Starmer tells a radio host that Prince Andrew should be cooperating with the FBI, and his reluctance to do so is strange:
Labour leader Keir Starmer says Prince Andrew should co-operate with the FBI over the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.@NickFerrariLBC | #CallKeir pic.twitter.com/8N3OOLG2DF — LBC (@LBC) July 6, 2020
“Of course he should cooperate with the US,” Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the UK’s opposition party, told LBC radio about repeated claims that the royal has refused to meet with investigators across the pond. “It doesn’t matter who you are, you cooperate with the law enforcement authorities when they require you to do so,” the Labour Party leader said. Starmer — who was the nation’s Director of Public Prosecutions — said the US used to seek assistance “all the time” from the UK, which “always cooperated.” Asked if he was “disappointed” that Andrew, 60, has not cooperated, Starmer said, “Well, he will have to justify his own actions.”
He won’t if he doesn’t travel outside the UK. It’s inconceivable that any British government would extradite a member of the royal family, but that doesn’t mean Andrew will get a free ride at home, either. In fact, his brother Charles might have to answer for it if he inherits the throne, as expected.


hotair--2020-07-06--What's this "Kanye 2020" business about, eh?

I ’ m about 50/50 on whether this is something he tweeted out in a burst of exuberance while celebrating on July 4th , with zero intention of seeing it through , or if it ’ s a clever ploy by Trump borne of desperation to try to bleed votes from the base of young adults that Biden ’ s counting on .
“ Hello , Kanye ?
It ’ s Donald .
Listen , I need a favor… ” There ’ s a potential PR angle here since he has an album coming out soon , but Kanye ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pardon me , I mean “ The Chicks.
” ) He doesn ’ t need to manufacture political buzz to move sales .
And as Karen pointed out yesterday , he ’ s chattered about running for president off and on for years .
Clearly there ’ s genuine interest there .
Which remains surprising , as West isn ’ t a vocal advocate for any particular slate of policies .
He ’ s pals with Trump , enough so to have worn a red MAGA hat during a meeting with the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s out there pushing a Trumpist agenda I ’ ve missed it .
His most memorable political pronouncements recently have had to do with pushing back on critics who ’ ve attacked him for not conforming to the political expectations of a major black artist by embracing Trump .
( If he follows through on running for president and begins cutting into Biden ’ s lead , the heat he took before from the left for his MAGA-friendliness will be a picnic compared to what ’ s in store . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview two years ago , which is how he strikes me too : It ’ s unclear where Kanye West stands on the political spectrum – for a time , the singer was one of the few high-profile Trump supporters in the entertainment industry , but was never able to articulate why ; it seemed to be an aesthetic choice , based on personality rather than policy .
At least , that was the explanation offered by Kim Kardashian West , in a 2018 interview with Van Jones , who acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , actually.
” “ He just happens to like Donald Trump ’ s personality but doesn ’ t know about the politics , ” she continued .
“ He will always say he was friendly with ( Trump ) before , and he ’ s the same person and friendly with him now … I know it ’ s very confusing because when you see someone wearing a red hat , you would think that they are supporting that , but he ’ s just fighting for free thought and the freedom to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not the popular decision.
” West ’ s “ political ” pronouncements tend to boil down to “ we need more understanding of others ” and “ we need less conformity of thought , ” both of which are very welcome sentiments in America 2020 but not really the stuff of presidential campaigns .
What would his policies be ?
CNN notes that he said in an interview a few years ago that they ’ d be a combination of “ the Trump campaign and maybe the Bernie Sanders principles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , uh … protectionism , I guess ?
“ When I talk about the idea of being president , I ’ m not saying I have any political views .
I just have a view on humanity , on people , on the truth , ” he told the BBC in 2016 .
What he really wants to lead is some sort of new-age religious movement , I think , and he ’ s channeling that impulse into politics because he ’ s been conditioned to do so by America ’ s cult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that a lesser celebrity than Kanye himself was able to win four years ago and naturally West ’ s desire to spearhead some sort of social change would point him towards the White House .
Lay aside the question of “ Will he run ?
” and look to the question of “ Can he run ?
” “ The filing deadline for independent candidates to appear on the November general election ballot has already passed in Alabama , Illinois , Montana , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Mexico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Newsweek notes , adding that the deadlines in Colorado , Florida and Michigan are approaching later this month .
You can ’ t just register to be on the ballot either ; you need thousands of signatures on a petition to qualify , and collecting signatures in that volume is an organizational undertaking .
West has the money to make it happen but the task will be further complicated by the fact that fewer people will be out and about on the streets in a state hit hard by the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be on the ballot , he needs to start moving right away .
There ’ s no evidence that he ’ s doing so .
And even if he did : Haven ’ t we seen this movie before ?
Eh , I don ’ t know about that .
Williamson is quite famous in her own right , if not “ Kanye famous , ” but Williamson ’ s constituency in the primaries was never clear .
She ran on a left-wing policy platform against two of the most formidable leftist politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren .
She was never going to out-socialist them .
If she was going to make a mark , it would have been with some ill-defined cohort of left-leaning new agers crying out for less chatter in American politics about tax rates and foreign policy and more chatter about “ dark psychic forces.
” Who was that cohort ?
Democratic “ wine moms ” ?
Silver ’ s right that critics , me included , are inclined to not write off anyone anymore after The Miracle of 2016 but the potential appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less obvious than West ’ s .
His hook is straightforward : He ’ s a protest vote for young adults who aren ’ t thrilled with Biden and might be willing to back an outside-the-box candidate if the right one came along , like , say , the world ’ s most famous hip-hop star .
Not qualifying for the ballot in various states will hurt his ability to play spoiler for Biden but it won ’ t destroy it completely .
Remember how tight things were in 2016 , says Tim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a factor if Biden leads by nine on Election Day but he might be if Biden leads by four .
And I think we ’ re much more likely to see a margin like four points a week before the election than we are a margin like nine .
I hope he starts pushing himself as a write-in candidate just because I ’ m curious to see how intense the Democratic freakout about it might get , especially after we get a poll or two on a three-way race between Biden , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start attacking Kanye to dissuade him ?
Would he start doing political talk shows to try to promote his half-candidacy ?
In a normal year the odds of West following through on this and actually affecting who the next president is would be 1,000 to one , but in 2020 they can ’ t be worse than … an 85 percent probability , I ’ m guessing .
Maybe more like 90 since he has an album coming out and he ’ ll be on people ’ s minds .

I’m about 50/50 on whether this is something he tweeted out in a burst of exuberance while celebrating on July 4th, with zero intention of seeing it through, or if it’s a clever ploy by Trump borne of desperation to try to bleed votes from the base of young adults that Biden’s counting on. “Hello, Kanye? It’s Donald. Listen, I need a favor…”
We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future. I am running for president of the United States 🇺🇸! #2020VISION — ye (@kanyewest) July 5, 2020
There’s a potential PR angle here since he has an album coming out soon, but Kanye’s not the Dixie Chicks. (Pardon me, I mean “The Chicks.”) He doesn’t need to manufacture political buzz to move sales. And as Karen pointed out yesterday, he’s chattered about running for president off and on for years. Clearly there’s genuine interest there.
Which remains surprising, as West isn’t a vocal advocate for any particular slate of policies. He’s pals with Trump, enough so to have worn a red MAGA hat during a meeting with the president in the Oval Office, but if he’s out there pushing a Trumpist agenda I’ve missed it. His most memorable political pronouncements recently have had to do with pushing back on critics who’ve attacked him for not conforming to the political expectations of a major black artist by embracing Trump. (If he follows through on running for president and begins cutting into Biden’s lead, the heat he took before from the left for his MAGA-friendliness will be a picnic compared to what’s in store.) His wife described him as essentially apolitical in an interview two years ago, which is how he strikes me too:
It’s unclear where Kanye West stands on the political spectrum – for a time, the singer was one of the few high-profile Trump supporters in the entertainment industry, but was never able to articulate why; it seemed to be an aesthetic choice, based on personality rather than policy. At least, that was the explanation offered by Kim Kardashian West, in a 2018 interview with Van Jones, who acknowledged the rapper is, “not political, actually.” “He just happens to like Donald Trump’s personality but doesn’t know about the politics,” she continued. “He will always say he was friendly with (Trump) before, and he’s the same person and friendly with him now … I know it’s very confusing because when you see someone wearing a red hat, you would think that they are supporting that, but he’s just fighting for free thought and the freedom to like a person, even if it’s not the popular decision.”
West’s “political” pronouncements tend to boil down to “we need more understanding of others” and “we need less conformity of thought,” both of which are very welcome sentiments in America 2020 but not really the stuff of presidential campaigns. What would his policies be? CNN notes that he said in an interview a few years ago that they’d be a combination of “the Trump campaign and maybe the Bernie Sanders principles. That would be my mix.” So, uh … protectionism, I guess? “When I talk about the idea of being president, I’m not saying I have any political views. I just have a view on humanity, on people, on the truth,” he told the BBC in 2016.
What he really wants to lead is some sort of new-age religious movement, I think, and he’s channeling that impulse into politics because he’s been conditioned to do so by America’s cult of the presidency. Add that to the fact that a lesser celebrity than Kanye himself was able to win four years ago and naturally West’s desire to spearhead some sort of social change would point him towards the White House.
Lay aside the question of “Will he run?” and look to the question of “Can he run?” “The filing deadline for independent candidates to appear on the November general election ballot has already passed in Alabama, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina and Texas,” Newsweek notes, adding that the deadlines in Colorado, Florida and Michigan are approaching later this month. You can’t just register to be on the ballot either; you need thousands of signatures on a petition to qualify, and collecting signatures in that volume is an organizational undertaking. West has the money to make it happen but the task will be further complicated by the fact that fewer people will be out and about on the streets in a state hit hard by the coronavirus like Florida. If he wants to be on the ballot, he needs to start moving right away. There’s no evidence that he’s doing so.
And even if he did: Haven’t we seen this movie before?
The "Don't dismiss Kanye West because POLITICS IS CRAZY NOW!" people are pretty much the same people who were like "Don't dismiss Marianne Williamson because POLITICS IS CRAZY NOW!" — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 5, 2020
Eh, I don’t know about that. Williamson is quite famous in her own right, if not “Kanye famous,” but Williamson’s constituency in the primaries was never clear. She ran on a left-wing policy platform against two of the most formidable leftist politicians in the country in Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. She was never going to out-socialist them. If she was going to make a mark, it would have been with some ill-defined cohort of left-leaning new agers crying out for less chatter in American politics about tax rates and foreign policy and more chatter about “dark psychic forces.” Who was that cohort? Democratic “wine moms”?
Silver’s right that critics, me included, are inclined to not write off anyone anymore after The Miracle of 2016 but the potential appeal of Williamson’s pitch was much less obvious than West’s. His hook is straightforward: He’s a protest vote for young adults who aren’t thrilled with Biden and might be willing to back an outside-the-box candidate if the right one came along, like, say, the world’s most famous hip-hop star. Not qualifying for the ballot in various states will hurt his ability to play spoiler for Biden but it won’t destroy it completely. Remember how tight things were in 2016, says Tim Alberta:
Another data set: Clinton margin of victory in NH: 2,736 votes
Total # of write-in votes in NH: 12,029 — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) July 5, 2020
No idea whether Kanye sustains this stunt for 4 months. No idea whether 2020 is another nail-biter election w/ tiny margins in key swing states. But to dismiss the potential impact of one of the world's most famous people telling voters he's a candidate for POTUS seems unwise. — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) July 5, 2020
Kanye won’t be a factor if Biden leads by nine on Election Day but he might be if Biden leads by four. And I think we’re much more likely to see a margin like four points a week before the election than we are a margin like nine.
I hope he starts pushing himself as a write-in candidate just because I’m curious to see how intense the Democratic freakout about it might get, especially after we get a poll or two on a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and West. Would other celebrities start attacking Kanye to dissuade him? Would he start doing political talk shows to try to promote his half-candidacy? In a normal year the odds of West following through on this and actually affecting who the next president is would be 1,000 to one, but in 2020 they can’t be worse than … an 85 percent probability, I’m guessing. Maybe more like 90 since he has an album coming out and he’ll be on people’s minds.


hotair--2020-07-06--NYC education council meeting erupts with accusations of racism (Update)

A New York City education council was having a zoom meeting last week but the meeting broke down into shouted accusations of racism .
One member of the council named Robin Broshi , who is the group ’ s past president , was shouting at another man named Benjamin Morden .
It ’ s clear from the conversation that she ’ s accused Morden of racism before and he is sick of it .
In the midst of this , she accuses another council member named Thomas Wrocklage , who is also on the call , of racism .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was seen on a previous zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap .
Morden : During our last meeting you were talking about someone ’ s friend on someone ’ s lap when there were actual kids who were saying there are racist acts in your school !
Sad !
You are sad !
But today you want to talk about… Broshi : Ben !
…It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don ’ t know the context !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cry !
It makes people log out of our meeting !
They don ’ t come here !
They don ’ t come to our meetings !
And they give me a hard time because I ’ m not vocal enough !
And I ’ m not trying to be a martyr !
I ’ m trying to illustrate to you that you think I ’ m a f**k–excuse me–you think I ’ m a social justice warrior !
And you think I ’ m being patronizing and I ’ m getting pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
And I take that to heart and that hurts me !
And I have to learn to be a better white person !
Wrocklage : I would like to know before this meeting adjourns how having my friend ’ s nephew on my lap was hurtful to people and was racist .
Can you please explain ?
Broshi : Tom !
I ’ ve explained it to you !
You can Google–you can read a book !
Read [ inaudible ] !
Read White Fragility !
Read How to Talk to White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job to educate you !
You ’ re an educated white man !
You could read a book and you could learn about it yourself !
At this point another woman chimes in claiming Wrocklage ’ s intent was to make a joke about segregation .
According to Emily Hellstrom , Wrocklage had a “ smirk ” on his face when he put the child on his lap .
Then he said something about his living room being integrated which Hellstrom took as dismissive of slavery and Jim Crow or something .
Wrocklage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism calling it “ slander.
” After another intervention by a moderator another member of the council says he doesn ’ t get what the fuss is about and didn ’ t see anything racist or offensive in Wrocklage ’ s behavior .
The real sin here , and it is a serious sin for members of this cult , is Wrocklage ’ s light-hearted tone and comment which implied that he thought he wasn ’ t racist because he had black friends over .
That ’ s a sin because the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world is that everyone is racist all the time .
By accusing Wrocklage or racism , Hellstrom and Broshi are trying to re-establish the framework for their worldview , i.e .
that everyone is guilty .
By not acknowledging or agreeing to those allegations , Wrocklage is effectively doubling down .
He is rejecting their most fundamental assumption about people to their faces .
That ’ s why they are so angry and why they want him to read a book to correct his mind .
They may not be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DiAngelo ’ s White Fragility , aka this cult ’ s holy scripture , would set him on the true path .
I ’ m starting this in the middle of a long clip .
You don ’ t need to watch 45 minutes of this .
Just watch about 3-4 minutes and I have one more clip below .
After this blew up , Wrocklage was interviewed by Benjamin Boyce about some of the backstory to this .
Asked to explain his approach to race , Wrocklage said , “ People can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a book.
” He adds that you do that by treating people as people and not as representatives of a race .
Update : Here ’ s a link to the full 4-hour council meeting in which Wrocklage had the child on his lap ( a couple of times ) .
Having seen it , the idea that this offended people enough to claim it was racist seems truly nuts to me but I guess that ’ s where some people are .

A New York City education council was having a zoom meeting last week but the meeting broke down into shouted accusations of racism. One member of the council named Robin Broshi, who is the group’s past president, was shouting at another man named Benjamin Morden. It’s clear from the conversation that she’s accused Morden of racism before and he is sick of it. In the midst of this, she accuses another council member named Thomas Wrocklage, who is also on the call, of racism. His crime? Wrocklage, who is white, was seen on a previous zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap.
Morden: During our last meeting you were talking about someone’s friend on someone’s lap when there were actual kids who were saying there are racist acts in your school! Sad! You are sad! But today you want to talk about… Broshi: Ben!…It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don’t know the context! That is harmful! It makes people cry! It makes people log out of our meeting! They don’t come here! They don’t come to our meetings! And they give me a hard time because I’m not vocal enough! And I’m not trying to be a martyr! I’m trying to illustrate to you that you think I’m a f**k–excuse me–you think I’m a social justice warrior! And you think I’m being patronizing and I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate! And I take that to heart and that hurts me! And I have to learn to be a better white person! Wrocklage: I would like to know before this meeting adjourns how having my friend’s nephew on my lap was hurtful to people and was racist. Can you please explain? Broshi: Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google–you can read a book! Read [inaudible]! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People! It’s not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! You could read a book and you could learn about it yourself!
At this point another woman chimes in claiming Wrocklage’s intent was to make a joke about segregation. According to Emily Hellstrom, Wrocklage had a “smirk” on his face when he put the child on his lap. Then he said something about his living room being integrated which Hellstrom took as dismissive of slavery and Jim Crow or something.
Wrocklage responds to Hellstrom’s accusations of racism calling it “slander.” After another intervention by a moderator another member of the council says he doesn’t get what the fuss is about and didn’t see anything racist or offensive in Wrocklage’s behavior.
The real sin here, and it is a serious sin for members of this cult, is Wrocklage’s light-hearted tone and comment which implied that he thought he wasn’t racist because he had black friends over. That’s a sin because the first rule of DiAngelo’s view of the world is that everyone is racist all the time. By accusing Wrocklage or racism, Hellstrom and Broshi are trying to re-establish the framework for their worldview, i.e. that everyone is guilty. By not acknowledging or agreeing to those allegations, Wrocklage is effectively doubling down. He is rejecting their most fundamental assumption about people to their faces. That’s why they are so angry and why they want him to read a book to correct his mind. They may not be able to explain or convince him but surely Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, aka this cult’s holy scripture, would set him on the true path.
I’m starting this in the middle of a long clip. You don’t need to watch 45 minutes of this. Just watch about 3-4 minutes and I have one more clip below.
After this blew up, Wrocklage was interviewed by Benjamin Boyce about some of the backstory to this. Asked to explain his approach to race, Wrocklage said, “People can get along with each other without reading a book.” He adds that you do that by treating people as people and not as representatives of a race.
Update: Here’s a link to the full 4-hour council meeting in which Wrocklage had the child on his lap (a couple of times). Having seen it, the idea that this offended people enough to claim it was racist seems truly nuts to me but I guess that’s where some people are.


hotair--2020-07-06--Unanimous SCOTUS to Electoral College: Keep the faith -- or else

Today ’ s unanimous decision on so-called “ faithless electors ” is less surprising than some might think .
The Supreme Court earlier had settled the argument over whether states could require electors to follow the popular vote in presidential elections .
Today , they ruled that punishing electors for refusing to comply passes constitutional muster as well : States can require members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for the presidential candidates they had pledged to support , the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday .
In curbing the independence of electors , the court limited one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election .
That ’ s actually not quite what was at stake in today ’ s decision on Chiafalo et al v Washington , at least not technically .
Nearly seventy years ago , the Supreme Court held in Ray v Blair that states could require pledges from electors to vote in accordance with the popular votes within their states , ruling that electors were under the jurisdiction of states and not the federal government .
Ray didn ’ t address whether states could impose penalties on electors for faithlessness , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chiafalo .
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority and makes reference to Ray at the very beginning of her governing opinion .
This decision simply closes the loop from 1952 : Three Washington electors , Peter Chiafalo , Levi Guerra , and Esther John ( the Electors ) , violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election .
In response , the State fined the Electors $ 1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had .
The Electors challenged their fines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please .
The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim , and the State Supreme Court affirmed , relying on Ray v. Blair , 343 U. S. 214 .
In Ray , this Court upheld a pledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up .
Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution ’ s text and our Nation ’ s history , id.
, at 225–230 ; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A State may enforce an elector ’ s pledge to support his party ’ s nominee—and the state voters ’ choice—for President .
Pp .
8–18 .
Interestingly , Kagan takes a textual approach to the question .
Counsel for the electors argued that the intent of the founders was to allow the Electoral College the discretion needed to choose the best candidate for president .
Perhaps , Kagan wrote , but if that ’ s what they wanted , they should have written it into the constitution : Nothing in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential electors ’ voting discretion as Washington does .
Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors , and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors ’ voting procedures .
And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion , no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution .
Contrary to the Electors ’ argument , Article II ’ s use of the term “ electors ” and the Twelfth Amendment ’ s requirement that the electors “ vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ by ballot , ” do not establish that electors must have discretion .
The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors ’ votes to reflect their own judgments .
But even assuming that outlook was widely shared , it would not be enough .
Whether by choice or accident , the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors ’ discretion to the printed page .
True enough !
Now … let ’ s do abortion and its “ emanations ” and “ penumbras.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revisit Roe based on this same explanation , no ?
Kagan also points out that the decision in Ray showed that Electoral College practice was reliability rather than discretion , even in the earliest days .
The only open question was that of punishment for faithlessness .
Can states impose punishment for actions taken in the federal environs of the Electoral College ?
A power to appoint and to proscribe necessarily carries an authority to enforce , Kagan wrote : The Electors ’ constitutional claim has neither text nor history on its side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give States broad power over electors , and give electors themselves no rights .
Early in our history , States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others , whether legislatures or citizens .
Except that legislatures no longer play a role , that practice has continued for more than 200 years .
Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws , designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others .
A State follows in the same tradition if , like Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for breaching his promise .
Then too , the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens .
That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here , We the People rule .
Interestingly , Justice Clarence Thomas dissents from this reasoning , even if he supports the final outcome : To understand the Court ’ s error , a brief summary of its theory is necessary .
According to the Court , Article II , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appoint ” Presidential electors “ in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” Ante , at 9 .
That “ power to appoint an elector , ” the Court states , “ includes power to condition his appointment.
” Ibid .
The power to condition appointment in turn allows the State to insist that an “ elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party ’ s presidential nominee.
” Ante , at 9–10 .
And finally , “ the State ’ s appointment power .
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ante , at 10 .
The Court ’ s theory is entirely premised on the State exercising a power to appoint .
… But not all States attempt to bind electors ’ votes through the appointment process .
Some States simply impose a legal duty that has no connection to elector appointment .
See ante , at 5 .
For example , New Mexico imposes a legal duty on its electors : “ All presidential electors shall cast their ballots in the electoral college for the candidates of the political party which nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stat .
Ann .
§1–15–9 ( A ) ( Supp .
2011 ) .
And “ [ a ] ny presidential elector who casts his ballot in violation of [ this duty ] is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
” §1–15–9 ( B ) .
California has a similar system .
It first imposes a legal duty on electors to vote for the nominated candidates of the political party they represent if those candidates are alive .
Cal .
Elec .
Code Ann .
§6906 ( West 2019 ) .
It then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] very person charged with the performance of any duty under any law of this state relating to elections , who willfully neglects or refuses to perform it.
” §18002.3 These laws penalize electors for their faithless votes .
But they do not attempt to regulate the votes of electors through the appointment process .
In fact , these laws have nothing to do with elector appointment .
… In short , the Constitution does not speak to States ’ power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidates chosen by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ground such a power in Article II ’ s text falls short .
Rather than contort the language of both Article II and the state statute , I would acknowledge that the Constitution simply says nothing about the States ’ power in this regard .
Rather , Thomas writes ( with Justice Neil Gorsuch ’ s concurrence ) , the answer to the conundrum lies with the Constitution itself .
Nothing within it forbids punishing faithless electors , and that ’ s where the matter should have ended in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power .
Thus , to invalidate a state law , there must be “ something in the Federal Constitution that deprives the [ States of ] the power to enact such [ a ] measur [ e ] .
” U. S. Term Limits , 514 U. S. , at 850 ( THOMAS , J. , dissenting ) .
As the Court recognizes , nothing in the Constitution prevents States from requiring Presidential electors to vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petitioners ask us to infer a constitutional right to elector independence by interpreting the terms “ appoint , ” “ Electors , ” “ vote , ” and “ by Ballot ” to align with the Framers ’ expectations of discretion in elector voting .
But the Framers ’ expectations aid our interpretive inquiry only to the extent that they provide evidence of the original public meaning of the Constitution .
They can not be used to change that meaning .
As the Court explains , the plain meaning of the terms relied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ connote independent choice.
” Ante , at 11 .
Thus , “ the original expectation [ s ] ” of the Framers as to elector discretion provide “ no reason for holding that the power confided to the States by the Constitution has ceased to exist.
” McPherson , 146 U. S. , at 36 ; see also ante , at 12– 13 .
This should have been an easy call , in other words , but the court made it harder than necessary .
Perhaps this is why this opinion didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the term ; one might have expected a unanimous outcome to get issued ahead of the final couple of days .
Finally , there ’ s some reason to forgive any coverage that misses the technical distinction of today ’ s decision in light of Ray v Blair .
The faithless elector question might have been settled in 1952 , but without punishment , electors continued to try it .
In practice , at least , the Supreme Court failed then to fully settle the issue .
Now that states can apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect much less of it in the future .

Today’s unanimous decision on so-called “faithless electors” is less surprising than some might think. The Supreme Court earlier had settled the argument over whether states could require electors to follow the popular vote in presidential elections. Today, they ruled that punishing electors for refusing to comply passes constitutional muster as well:
States can require members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for the presidential candidates they had pledged to support, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday. In curbing the independence of electors, the court limited one potential source of uncertainty in the 2020 presidential election.
That’s actually not quite what was at stake in today’s decision on Chiafalo et al v Washington, at least not technically. Nearly seventy years ago, the Supreme Court held in Ray v Blair that states could require pledges from electors to vote in accordance with the popular votes within their states, ruling that electors were under the jurisdiction of states and not the federal government. Ray didn’t address whether states could impose penalties on electors for faithlessness, however, which is the issue at hand in Chiafalo.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority and makes reference to Ray at the very beginning of her governing opinion. This decision simply closes the loop from 1952:
Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. In response, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had. The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214. In Ray, this Court upheld a pledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up. Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions. Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. Pp. 8–18.
Interestingly, Kagan takes a textual approach to the question. Counsel for the electors argued that the intent of the founders was to allow the Electoral College the discretion needed to choose the best candidate for president. Perhaps, Kagan wrote, but if that’s what they wanted, they should have written it into the constitution:
Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting procedures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution. Contrary to the Electors’ argument, Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirement that the electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” do not establish that electors must have discretion. The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. But even assuming that outlook was widely shared, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page.
True enough! Now … let’s do abortion and its “emanations” and “penumbras.” This seems like a great opportunity to revisit Roe based on this same explanation, no?
Kagan also points out that the decision in Ray showed that Electoral College practice was reliability rather than discretion, even in the earliest days. The only open question was that of punishment for faithlessness. Can states impose punishment for actions taken in the federal environs of the Electoral College? A power to appoint and to proscribe necessarily carries an authority to enforce, Kagan wrote:
The Electors’ constitutional claim has neither text nor history on its side. Article II and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens. Except that legislatures no longer play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 years. Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others. A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution—as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.
Interestingly, Justice Clarence Thomas dissents from this reasoning, even if he supports the final outcome:
To understand the Court’s error, a brief summary of its theory is necessary. According to the Court, Article II, §1, grants States “the power to appoint” Presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Ante, at 9. That “power to appoint an elector,” the Court states, “includes power to condition his appointment.” Ibid. The power to condition appointment in turn allows the State to insist that an “elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee.” Ante, at 9–10. And finally, “the State’s appointment power . . . enables the enforcement of a pledge.” Ante, at 10. The Court’s theory is entirely premised on the State exercising a power to appoint. … But not all States attempt to bind electors’ votes through the appointment process. Some States simply impose a legal duty that has no connection to elector appointment. See ante, at 5. For example, New Mexico imposes a legal duty on its electors: “All presidential electors shall cast their ballots in the electoral college for the candidates of the political party which nominated them as presidential electors.” N. M. Stat. Ann. §1–15–9(A) (Supp. 2011). And “[a]ny presidential elector who casts his ballot in violation of [this duty] is guilty of a fourth degree felony.” §1–15–9(B). California has a similar system. It first imposes a legal duty on electors to vote for the nominated candidates of the political party they represent if those candidates are alive. Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §6906 (West 2019). It then imposes a punishment on “[e]very person charged with the performance of any duty under any law of this state relating to elections, who willfully neglects or refuses to perform it.” §18002.3 These laws penalize electors for their faithless votes. But they do not attempt to regulate the votes of electors through the appointment process. In fact, these laws have nothing to do with elector appointment. … In short, the Constitution does not speak to States’ power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidates chosen by the people. The Court’s attempt to ground such a power in Article II’s text falls short. Rather than contort the language of both Article II and the state statute, I would acknowledge that the Constitution simply says nothing about the States’ power in this regard.
Rather, Thomas writes (with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence), the answer to the conundrum lies with the Constitution itself. Nothing within it forbids punishing faithless electors, and that’s where the matter should have ended in the first place:
That is, powers related to electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power. Thus, to invalidate a state law, there must be “something in the Federal Constitution that deprives the [States of] the power to enact such [a] measur[e].” U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 850 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As the Court recognizes, nothing in the Constitution prevents States from requiring Presidential electors to vote for the candidate chosen by the people. Petitioners ask us to infer a constitutional right to elector independence by interpreting the terms “appoint,” “Electors,” “vote,” and “by Ballot” to align with the Framers’ expectations of discretion in elector voting. But the Framers’ expectations aid our interpretive inquiry only to the extent that they provide evidence of the original public meaning of the Constitution. They cannot be used to change that meaning. As the Court explains, the plain meaning of the terms relied on by petitioners do not appear to “connote independent choice.” Ante, at 11. Thus, “the original expectation[s]” of the Framers as to elector discretion provide “no reason for holding that the power confided to the States by the Constitution has ceased to exist.” McPherson, 146 U. S., at 36; see also ante, at 12– 13.
This should have been an easy call, in other words, but the court made it harder than necessary. Perhaps this is why this opinion didn’t get issued until the end of the term; one might have expected a unanimous outcome to get issued ahead of the final couple of days.
Finally, there’s some reason to forgive any coverage that misses the technical distinction of today’s decision in light of Ray v Blair. The faithless elector question might have been settled in 1952, but without punishment, electors continued to try it. In practice, at least, the Supreme Court failed then to fully settle the issue. Now that states can apply disincentives to faithlessness, we can likely expect much less of it in the future.


hotair--2020-07-06--Newest target for statue vandals: Frederick Douglass?

In which the country ’ s most celebrated African-American abolitionist gets canceled for some reason .
Place your bets now .
Is this… 1. a particularly egregious example of wokesters not knowing or not caring enough about their history for it to deter them from smashing a very worthy idol ?
2. reprisal vandalism by someone who ’ s angry at seeing statues of white Founding Fathers ( and Confederate generals ) vandalized by wokesters ?
3. some sort of prank gone wrong by drunk college kids with a really , really bad sense of timing ?
The statue was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s famous speech , “ What To The Slave Is The Fourth Of July , ” which smells like a planned attack .
But instead of smashing it where it stood or toppling it with ropes , the vandals moved the statue 50 feet away from its base , depositing it on the other side of a chain-link fence .
Why do that ?
Were they trying to steal it and gave up halfway through ?
That part doesn ’ t seem so planned .
“ This is all that is left at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we put so much work and thought and love and care into , ” said Carvin Eison , Project director , re-energize the legacy of Frederick Douglass , Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commemoration… Leaders involved in the monuments creation believe that current national focus on race could have played a role in this .
“ What comes of this ?
Is this some type of retaliation because of the national fever over confederate monuments right now ?
Very disappointing its beyond disappointing , ” said [ Eison ] .
There were reports circulating this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Eison says the damage is too extensive and that it ’ ll need to be replaced .
Interestingly , there was no graffiti on or around the statue , as is usually the case when a woke mob descends on a monument .
I ’ ve seen no reports either of a crowd congregating near the statue beforehand .
This appears to be a much smaller job than the vandalism across the country of the past month .
Don ’ t rule out the third theory up top .
Two years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and carted it off .
There were conflicting reports at the time about their motive : A replacement statue of Frederick Douglass was installed Thursday after two college students are accused of ripping the former statue from its base at Alexander and Tracy streets in Rochester last weekend… Cell phone video shows the two men carrying the statue down the street after removing it early Sunday morning .
A witness told News 8 the men were yelling racial slurs .
However , Boedicker denied that , saying it was a drunken mistake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college imbeciles have randomly targeted a statue of one of America ’ s greatest black statesmen on the anniversary of his most famous speech amid a wave of monument vandalism nationally … as a prank ?
It ’ d be quite a coinkydink .
But as I say , the fact that the statue was moved rather than smashed does make it appear that the vandals were trying to make off with it .
What ’ s that about ?

In which the country’s most celebrated African-American abolitionist gets canceled for some reason. Place your bets now. Is this…
1. a particularly egregious example of wokesters not knowing or not caring enough about their history for it to deter them from smashing a very worthy idol?
2. reprisal vandalism by someone who’s angry at seeing statues of white Founding Fathers (and Confederate generals) vandalized by wokesters?
3. some sort of prank gone wrong by drunk college kids with a really, really bad sense of timing?
POTUS’s bet is placed:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1280112728850513922
The statue was targeted on the anniversary of Douglass’s famous speech, “What To The Slave Is The Fourth Of July,” which smells like a planned attack. But instead of smashing it where it stood or toppling it with ropes, the vandals moved the statue 50 feet away from its base, depositing it on the other side of a chain-link fence. Why do that? Were they trying to steal it and gave up halfway through? That part doesn’t seem so planned.
A disgrace either way:
“This is all that is left at this particularly moment of a monument that we put so much work and thought and love and care into,” said Carvin Eison, Project director, re-energize the legacy of Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commemoration… Leaders involved in the monuments creation believe that current national focus on race could have played a role in this. “What comes of this? Is this some type of retaliation because of the national fever over confederate monuments right now? Very disappointing its beyond disappointing,” said [Eison].
There were reports circulating this morning that the statue is being repaired but Eison says the damage is too extensive and that it’ll need to be replaced. Interestingly, there was no graffiti on or around the statue, as is usually the case when a woke mob descends on a monument. I’ve seen no reports either of a crowd congregating near the statue beforehand. This appears to be a much smaller job than the vandalism across the country of the past month.
Don’t rule out the third theory up top. Two years ago, some college students pulled the statue down and carted it off. There were conflicting reports at the time about their motive:
A replacement statue of Frederick Douglass was installed Thursday after two college students are accused of ripping the former statue from its base at Alexander and Tracy streets in Rochester last weekend… Cell phone video shows the two men carrying the statue down the street after removing it early Sunday morning. A witness told News 8 the men were yelling racial slurs. However, Boedicker denied that, saying it was a drunken mistake, not racially motivated.
Could drunk college imbeciles have randomly targeted a statue of one of America’s greatest black statesmen on the anniversary of his most famous speech amid a wave of monument vandalism nationally … as a prank? It’d be quite a coinkydink. But as I say, the fact that the statue was moved rather than smashed does make it appear that the vandals were trying to make off with it. What’s that about?


hotair--2020-07-06--Ohio town offers to be a sanctuary city... for statues

The move by the city manager of Newton Falls , Ohio is calling for his town to become a sanctuary city .
No , not a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants , but one for statues that are no longer welcome in other cities .
It ’ s an amnesty plan for statues , so to speak .
More accurately , it ’ s a rescue plan for unwanted statues .
Instead of busting them up , as angry mobs across the country are doing , or removing them in a more orderly way , the city of Newton Falls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , Abraham Lincoln , Thomas Jefferson , Ulysses S. Grant , Patrick Henry , Francis Scott Key , Theodore Roosevelt , and Christopher Columbus .
That ’ s a pretty good list of historical figures , right ?
On Saturday , David Lynch , the city manager of Ohio ’ s Newton Falls outlined his proposal in a written proclamation letter .
The letter was published by local news outlets .
Lynch went on to state that while great leaders of our country and Western Civilization have been flawed , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery , establishing and protecting national parks , establishing anti-trust laws , and certainly the discovery of the New World itself .
Lynch pledges to put the statues in a place of honor and respect “ to inspire greatness and achievement by all who observe them.
” “ These statues are history and we love our country , ” he wrote in an email .
“ The thought was that if others don ’ t appreciate our Nation ’ s history , we sure do in Newton Falls .
We love this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great opportunity to teach our children.
” The mayor also said the city “ would love to have the opportunity ” to display the statues for future visitors .
That is a refreshing take from a mayor during these times of civic unrest .
I am not the only person who is frustrated by the lack of leadership in cities across the country where destroying public property , like monuments , is allowed to happen without consequences .
Granted , most of these places are governed by Democrats with jaded senses of history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is encouraging to see alternatives being offered .
I call it the Howard Zinn generation – the students who have been affected by socialist historian and author Howard Zinn .
His anti-American book , “ A People ’ s History of the United States ” , was placed on syllabuses in schools across the country in the 2000s , including the high school AP History class of my own son .
Yes , I went full ‘ Karen ’ at the time but my complaints about that choice of the book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening now has nothing to do with the death of George Floyd or police or even racial injustice .
It has to do with the Black Lives Matter movement which is Marxist at its core and sometimes violent .
The movement has a ‘ by any means necessary ’ mentality and that includes angry mobs destroying public property .
A good example of the ignorance on display is the destruction of a statue of Frederick Douglass in upstate New York on Sunday .
Frederick Douglass .
Not only was the statue ripped from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 168th anniversary of his most important speech condemning slavery .
This isn ’ t about racial injustice when a historically important American abolitionist is being erased by an angry , destructive mob .
There is no excuse for that .
Rochester police said that the statue was taken from its base in Maplewood Park and carried about 50 feet to a site near the Genesee River gorge , according to The Associated Press .
The base , lower part of the statue and a finger on its left hand were reportedly damaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a project that brought a Douglas statue to the park in the city , told the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle that another statue would have to take its place because the damage was too significant to repair .
“ It ’ s particularly painful that it happened at this time , ” Eison told the newspaper .
“ It ’ s really sad because here in Rochester the statue of Frederick Douglass has always been a face of good.
” Douglass ’ most famous speech was delivered in Rochester , N.Y .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lives of slaves .
Douglass , who was born a slave in Maryland , delivered one of his most famous speeches on July 5 , 1852 in Rochester .
The speech , “ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July , ” questioned the Fourth of July celebration of freedom and liberty in a nation that enslaved people .
“ What have I , or those I represent , to do with your national independence ?
” he asked while speaking before the Rochester Ladies ’ Anti-Slavery Society .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of natural justice , embodied in that Declaration of Independence , extended to us ?
…What , to the American slave , is your 4th of July ?
“ I answer ; a day that reveals to him , more than all other days in the year , the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.
” If Black Lives Matter and its supporters truly were interested in working towards solutions , Frederick Douglass would not have been touched .
Perhaps the Newton Falls leaders can add his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they are granting amnesty .

The move by the city manager of Newton Falls, Ohio is calling for his town to become a sanctuary city. No, not a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants, but one for statues that are no longer welcome in other cities. It’s an amnesty plan for statues, so to speak.
More accurately, it’s a rescue plan for unwanted statues. Instead of busting them up, as angry mobs across the country are doing, or removing them in a more orderly way, the city of Newton Falls is granting amnesty for statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, Patrick Henry, Francis Scott Key, Theodore Roosevelt, and Christopher Columbus. That’s a pretty good list of historical figures, right?
On Saturday, David Lynch, the city manager of Ohio’s Newton Falls outlined his proposal in a written proclamation letter. The letter was published by local news outlets.
“I, David M Lynch, as City Manager for the City of Newton Falls do hereby proclaim that Newton Falls shall be known as a ‘Statuary Sanctuary City’ welcoming statues rejected by other cities across the United States and also proclaiming a general amnesty for George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, Patrick Henry, Francis Scott Key, Theodore Roosevelt and Christopher Columbus as represented by statues removed all the across the United States,” the letter stated.
Lynch went on to state that while great leaders of our country and Western Civilization have been flawed, it is proper to acknowledge their achievements – ending slavery, establishing and protecting national parks, establishing anti-trust laws, and certainly the discovery of the New World itself. Lynch pledges to put the statues in a place of honor and respect “to inspire greatness and achievement by all who observe them.”
Newton Falls Mayor Kenneth Kline is supporting the plan.
“These statues are history and we love our country,” he wrote in an email. “The thought was that if others don’t appreciate our Nation’s history, we sure do in Newton Falls. We love this country and I believe it would be a great opportunity to teach our children.” The mayor also said the city “would love to have the opportunity” to display the statues for future visitors.
That is a refreshing take from a mayor during these times of civic unrest. I am not the only person who is frustrated by the lack of leadership in cities across the country where destroying public property, like monuments, is allowed to happen without consequences. Granted, most of these places are governed by Democrats with jaded senses of history, but as long as it continues, it is encouraging to see alternatives being offered. I call it the Howard Zinn generation – the students who have been affected by socialist historian and author Howard Zinn. His anti-American book, “A People’s History of the United States”, was placed on syllabuses in schools across the country in the 2000s, including the high school AP History class of my own son. Yes, I went full ‘Karen’ at the time but my complaints about that choice of the book were ignored.
The destruction of statues happening now has nothing to do with the death of George Floyd or police or even racial injustice. It has to do with the Black Lives Matter movement which is Marxist at its core and sometimes violent. The movement has a ‘by any means necessary’ mentality and that includes angry mobs destroying public property. A good example of the ignorance on display is the destruction of a statue of Frederick Douglass in upstate New York on Sunday. Frederick Douglass. Not only was the statue ripped from its base, but Sunday was also the 168th anniversary of his most important speech condemning slavery. This isn’t about racial injustice when a historically important American abolitionist is being erased by an angry, destructive mob. There is no excuse for that.
Rochester police said that the statue was taken from its base in Maplewood Park and carried about 50 feet to a site near the Genesee River gorge, according to The Associated Press. The base, lower part of the statue and a finger on its left hand were reportedly damaged. Carvin Eison, a leader of a project that brought a Douglas statue to the park in the city, told the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle that another statue would have to take its place because the damage was too significant to repair. “It’s particularly painful that it happened at this time,” Eison told the newspaper. “It’s really sad because here in Rochester the statue of Frederick Douglass has always been a face of good.”
A Frederick Douglas statue in Maplewood Park was removed from its base overnight. pic.twitter.com/J43hqxuHTT — Atyia Collins (@Atyia_Collins) July 5, 2020
Douglass’ most famous speech was delivered in Rochester, N.Y. He addressed national independence as it related to the lives of slaves.
Douglass, who was born a slave in Maryland, delivered one of his most famous speeches on July 5, 1852 in Rochester. The speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” questioned the Fourth of July celebration of freedom and liberty in a nation that enslaved people. “What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence?” he asked while speaking before the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. “Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?…What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? “I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”
If Black Lives Matter and its supporters truly were interested in working towards solutions, Frederick Douglass would not have been touched. Perhaps the Newton Falls leaders can add his name to the list of statues for which they are granting amnesty.


hotair--2020-07-06--Who needs police? Shootings in New York City continue to climb

While I realize these stories may be getting repetitive , it ’ s not just Chicago that ’ s seeing a prolonged increase in shootings and gun crimes .
After decades of success in tamping down gun violence , New York City is again registering alarming numbers of killings and serious injuries .
Granted , it wasn ’ t quite as bad as the Windy City ( which is rather impressive considering how much bigger New York is ) but Gotham still managed to rack up at least nine murders among more than 40 shootings just on Saturday night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ only days after the Mayor and the City Council passed a measure slashing a billion dollars from the NYPD .
New York City turned into the Wild West as a series of shootings claiming at least 9 lives and wounding 41 others — including a Bronx teenager — erupted amid Fourth of July celebrations .
The shocking wave of violence came as the city was reeling from ongoing anti-police brutality protests , weeks of lockdown orders prompted by the coronavirus outbreak and soaring summer temperatures .
Adding to the chaotic atmosphere , illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night long .
In the first fatal shooting of the night , Jose Cepeda , a young father , was blasted in the chest a little after midnight Sunday in East New York , Brooklyn .
The police unions blamed the Mayor and City Council Speaker Corey Johnson , saying that they owed an explanation to the city ’ s residents for what ’ s been going on .
Johnson clearly didn ’ t see it the same way , saying “ We all want a safe city , and we believe it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
Let ’ s get at the root causes of violence and move away from a model that sees policing as the only answer to every problem we face.
” So the City Council Speaker wants to “ move away from a model that sees policing as the only answer ” to the problem .
Pardon my asking for more details , but what exactly do you see as the “ root cause ” of all these shootings ?
We ’ re talking about endemic gang violence which has traditionally only been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now the gangs can see the divisiveness between City Hall and the police .
Combined with the mayhem surrounding the protests and riots , it ’ s open season for gang warfare .
This isn ’ t some minor glitch in the numbers .
Murders in June were up by more than 23 % compared to last year .
There were 250 people shot in June compared to 97 people during the same period in 2019 .
If you can ’ t see this as a serious signal of something going dreadfully astray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of public safety .
Much like Chicago , New York City has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country .
And also just like Chicago , New York ’ s gangbangers don ’ t tend to worry about things like gun control laws .
But the citizens are living under the regime of a Mayor and a City Council that see “ less policing ” as the answer to their problems .
They ’ ve caved in to the demands of the mob and are now reaping the rewards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gang problem and it ’ s had one virtually since its founding .
In the old days it was the mob .
They ’ re not entirely gone by any means , but they ’ ve been wildly augmented by the street gangs that began taking over in the 70s and 80s .
We have enough experience with their methods of operation to know how they will react to “ less policing.
” And you ’ re seeing it play out in the streets right before your eyes .
But hey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people like Bill de Blasio and Corey Johnson .
You can always cross your fingers and hope that the gangs will eventually run out of ammunition .
Then you can send out some Social Justice Intervention Specialists ( or whatever they ’ re called ) to make everyone do some trust falls and just get along .

While I realize these stories may be getting repetitive, it’s not just Chicago that’s seeing a prolonged increase in shootings and gun crimes. After decades of success in tamping down gun violence, New York City is again registering alarming numbers of killings and serious injuries. Granted, it wasn’t quite as bad as the Windy City (which is rather impressive considering how much bigger New York is) but Gotham still managed to rack up at least nine murders among more than 40 shootings just on Saturday night. And all of this was taking place only days after the Mayor and the City Council passed a measure slashing a billion dollars from the NYPD.
New York City turned into the Wild West as a series of shootings claiming at least 9 lives and wounding 41 others — including a Bronx teenager — erupted amid Fourth of July celebrations. The shocking wave of violence came as the city was reeling from ongoing anti-police brutality protests, weeks of lockdown orders prompted by the coronavirus outbreak and soaring summer temperatures. Adding to the chaotic atmosphere, illegal fireworks exploded throughout the five boroughs all night long. In the first fatal shooting of the night, Jose Cepeda, a young father, was blasted in the chest a little after midnight Sunday in East New York, Brooklyn.
The police unions blamed the Mayor and City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, saying that they owed an explanation to the city’s residents for what’s been going on. Johnson clearly didn’t see it the same way, saying “We all want a safe city, and we believe it can be done while bringing real transformational change. Let’s get at the root causes of violence and move away from a model that sees policing as the only answer to every problem we face.”
So the City Council Speaker wants to “move away from a model that sees policing as the only answer” to the problem. Pardon my asking for more details, but what exactly do you see as the “root cause” of all these shootings? We’re talking about endemic gang violence which has traditionally only been kept in check by strong policing. Now the gangs can see the divisiveness between City Hall and the police. Combined with the mayhem surrounding the protests and riots, it’s open season for gang warfare.
This isn’t some minor glitch in the numbers. Murders in June were up by more than 23% compared to last year. There were 250 people shot in June compared to 97 people during the same period in 2019. If you can’t see this as a serious signal of something going dreadfully astray, you shouldn’t be in charge of public safety.
Much like Chicago, New York City has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. And also just like Chicago, New York’s gangbangers don’t tend to worry about things like gun control laws. But the citizens are living under the regime of a Mayor and a City Council that see “less policing” as the answer to their problems. They’ve caved in to the demands of the mob and are now reaping the rewards of those decisions.
New York has a gang problem and it’s had one virtually since its founding. In the old days it was the mob. They’re not entirely gone by any means, but they’ve been wildly augmented by the street gangs that began taking over in the 70s and 80s. We have enough experience with their methods of operation to know how they will react to “less policing.” And you’re seeing it play out in the streets right before your eyes. But hey, New Yorkers… you just keep on electing people like Bill de Blasio and Corey Johnson. You can always cross your fingers and hope that the gangs will eventually run out of ammunition. Then you can send out some Social Justice Intervention Specialists (or whatever they’re called) to make everyone do some trust falls and just get along.