hotair--2020-06-17--Uncle Ben's is canceled: Now is the right time to "evolve" our brand, says company

Look , just because Uncle Ben looks like Samuel L. Jackson ’ s character in “ Django Unchained ” doesn ’ t mean he is Samuel L. Jackson ’ s character in “ Django Unchained.
” But there are some similarities .
Free tip for all U.S. businesses : If your company uses an African-American mascot that dates from the Jim Crow era or earlier , just go ahead and woke-ify now .
Take the political cover created for you by this morning ’ s news and put it to use .
Don ’ t let Aunt Jemima have died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we know we have a responsibility to take a stand in helping to put an end to racial bias and injustices .
As we listen to the voices of consumers , especially in the Black community , and to the voices of our Associates worldwide , we recognize that now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben ’ s brand , including its visual brand identity , which we will do .
We don ’ t yet know what the exact changes or timing will be , but we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in society .
We stand in solidarity with the Black community , our Associates and our partners in the fight for social justice .
We know to make the systemic change needed , it ’ s going to take a collective effort from all of us – individuals , communities and organizations of all sizes around the world .
New logo idea , hear me out : Uncle Ben with a Kaepernick afro , kneeling with an American flag in the background .
Mars has long been aware that “ Uncle Ben @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shall we say , to the point where they gave him an image makeover around 15 years ago .
The character originally was based on a waiter at the restaurant where the two ( white ) founders of the company came up with the product in the 1940s ; the name “ Uncle Ben ” came from a Texas farmer whose rice was well-regarded at the time .
NBC notes that the term “ Uncle ” was often used by whites during Jim Crow to refer to older blacks so as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ Mister.
” Thus , while Uncle Ben isn ’ t a house slave , he ’ s not a fully dignified character either .
Mars tried to change that in 2007 by refashioning him as the symbolic chairman of the company .
Why , that ’ s not the bowtie of a servant that he ’ s wearing in the logo , it ’ s the bowtie of a business tycoon !
But his Jim Crow origins remained , and having a “ symbolic ” black chairman isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s actually run by whites .
He ’ s never even been given a surname , just plain ol ’ Ben despite his supposed esteemed status .
Django was destined to take him out eventually .
We ’ re all thinking the same thing now : You ’ re next , Butterworth .
But the owner of that brand is way ahead of us .
Conagra Brands , the company which manufactures Mrs. Butterworth ’ s , responded to the calls for change by Wednesday night .
“ The Mrs. Butterworth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is intended to evoke the images of a loving grandmother , ” a Conagra rep told The Post in a statement .
“ We stand in solidarity with our Black and Brown communities and we can see that our packaging may be interpreted in a way that is wholly inconsistent with our values .
We understand that our actions help play an important role in eliminating racial bias and as a result , we have begun a complete brand and packaging review on Mrs. Butterworth ’ s. ” What ’ s wrong with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , apparently the female form for the bottle was based on Butterfly McQueen , who played the slave “ Prissy ” in “ Gone With the Wind.
” ( Which was also canceled recently , then semi-uncanceled . )
I had the vague notion that Mrs. B was designed to look like a “ mammy ” character , but honestly my only mental associations for her are the old ads with the somewhat unnerving animation from my youth ( where , if anything , she sounded too white ) and the much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s about to hump Colonel Sanders .
So maybe a brand reboot here isn ’ t a terrible idea .
Exit question : Are these companies going to find new mascots or are they doing away with mascots altogether ?
If they ’ re sticking with mascots then they ’ re going to need imagery of someone who ’ s African-American ; it ’ s unthinkable that Uncle Ben would be cashiered in a show of wokeness only to be replaced by some white guy .
I wonder if Kaepernick ’ s getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Look, just because Uncle Ben looks like Samuel L. Jackson’s character in “Django Unchained” doesn’t mean he is Samuel L. Jackson’s character in “Django Unchained.”
But there are some similarities.
Free tip for all U.S. businesses: If your company uses an African-American mascot that dates from the Jim Crow era or earlier, just go ahead and woke-ify now. Take the political cover created for you by this morning’s news and put it to use.
Don’t let Aunt Jemima have died in vain.
As a global brand, we know we have a responsibility to take a stand in helping to put an end to racial bias and injustices. As we listen to the voices of consumers, especially in the Black community, and to the voices of our Associates worldwide, we recognize that now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben’s brand, including its visual brand identity, which we will do. We don’t yet know what the exact changes or timing will be, but we are evaluating all possibilities. Racism has no place in society. We stand in solidarity with the Black community, our Associates and our partners in the fight for social justice. We know to make the systemic change needed, it’s going to take a collective effort from all of us – individuals, communities and organizations of all sizes around the world.
New logo idea, hear me out: Uncle Ben with a Kaepernick afro, kneeling with an American flag in the background.
Mars has long been aware that “Uncle Ben” isn’t a progressive mascot, shall we say, to the point where they gave him an image makeover around 15 years ago. The character originally was based on a waiter at the restaurant where the two (white) founders of the company came up with the product in the 1940s; the name “Uncle Ben” came from a Texas farmer whose rice was well-regarded at the time. NBC notes that the term “Uncle” was often used by whites during Jim Crow to refer to older blacks so as to deny them the respect of addressing them as “Mister.” Thus, while Uncle Ben isn’t a house slave, he’s not a fully dignified character either.
Mars tried to change that in 2007 by refashioning him as the symbolic chairman of the company. Why, that’s not the bowtie of a servant that he’s wearing in the logo, it’s the bowtie of a business tycoon! But his Jim Crow origins remained, and having a “symbolic” black chairman isn’t a great look for a company that’s actually run by whites. He’s never even been given a surname, just plain ol’ Ben despite his supposed esteemed status.
Django was destined to take him out eventually.
We’re all thinking the same thing now: You’re next, Butterworth. But the owner of that brand is way ahead of us.
Conagra Brands, the company which manufactures Mrs. Butterworth’s, responded to the calls for change by Wednesday night. “The Mrs. Butterworth’s brand, including its syrup packaging, is intended to evoke the images of a loving grandmother,” a Conagra rep told The Post in a statement. “We stand in solidarity with our Black and Brown communities and we can see that our packaging may be interpreted in a way that is wholly inconsistent with our values. We understand that our actions help play an important role in eliminating racial bias and as a result, we have begun a complete brand and packaging review on Mrs. Butterworth’s.”
What’s wrong with Mrs. Butterworth? you say. Well, apparently the female form for the bottle was based on Butterfly McQueen, who played the slave “Prissy” in “Gone With the Wind.” (Which was also canceled recently, then semi-uncanceled.) I had the vague notion that Mrs. B was designed to look like a “mammy” character, but honestly my only mental associations for her are the old ads with the somewhat unnerving animation from my youth (where, if anything, she sounded too white) and the much more recent KFC crossover ad where she’s about to hump Colonel Sanders.
So maybe a brand reboot here isn’t a terrible idea.
Exit question: Are these companies going to find new mascots or are they doing away with mascots altogether? If they’re sticking with mascots then they’re going to need imagery of someone who’s African-American; it’s unthinkable that Uncle Ben would be cashiered in a show of wokeness only to be replaced by some white guy. I wonder if Kaepernick’s getting any luxe endorsement deals this week.


hotair--2020-06-17--Venezuela's Supreme Court hands control of two opposition parties to pro-Maduro figures

Venezuela is supposed to hold elections sometime this year , though the government of Nicolas Maduro hasn ’ t announced when that will happen .
In advance of any voting the country ’ s Supreme Court , which is packed with Maduro loyalists , has removed the leadership of two opposition parties and replaced them with Maduro allies .
The move against the party , First Justice , came days after Mr. Maduro ’ s regime took away control of Democratic Action , one of South America ’ s oldest and largest political parties , and named a new electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board is supposed to oversee parliamentary elections that Mr. Maduro has said he wants to hold before the end of the year .
“ What ’ s clear is that Maduro , with these actions , is doing away with whatever image we had remaining of Venezuela as a democracy , even as it was during the 20 years of Chavismo , ” said Dimitris Pantoulas , a Caracas-based consultant and analyst , referring to the leftist movement that Mr. Maduro inherited from his predecessor , the late Hugo Chávez .
By handpicking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointing a new electoral monitor , Mr. Maduro is redrawing the country ’ s electoral map ahead of congressional elections to give himself leverage and ensure victory .
Control of First Justice was given to José Brito , while longtime Democratic Action chair Henry Ramos Allup was replaced by José Bernabé Gutiérrez .
Both Messrs. Brito and Gutiérrez had abandoned the opposition and joined the regime .
As mentioned , this follows the Supreme Court ’ s decision to create a new electoral board also packed with Maduro loyalists .
Venezuela ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maduro loyalists , named the council last week .
Opposition leader Juan Guaido called the electoral body “ false ” and said the opposition would not recognize it .
Venezuela ’ s constitution grants the power to appoint electoral council members to the National Assembly , which Guaido leads , but the Supreme Court ruled that the legislature had failed to do so .
It is not hard to discern what is going on here .
Despite no longer being the person recognized as president by dozens of countries around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media and the Supreme Court .
The only opposition he faces comes from the National Assembly .
Their terms are set to expire by the end of 2020 so Maduro is planning to run a fraudulent election in which his handpicked allies and the newly stocked electoral board will proclaim that his United Socialist Party of Venezuela has won a resounding victory .
In fact , Maduro has already predicted the outcome in advance of any voting .
The National Assembly is the only branch of government Maduro doesn ’ t control .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said .
“ People of Venezuela , the hour is drawing near , the day is drawing near , the moment is drawing near , ” Maduro said .
“ With the popular vote we are going to remove them from the National Assembly .
We are going to take them out.
” Finally , though this isn ’ t directly related to the electoral situation , there ’ s an update on the “ Citgo 6 ” a group of U.S. oil executives detained in Venezuela since 2017 when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Maduro .
As I wrote back in February , the Citgo 6 were rounded by Venezuelan intelligence officers a few hours after Juan Guaido met with President Trump at the White House .
They have remained imprisoned inside a notorious prison located at the headquarters of the intelligence service ever since .
Yesterday CNN reported their families were pleading for their release as the coronavirus spreads inside the prison .
As the virus threatens Venezuela ’ s collapsing medical system and reports have emerged of cases within the prison facility where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their loved ones are in “ mortal danger.
” … On Friday , US Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Roger Carstens revealed that two of the men “ now have flu symptoms on top of other health issues.
” “ It ’ s time for Mr. Maduro to let them go for humanitarian reasons , as he has with other at-risk prisoners .
These men need to be back at home with their families in the United States – before their condition deteriorates further , ” Carstens wrote on Twitter .
Carlos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jorge Toledo , was one of the men experiencing flu symptoms .
He described him as “ sick and in a lot of pain ” and “ still not allowed to get proper medical treatment.
” “ They don ’ t have running water and just ration water brought to them every week and loaded into a water tank in their cell .
Hygiene is a huge issue , ” Añez said .
“ They ’ re infested with roaches and rats .
My stepdad is covered from head to toe in scabies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks ago and sustained an injury to his neck and back.
” Is Maduro going to let these American citizens go without treatment and possibly die ?
At the moment it looks that way .
Here ’ s an Al Jazeera report on the appointment of the new Maduro-friendly electoral board by the Maduro-friendly Supreme Court .

Venezuela is supposed to hold elections sometime this year, though the government of Nicolas Maduro hasn’t announced when that will happen. In advance of any voting the country’s Supreme Court, which is packed with Maduro loyalists, has removed the leadership of two opposition parties and replaced them with Maduro allies.
The move against the party, First Justice, came days after Mr. Maduro’s regime took away control of Democratic Action, one of South America’s oldest and largest political parties, and named a new electoral board stacked with government allies. The board is supposed to oversee parliamentary elections that Mr. Maduro has said he wants to hold before the end of the year. “What’s clear is that Maduro, with these actions, is doing away with whatever image we had remaining of Venezuela as a democracy, even as it was during the 20 years of Chavismo,” said Dimitris Pantoulas, a Caracas-based consultant and analyst, referring to the leftist movement that Mr. Maduro inherited from his predecessor, the late Hugo Chávez. By handpicking the leaders of opposition political parties and appointing a new electoral monitor, Mr. Maduro is redrawing the country’s electoral map ahead of congressional elections to give himself leverage and ensure victory. Control of First Justice was given to José Brito, while longtime Democratic Action chair Henry Ramos Allup was replaced by José Bernabé Gutiérrez. Both Messrs. Brito and Gutiérrez had abandoned the opposition and joined the regime.
As mentioned, this follows the Supreme Court’s decision to create a new electoral board also packed with Maduro loyalists.
Venezuela’s Supreme Court, which is dominated by Maduro loyalists, named the council last week. Opposition leader Juan Guaido called the electoral body “false” and said the opposition would not recognize it. Venezuela’s constitution grants the power to appoint electoral council members to the National Assembly, which Guaido leads, but the Supreme Court ruled that the legislature had failed to do so.
It is not hard to discern what is going on here. Despite no longer being the person recognized as president by dozens of countries around the world, Maduro controls the executive branch, the media and the Supreme Court. The only opposition he faces comes from the National Assembly. Their terms are set to expire by the end of 2020 so Maduro is planning to run a fraudulent election in which his handpicked allies and the newly stocked electoral board will proclaim that his United Socialist Party of Venezuela has won a resounding victory. In fact, Maduro has already predicted the outcome in advance of any voting.
The National Assembly is the only branch of government Maduro doesn’t control. That will change with the next election, he said. “People of Venezuela, the hour is drawing near, the day is drawing near, the moment is drawing near,” Maduro said. “With the popular vote we are going to remove them from the National Assembly. We are going to take them out.”
Finally, though this isn’t directly related to the electoral situation, there’s an update on the “Citgo 6” a group of U.S. oil executives detained in Venezuela since 2017 when they were arrested and denounced as traitors by President Maduro. As I wrote back in February, the Citgo 6 were rounded by Venezuelan intelligence officers a few hours after Juan Guaido met with President Trump at the White House. They have remained imprisoned inside a notorious prison located at the headquarters of the intelligence service ever since. Yesterday CNN reported their families were pleading for their release as the coronavirus spreads inside the prison.
As the virus threatens Venezuela’s collapsing medical system and reports have emerged of cases within the prison facility where the men are held, family members say their loved ones are in “mortal danger.”… On Friday, US Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Roger Carstens revealed that two of the men “now have flu symptoms on top of other health issues.” “It’s time for Mr. Maduro to let them go for humanitarian reasons, as he has with other at-risk prisoners. These men need to be back at home with their families in the United States – before their condition deteriorates further,” Carstens wrote on Twitter. Carlos Añez told CNN that his stepfather, Jorge Toledo, was one of the men experiencing flu symptoms. He described him as “sick and in a lot of pain” and “still not allowed to get proper medical treatment.” “They don’t have running water and just ration water brought to them every week and loaded into a water tank in their cell. Hygiene is a huge issue,” Añez said. “They’re infested with roaches and rats. My stepdad is covered from head to toe in scabies, he fell off his bunk almost two weeks ago and sustained an injury to his neck and back.”
Is Maduro going to let these American citizens go without treatment and possibly die? At the moment it looks that way.
Here’s an Al Jazeera report on the appointment of the new Maduro-friendly electoral board by the Maduro-friendly Supreme Court.


hotair--2020-06-17--Hard pass: Governor Abbott says no to mayors who want to impose fines about masks

It is the battle that won ’ t end .
To mask or not to mask , that is the question .
Most of us have made up our minds about if we will or will not wear a mask in public .
Leave it to the politicians to beat a dead horse .
The arguments on how or how not to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus have gone by the wayside in the aftermath of George Floyd ’ s death .
After the mass protests in the streets since his death , it is impossible to not notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facial masks is discussed .
Public officials across the country were quick to voice support for protesters and many didn ’ t even bother to condemn the violence and property destruction that resulted during many protests .
So , you can ’ t blame those who do not choose to wear a mask in public after protesters march side by side in large groups and many are not wearing a mask but are given a free pass .
This is especially true for those who live in places that are not experiencing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Should a person out and about in Montana be as diligent about wearing a face mask as a person on a New York City subway ?
I think common sense tells us that the answer to that question is no .
Governor Abbott is serious about re-opening Texas .
Many businesses are in Phase Three of the state ’ s re-opening plan .
As the state continues to ease restrictions of occupancy in business establishments like dine-in restaurants and bars , Texas is seeing an increase of new COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big city mayors sounding the alarm – they want to mandate facial masks and have the power to fine people if they don ’ t wear them .
Currently , the governor ’ s executive orders have essentially made mitigation mandates put into place by city and county officials toothless .
No fines or jail time is allowed to enforce the local mandates .
The first case of COVID-19 in Texas was recorded on March 12 .
Since then there have been 93,206 confirmed coronavirus cases and 2,020 deaths in Texas , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas is 29 million , so , while all deaths from the coronavirus are tragic , I ’ d say Texans have done a pretty darn good job of mitigating the coronavirus outbreak .
Tuesday the governor addressed concerns about a rise in cases and hospitalizations over the last few days .
Municipal leaders are calling for stricter safety requirements .
He said that Texans can continue to work together to keep each other safe .
“ As we begin to open up Texas and Texans return to their jobs , we remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Abbott , a Republican .
“ The best way to contain the spread of this virus is by all Texans working together and following simple safety precautions.
” On Tuesday , the Department of State Health Services reported just over 2,500 COVID-19 patients in Texas hospitals , the highest single-day total since the pandemic began and nearly 67 percent more than on Memorial Day in late May .
State and local leaders have pointed to the holiday weekend as one likely cause for the increase .
The increase in hospitalizations is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far the availability of beds has kept pace with needs .
There is a concern that new patients are younger and healthier than initial groups of patients .
Is this a result of mass gatherings at protests ?
If so , doctors and nurses may want to look in the mirror and reflect on their public support and participation in those protests , all in the name of social justice activism .
Statewide , there are still thousands of hospital beds and ventilators available .
But in some of the largest cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dallas , the surge is pushing new limits .
In Harris County , some hospitals said late last week that their intensive care units were near or above capacity .
Bill McKeon , CEO of the Texas Medical Center , said the group ’ s number of COVID-19 patients has nearly doubled from its previous peak in late April .
Many of the patients admitted now are younger and generally healthier , but are still susceptible to serious illness or death from the disease .
Tuesday the mayors of the nine largest cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abbott asking for more power to enforce local mandates .
Have you noticed the strong streak of authoritarianism that has emerged in local officials during the pandemic ?
Even in Texas , it has proven so .
Of course , most of the large cities are governed by Democrats .
They are bucking the governor ’ s executive orders that leave enforcement of their local efforts toothless .
Specifically , they request “ authority to set rules and regulations ” when it comes to face masks in public .
The governor continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance , as well as avoid large gatherings .
He made it clear that he is not inclined to allow local officials to be empowered to jail those not abiding by instructions .
There are other ways for them to handle mitigation .
The governor is right .
People have to make their own decisions and face the consequences .
Police departments across the state have publicly stated that they have no intention of enforcing mandates for facial masks .
They have enough on their plates without having to stop and arrest or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mask in public .

It is the battle that won’t end. To mask or not to mask, that is the question. Most of us have made up our minds about if we will or will not wear a mask in public. Leave it to the politicians to beat a dead horse.
The arguments on how or how not to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus have gone by the wayside in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. After the mass protests in the streets since his death, it is impossible to not notice the hypocrisy in how the issue of facial masks is discussed. Public officials across the country were quick to voice support for protesters and many didn’t even bother to condemn the violence and property destruction that resulted during many protests. So, you can’t blame those who do not choose to wear a mask in public after protesters march side by side in large groups and many are not wearing a mask but are given a free pass. This is especially true for those who live in places that are not experiencing a public health crisis due to the coronavirus. Should a person out and about in Montana be as diligent about wearing a face mask as a person on a New York City subway? I think common sense tells us that the answer to that question is no.
Governor Abbott is serious about re-opening Texas. Many businesses are in Phase Three of the state’s re-opening plan. As the state continues to ease restrictions of occupancy in business establishments like dine-in restaurants and bars, Texas is seeing an increase of new COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. The increase in hospitalizations has the big city mayors sounding the alarm – they want to mandate facial masks and have the power to fine people if they don’t wear them. Currently, the governor’s executive orders have essentially made mitigation mandates put into place by city and county officials toothless. No fines or jail time is allowed to enforce the local mandates.
The first case of COVID-19 in Texas was recorded on March 12. Since then there have been 93,206 confirmed coronavirus cases and 2,020 deaths in Texas, as of this morning. The population of Texas is 29 million, so, while all deaths from the coronavirus are tragic, I’d say Texans have done a pretty darn good job of mitigating the coronavirus outbreak.
Tuesday the governor addressed concerns about a rise in cases and hospitalizations over the last few days. Municipal leaders are calling for stricter safety requirements. He said that Texans can continue to work together to keep each other safe.
“As we begin to open up Texas and Texans return to their jobs, we remain laser-focused on maintaining abundant hospital capacity,” said Abbott, a Republican. “The best way to contain the spread of this virus is by all Texans working together and following simple safety precautions.” On Tuesday, the Department of State Health Services reported just over 2,500 COVID-19 patients in Texas hospitals, the highest single-day total since the pandemic began and nearly 67 percent more than on Memorial Day in late May. State and local leaders have pointed to the holiday weekend as one likely cause for the increase.
The increase in hospitalizations is important to keep an eye on but so far the availability of beds has kept pace with needs. There is a concern that new patients are younger and healthier than initial groups of patients. Is this a result of mass gatherings at protests? If so, doctors and nurses may want to look in the mirror and reflect on their public support and participation in those protests, all in the name of social justice activism.
Statewide, there are still thousands of hospital beds and ventilators available. But in some of the largest cities, including San Antonio, Houston and Dallas, the surge is pushing new limits. In Harris County, some hospitals said late last week that their intensive care units were near or above capacity. Bill McKeon, CEO of the Texas Medical Center, said the group’s number of COVID-19 patients has nearly doubled from its previous peak in late April. Many of the patients admitted now are younger and generally healthier, but are still susceptible to serious illness or death from the disease.
Tuesday the mayors of the nine largest cities in Texas wrote a letter to Governor Abbott asking for more power to enforce local mandates. Have you noticed the strong streak of authoritarianism that has emerged in local officials during the pandemic? Even in Texas, it has proven so. Of course, most of the large cities are governed by Democrats. They are bucking the governor’s executive orders that leave enforcement of their local efforts toothless. Specifically, they request “authority to set rules and regulations” when it comes to face masks in public.
The letter is signed by Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg, Austin Mayor Steve Adler, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, El Paso Mayor Dee Margo, Arlington Mayor Jeff Williams, Plano Mayor Harry LaRosiliere and Grand Prairie Mayor Ron Jensen. The letter asks Abbott to consider allowing each city’s local officials to decide whether to require the use of face coverings in order to prevent the spread of the virus. “We think you would agree that a healthy economy starts with healthy people,” the letter states. “If you do not have plans to mandate face coverings statewide, we ask that you restore the ability for local authorities to enforce the wearing of face coverings in public venues where physical distancing cannot be practiced.”
The governor continues to ask Texans to wear masks and social distance, as well as avoid large gatherings. He made it clear that he is not inclined to allow local officials to be empowered to jail those not abiding by instructions. There are other ways for them to handle mitigation.
“I make clear on a daily basis around the entire state of Texas that wearing a mask is very important, and local officials send that message,” he said. “Putting people in jail, however, is the wrong approach for this thing.” He said local officials wanting to slow the spread of the virus have other tools at their disposal. For example, while they can’t impose fines related to masks, they can fine businesses or individuals for violating rules on gatherings, he said.
The governor is right. People have to make their own decisions and face the consequences. Police departments across the state have publicly stated that they have no intention of enforcing mandates for facial masks. They have enough on their plates without having to stop and arrest or fine people for a failure to wear a mask in public.


hotair--2020-06-17--Bolton book: Trump encouraged China to build concentration camps, said journalists should be execute

Bolton book: Trump encouraged China to build concentration camps, said journalists should be executed

I sense we ’ re about to hear anti-Trumpers screech in unison : “ WHY DIDN ’ T BOLTON TESTIFY TO ALL OF THIS IN NOVEMBER WHEN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT TEAM ASKED HIM TO ?
” Not me , though .
Nothing would have changed if Bolton had testified .
The Senate ’ s acquittal would have been even more embarrassing than it was , sure .
But no one would have voted differently .
Public opinion wouldn ’ t have moved much , if at all .
This is who Trump is .
There are many things that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s book published this afternoon at the NYT and WaPo , and about the longer excerpt on Trump and China from his book published at the WSJ , but none of it is surprising .
I ’ ll quote a few bits but there ’ s no way to reprint all the newsworthy details here while remaining within the bounds of fair use .
Read all three pieces , starting with the WSJ excerpt .
There , Bolton describes how Trump ’ s pursuit of a trade deal with Beijing was motivated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his other foreign-policy moves , which is simply getting reelected in 2020 .
“ Trump commingled the personal and the national not just on trade questions but across the whole field of national security , ” writes Bolton in an observation highly germane to the money-for-Biden-dirt quid pro quo that ended up getting Trump impeached .
“ I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn ’ t driven by reelection calculations.
” With respect to China , that meant trying to undo some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ d launched , especially the economic consequences to plains states as Chinese demand for U.S. agricultural products dried up .
According to Bolton , Trump was frank with Xi Jinping about the political consequences of that to him personally : Trump naturally sought to woo Xi in other ways in order to make the trade deal happen , which he thought would boost the economy , which he in turn thought would ensure his reelection .
In one case , says Bolton , that involved reversing penalties on the Chinese firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervene to ensure that Huawei wasn ’ t prosecuted even though the behavior of both firms implicates U.S. national security .
( “ These and innumerable other similar conversations with Trump formed a pattern of fundamentally unacceptable behavior that eroded the very legitimacy of the presidency.
” ) Sometimes Trump ’ s courtship of China involved symbolic gestures , like declining to mark the anniversary of Tiananmen Square or signaling privately that he wouldn ’ t defend Taiwan if conflict with China erupted .
But here ’ s the passage that ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Can he prove that Trump said that ?
No .
Is it believable that the president might say ?
Oh , sure .
But the things Trump says and the things his administration does aren ’ t always the same .
Russia ’ s a good example .
Despite his interest in detente with Putin and the disgusting display at their joint press conference in Helsinki , he did in fact end up sending military aid to Russia ’ s enemies in Ukraine under pressure from his aides .
Same with China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have blacklisted multiple Chinese companies for human-rights violations against Uighurs in Xinjiang , whatever Trump may think of them personally .
Whether the president supported that move or just didn ’ t care enough to resist it is unknown , but this strange duality between words and deeds has been a recurring theme of his presidency .
When you pair a nationalist isolationist president with a fondness for dictators with a Republican bureaucracy composed mainly of hawks , neoconservatives , and internationalists , weird policy contradictions can result .
Look no further than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most oustpoken hawks in the GOP , as his NSA .
Here ’ s Marco Rubio reminding us of the disjunction in a statement released this afternoon , no doubt in response to the Bolton excerpt : Maybe all sides can settle on the proposition that what his administration does publicly is more important than what Trump says privately .
Strange policy contradictions can inhabit the person of Trump himself , not just his administration .
WaPo notes in its story that Bolton claims Trump said at one point “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” referring to all U.S. deployments abroad .
But on another occasion he supposedly said “ invading Venezuela would be ‘ cool ’ and that the South American nation was ‘ really part of the United States.
’ ” Bolton describes him as being so prone to being charmed by sleazebags like Putin and Erdogan in phone calls that he had a meeting with Bill Barr about it , with Barr supposedly agreeing that the appearances were worrisome : He also claims that Trump was interested in his summit with Kim Jong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not meaningful diplomatic outreach , and that he somehow got bogged down in the fate of an Elton John “ Rocket Man ” CD which he had autographed for Kim and wanted Mike Pompeo to deliver personally .
( That ’ s my favorite detail from today ’ s stories , with the president reportedly ranting privately about Pearl Harbor after his advisors started talking about our alliance with Japan a close second . )
“ He second-guessed people ’ s motives , saw conspiracies behind rocks , and remained stunningly uninformed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let alone the huge federal government , ” Bolton writes at one point .
The most interesting detail of the Times ’ s account is how much contempt Bolton had for the House ’ s impeachment inquiry , which he thought wasn ’ t nearly searching enough given how many dubious things he had witnessed Trump do while conducting foreign policy .
Why ’ d they stick to Ukraine when they could have explored his conversations with China , Russia , Turkey and so on , Bolton wonders ?
“ The pattern looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life , which we couldn ’ t accept , ” he says of Trump ’ s habit of doing “ favors ” for dictators by trying to get the DOJ and Commerce Department to back off of investigations .
Which actually does make me want to screech , WHY DIDN ’ T BOLTON TESTIFY TO ALL OF THIS IN NOVEMBER WHEN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT TEAM ASKED HIM TO ?
Granted , it wouldn ’ t have changed the outcome of the trial .
But it would have put the Ukraine quid pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made Trump ’ s motives clearer .
Exit question : Were these really “ favors ” he was doing for the likes of Xi and Erdogan or were they “ favors ” in return for other “ favors , ” i.e .
quid pro quos ?
“ Favor ” was the word Trump used when broaching the Burisma matter with Ukraine ’ s president in the transcript of their famous phone call .
What did he get in return for his generosity towards the world ’ s strongmen ?

I sense we’re about to hear anti-Trumpers screech in unison: “WHY DIDN’T BOLTON TESTIFY TO ALL OF THIS IN NOVEMBER WHEN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT TEAM ASKED HIM TO?”
Not me, though. Nothing would have changed if Bolton had testified. The Senate’s acquittal would have been even more embarrassing than it was, sure. But no one would have voted differently. Public opinion wouldn’t have moved much, if at all.
This is who Trump is. There are many things that can be said about the details from Bolton’s book published this afternoon at the NYT and WaPo, and about the longer excerpt on Trump and China from his book published at the WSJ, but none of it is surprising.
I’ll quote a few bits but there’s no way to reprint all the newsworthy details here while remaining within the bounds of fair use. Read all three pieces, starting with the WSJ excerpt. There, Bolton describes how Trump’s pursuit of a trade deal with Beijing was motivated by the same thing as all of his other foreign-policy moves, which is simply getting reelected in 2020. “Trump commingled the personal and the national not just on trade questions but across the whole field of national security,” writes Bolton in an observation highly germane to the money-for-Biden-dirt quid pro quo that ended up getting Trump impeached. “I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my White House tenure that wasn’t driven by reelection calculations.” With respect to China, that meant trying to undo some of the more painful aspects of the trade war he’d launched, especially the economic consequences to plains states as Chinese demand for U.S. agricultural products dried up. According to Bolton, Trump was frank with Xi Jinping about the political consequences of that to him personally:
Trump said approvingly that there was great hostility to China among the Democrats. Trump then, stunningly, turned the conversation to the coming U.S. presidential election, alluding to China’s economic capability and pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome. I would print Trump’s exact words, but the government’s prepublication review process has decided otherwise.
Trump naturally sought to woo Xi in other ways in order to make the trade deal happen, which he thought would boost the economy, which he in turn thought would ensure his reelection. In one case, says Bolton, that involved reversing penalties on the Chinese firm ZTE, in another case offering to intervene to ensure that Huawei wasn’t prosecuted even though the behavior of both firms implicates U.S. national security. (“These and innumerable other similar conversations with Trump formed a pattern of fundamentally unacceptable behavior that eroded the very legitimacy of the presidency.”) Sometimes Trump’s courtship of China involved symbolic gestures, like declining to mark the anniversary of Tiananmen Square or signaling privately that he wouldn’t defend Taiwan if conflict with China erupted.
But here’s the passage that’ll get the most attention from the media:
At the opening dinner of the Osaka G-20 meeting in June 2019, with only interpreters present, Xi had explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang. According to our interpreter, Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do. The National Security Council’s top Asia staffer, Matthew Pottinger, told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China.
Can he prove that Trump said that? No. Is it believable that the president might say? Oh, sure. But the things Trump says and the things his administration does aren’t always the same. Russia’s a good example. Despite his interest in detente with Putin and the disgusting display at their joint press conference in Helsinki, he did in fact end up sending military aid to Russia’s enemies in Ukraine under pressure from his aides. Same with China and its concentration camps: The feds have blacklisted multiple Chinese companies for human-rights violations against Uighurs in Xinjiang, whatever Trump may think of them personally. Whether the president supported that move or just didn’t care enough to resist it is unknown, but this strange duality between words and deeds has been a recurring theme of his presidency. When you pair a nationalist isolationist president with a fondness for dictators with a Republican bureaucracy composed mainly of hawks, neoconservatives, and internationalists, weird policy contradictions can result. Look no further than the fact that Trump chose Bolton, one of the most oustpoken hawks in the GOP, as his NSA.
Here’s Marco Rubio reminding us of the disjunction in a statement released this afternoon, no doubt in response to the Bolton excerpt:
Sounds like Rubio is pretty satisfied with Trump's performance on Uyghur Human Rights, based on this just out statement pic.twitter.com/HIUZBi7y67 — Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) June 17, 2020
Maybe all sides can settle on the proposition that what his administration does publicly is more important than what Trump says privately.
Strange policy contradictions can inhabit the person of Trump himself, not just his administration. WaPo notes in its story that Bolton claims Trump said at one point “I want to get out of everything,” referring to all U.S. deployments abroad. But on another occasion he supposedly said “invading Venezuela would be ‘cool’ and that the South American nation was ‘really part of the United States.’” Bolton describes him as being so prone to being charmed by sleazebags like Putin and Erdogan in phone calls that he had a meeting with Bill Barr about it, with Barr supposedly agreeing that the appearances were worrisome:
In one May 2019 phone call, for example, Russian President Vladimir Putin compared Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, part of what Bolton terms a “brilliant display of Soviet style proganda” to shore up support for Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Putin’s claims, Bolton writes, “largely persuaded Trump.” In May 2018, Bolton says, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan handed Trump a memo claiming innocence for a Turkish firm under investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for violating Iranian sanctions. “Trump then told Erdogan he would take care of things, explaining that the Southern District prosecutors were not his people, but were Obama people, a problem that would be fixed when they were replaced by his people,” Bolton writes.
He also claims that Trump was interested in his summit with Kim Jong Un as a glorified publicity stunt, not meaningful diplomatic outreach, and that he somehow got bogged down in the fate of an Elton John “Rocket Man” CD which he had autographed for Kim and wanted Mike Pompeo to deliver personally. (That’s my favorite detail from today’s stories, with the president reportedly ranting privately about Pearl Harbor after his advisors started talking about our alliance with Japan a close second.) “He second-guessed people’s motives, saw conspiracies behind rocks, and remained stunningly uninformed on how to run the White House, let alone the huge federal government,” Bolton writes at one point.
Which, yeah.
And there’s this:
He also describes a summer 2019 meeting in New Jersey where Trump says journalists should be jailed so they have to divulge their sources: “These people should be executed. They are scumbags,” Trump said, according to Bolton’s account.
The most interesting detail of the Times’s account is how much contempt Bolton had for the House’s impeachment inquiry, which he thought wasn’t nearly searching enough given how many dubious things he had witnessed Trump do while conducting foreign policy. Why’d they stick to Ukraine when they could have explored his conversations with China, Russia, Turkey and so on, Bolton wonders? “The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” he says of Trump’s habit of doing “favors” for dictators by trying to get the DOJ and Commerce Department to back off of investigations. Which actually does make me want to screech, WHY DIDN’T BOLTON TESTIFY TO ALL OF THIS IN NOVEMBER WHEN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT TEAM ASKED HIM TO?
Granted, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the trial. But it would have put the Ukraine quid pro quo into a broader context that would have made Trump’s motives clearer.
Exit question: Were these really “favors” he was doing for the likes of Xi and Erdogan or were they “favors” in return for other “favors,” i.e. quid pro quos? “Favor” was the word Trump used when broaching the Burisma matter with Ukraine’s president in the transcript of their famous phone call. What did he get in return for his generosity towards the world’s strongmen?


hotair--2020-06-17--Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks charged with murder, 2nd officer a witness for the state <span clas

Officer who shot Rayshard Brooks charged with murder, 2nd officer a witness for the state (Update: 2nd officer not a state's witness)

Last Friday night two police officers were called to a Wendy ’ s restaurant because a man later identified as Rayshard Brooks had fallen asleep in his car while in the drive-thru line .
Police engaged with Brooks for more than half an hour and , after administering a sobriety check , decided they would arrest him .
And that ’ s when things suddenly took a terrible turn .
As soon as officers attempted to arrest Brooks , he fought with them .
There was a scuffle on the ground .
Brooks took one officer ’ s taser , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer fired his taser at Brooks and ran after him .
When Brooks turned back and attempted to aim the taser at the officer , Garrett Rolfe , pulled his gun and shot Brooks .
The following day Atlanta ’ s police chief resigned and Rolfe was fired .
Today Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced he had filed 11 charges against Rolfe including murder .
Howard , speaking to reporters Wednesday , said Brooks never displayed any “ aggressive behavior ” toward the officers during the nearly 42-minute exchange with officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide “ timely ” medical attention to Brooks after he was shot and that Rolfe kicked Brooks as he was lying on the ground , “ fighting for his life.
” The second officer at the scene , Devin Brosnan , faces three charges , including aggravated assault for standing or stepping on Brooks ’ shoulder after he was shot , Howard said , adding that Brosnan is willing to become a witness for the state and testify against Rolfe .
WSB-2 in Atlanta has more : “ Even though Mr. Brooks was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident was almost jovial , ” Howard said .
“ For 41 minutes and 17 seconds he followed every instruction , he answered the questions .
Mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds.
” … Howard said his office concluded at time of Brooks ’ death , he did not pose a threat to the officers .
He said Brooks was running away from the officers when Rolfe shot him in the back two times .
“ We have also concluded that Rolfe was aware that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was fired twice , and once it ’ s fired twice it presented no danger to him or to any other persons , ” Howard said .
I raised the question last Saturday about whether or not Brooks really represented a threat to the officers once he was running away .
That said , I don ’ t see what Brooks ’ demeanor during the first 41 minutes of the interaction has to do with it .
Yes it ’ s true he didn ’ t display any aggressive behavior for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was trying to talk his way out of trouble .
But that changed the moment he realized he was going to be arrested .
An attorney for Rolfe has released a statement in response to the decision .
Officer Rolfe determined Mr. Brooks was impaired and driving a vehicle in violation of Georgia law .
Officer Rolfe was polite and courteous to Mr. Brooks during the entire encounter .
Mr. Brooks was polite and cooperative until Officer Rolfe placed him under arrest .
Suddenly , without warning or provocation , Mr. Brooks chose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Officers Brosnan and Rolfe used the least amount of force possible in their attempts to place Mr. Brooks into handcuffs .
They attempted to leverage him to the ground while giving him loud , clear verbal commands .
In response , Mr. Brooks continued actively resisting lawful efforts to arrest him .
He then escalated his resistance by punching Officer Rolfe in the face committing several counts of felony obstruction of an officer .
See O.C.G.A .
§16-10-24 .
In an effort to place Mr. Brooks under arrest and stop his assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice , but it had no effect on Mr. Brooks .
Mr. Brooks continued his assault and disarmed Officer Brosnan , stealing his city-issued TASER committing a robbery , another forcible felony under Georgia law .
See O.C.G.A .
§16-8-40 & O.C.G.A .
§16-10-33 .
Mr. Brooks , then armed , began running through a crowded parking lot .
Mr. Brooks was lawfully under arrest and Officer Rolfe pursued him .
Officer Rolfe had deployed his taser and held it steady in hopes the prongs would catch onto Mr. Brooks body and neutralize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t occur .
“ Instead of merely trying to escape , Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe .
Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him .
Fearing for his safety , and the safety of the civilians around him , Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him – Mr. Brooks ’ back .
DA Howard says that Brooks wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was simply “ grabbed ” by the officer .
That ’ s not accurate .
You can check the body cam video here .
The officer said , “ I think you ’ ve had too much to drink to be driving.
” Then he walked over put one hand on Brooks ’ arm and said , “ Put your hands behind your back for me.
” He repeated that a second time and as the handcuffs came out , that ’ s when Brooks began trying to break away .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement .
Update : An attorney for the 2nd officer , Devin Brosnan , has released a statement outlining his take on the incident .
It concludes by saying he has not agreed to be a state ’ s witness against the other officer : Devin Brosnan first wants to extend his condolences to the family of Rayshard Brooks .
To his parents , his wife , his children , his extended family , his friends .
It is clear that Mr. Brooks was greatly loved by many people .
When Devin initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Brooks had had a long day or possibly had a medical condition .
As he responded to the call he did not , at the time , have any intention of arresting Mr. Brooks .
Devin ’ s only intention was to investigate and get further information about the situation .
During his encounter with Mr. Brooks , Devin treated him with respect , dignity , and concern for Mr. Brooks ’ s safety as well as the safety of the people nearby .
At the beginning of Devin ’ s interaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polite and affable .
Mr. Brooks appeared to be impaired – either from a medical condition or possibly from alcohol .
That is why Devin called for an officer specially trained in roadside evaluation to respond to the scene .
Once the other officer responded – Officer Rolfe – it became Rolfe ’ s investigation .
Devin was there to standby , to observe and assist if necessary .
During Rolfe ’ s investigation it was apparent that Mr. Brooks was impaired ; he was disoriented as to place and had trouble following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos from that evening have been widely circulated .
Devin did not know that Officer Rolfe was going to arrest Mr. Brooks ; Officer Rolfe did not communicate that to Devin verbally or otherwise .
When Devin saw Officer Rolfe bring Mr. Brooks ’ s hands behind his back , Devin followed his training and moved in to assist Officer Rolfe .
At that time , a struggle between Mr. Brooks and the officers started .
During that struggle , Devin pulled out his taser and warned Mr. Brooks to stop resisting or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually deployed his taser .
Instead , Mr. Brooks took his taser from him and Mr. Brooks used it against Devin .
Devin hit his head hard on the asphalt parking lot .
He later received medical treatment and was diagnosed with a concussion at Grady .
Devin also has burns from the taser , and other injuries .
To be clear , at no time did Devin pull out his firearm .
After Mr. Brooks ran away , with Officer Rolfe in pursuit , Devin got up and followed .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limping .
What you can ’ t tell is that he was disoriented from the head injury .
After Mr. Brooks was shot , Devin ran to the location where Mr. Brooks had fallen .
Within a minute – less than a minute – Rolfe runs back to his car to get medical equipment , at the same time another officer arrives on scene .
You can see on the video – at time stamp 23:24:59 – the officers tried to stabilize Mr. Brooks and gave first aid .
Devin did what he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear – Devin is cooperating with the Fulton County District Attorney ’ s investigation .
He met with the assistant district attorney and investigator yesterday and answered their questions .
He turned over his phone .
He is in the process of providing medical records and photographs of his injuries .
He has NOT agreed to be a “ state ’ s witness ” or to testify in any court hearing or to plead guilty to any charge .
The decision to initiate charges by the Fulton County DA ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which should have nothing to do with the proper administration of justice .
This was not a rush to judgment .
This was a rush to misjudgment .
Shame on the District Attorney for this abuse of his charging power .
Shame on the District Attorney for not honoring his oath to uphold the constitution .
Shame on the District Attorney for this rush to misjudgment .

Last Friday night two police officers were called to a Wendy’s restaurant because a man later identified as Rayshard Brooks had fallen asleep in his car while in the drive-thru line. Police engaged with Brooks for more than half an hour and, after administering a sobriety check, decided they would arrest him.
And that’s when things suddenly took a terrible turn. As soon as officers attempted to arrest Brooks, he fought with them. There was a scuffle on the ground. Brooks took one officer’s taser, threw some punches and ran. One officer fired his taser at Brooks and ran after him. When Brooks turned back and attempted to aim the taser at the officer, Garrett Rolfe, pulled his gun and shot Brooks.
The following day Atlanta’s police chief resigned and Rolfe was fired. Today Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced he had filed 11 charges against Rolfe including murder.
Howard, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said Brooks never displayed any “aggressive behavior” toward the officers during the nearly 42-minute exchange with officers. Howard said the officers failed to provide “timely” medical attention to Brooks after he was shot and that Rolfe kicked Brooks as he was lying on the ground, “fighting for his life.” The second officer at the scene, Devin Brosnan, faces three charges, including aggravated assault for standing or stepping on Brooks’ shoulder after he was shot, Howard said, adding that Brosnan is willing to become a witness for the state and testify against Rolfe.
WSB-2 in Atlanta has more:
“Even though Mr. Brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during this incident was almost jovial,” Howard said. “For 41 minutes and 17 seconds he followed every instruction, he answered the questions. Mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds.”… Howard said his office concluded at time of Brooks’ death, he did not pose a threat to the officers. He said Brooks was running away from the officers when Rolfe shot him in the back two times. “We have also concluded that Rolfe was aware that the Taser in Brooks’ possession, it was fired twice, and once it’s fired twice it presented no danger to him or to any other persons,” Howard said.
I raised the question last Saturday about whether or not Brooks really represented a threat to the officers once he was running away. That said, I don’t see what Brooks’ demeanor during the first 41 minutes of the interaction has to do with it. Yes it’s true he didn’t display any aggressive behavior for that time. It appeared to me he was trying to talk his way out of trouble. But that changed the moment he realized he was going to be arrested. An attorney for Rolfe has released a statement in response to the decision.
Officer Rolfe determined Mr. Brooks was impaired and driving a vehicle in violation of Georgia law. Officer Rolfe was polite and courteous to Mr. Brooks during the entire encounter. Mr. Brooks was polite and cooperative until Officer Rolfe placed him under arrest. Suddenly, without warning or provocation, Mr. Brooks chose to violently attack two uniformed police officers. Officers Brosnan and Rolfe used the least amount of force possible in their attempts to place Mr. Brooks into handcuffs. They attempted to leverage him to the ground while giving him loud, clear verbal commands. In response, Mr. Brooks continued actively resisting lawful efforts to arrest him. He then escalated his resistance by punching Officer Rolfe in the face committing several counts of felony obstruction of an officer. See O.C.G.A. §16-10-24. In an effort to place Mr. Brooks under arrest and stop his assault, Officer Rolfe lawfully deployed his TASER twice, but it had no effect on Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks continued his assault and disarmed Officer Brosnan, stealing his city-issued TASER committing a robbery, another forcible felony under Georgia law. See O.C.G.A. §16-8-40 & O.C.G.A. §16-10-33 . Mr. Brooks, then armed, began running through a crowded parking lot. Mr. Brooks was lawfully under arrest and Officer Rolfe pursued him. Officer Rolfe had deployed his taser and held it steady in hopes the prongs would catch onto Mr. Brooks body and neutralize him. Unfortunately, that didn’t occur. “Instead of merely trying to escape, Mr. Brooks reached back with his arm extended and pointed an object at Officer Rolfe. Officer Rolfe heard a sound like a gunshot and saw a flash in front of him. Fearing for his safety, and the safety of the civilians around him, Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon at the only portion of Mr. Brooks that presented to him – Mr. Brooks’ back.
DA Howard says that Brooks wasn’t informed that he was under arrest but was simply “grabbed” by the officer. That’s not accurate. You can check the body cam video here. The officer said, “I think you’ve had too much to drink to be driving.” Then he walked over put one hand on Brooks’ arm and said, “Put your hands behind your back for me.” He repeated that a second time and as the handcuffs came out, that’s when Brooks began trying to break away. Here’s video of the DA’s announcement.
Update: An attorney for the 2nd officer, Devin Brosnan, has released a statement outlining his take on the incident. It concludes by saying he has not agreed to be a state’s witness against the other officer:


hotair--2020-06-17--You can't order police officers to die for your politics

Now that the Senate GOP has begun the process of rolling out their own version of a “ police reform ” bill , predictable partisan fights are already breaking out .
One of the major bones of contention is the idea that the bill would “ discourage ” the use of chokeholds by the cops during confrontations with non-compliant , disruptive or violent suspects .
As with some other provisions , this doesn ’ t go far enough for the liberals and Democrats who are aiming to either defund or abolish the police , but will settle for as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They want the maneuver to be forbidden entirely with punishment meted out to any cops who violate the prohibition .
( Washington Post ) The Senate Republican proposal , expected to be endorsed by a vast majority of the GOP conference , veers away from mandating certain policing practices from the federal level and does not include an explicit ban on chokeholds or certain no-knock warrants — all facets of the Democratic plan .
Instead , it encourages the thousands of local police and law enforcement agencies to curtail those practices by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tactics or do not submit reports related to them .
The legislation also requires local law enforcement agencies to report all officer-involved deaths to the FBI — an effort pushed by Sen. Tim Scott ( R-S.C. ) , who is spearheading the GOP bill , since 2015 — and it encourages broader use of body-worn cameras for officers .
While this certainly shouldn ’ t be mandated from the federal level , we ’ re talking about things that must be handled with extreme care even at the state and local levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grab a pen and paper and legislate how things will play out during a tense encounter between the police and a criminal suspect is laughable .
Or at least it would be laughable if there were anything funny about such a serious subject .
Suggesting that Congress can simply roll out some new rules about a crisis situation where the cops wind up in a physical and potentially deadly confrontation with a subject is magical thinking .
First of all , you ’ re talking about a vanishingly rare event for the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a previous article , but they bear repeating .
In 2017 there were more than ten and a half million arrests made in the United States.That doesn ’ t even take into account the even larger number of police stops and interactions that ended without an arrest .
The vast , vast majority of arrests ended without any notable incidents .
A little over 900 of them ended with the police shooting a suspect and killing them .
( The majority of whom were white , by the way . )
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention this only for perspective .
Coming from a family with more than our fair share of cops , the attitude I detect from some of these Democrats is simply insulting .
Do you honestly think that there are police out there in any measurable numbers who get up in the morning and put on their uniform hoping that they ’ ll get the chance to put someone in a chokehold that day ?
Do you think they ’ re dreaming of the chance to shoot somebody , particularly when the odds are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at them ?
That ’ s the last thing pretty much any officer in the country wants .
They would prefer to see and respond to no crimes and have a peaceful community .
And if they are called on to respond to an incident , they would like it resolved calmly .
They want to go home to their families that night every bit as much as you do .
But sometimes officers encounter a criminal who will never comply with orders and will either flee or get into an altercation with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen from too many witness videos by now ( such as the Rayshard Brooks shooting ) , things can go from boring and normal to violent and potentially deadly in under a second .
Yes , there needs to be plenty of training in how to respond .
And there should be standard practices in place so every officer knows the best way to handle such an incident , ensuring the greatest chance that the episode will be resolved with nobody getting hurt .
But human nature is a funny thing , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work out the way you would like .
There may come a time in any officer ’ s career where their life will be literally on the line with almost no time to respond .
At close quarters , a chokehold may turn out to be the only viable ( and hopefully nonlethal ) option .
At a distance against an armed assailant , they may have to draw and potentially use their firearm .
And they don ’ t need to be worrying about whether they ’ re going to lose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-heeled people in Congress who are cranking out these rules have most likely never seen an episode like the one I described above and would probably pee themselves if they suddenly found themselves in that position .
( My apologies to the combat vets currently serving in the legislative branch . )
Threatening to punish them if they don ’ t conform to your ideas ( or those of your most rabid supporters ) of how they should save their own lives demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on the part of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our police officers .
Probably too much in some cases .
With the exception of a few rotten apples we need to weed out quickly and aggressively , they are all out there on the front lines fighting so you can have a peaceful life under the rule of order and exercise all of your freedoms .
Seeking to exert this sort of granular control over them from on high is offensive .
And if a lot of them start walking off the job after this I certainly couldn ’ t blame @ @

Now that the Senate GOP has begun the process of rolling out their own version of a “police reform” bill, predictable partisan fights are already breaking out. One of the major bones of contention is the idea that the bill would “discourage” the use of chokeholds by the cops during confrontations with non-compliant, disruptive or violent suspects. As with some other provisions, this doesn’t go far enough for the liberals and Democrats who are aiming to either defund or abolish the police, but will settle for as much as they can get in the meantime. They want the maneuver to be forbidden entirely with punishment meted out to any cops who violate the prohibition. (Washington Post)
The Senate Republican proposal, expected to be endorsed by a vast majority of the GOP conference, veers away from mandating certain policing practices from the federal level and does not include an explicit ban on chokeholds or certain no-knock warrants — all facets of the Democratic plan. Instead, it encourages the thousands of local police and law enforcement agencies to curtail those practices by withholding federal funding to departments that allow the tactics or do not submit reports related to them. The legislation also requires local law enforcement agencies to report all officer-involved deaths to the FBI — an effort pushed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who is spearheading the GOP bill, since 2015 — and it encourages broader use of body-worn cameras for officers.
While this certainly shouldn’t be mandated from the federal level, we’re talking about things that must be handled with extreme care even at the state and local levels. The idea that anyone can simply grab a pen and paper and legislate how things will play out during a tense encounter between the police and a criminal suspect is laughable. Or at least it would be laughable if there were anything funny about such a serious subject.
Suggesting that Congress can simply roll out some new rules about a crisis situation where the cops wind up in a physical and potentially deadly confrontation with a subject is magical thinking. First of all, you’re talking about a vanishingly rare event for the most part. I mentioned these statistics in a previous article, but they bear repeating. In 2017 there were more than ten and a half million arrests made in the United States.That doesn’t even take into account the even larger number of police stops and interactions that ended without an arrest. The vast, vast majority of arrests ended without any notable incidents. A little over 900 of them ended with the police shooting a suspect and killing them. (The majority of whom were white, by the way.) That’s a vanishingly small number. I mention this only for perspective.
Coming from a family with more than our fair share of cops, the attitude I detect from some of these Democrats is simply insulting. Do you honestly think that there are police out there in any measurable numbers who get up in the morning and put on their uniform hoping that they’ll get the chance to put someone in a chokehold that day? Do you think they’re dreaming of the chance to shoot somebody, particularly when the odds are that the suspect will be shooting back at them? That’s the last thing pretty much any officer in the country wants. They would prefer to see and respond to no crimes and have a peaceful community. And if they are called on to respond to an incident, they would like it resolved calmly. They want to go home to their families that night every bit as much as you do.
But sometimes officers encounter a criminal who will never comply with orders and will either flee or get into an altercation with the cops. As we’ve seen from too many witness videos by now (such as the Rayshard Brooks shooting), things can go from boring and normal to violent and potentially deadly in under a second. Yes, there needs to be plenty of training in how to respond. And there should be standard practices in place so every officer knows the best way to handle such an incident, ensuring the greatest chance that the episode will be resolved with nobody getting hurt. But human nature is a funny thing, and it’s not always going to work out the way you would like.
There may come a time in any officer’s career where their life will be literally on the line with almost no time to respond. At close quarters, a chokehold may turn out to be the only viable (and hopefully nonlethal) option. At a distance against an armed assailant, they may have to draw and potentially use their firearm. And they don’t need to be worrying about whether they’re going to lose their job over it. Most of the well-heeled people in Congress who are cranking out these rules have most likely never seen an episode like the one I described above and would probably pee themselves if they suddenly found themselves in that position. (My apologies to the combat vets currently serving in the legislative branch.) Threatening to punish them if they don’t conform to your ideas (or those of your most rabid supporters) of how they should save their own lives demonstrates a lack of moral fiber on the part of our elected officials.
We ask a lot of our police officers. Probably too much in some cases. With the exception of a few rotten apples we need to weed out quickly and aggressively, they are all out there on the front lines fighting so you can have a peaceful life under the rule of order and exercise all of your freedoms. Seeking to exert this sort of granular control over them from on high is offensive. And if a lot of them start walking off the job after this I certainly couldn’t blame them.


hotair--2020-06-17--CNN: Imagine there's no police ... but we still have a few "violence workers" on hand

Imagine there ’ s no police ?
We don ’ t need CNN ’ s help for that — we just lived through it in Minneapolis , New York City , and are watching a continuous loop of it in the CHAZ .
When we have no police in areas of any significant population density , the vacuum left behind invites those who feel the least restraint in the use or threat of force to fill it — and destruction follows on its heels .
Nevertheless , CNN invites us to channel our inner John Lennon today to imagine a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most situations , anyway : But , sparked by the death of yet another black man at the hands of police , there ’ s a growing movement to create a police-free America — or at least one that dramatically scales back the role of police .
The movement supports shifting the responsibility to uphold societal order to communities and investing money in them , too .
It ’ s a model of policing , some activists point out , many affluent white Americans already experience .
The hope is that stronger infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement that many in the movement believe unfairly targets black Americans — will reduce crime and deaths at the hands of police .
… Supporters in all three camps support shifting traditional criminal justice away from punishment and imprisonment to one of reform and rehabilitation .
But there ’ s no precedent for a police-free US , or at least a US where the role of police is limited .
Let ’ s stop right there , because this is sheer nonsense .
The role of police in the US is limited , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s limited first by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights , which prevents unreasonable search and seizure and imposes due process on law enforcement everywhere through the Incorporation Doctrine .
Even more specifically , policing has limits in the law and by the governments that oversee them .
To the extent they violate those limits , those governments have a responsibility to deal with those violations .
If they haven ’ t done a good job in doing so , then voters in those jurisdictions have a duty to vote out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with people who will do those jobs properly .
No one needs to imagine this , either ; all they have to do is the slightest bit of research .
Supposedly , eliminating police would return us to a status quo ante of American society where life was more idyllic , before police departments got established in the nineteenth century .
What doesn ’ t get mentioned is that American life was much more rural in those times as well .
Cities weren ’ t nearly as dense as they are now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace , and people lived far enough apart everywhere else to not need much policing at all .
That ’ s still the case in rural America , where elected sheriffs and deputies deal with day-to-day peacekeeping .
As America industrialized , official police forces in areas of increasing population density formed because they were needed .
Why ?
Because people living in high density and close proximity tend to act out a lot more , that ’ s why .
Also , let ’ s not forget that the Western expansion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in light-to-nonexistent policing .
How did that work out — even after the end of slavery , also part of that long-gone alleged idyll ?
Speaking of acting out , one part of this Lennonesque feature includes an interview with Alex Vitale , author of The End of Policing and quite a popular media guest these days .
What happens , Jon Sarlin asks , when clearly dangerous situations arise — like a school shooting , for instance ?
Vitale admits we ’ ll always need some “ violence workers ” around to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not quite the “ end ” of policing after all ( via Jeryl Bier ) : “ Violence workers ” ?
Police are “ violence workers ” only in the same sense that spouses would be “ sex workers.
” Police are not “ violence workers , ” but they do have recourse to limited uses of force to restore peace and enforce the law .
The actual “ violence workers ” took center stage in the Twin Cities due to the lack of police , and the lack of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One might think that we would have learned the difference these past few weeks .
Anyway , this is sheer utopian drivel .
As we see in the CHAZ , the vacuum created by the withdrawal of legitimate law enforcement gets filled with self-appointed enforcers focused primarily on their own interests and agendas .
The more this happens , the more roving bands of enforcers we will see — and the more cases like Ahmaud Arbery along with them , too .

Imagine there’s no police? We don’t need CNN’s help for that — we just lived through it in Minneapolis, New York City, and are watching a continuous loop of it in the CHAZ. When we have no police in areas of any significant population density, the vacuum left behind invites those who feel the least restraint in the use or threat of force to fill it — and destruction follows on its heels.
Nevertheless, CNN invites us to channel our inner John Lennon today to imagine a life without police. Well, in most situations, anyway:
But, sparked by the death of yet another black man at the hands of police, there’s a growing movement to create a police-free America — or at least one that dramatically scales back the role of police. The movement supports shifting the responsibility to uphold societal order to communities and investing money in them, too. It’s a model of policing, some activists point out, many affluent white Americans already experience. The hope is that stronger infrastructure — and the absence of traditional law enforcement that many in the movement believe unfairly targets black Americans — will reduce crime and deaths at the hands of police. … Supporters in all three camps support shifting traditional criminal justice away from punishment and imprisonment to one of reform and rehabilitation. But there’s no precedent for a police-free US, or at least a US where the role of police is limited.
Let’s stop right there, because this is sheer nonsense. The role of police in the US is limited, and always has been limited. It’s limited first by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which prevents unreasonable search and seizure and imposes due process on law enforcement everywhere through the Incorporation Doctrine.
Even more specifically, policing has limits in the law and by the governments that oversee them. To the extent they violate those limits, those governments have a responsibility to deal with those violations. If they haven’t done a good job in doing so, then voters in those jurisdictions have a duty to vote out the irresponsible office holders and replace them with people who will do those jobs properly. No one needs to imagine this, either; all they have to do is the slightest bit of research.
Supposedly, eliminating police would return us to a status quo ante of American society where life was more idyllic, before police departments got established in the nineteenth century. What doesn’t get mentioned is that American life was much more rural in those times as well. Cities weren’t nearly as dense as they are now, and constabularies were sufficient to keep the peace, and people lived far enough apart everywhere else to not need much policing at all. That’s still the case in rural America, where elected sheriffs and deputies deal with day-to-day peacekeeping. As America industrialized, official police forces in areas of increasing population density formed because they were needed. Why? Because people living in high density and close proximity tend to act out a lot more, that’s why.
Also, let’s not forget that the Western expansion in that era turned into its own experiment in light-to-nonexistent policing. How did that work out — even after the end of slavery, also part of that long-gone alleged idyll?
Speaking of acting out, one part of this Lennonesque feature includes an interview with Alex Vitale, author of The End of Policing and quite a popular media guest these days. What happens, Jon Sarlin asks, when clearly dangerous situations arise — like a school shooting, for instance? Vitale admits we’ll always need some “violence workers” around to deal with those, so maybe it’s not quite the “end” of policing after all (via Jeryl Bier):
“Violence workers”? Police are “violence workers” only in the same sense that spouses would be “sex workers.” Police are not “violence workers,” but they do have recourse to limited uses of force to restore peace and enforce the law. The actual “violence workers” took center stage in the Twin Cities due to the lack of police, and the lack of political will to maintain peace and order. One might think that we would have learned the difference these past few weeks.
Anyway, this is sheer utopian drivel. As we see in the CHAZ, the vacuum created by the withdrawal of legitimate law enforcement gets filled with self-appointed enforcers focused primarily on their own interests and agendas. The more this happens, the more roving bands of enforcers we will see — and the more cases like Ahmaud Arbery along with them, too.


hotair--2020-06-17--Near-majority of Americans say military bases named after Confederates shouldn't be renamed

Well , no , probably not given the way things look right now .
But he does have the balance of public opinion on his side on this issue , according to Morning Consult .
Which is timely information given how many Senate Republicans seem poised to embrace Elizabeth Warren ’ s amendment to the defense bill requiring that the bases be renamed within three years .
Pelosi was asked this morning about a related issue , removing Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol , and said , “ Right now the mood in the country is so completely different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of these symbols of bigotry and hatred is much stronger.
” That is … not exactly true , as you ’ re about to see .
I still think there ’ s strategic value to McConnell and his caucus in making a bipartisan show with Democrats on renaming the bases , but these numbers will complicate things for them .
The 33/48 overall split there looks eerily similar to the split Morning Consult got when it asked about removing Confederate statues from public places last week .
In that case it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 ( when it was 26/52 ) but proved that a plurality of the public is inclined to let sleeping dogs lie .
About a third of the country wants to jettison Confederate tributes of various stripes , but no more than that .
So why might Senate Republicans want to get rid of Confederate names on bases anyway ?
Simply because it might purchase a little extra political capital for higher priorities , like police reform .
A show of sensitivity towards the feelings of black Americans ( a majority of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bases ) on a niche issue like this might make it easier to convince skeptical voters that Tim Scott ’ s new police reform bill is offered in good faith , irrespective of its policy deficiencies .
And as I said last night , it would establish a bit of distance between Trump and Senate incumbents on culture-war issues .
The fact that more Americans side with Trump than against him on this particular culture-war issue doesn ’ t spoil that logic : It ’ s only a plurality , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senators at this point to make *any* show of independence from Trump than to pander to plurality sentiment on this issue .
No one ’ s voting this fall based on what the GOP did with respect to renaming military bases , but some anti-Trump centrists may vote based on how slavishly devoted to POTUS they perceive their local Senate Republican to be .
Besides , McConnell and the Senate GOP are stuck with this issue now regardless of what the polling says .
Because the Warren amendment has already been attached to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no chance of getting 60 ( or even 51 ) votes to strip it out , they ’ re going to have to either grit their teeth and pass the bill with the amendment attached or vote the whole thing down and end up blocking funding for the Pentagon , which is dicey politically .
Their best move is to pass it and then try to convince Trump to sign it so that they ’ re not left having to explain why Confederate base names are sufficiently important to the president that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to stick up for them .
As for people ( like me ) who do want the names of the bases changed , they simply have to do better drawing a limiting principle for skeptics for why some monuments depicting racists should stay whereas others should go .
Some of the skepticism about removing Confederate tributes is due to southern cultural pride but I suspect most of it outside the south springs from the understandable fear that lefties who come after Robert E. Lee today will come after George Washington tomorrow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few days ago in Oregon , in fact .
If the left insists on bundling the Founding Fathers together with the Confederate leadership and making racism , including slaveholding , the disqualifying factor in honoring influential Americans of the past then the public will feel it has no choice but to protect that entire bundle .
We ’ re not giving up Washington and Jefferson , period .
But if treason against the United States is the disqualifying factor then the Confederates can be unbundled and discarded .
That said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if we give the left an inch by agreeing to get rid of Lee we ’ re putting them in a position to take a mile by getting rid of Washington later .
If popular opinion in this country ever reaches the point where declaring open season on the Founding Fathers isn ’ t electoral suicide for Democrats then it won ’ t matter what we do or don ’ t do about Lee now .
Precedents will be out the window .
The country will be lost .
All idols will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ ll be Year Zero .
Just as I was finishing this post , a new poll from Quinnipiac dropped containing the following question and answer .
Was Pelosi right after all about the mood having changed ?
When asked about removing Confederate statues , Quinnipiac found Americans in favor , 52/44 .
And when asked about renaming bases named after Confederates… Exit quotation from GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana : “ Sen .
Warren ’ s amendment , in my opinion , picks on the South unfairly.
” Should she @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Alternate headline: “Trump’s getting reelected.”
Well, no, probably not given the way things look right now. But he does have the balance of public opinion on his side on this issue, according to Morning Consult. Which is timely information given how many Senate Republicans seem poised to embrace Elizabeth Warren’s amendment to the defense bill requiring that the bases be renamed within three years.
Pelosi was asked this morning about a related issue, removing Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol, and said, “Right now the mood in the country is so completely different and the desire to rid ourselves of any of these symbols of bigotry and hatred is much stronger.” That is … not exactly true, as you’re about to see. I still think there’s strategic value to McConnell and his caucus in making a bipartisan show with Democrats on renaming the bases, but these numbers will complicate things for them.
The 33/48 overall split there looks eerily similar to the split Morning Consult got when it asked about removing Confederate statues from public places last week. In that case it was 32/44 against, which showed movement from 2017 (when it was 26/52) but proved that a plurality of the public is inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. About a third of the country wants to jettison Confederate tributes of various stripes, but no more than that.
So why might Senate Republicans want to get rid of Confederate names on bases anyway? Simply because it might purchase a little extra political capital for higher priorities, like police reform. A show of sensitivity towards the feelings of black Americans (a majority of whom do want to change the names of the bases) on a niche issue like this might make it easier to convince skeptical voters that Tim Scott’s new police reform bill is offered in good faith, irrespective of its policy deficiencies. And as I said last night, it would establish a bit of distance between Trump and Senate incumbents on culture-war issues. The fact that more Americans side with Trump than against him on this particular culture-war issue doesn’t spoil that logic: It’s only a plurality, and it may be worth more politically to Republican senators at this point to make *any* show of independence from Trump than to pander to plurality sentiment on this issue. No one’s voting this fall based on what the GOP did with respect to renaming military bases, but some anti-Trump centrists may vote based on how slavishly devoted to POTUS they perceive their local Senate Republican to be.
Besides, McConnell and the Senate GOP are stuck with this issue now regardless of what the polling says. Because the Warren amendment has already been attached to the final defense bill and there’s no chance of getting 60 (or even 51) votes to strip it out, they’re going to have to either grit their teeth and pass the bill with the amendment attached or vote the whole thing down and end up blocking funding for the Pentagon, which is dicey politically. Their best move is to pass it and then try to convince Trump to sign it so that they’re not left having to explain why Confederate base names are sufficiently important to the president that he’d veto defense appropriations in order to stick up for them.
As for people (like me) who do want the names of the bases changed, they simply have to do better drawing a limiting principle for skeptics for why some monuments depicting racists should stay whereas others should go. Some of the skepticism about removing Confederate tributes is due to southern cultural pride but I suspect most of it outside the south springs from the understandable fear that lefties who come after Robert E. Lee today will come after George Washington tomorrow. A statue of Thomas Jefferson was toppled just a few days ago in Oregon, in fact. If the left insists on bundling the Founding Fathers together with the Confederate leadership and making racism, including slaveholding, the disqualifying factor in honoring influential Americans of the past then the public will feel it has no choice but to protect that entire bundle. We’re not giving up Washington and Jefferson, period. But if treason against the United States is the disqualifying factor then the Confederates can be unbundled and discarded.
That said, I don’t understand the view that if we give the left an inch by agreeing to get rid of Lee we’re putting them in a position to take a mile by getting rid of Washington later. If popular opinion in this country ever reaches the point where declaring open season on the Founding Fathers isn’t electoral suicide for Democrats then it won’t matter what we do or don’t do about Lee now. Precedents will be out the window. The country will be lost. All idols will be smashed, worthy or not. It’ll be Year Zero.
Just as I was finishing this post, a new poll from Quinnipiac dropped containing the following question and answer. Was Pelosi right after all about the mood having changed? When asked about removing Confederate statues, Quinnipiac found Americans in favor, 52/44. And when asked about renaming bases named after Confederates…
Exit quotation from GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: “Sen. Warren’s amendment, in my opinion, picks on the South unfairly.” Should she have targeted … northern Confederates instead?


hotair--2020-06-17--Things appear to be heading south for the Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson

We ’ ve written about Rick Wilson before .
In case you ’ ve forgotten here ’ s a clip from January that sort of sums up what he ’ s about these days .
Sadly , Wilson is having a very bad week .
It started when he lashed out at Dominos Pizza over an interaction it had with Kayleigh McEnany .
Here ’ s the exchange Wilson dubbed a brand-killer .
Notice the date .
This was nearly 8 years ago .
But his attempt to sic the cancel culture mob on Domino ’ s Pizza backfired .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the hands of a brand account .
And that ’ s when things really stated to go south ( you ’ ll get that pun in a moment ) .
Since Wilson seemed eager to play the ‘ let ’ s cancel people over old tweets ’ game , I guess his social media is fair game .
Apparently the cooler was his son ’ s and was painted by the son ’ s girlfriend , but it clearly didn ’ t seem to bother Rick or his wife in 2014 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Rick is currently a co-founder of the anti-Trump group called The Lincoln Project .
To be clear , I don ’ t think we should be canceling anyone over old tweets or old coolers .
But in Rick Wilson ’ s case the lesson is ‘ play stupid games , win stupid prizes.
’ If you ’ re going to try to drag an entire brand over one 8-year-old tweet ( with no partisan content ) then you deserve this .
Let ’ s close this out with another thread about Wilson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track record of failure and bad predictions is more important this his “ The South Will Rise Again ” cooler .
But despite this track record , the left still loves him because he ’ s saying what they want to hear .

We’ve written about Rick Wilson before. In case you’ve forgotten here’s a clip from January that sort of sums up what he’s about these days.
The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents. If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened. pic.twitter.com/8kQ6zN9AZV — Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) January 28, 2020
Sadly, Wilson is having a very bad week. It started when he lashed out at Dominos Pizza over an interaction it had with Kayleigh McEnany.
Here’s the exchange Wilson dubbed a brand-killer. Notice the date. This was nearly 8 years ago.
@kayleighmcenany That's one heck of a compliment! Thanks for the love! #WEAPPRECIATEIT! — Domino's Pizza (@dominos) November 9, 2012
But his attempt to sic the cancel culture mob on Domino’s Pizza backfired. He wound up looking like a nut at the hands of a brand account.
Welp. It's unfortunate that thanking a customer for a compliment back in 2012 would be viewed as political. Guess that's 2020 for ya. — Domino's Pizza (@dominos) June 16, 2020
And that’s when things really stated to go south (you’ll get that pun in a moment). Since Wilson seemed eager to play the ‘let’s cancel people over old tweets’ game, I guess his social media is fair game.
Hey @TheRickWilson, why did you delete this? pic.twitter.com/DkeyTDiYo9 — Caleb Hull (I'm With the CCP Don't Ban Me) (@CalebJHull) June 16, 2020
Hi @TheRickWilson, not sure if you realize, but your wife posted this on Instagram. May want to delete that one too! pic.twitter.com/ISg1xUVS1u — Caleb Hull (I'm With the CCP Don't Ban Me) (@CalebJHull) June 16, 2020
Well, that’s a little awkward.
Rick Wilson’s wife, Molly, just rage DMed me claiming the photos of their confederate “THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN” cooler is fake. I sent her the instagram link, which is still live, and then nuked her. It all started when he tried to cancel Domino’s. RIP Rick and Molly Wilson pic.twitter.com/2iT3nNtZNT — Caleb Hull (I'm With the CCP Don't Ban Me) (@CalebJHull) June 17, 2020
Apparently the cooler was his son’s and was painted by the son’s girlfriend, but it clearly didn’t seem to bother Rick or his wife in 2014 or 2015. It’s especially cringe-worthy as Rick is currently a co-founder of the anti-Trump group called The Lincoln Project.
To be clear, I don’t think we should be canceling anyone over old tweets or old coolers. But in Rick Wilson’s case the lesson is ‘play stupid games, win stupid prizes.’ If you’re going to try to drag an entire brand over one 8-year-old tweet (with no partisan content) then you deserve this.
Let’s close this out with another thread about Wilson’s history on Twitter:
🧵THREAD🧵 With @TheRickWilson trending, I figured it would be a good time to take a trip down memory lane about his bad takes. You know about his Biden jabs (below) but the wrongs just keep on coming… pic.twitter.com/rdrOtWceKB — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
But of course Trump wasn’t even gonna be the nominee. Right, Rick? pic.twitter.com/CZTOeqMloN — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
But where Rick really shines is the Russian Collusion conspiracy theory. Rick jumped the shark on every single angle imaginable. pic.twitter.com/vOZXlRWbVu — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
Remember the Steele dossier? pic.twitter.com/hJDbCflt18 — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
He was so confident because everyone was gonna flip and totally destroy Trump of course. Here’s an incomplete list, starting with Gen. Flynn. Tough couple weeks for that idea. pic.twitter.com/y7mfBPtmcz — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
Ditto with Roger Stone. That sure hurt Trump, all those secrets. But if Stone wasn’t going to be the nail in the coffin, surely it would be… pic.twitter.com/2uPkGXVAuH — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
The Mercers? When you’re seeing red, there’s a conspiracy everywhere I suppose. pic.twitter.com/Tc4Qaewmqn — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
Rick really went off the rails about Bolton. pic.twitter.com/QGA4mHuPjo — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
Clearly his sources are lacking in his home state of Florida. You may remember that Trump won a landslide there, leading Rubio to end his campaign. pic.twitter.com/TjvjosswoI — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
Oh, and don’t think I was gonna leave @ProjectLincoln out of this. They’re a self-enrichment scam masquerading as a PAC, and Wilson helped found it. Screenshots here from @rpyers pic.twitter.com/ffVSRNDyof — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
And of course, none of this should surprise us coming from a grifter like Wilson. Any follow up on this project there @TheRickWilson? Ever spend those donations? pic.twitter.com/bcVel5TsgY — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
All that is to say that I’m just a man, holding dozens of screenshots, begging any news organization or individual with a shred of dignity to stop taking @TheRickWilson seriously. He hasn’t been right since Y2K. Let this fiasco be the end of his 15 minutes of fame. — Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) June 16, 2020
His track record of failure and bad predictions is more important this his “The South Will Rise Again” cooler. But despite this track record, the left still loves him because he’s saying what they want to hear.