hotair--2020-09-10--Looks like the Pentagon has no intention of sharing UFO information

Some disappointing news on the UFO front came out this week , likely dampening the hopes of many people in the ufology community who have been eagerly looking forward to some sort of forthcoming disclosure from the government on this subject .
As regular readers are already aware , there was considerable excitement in the air this summer following a number of revelations and surprising announcements on the topic of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ( UAPs ) .
First we saw a request from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , led by Marco Rubio , for a public report from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This came as quite a surprise to people , including many in the government , who didn ’ t even know that we had a UAP Task Force .
That was followed by an official announcement of the formation of the task force by the Pentagon .
After that , major newspapers such as the New York Times began digging into the subject , even raising the prospect of the potential disclosure of additional programs that might even include an acknowledgment of a government “ crash retrieval program ” that could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This led journalists in the ufology field to press the Pentagon for additional details .
One such person was investigative journalist Roger Glassel , who contacted Pentagon UAP spokesperson Susan Gough with a number of specific questions about the new task force and its anticipated activities as they proceed to compile existing information on UAP encounters by the military and create channels for the collection of future reports .
I first saw the article teased on Twitter .
The answers Roger received give us the disappointing news I alluded to above .
Ms. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” by the way , as I only learned from her this week ) provided Glassel with answers in a professional fashion , but seemingly doused most hopes for some new era of government transparency on the subject .
Here are two of the key questions that produced bad news .
6 ) Will the public be informed about any findings from the UAPTF of the nature and/or origins of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena ?
Gough : Thorough examinations of any incursion into our training ranges or designated airspace often involves assessments from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate , consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies .
To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to our adversaries , DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace , including those incursions initially designated as UAP .
7 ) If an observer initially characterize an observation as unidentified aerial phenomena , that he or she can not immediately identify , and the observation can not later be explained after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other component , what will such observation be categorized as ?
That once sentence pretty much says it all .
“ To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to our adversaries , DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace , including those incursions initially designated as UAP.
” Note that Gough ’ s answer sticks to the previous Pentagon position that the task force ’ s sole interest is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or possibly even commercial ) airspace that could potentially constitute a threat to national security .
While that ’ s understandable when you consider that we ’ re talking about our military , it also severely limits the scope of what might be examined .
Also , an earlier question from Roger , and Gough ’ s subsequent answer demonstrates that , at least publicly , the Pentagon is sticking to the line that they have no curiosity as to what these things are or where they came from , and are solely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats .
I don ’ t see how the Pentagon could be any more clear about this .
They will take reports about UAP encounters if they might constitute a threat to national security and they promise to do a better job collecting and correlating such reports .
But since the information contained in such reports might convey sensitive information that would be of interest to our “ adversaries ” ( make of that description what you will ) , they won ’ t be releasing any of it for public consumption .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Senate Intelligence Committee goes , I wouldn ’ t get your hopes up there , either .
First of all , the final bill hasn ’ t even been passed yet and we don ’ t know if the UAP language will even make it into the final version based on the House bill .
And even if it does make it all the way through , Congress isn ’ t tying the request ( not “ order ” ) for a public UAP report to any of the Pentagon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligation to comply .
They can simply thank Congress for their input and proceed to ignore them .
Even in a best-case scenario where they do issue some sort of publicly available report as Rubio requested , do the answers I quoted above from the Pentagon give you the sense that they ’ re about to open the bag ?
Sorry… but I don ’ t see it happening .
Let ’ s face it , folks .
If there ’ s going to be any serious disclosure , it won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the civilian government .
It ’ s going to be up to the private sector and organizations such as Tom DeLonge ’ s To The Stars Academy to deliver it .
Beyond that , the most we can probably hope for is either additional whistleblowers like Elizondo coming forward or some deathbed confessions from people involved with these projects over the years .
( Confessions that the Pentagon will no doubt immediately seek to deny or obfuscate . )
On that subject , if you didn ’ t happen to catch season two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Inside America ’ s UFO Investigation ” on the History Channel this summer , definitely check it out .
It will be well worth your while if you have any interest at all in this subject .

Some disappointing news on the UFO front came out this week, likely dampening the hopes of many people in the ufology community who have been eagerly looking forward to some sort of forthcoming disclosure from the government on this subject. As regular readers are already aware, there was considerable excitement in the air this summer following a number of revelations and surprising announcements on the topic of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs). First we saw a request from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Marco Rubio, for a public report from the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force. This came as quite a surprise to people, including many in the government, who didn’t even know that we had a UAP Task Force.
That was followed by an official announcement of the formation of the task force by the Pentagon. After that, major newspapers such as the New York Times began digging into the subject, even raising the prospect of the potential disclosure of additional programs that might even include an acknowledgment of a government “crash retrieval program” that could be in possession of “off-world materials.
This led journalists in the ufology field to press the Pentagon for additional details. One such person was investigative journalist Roger Glassel, who contacted Pentagon UAP spokesperson Susan Gough with a number of specific questions about the new task force and its anticipated activities as they proceed to compile existing information on UAP encounters by the military and create channels for the collection of future reports. I first saw the article teased on Twitter.
UAP (UFO) Task Force: The Pentagon Responds to Questions https://t.co/DDXcxKVERt — UFO Sightings & News (@UFOnetwork_) September 9, 2020
The answers Roger received give us the disappointing news I alluded to above. Ms. Gough (which is pronounced “Goff,” by the way, as I only learned from her this week) provided Glassel with answers in a professional fashion, but seemingly doused most hopes for some new era of government transparency on the subject. Here are two of the key questions that produced bad news.
6) Will the public be informed about any findings from the UAPTF of the nature and/or origins of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? Gough: Thorough examinations of any incursion into our training ranges or designated airspace often involves assessments from across the department, and, as appropriate, consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies. To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP. 7) If an observer initially characterize an observation as unidentified aerial phenomena, that he or she cannot immediately identify, and the observation cannot later be explained after an analysis by the UAPTF, or any other component, what will such observation be categorized as? Gough: Unidentified
That once sentence pretty much says it all. “To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.”
Note that Gough’s answer sticks to the previous Pentagon position that the task force’s sole interest is in any unknown presence in military (or possibly even commercial) airspace that could potentially constitute a threat to national security. While that’s understandable when you consider that we’re talking about our military, it also severely limits the scope of what might be examined. Also, an earlier question from Roger, and Gough’s subsequent answer demonstrates that, at least publicly, the Pentagon is sticking to the line that they have no curiosity as to what these things are or where they came from, and are solely focusing on the aforementioned potential national security threats.
5) Will the newly established UAP Task Force look into other aspects of the nature and origins of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or will the UAPTF just look at the aspect of UAP being a potential threat to U.S. national security? Gough: The Department of Defense established the UAPTF to improve its understanding of, and gain insight into, the nature and origins of UAP incursions into our training ranges and designated airspace. The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalog UAP incursions that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security.
I don’t see how the Pentagon could be any more clear about this. They will take reports about UAP encounters if they might constitute a threat to national security and they promise to do a better job collecting and correlating such reports. But since the information contained in such reports might convey sensitive information that would be of interest to our “adversaries” (make of that description what you will), they won’t be releasing any of it for public consumption.
And as far as that report requested by the Senate Intelligence Committee goes, I wouldn’t get your hopes up there, either. First of all, the final bill hasn’t even been passed yet and we don’t know if the UAP language will even make it into the final version based on the House bill. And even if it does make it all the way through, Congress isn’t tying the request (not “order”) for a public UAP report to any of the Pentagon’s funding so they are under no obligation to comply. They can simply thank Congress for their input and proceed to ignore them. Even in a best-case scenario where they do issue some sort of publicly available report as Rubio requested, do the answers I quoted above from the Pentagon give you the sense that they’re about to open the bag? Sorry… but I don’t see it happening.
Let’s face it, folks. If there’s going to be any serious disclosure, it won’t be coming from our military or even the civilian government. It’s going to be up to the private sector and organizations such as Tom DeLonge’s To The Stars Academy to deliver it. Beyond that, the most we can probably hope for is either additional whistleblowers like Elizondo coming forward or some deathbed confessions from people involved with these projects over the years. (Confessions that the Pentagon will no doubt immediately seek to deny or obfuscate.) On that subject, if you didn’t happen to catch season two of TTSA’s series “Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation” on the History Channel this summer, definitely check it out. It will be well worth your while if you have any interest at all in this subject.


hotair--2020-09-10--Danish submarine murder guy finally admits his guilt

The Discovery Network in Denmark has just released a new documentary covering the story of Danish billionaire Peter Madsen and the grisly murder of Swedish journalist Kim Wall .
This is a story that we covered here regularly while the initial investigation and eventual trial played out .
One of the most offensive and startling aspects of that entire affair was the way that Madsen kept denying that he had actually murdered Wall in a series of continually changing and increasingly implausible stories and “ explanations ” despite the mountain of evidence stacked up against him .
But now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Madsen has supposedly finally confessed to killing her , though the ’ s still refusing to disclose all of the details of the gruesome event .
( NY Post ) A Danish inventor who is serving a life sentence in the murder of a Swedish journalist aboard his homemade submarine has admitted to the crime for the first time in a new documentary , according to reports .
Peter Madsen , 49 , answered “ yes ” during a phone conversation with a reporter who asked him whether he had killed Kim Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on board his 60-foot UC3 Nautilus for an interview , Agence France-Presse reported… “ There is only one who is guilty , and that is me , ” Madsen added in the documentary .
I ’ m hoping that Discovery will release an English language version of the documentary , or at least one with subtitles because I ’ d be very interested in watching it .
Despite all of the evidence that was presented and the eventual verdicts of guilt on multiple charges , so many questions remain about the evil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts .
As you may recall , Kim Wall was a beautiful and talented journalist who was working on a story about Madsen ’ s private space program and his penchant for building his own fully functional submarines .
Madsen invited her to go for a cruise on his 60-foot UC3 Nautilus submarine where they could conduct the interview and take pictures .
After sailing out of port in August of 2017 , Wall was never seen alive ( or even in one piece ) again .
Even though they were the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wall was reported missing , Madsen originally insisted that he had dropped her off on an island at her request and he had no idea what had happened to her .
When pieces of Wall ’ s corpse began washing up in plastic garbage bags , Madsen claimed that she had died when a hatch had accidentally dropped on her head and , in a panic , he had chopped up and disposed of her body .
He would later claim at trial that she had died of asphyxiation inside the sub while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – once the authorities had finally found all of Wall ’ s remains on the ocean floor – made it obvious that none of these bizarre stories were true .
When a search of one of Madsen ’ s computers turned up pornography from the “ snuff film ” category of rape , torture and murder , the story took an even darker turn .
But through all of it , Madsen seemingly continued to believe that his vast wealth and fame would ( or at least should ) shield him from any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious that he was going to be found guilty , his attorneys insisted that he should only receive a sentence of six months in home confinement .
He was eventually handed a sentence of life in prison , which seemed to shock him .
Sadly , a life sentence in Denmark usually only adds up to a total of fifteen or sixteen years at most , even for some of the most horrendous crimes .
Is this admission of guilt for the documentary some sort of recognition on Madsen ’ s part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ?
Is he going through some sort of rehabilitation that will produce a more humane individual ?
I somehow doubt it .
More likely is the idea that this is some sort of contrived public relations ploy to make him appear more rehabilitated when he comes up for parole .
I hope the parole board doesn ’ t fall for it .
This remains one of the most horrific murders to take place in the modern era and it was perpetrated by someone of vast wealth and privilege who had the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve every last second of the sentence he received if only to send a message to others in his former position .
If you would like to make a donation to the Kim Wall Memorial Fund , you may do so here .
They provide generous annual grants to female investigative journalists who carry on Kim Wall ’ s legacy .

The Discovery Network in Denmark has just released a new documentary covering the story of Danish billionaire Peter Madsen and the grisly murder of Swedish journalist Kim Wall. This is a story that we covered here regularly while the initial investigation and eventual trial played out. One of the most offensive and startling aspects of that entire affair was the way that Madsen kept denying that he had actually murdered Wall in a series of continually changing and increasingly implausible stories and “explanations” despite the mountain of evidence stacked up against him. But now, as part of the new documentary, Madsen has supposedly finally confessed to killing her, though the’s still refusing to disclose all of the details of the gruesome event. (NY Post)
A Danish inventor who is serving a life sentence in the murder of a Swedish journalist aboard his homemade submarine has admitted to the crime for the first time in a new documentary, according to reports. Peter Madsen, 49, answered “yes” during a phone conversation with a reporter who asked him whether he had killed Kim Wall in August 2017 after he invited her on board his 60-foot UC3 Nautilus for an interview, Agence France-Presse reported… “There is only one who is guilty, and that is me,” Madsen added in the documentary.
I’m hoping that Discovery will release an English language version of the documentary, or at least one with subtitles because I’d be very interested in watching it. Despite all of the evidence that was presented and the eventual verdicts of guilt on multiple charges, so many questions remain about the evil, perverted billionaire who committed these almost indescribable acts.
As you may recall, Kim Wall was a beautiful and talented journalist who was working on a story about Madsen’s private space program and his penchant for building his own fully functional submarines. Madsen invited her to go for a cruise on his 60-foot UC3 Nautilus submarine where they could conduct the interview and take pictures. After sailing out of port in August of 2017, Wall was never seen alive (or even in one piece) again.
Even though they were the only two people on the sub, after Wall was reported missing, Madsen originally insisted that he had dropped her off on an island at her request and he had no idea what had happened to her. When pieces of Wall’s corpse began washing up in plastic garbage bags, Madsen claimed that she had died when a hatch had accidentally dropped on her head and, in a panic, he had chopped up and disposed of her body. He would later claim at trial that she had died of asphyxiation inside the sub while he was topside. The physical evidence – once the authorities had finally found all of Wall’s remains on the ocean floor – made it obvious that none of these bizarre stories were true. When a search of one of Madsen’s computers turned up pornography from the “snuff film” category of rape, torture and murder, the story took an even darker turn.
But through all of it, Madsen seemingly continued to believe that his vast wealth and fame would (or at least should) shield him from any serious consequences. Even when it was obvious that he was going to be found guilty, his attorneys insisted that he should only receive a sentence of six months in home confinement. He was eventually handed a sentence of life in prison, which seemed to shock him. Sadly, a life sentence in Denmark usually only adds up to a total of fifteen or sixteen years at most, even for some of the most horrendous crimes.
Is this admission of guilt for the documentary some sort of recognition on Madsen’s part of precisely how horrible of a monster he is? Is he going through some sort of rehabilitation that will produce a more humane individual? I somehow doubt it. More likely is the idea that this is some sort of contrived public relations ploy to make him appear more rehabilitated when he comes up for parole. I hope the parole board doesn’t fall for it. This remains one of the most horrific murders to take place in the modern era and it was perpetrated by someone of vast wealth and privilege who had the entire world at his disposal. He needs to serve every last second of the sentence he received if only to send a message to others in his former position.
If you would like to make a donation to the Kim Wall Memorial Fund, you may do so here. They provide generous annual grants to female investigative journalists who carry on Kim Wall’s legacy.


hotair--2020-09-10--Has COVID-19 taken public-employee unions out of the 2020 election?

No dues , no Democrats ?
By this time in a presidential election cycle , public-employee unions would deploy cash and personnel in force to organize for the Democratic ticket .
Groups like AFSCME and SEIU would blanket airwaves , and their members would march and door-knock constantly to turn out the vote — especially in urban cores where their strength is greatest .
This year , however , PEUs have much fewer resources in both cash and manpower , Roll Call reports .
And that might have a big impact on elections all the way down the ballot : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be tested this fall .
Democrats rely heavily on labor ’ s political support every November .
That ’ s no different this year , but the coronavirus is .
Laid-off workers don ’ t pay union dues , meaning the pandemic may cut into organized labor ’ s electoral spending .
More worrisome for Democrats , COVID-19 could kneecap unions ’ most potent campaign contribution : legions of door-knocking volunteers .
… More importantly , unions provide manpower .
Usually , organizers shift from arranging union elections to winning political ones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for door-knocking operations .
But the pandemic forced unions to cut staff , and health concerns are forcing members to do get-out-the-vote work from home .
The National Education Association , which represents around 3 million teachers , has shifted its operations online , replacing door-knocking with peer-to-peer texting campaigns , social media outreach and phone-banking .
That has increased the breadth of the union ’ s outreach efforts , said Carrie Pugh , NEA ’ s political director .
Er … don ’ t bet on it .
Door knocking is at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connections are either created or strengthened .
Unsolicited texts and cold-calling are a lot easier to ignore and don ’ t have nearly the same kind of effect .
The difference is the former allows for the kind of bi-directional communication that allows for campaigners to contextualize candidates around individual voters ’ priorities and concerns .
That is what creates the emotional reaction that boosts the likelihood of voting .
The latter is what Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton did in their respective losses — using 30,000-foot messaging as a lecture .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to close the gap on her less-than-enthusiastic retail politicking .
This time , Biden isn ’ t doing any one-on-one politicking at any level — and if the unions aren ’ t doing much of it either , it ’ s tough to see how Democrats can generate much of a GOTV effort in November .
Furthermore , PEUs are usually strongest in the cities , where they dominate in both governance and numbers .
They work in the bureaus that have direct contact with voters anyway and can help target specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs .
The GOP needed to build the Republican Leadership Initiative ( now renamed the Trump Victory Leadership Initiative ) just to compete at all against that Democratic advantage .
If that ’ s largely sidelined this year , we can expect to see a less-enthusiastic turnout in the cities , where voters may already be less inclined to go out and vote thanks to violence in the streets .
Don ’ t forget too that Republicans and Trump have not foregone door-knocking and retail politicking .
They are reportedly making a million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been all summer long , according to a Politico article six weeks ago .
Biden might have finally trounced Trump in fundraising last month , but Trump raised enough to keep that advantage going — and Biden has no time now to organize any effective retail politicking .
All of that money will go instead into even more TV ads , which probably reached their saturation point before the convention .
Ask Hillary how well her TV-ad advantage worked out for her in 2016 , and that was when Trump didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the PEUs are sidelined as Roll Call reports , Biden ’ s got a very big problem — and so do all the Democrats sharing a ballot with him .

No dues, no Democrats? By this time in a presidential election cycle, public-employee unions would deploy cash and personnel in force to organize for the Democratic ticket. Groups like AFSCME and SEIU would blanket airwaves, and their members would march and door-knock constantly to turn out the vote — especially in urban cores where their strength is greatest.
This year, however, PEUs have much fewer resources in both cash and manpower, Roll Call reports. And that might have a big impact on elections all the way down the ballot:
Unions’ strength amid the epidemic will be tested this fall. Democrats rely heavily on labor’s political support every November. That’s no different this year, but the coronavirus is. Laid-off workers don’t pay union dues, meaning the pandemic may cut into organized labor’s electoral spending. More worrisome for Democrats, COVID-19 could kneecap unions’ most potent campaign contribution: legions of door-knocking volunteers. … More importantly, unions provide manpower. Usually, organizers shift from arranging union elections to winning political ones, and rank-and-file members sign up in droves for door-knocking operations. But the pandemic forced unions to cut staff, and health concerns are forcing members to do get-out-the-vote work from home. The National Education Association, which represents around 3 million teachers, has shifted its operations online, replacing door-knocking with peer-to-peer texting campaigns, social media outreach and phone-banking. That has increased the breadth of the union’s outreach efforts, said Carrie Pugh, NEA’s political director.
Er … don’t bet on it. Door knocking is at least interactive, where conversations and personal connections are either created or strengthened. Unsolicited texts and cold-calling are a lot easier to ignore and don’t have nearly the same kind of effect. The difference is the former allows for the kind of bi-directional communication that allows for campaigners to contextualize candidates around individual voters’ priorities and concerns. That is what creates the emotional reaction that boosts the likelihood of voting.
The latter is what Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton did in their respective losses — using 30,000-foot messaging as a lecture. And Hillary lost her bid while the unions tried to close the gap on her less-than-enthusiastic retail politicking. This time, Biden isn’t doing any one-on-one politicking at any level — and if the unions aren’t doing much of it either, it’s tough to see how Democrats can generate much of a GOTV effort in November.
Furthermore, PEUs are usually strongest in the cities, where they dominate in both governance and numbers. They work in the bureaus that have direct contact with voters anyway and can help target specific neighborhoods with messages tailored to their specific needs. The GOP needed to build the Republican Leadership Initiative (now renamed the Trump Victory Leadership Initiative) just to compete at all against that Democratic advantage. If that’s largely sidelined this year, we can expect to see a less-enthusiastic turnout in the cities, where voters may already be less inclined to go out and vote thanks to violence in the streets.
Don’t forget too that Republicans and Trump have not foregone door-knocking and retail politicking. They are reportedly making a million in-person voter contacts a week, and have been all summer long, according to a Politico article six weeks ago. Biden might have finally trounced Trump in fundraising last month, but Trump raised enough to keep that advantage going — and Biden has no time now to organize any effective retail politicking. All of that money will go instead into even more TV ads, which probably reached their saturation point before the convention. Ask Hillary how well her TV-ad advantage worked out for her in 2016, and that was when Trump didn’t have an effective ground organization.
If the PEUs are sidelined as Roll Call reports, Biden’s got a very big problem — and so do all the Democrats sharing a ballot with him.


hotair--2020-09-11--Police departments everywhere largely reject calls for woke reforms

It ’ s now become such a common theme across the United States – at least in the eyes of the mainstream media – that CNN probably has a chyron for it on hot standby at all times .
“ Police reform ” is among the hottest topics for debate as we move into the final phase of the general election .
Whether you ’ re talking about defunding the police , abolishing them altogether or simply “ fixing ” their standard operating procedures , everyone seems to want to tell the cops how they should be doing their jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So what do the actual men and women in blue think about this ?
A recent survey of police department leaders across the nation conducted by the Washington Times shows a fairly consistent trend .
The cops know how to do their jobs and all of these calls for “ sweeping changes ” by social justice warriors are not going to be acceptable .
One board member of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives ( NOBLEE ) summed up the feelings of a majority of LEOs by saying , “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are best practices , ” while acknowledging that their policies should always remain under regular review and be open for improvements .
Police departments say they won ’ t bow to demands by social justice warriors for sweeping changes to policing protocols that govern the use of force , traffic stops , serving warrants and dealing with subjects who resist arrest .
A Washington Times survey of police departments across the country and national law enforcement organizations found most opted for slight adjustments to standard operating procedures rather than major overhauls .
Gina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fayetteville , North Carolina , said her department has implemented at least 30 changes since Memorial Day , when George Floyd died in the custody of Minneapolis police .
But she described the adjustments as “ minor tweaks.
” In general terms , Hawkins isn ’ t saying anything that shouldn ’ t already be obvious .
The police have been in the business of law enforcement for a long time .
They know what works and what doesn ’ t work .
And people with no experience in the nitty-gritty reality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ill-equipped to come storming in , demanding “ sweeping changes ” to a system they barely understand .
We ’ re not just talking about activists , protesters and rioters here , either .
The same can often be said for executive branch officials at every level .
Just as the President of the United States is the final authority in matters pertaining to the military , governors and mayors are tasked with exercising control over state and municipal law enforcement departments .
But that doesn ’ t suddenly make the President a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a mayor or governor miraculously becomes an expert in policing the streets upon being sworn in .
One of the most glaring examples of this phenomenon came to us this week from Portland , Oregon .
Mayor Ted Wheeler issued an executive order banning the use of teargas by his police departments in the face of dangerous riots .
He obviously did this in an effort to placate the mobs currently running wild in his city ( for all that good that ’ s going to do ) but all he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Portland Police force during the next round of riots .
We shouldn ’ t need to do more than ask one simple question .
What does Ted Wheeler know about being a cop ?
The guy grew up in a wealthy family that operated a major lumber business .
He went to college to study economics and business management and then almost immediately became a politician .
His total experience with teargas was when he himself got gassed by federal agents when he took to the streets to “ support ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wasn ’ t enjoyable , but it ’ s not much of a basis for making sweeping decisions like that .
Another thing that seems obvious from the results of this survey is that “ one size fits all ” doesn ’ t work when it comes to law enforcement policies .
As with most all governmental matters , different places around the country deal with a variety of conditions on the ground and specific needs .
This is equally true of policing .
Life for members of the NYPD , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicles and a budget measured in the billions is a far cry from that of Humperdink , Pennsylvania , population 1,029 , where their five cops are best known for drinking coffee at the Sunny Mornings Diner and their dispatch desk shuts down every evening at 6 pm because Billie Jean has to get home in time to milk the cows .
Saying all cops have to wear body cameras sounds great in a press conference and that technology has been a huge boon to the cops in New York City .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind up in violent encounters that need to be well documented to avoid crippling lawsuits , as well as ensuring that none of the cops have gone bad or are simply lacking in training .
But those body cameras , including maintenance and video storage , can cost upwards of $ 1,000 per year .
In Humperdink , the cops are still trying to scrape up the money to replace the muffler on one of their two squad cars .
And the worst criminal event they ’ ve had to deal with in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Phil Morgan got drunk and nearly shot Betty Lou Archer ’ s poodle .
The point is , there will always be room for improvement in policing .
But those policies need to be set with an eye toward established best practices by people who know first-hand what it means to uphold the law and maintain order .
And that solution isn ’ t going to be found in a list of demands from a group of Antifa terrorists who have taken over the local Subway sandwich shop .

It’s now become such a common theme across the United States – at least in the eyes of the mainstream media – that CNN probably has a chyron for it on hot standby at all times. “Police reform” is among the hottest topics for debate as we move into the final phase of the general election. Whether you’re talking about defunding the police, abolishing them altogether or simply “fixing” their standard operating procedures, everyone seems to want to tell the cops how they should be doing their jobs in a more culturally enlightened fashion.
So what do the actual men and women in blue think about this? A recent survey of police department leaders across the nation conducted by the Washington Times shows a fairly consistent trend. The cops know how to do their jobs and all of these calls for “sweeping changes” by social justice warriors are not going to be acceptable. One board member of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLEE) summed up the feelings of a majority of LEOs by saying, “We are accredited because all of our policies are best practices,” while acknowledging that their policies should always remain under regular review and be open for improvements.
Police departments say they won’t bow to demands by social justice warriors for sweeping changes to policing protocols that govern the use of force, traffic stops, serving warrants and dealing with subjects who resist arrest. A Washington Times survey of police departments across the country and national law enforcement organizations found most opted for slight adjustments to standard operating procedures rather than major overhauls. Gina V. Hawkins, the police chief in Fayetteville, North Carolina, said her department has implemented at least 30 changes since Memorial Day, when George Floyd died in the custody of Minneapolis police. But she described the adjustments as “minor tweaks.”
In general terms, Hawkins isn’t saying anything that shouldn’t already be obvious. The police have been in the business of law enforcement for a long time. They know what works and what doesn’t work. And people with no experience in the nitty-gritty reality of maintaining order in the public square are ill-equipped to come storming in, demanding “sweeping changes” to a system they barely understand.
We’re not just talking about activists, protesters and rioters here, either. The same can often be said for executive branch officials at every level. Just as the President of the United States is the final authority in matters pertaining to the military, governors and mayors are tasked with exercising control over state and municipal law enforcement departments. But that doesn’t suddenly make the President a seasoned combat veteran or war-planner any more than a mayor or governor miraculously becomes an expert in policing the streets upon being sworn in.
One of the most glaring examples of this phenomenon came to us this week from Portland, Oregon. Mayor Ted Wheeler issued an executive order banning the use of teargas by his police departments in the face of dangerous riots. He obviously did this in an effort to placate the mobs currently running wild in his city (for all that good that’s going to do) but all he will succeed in accomplishing is crippling the effectiveness of the Portland Police force during the next round of riots.
We shouldn’t need to do more than ask one simple question. What does Ted Wheeler know about being a cop? The guy grew up in a wealthy family that operated a major lumber business. He went to college to study economics and business management and then almost immediately became a politician. His total experience with teargas was when he himself got gassed by federal agents when he took to the streets to “support” the demonstrators. I’m sure that wasn’t enjoyable, but it’s not much of a basis for making sweeping decisions like that.
Another thing that seems obvious from the results of this survey is that “one size fits all” doesn’t work when it comes to law enforcement policies. As with most all governmental matters, different places around the country deal with a variety of conditions on the ground and specific needs. This is equally true of policing. Life for members of the NYPD, with 36,000 officers, tens of thousands of vehicles and a budget measured in the billions is a far cry from that of Humperdink, Pennsylvania, population 1,029, where their five cops are best known for drinking coffee at the Sunny Mornings Diner and their dispatch desk shuts down every evening at 6 pm because Billie Jean has to get home in time to milk the cows.
Saying all cops have to wear body cameras sounds great in a press conference and that technology has been a huge boon to the cops in New York City. They are frequently in dangerous gang territory and wind up in violent encounters that need to be well documented to avoid crippling lawsuits, as well as ensuring that none of the cops have gone bad or are simply lacking in training. But those body cameras, including maintenance and video storage, can cost upwards of $1,000 per year. In Humperdink, the cops are still trying to scrape up the money to replace the muffler on one of their two squad cars. And the worst criminal event they’ve had to deal with in the past year was the time that Phil Morgan got drunk and nearly shot Betty Lou Archer’s poodle.
The point is, there will always be room for improvement in policing. But those policies need to be set with an eye toward established best practices by people who know first-hand what it means to uphold the law and maintain order. And that solution isn’t going to be found in a list of demands from a group of Antifa terrorists who have taken over the local Subway sandwich shop.


hotair--2020-09-11--VIP Gold chat: Cam Edwards, Ed Morrissey at 1:30 pm ET!

Get ready for another tremendous live , interactive VIP Gold chat with Bearing Arms ’ Cam Edwards and HotAir ’ @ @ @ @ @ us at 1:30 pm ET today for another great discussion of the hottest news stories @ @ @ @ @ take your questions and comments and gave an in-depth analysis of the top topics of @ @ @ @ @ are not a VIP Gold member , you can join at this link use the @ @ @ @ @ part today !
Cam brings his A-game on 2nd Amendment and liberty issues and makes @ @ @ @ @ along the way .
Ed has kept pace with developments abroad , at home and @ @ @ @ @ well .
We have plenty to discuss today , and lots of time to take @ @ @ @ @ anything !
( Unlike Joe Biden , we ’ ll actually answer . )
The @ @ @ @ @ all the fast-moving developments , our VIP Gold members can get the latest as it @ @ @ @ @ .

Get ready for another tremendous live, interactive VIP Gold chat with Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards and HotAir’s Ed Morrissey! Join us at 1:30 pm ET today for another great discussion of the hottest news stories online. The duo will take your questions and comments and gave an in-depth analysis of the top topics of the day.
If you are not a VIP Gold member, you can join at this link use the promo code LOYALTY to take part today!
Cam brings his A-game on 2nd Amendment and liberty issues and makes sure to keep it real along the way. Ed has kept pace with developments abroad, at home and at the local level as well.
We have plenty to discuss today, and lots of time to take your questions. Ask us anything! (Unlike Joe Biden, we’ll actually answer.) The hot topics are:
Handicapping the general-election campaign
Riots and BLM protest updates
COVID-19 developments, and economic recovery
Second Amendment developments
With all the fast-moving developments, our VIP Gold members can get the latest as it happens from Cam and Ed.


hotair--2020-09-10--U.S. revokes more than 1,000 visas of "high risk" Chinese nationals

It ’ s a drop in the bucket but it ’ s a start .
The State Department announced Wednesday that the visas of more than 1,000 Chinese students and academics have been revoked .
At the end of May , President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10043 .
The proclamation states that China “ is engaged in a wide‑ranging and heavily resourced campaign to acquire sensitive United States technologies and intellectual property , in part to bolster the modernization and capability of its military , the People ’ s Liberation Army.
” It went into effect as of June 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Chinese graduate students and researchers suspected of ties to the Chinese military .
It ’ s about time .
The State Department says that by revoking the visas it “ safeguards US national security by limiting the PRC ’ s ability to leverage Chinese graduate students and researchers in the United States to steal United States technologies , intellectual property , and information to develop advanced military capabilities.
” As recently as August 25 , I wrote about this problem .
Chinese nationals receive visas to come and study or do research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ties to the Chinese military or Communist Chinese government .
They are found to be in violation of visa disclosure requirements and likely stealing intellectual property or medical research on behalf of the Chinese government .
On August 29 , I wrote a similar story , and on July 23 , John wrote this story .
There is clearly a problem and it is good to see some results being reported .
The State Department admits this is only “ a small subset of the total number of Chinese students and scholars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
There are about 369,000 students studying in the U.S. , though many of them have had their studies disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic .
“ We continue to welcome legitimate students and scholars from China who do not further the Chinese Communist Party ’ s goals of military dominance.
” China is the largest source of international college students in the United States .
American universities and colleges make a lot of money off international students .
When the president made this decision , effective June 1 , the Chinese response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolutely opposes ” the move and “ strongly condemns any calculated politicization and stigmatization of normal academic exchanges.
” I think Americans “ strongly condemn ” the Communist Chinese stealing American intellectual property and medical research for their own benefit , particularly as it relates to the Chinese military , who wish to use it against America .
Let ’ s not forget that in July , the State Department ordered the closure of China ’ s consulate in Houston .
China retaliated by closing the US mission in Chengdu .
Both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists and diplomats .
Some Chinese students say that this is all a mistake – they have only ever attended high schools loosely affiliated with the People ’ s Liberation Army .
Uh-huh .
Is there such a thing as a “ loose ” affiliation with the army in China ?
Today China ’ s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian called this action racial discrimination and a violation of the students ’ human rights .
Bold move , China .
Accusing the United States of human rights violations takes some chutzpah coming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reuters estimates that Chinese students in the U.S. generate $ 14 billion in economic activity .
American universities rely on tuition fees from Chinese students , which will only increase given the financial woes of higher education thanks to the coronavirus pandemic .
The irony that the virus originated in China doesn ’ t escape us .
Foreign Policy editor James Palmer says this is likely “ a blunder ” was made by the administration through incompetence .
No surprise from that publication .
Chinese students with only tenuous links to military-affiliated universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google Drive spreadsheet as part of a claim that they were wrongly targeted .
Foreign Policy editor James Palmer suggested that the information from the spreadsheet suggests that American officials blundered in targeting any Chinese institution with a military-sounding name , tweeting : “ It ’ s possible that this is a *deliberate* move as part of an attempt to seriously reduce Chinese students numbers .
But it ’ s also quite likely sheer incompetence from officials just told to look for X set of names who don ’ t recognize the difference.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the topic .
Well , at least he didn ’ t just come right out and accuse the Trump administration of xenophobia as other Democrats do when the president is acting to protect America ’ s best interests .
Joe Biden called Trump a xenophobe when he stopped incoming travelers from China to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic , you remember .
As I said , it ’ s a start .
There is likely much more work to be done to weed out the spies .

It’s a drop in the bucket but it’s a start. The State Department announced Wednesday that the visas of more than 1,000 Chinese students and academics have been revoked.
At the end of May, President Trump issued Presidential Proclamation 10043. The proclamation states that China “is engaged in a wide‑ranging and heavily resourced campaign to acquire sensitive United States technologies and intellectual property, in part to bolster the modernization and capability of its military, the People’s Liberation Army.” It went into effect as of June 1, 2020. The program is aimed at Chinese graduate students and researchers suspected of ties to the Chinese military.
It’s about time. The State Department says that by revoking the visas it “safeguards US national security by limiting the PRC’s ability to leverage Chinese graduate students and researchers in the United States to steal United States technologies, intellectual property, and information to develop advanced military capabilities.”
Speaking Wednesday, acting US Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf said that “China has leveraged every aspect of its country including its economy, its military, and its diplomatic power, demonstrating a rejection of western liberal democracy and continually renewing its commitment to remake the world order in its own authoritarian image.”
As recently as August 25, I wrote about this problem. Chinese nationals receive visas to come and study or do research at American universities but fail to disclose their ties to the Chinese military or Communist Chinese government. They are found to be in violation of visa disclosure requirements and likely stealing intellectual property or medical research on behalf of the Chinese government. On August 29, I wrote a similar story, and on July 23, John wrote this story. There is clearly a problem and it is good to see some results being reported.
The State Department admits this is only “a small subset of the total number of Chinese students and scholars coming to the United States.” Fair enough. There are about 369,000 students studying in the U.S., though many of them have had their studies disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. “We continue to welcome legitimate students and scholars from China who do not further the Chinese Communist Party’s goals of military dominance.” China is the largest source of international college students in the United States. American universities and colleges make a lot of money off international students.
When the president made this decision, effective June 1, the Chinese response at the time was that it “resolutely opposes” the move and “strongly condemns any calculated politicization and stigmatization of normal academic exchanges.” I think Americans “strongly condemn” the Communist Chinese stealing American intellectual property and medical research for their own benefit, particularly as it relates to the Chinese military, who wish to use it against America. Let’s not forget that in July, the State Department ordered the closure of China’s consulate in Houston. China retaliated by closing the US mission in Chengdu. Both the U.S. and China have new restrictions on journalists and diplomats.
Some Chinese students say that this is all a mistake – they have only ever attended high schools loosely affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army. Uh-huh. Is there such a thing as a “loose” affiliation with the army in China? Today China’s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian called this action racial discrimination and a violation of the students’ human rights. Bold move, China. Accusing the United States of human rights violations takes some chutzpah coming from the brutal dictatorship of Communist China.
Reuters estimates that Chinese students in the U.S. generate $14 billion in economic activity. American universities rely on tuition fees from Chinese students, which will only increase given the financial woes of higher education thanks to the coronavirus pandemic. The irony that the virus originated in China doesn’t escape us.
Foreign Policy editor James Palmer says this is likely “a blunder” was made by the administration through incompetence. No surprise from that publication.
Chinese students with only tenuous links to military-affiliated universities have shared their education information on a Google Drive spreadsheet as part of a claim that they were wrongly targeted. Foreign Policy editor James Palmer suggested that the information from the spreadsheet suggests that American officials blundered in targeting any Chinese institution with a military-sounding name, tweeting: “It’s possible that this is a *deliberate* move as part of an attempt to seriously reduce Chinese students numbers. But it’s also quite likely sheer incompetence from officials just told to look for X set of names who don’t recognize the difference.”
He posted a tweet thread on the topic.
for instance, several went to 西工大附中 – 'the middle school attached to Northwestern Polytechnic University.' NPU is on the entities list, but this school (which is a combined middle/high school, like most) has an essentially historical connection to it. — James Palmer (@BeijingPalmer) September 10, 2020
It's possible that this is a *deliberate* move as part of an attempt to seriously reduce Chinese students numbers. But it's also quite likely sheer incompetence from officials just told to look for X set of names who don't recognize the difference. — James Palmer (@BeijingPalmer) September 10, 2020
Well, at least he didn’t just come right out and accuse the Trump administration of xenophobia as other Democrats do when the president is acting to protect America’s best interests. Joe Biden called Trump a xenophobe when he stopped incoming travelers from China to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic, you remember.
As I said, it’s a start. There is likely much more work to be done to weed out the spies.


hotair--2020-09-11--College bro to cop: Why, yes, every bro at this house party has COVID

Look , I don ’ t want to overreact .
But if Trump wants to start rounding up the college kids and putting them in camps , I ’ m willing to hear him out .
“ It ’ s a safety issue , ” he might say .
That might be a nice October surprise if he finds himself still trailing Biden in the final week or two of the race .
Let me quote this bit from a NYT story about the University of Illinois again even though I quoted it already this morning .
It fits too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-up it .
Some college students are so irresponsible that scientists can ’ t even model their behavior effectively to plan for COVID .
They ’ ve been operating on the assumption that a student who tests positive will react rationally by isolating themselves from others .
Not so , my dude .
Second , they had indeed taken into account college partying and quite a bit of it — more than 7,000 students partying three times a week in their model .
What the scientists had not taken into account was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received a positive test result .
“ It was willful noncompliance by a small group of people , ” Dr. Goldenfeld said .
Those were the key ingredients for a few people infecting many others .
“ If you know you are positive , ” Dr. Elbanna said , “ and you go to a party , that ’ s not just a bad act .
That ’ s very , very dangerous.
” It ’ s not just happening in Illinois , needless to say .
Here ’ s something from Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vein , via TMZ ( caution : profanity ) : The clip below comes from Miami University in Ohio .
The party there started early last month and it ain ’ t stopping for no virus : Miami University has been the single largest contributor to Butler County ’ s case count since mid-August , according to Ohio Gov .
Mike DeWine .
He and Miami University president Gregory Crawford attribute the school ’ s cases — 1,117 of them , most diagnosed in the last two weeks — to off-campus house parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekend .
Although Miami delayed the start of in-person instruction , Crawford said upperclassmen moved back into town in August and began partying when they got there .
“ Those early weekends in August , we saw an uptick in parties and gatherings , ” he said .
“ I think that ’ s what is responsible for the surge today.
” The bodycam video was recorded over Labor Day weekend and starts out as a rudimentary infraction of social-distancing rules .
Then it takes a turn halfway through when the cop runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shades and discovers — whoops — he has the ‘ rona .
Do the other people at the party know ?
he asks the kid .
Sure , he says .
They all have it too .
Bear in mind that there were reportedly 20 people or so inside the house while this went on — and some guests were leaving when the cop arrived .
Did all 20+ *really* have COVID , and did they all know that ?
Or did some guests show up not knowing or caring because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special question for the epidemiologists out there : *Is* it actually safe to be in close quarters with someone if you both have coronavirus ?
That is , is it true that sharing air with a fellow infected patient does nothing to increase your risk of serious complications ?
I ask because one of the leading theories of why some people have mild cases and some have severe ones is that the latter group has somehow inhaled a larger viral load of particles than the former group .
That ’ s one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that masks may operate as an ersatz “ vaccine ” for some people — they may let a small number of coronavirus particles through into your airway , enough to trigger an immune response , while blocking a larger quantity of particles that might have caused you to become seriously ill if they had also been inhaled .
If that ’ s so then a bunch of bros with COVID sitting around shotgunning beers might be increasing the viral load for some or all in the group .
Especially if one is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here were slapped with $ 500 fines .
Imagine having to shell out that kind of dough for something as a dismal as a sausage-party drink-up .
Of course they ’ re listening to Creedence too when the cop rolls up .
Of course .

Look, I don’t want to overreact.
But if Trump wants to start rounding up the college kids and putting them in camps, I’m willing to hear him out.
“It’s a safety issue,” he might say. That might be a nice October surprise if he finds himself still trailing Biden in the final week or two of the race.
Let me quote this bit from a NYT story about the University of Illinois again even though I quoted it already this morning. It fits too well with the clip below not to re-up it. Some college students are so irresponsible that scientists can’t even model their behavior effectively to plan for COVID. They’ve been operating on the assumption that a student who tests positive will react rationally by isolating themselves from others. Not so, my dude.
Second, they had indeed taken into account college partying and quite a bit of it — more than 7,000 students partying three times a week in their model. What the scientists had not taken into account was that some students would continue partying after they received a positive test result. “It was willful noncompliance by a small group of people,” Dr. Goldenfeld said. Those were the key ingredients for a few people infecting many others. “If you know you are positive,” Dr. Elbanna said, “and you go to a party, that’s not just a bad act. That’s very, very dangerous.”
It’s not just happening in Illinois, needless to say. Here’s something from Texas that makes me want to open a vein, via TMZ (caution: profanity):
What’s happening at Texas Tech. Side note, I do not know this girl but she was brave enough to post this for others to see! If you are selfish like this with no regards for others safety, fuck off! pic.twitter.com/8K3G85Zkxk — taylor smith (@tayylorcsmith) September 5, 2020
The clip below comes from Miami University in Ohio. The party there started early last month and it ain’t stopping for no virus:
Miami University has been the single largest contributor to Butler County’s case count since mid-August, according to Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. He and Miami University president Gregory Crawford attribute the school’s cases — 1,117 of them, most diagnosed in the last two weeks — to off-campus house parties exactly like the one recorded over the weekend. Although Miami delayed the start of in-person instruction, Crawford said upperclassmen moved back into town in August and began partying when they got there. “Those early weekends in August, we saw an uptick in parties and gatherings,” he said. “I think that’s what is responsible for the surge today.”
The bodycam video was recorded over Labor Day weekend and starts out as a rudimentary infraction of social-distancing rules. Then it takes a turn halfway through when the cop runs a background check on the bro in the shades and discovers — whoops — he has the ‘rona. Do the other people at the party know? he asks the kid. Sure, he says. They all have it too.
Bear in mind that there were reportedly 20 people or so inside the house while this went on — and some guests were leaving when the cop arrived. Did all 20+ *really* have COVID, and did they all know that? Or did some guests show up not knowing or caring because, hey, free beer?
And a special question for the epidemiologists out there: *Is* it actually safe to be in close quarters with someone if you both have coronavirus? That is, is it true that sharing air with a fellow infected patient does nothing to increase your risk of serious complications? I ask because one of the leading theories of why some people have mild cases and some have severe ones is that the latter group has somehow inhaled a larger viral load of particles than the former group. That’s one of the key assumptions behind the new theory that masks may operate as an ersatz “vaccine” for some people — they may let a small number of coronavirus particles through into your airway, enough to trigger an immune response, while blocking a larger quantity of particles that might have caused you to become seriously ill if they had also been inhaled.
If that’s so then a bunch of bros with COVID sitting around shotgunning beers might be increasing the viral load for some or all in the group. Especially if one is a “superspreader.”
Six of the attendees here were slapped with $500 fines. Imagine having to shell out that kind of dough for something as a dismal as a sausage-party drink-up. Of course they’re listening to Creedence too when the cop rolls up. Of course.


hotair--2020-09-11--Trump: From what I hear, Biden's on drugs

More A-list material here for the “ Preserving the Dignity of the Office ” wing of the august Donald J. Trump Presidential Library and Casino .
I ’ ll have to go back and rewatch the dozen or so Democratic primary debates at which Biden was supposedly unable to mutter a coherent sentence , as I missed them the first time .
As it is , the “ that ’ s what I hear ” part of the clip below reminds me of Trump telling reporters back in 2011 that he had top-flight investigators hard at work in Hawaii digging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth certificate .
( Even at the time , the media was all too willing to amplify his innuendo . )
“ They can not believe what they ’ re finding , ” he assured Meredith Vieira .
He never sent anyone to Hawaii , Michael Cohen confirmed a few days ago , and didn ’ t even believe the Birther stuff about Obama himself .
He simply realized that plenty of credulous nobs would love him for confirming their worst suspicions about a president they despised .
So that ’ s what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his madness then and there ’ s a method to his madness in this case too .
Sort of .
He ’ s mentioned the possibility of Biden being on performance-enhancing drugs before but this is the first time ( I think ? )
that he ’ s said so on camera .
It ’ s his Trumpified way of doing what campaign manager Bill Stepien ’ s been doing lately in interviews , raising the bar for Biden at the debates after the GOP spent months inexplicably lowering it until it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently the Trump campaign ’ s line on Sleepy Joe was that he was in late-stage mental decline and would probably duck the debates altogether to avoid revealing that to the world .
We ’ re now 18 days away and someone , probably Stepien , finally figured out that reducing expectations for Biden to the point that he only need speak in complete sentences to prove he ’ s fit for office was a bad idea .
Stepien ’ s new line : Joe Biden may be a moron and a policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expert debater .
Stepien argued Tuesday that Biden is a skilled debater , with decades of experience over Trump .
He said the small team helping prepare Trump has been watching all of the former vice president ’ s debates in recent days on — as he said in a jab at Biden ’ s 47-year political career — “ creaky movies reels.
” “ He ’ s a politician .
He gives speeches .
He ’ s really good at doing it .
He ’ s also very practiced at it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the campaign ’ s usual effort to cast the Democratic nominee as borderline incoherent and stressing that Trump has only been in politics for five years .
“ Joe Biden is not formidable anywhere else but he is formidable on the debate stage , ” Stepien added .
“ We just hope he shows up.
” Trump could use that same talking point in theory , but it ’ d be a hard sell even for him after he ’ s spent most of the year assuring his fans that Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Trumpier way to raise expectations for his opponent and supply MAGAworld with an excuse in case Biden does , in fact , sound coherent on September 29 .
The solution : He ’ s on drugs .
He ’ s gotten hold of some secret “ Flowers for Algernon ” sauce that turns him from a stammering imbecile into Pericles overnight .
It ’ s the same strategy he ’ s running with his heavy-breathing over mail-in ballots , drop boxes , and so on .
If he loses the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he loses the debate , it must mean Biden cheated .
That ’ s the way a young child approaches adversity — “ if I didn ’ t win , it ’ s not fair !
” — but here we are .
Change Research recently polled the major swing states and asked voters there how they ’ re feeling about the basic mental competence of the two major-party nominees .
Quote : “ A 51 % majority said Trump is mentally unfit to be president , while 49 % answered that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A similar share , by a 52 % to 48 % margin , responded that Biden is mentally unfit to be president.
” When the new president takes office next January , he ’ ll do so knowing that a majority of his constituents in the most electorally influential states are skeptical that he ’ s playing with a full deck .
What a country .
Exit question : If Biden were constantly boasting about imaginary auto manufacturing plants that were built during his time in office , what would we conclude about @ @ @ @

More A-list material here for the “Preserving the Dignity of the Office” wing of the august Donald J. Trump Presidential Library and Casino.
I’ll have to go back and rewatch the dozen or so Democratic primary debates at which Biden was supposedly unable to mutter a coherent sentence, as I missed them the first time. As it is, the “that’s what I hear” part of the clip below reminds me of Trump telling reporters back in 2011 that he had top-flight investigators hard at work in Hawaii digging up the truth about Obama’s birth certificate. (Even at the time, the media was all too willing to amplify his innuendo.) “They cannot believe what they’re finding,” he assured Meredith Vieira. He never sent anyone to Hawaii, Michael Cohen confirmed a few days ago, and didn’t even believe the Birther stuff about Obama himself. He simply realized that plenty of credulous nobs would love him for confirming their worst suspicions about a president they despised. So that’s what he did.
There was a method to his madness then and there’s a method to his madness in this case too. Sort of.
"I think there's probably, possibly drugs involved. That's what I hear." — during interview with Judge Jeanine, Trump casually accuses Joe Biden of using performance enhancing drugs pic.twitter.com/RVWJMqPNhn — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 11, 2020
He’s mentioned the possibility of Biden being on performance-enhancing drugs before but this is the first time (I think?) that he’s said so on camera. It’s his Trumpified way of doing what campaign manager Bill Stepien’s been doing lately in interviews, raising the bar for Biden at the debates after the GOP spent months inexplicably lowering it until it rested flat on the ground. Until recently the Trump campaign’s line on Sleepy Joe was that he was in late-stage mental decline and would probably duck the debates altogether to avoid revealing that to the world. We’re now 18 days away and someone, probably Stepien, finally figured out that reducing expectations for Biden to the point that he only need speak in complete sentences to prove he’s fit for office was a bad idea. Stepien’s new line: Joe Biden may be a moron and a policy disaster, but he’s an expert debater.
Stepien argued Tuesday that Biden is a skilled debater, with decades of experience over Trump. He said the small team helping prepare Trump has been watching all of the former vice president’s debates in recent days on — as he said in a jab at Biden’s 47-year political career — “creaky movies reels.” “He’s a politician. He gives speeches. He’s really good at doing it. He’s also very practiced at it,” Stepien told NBC News, diverging from the campaign’s usual effort to cast the Democratic nominee as borderline incoherent and stressing that Trump has only been in politics for five years. “Joe Biden is not formidable anywhere else but he is formidable on the debate stage,” Stepien added. “We just hope he shows up.”
Trump could use that same talking point in theory, but it’d be a hard sell even for him after he’s spent most of the year assuring his fans that Biden’s mind is shot. He needs a Trumpier way to raise expectations for his opponent and supply MAGAworld with an excuse in case Biden does, in fact, sound coherent on September 29. The solution: He’s on drugs. He’s gotten hold of some secret “Flowers for Algernon” sauce that turns him from a stammering imbecile into Pericles overnight.
It’s the same strategy he’s running with his heavy-breathing over mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and so on. If he loses the election, it must mean Biden cheated. If he loses the debate, it must mean Biden cheated. That’s the way a young child approaches adversity — “if I didn’t win, it’s not fair!” — but here we are.
Change Research recently polled the major swing states and asked voters there how they’re feeling about the basic mental competence of the two major-party nominees. Quote: “A 51% majority said Trump is mentally unfit to be president, while 49% answered that he is fit to hold the job. A similar share, by a 52% to 48% margin, responded that Biden is mentally unfit to be president.” When the new president takes office next January, he’ll do so knowing that a majority of his constituents in the most electorally influential states are skeptical that he’s playing with a full deck. What a country.
Exit question: If Biden were constantly boasting about imaginary auto manufacturing plants that were built during his time in office, what would we conclude about his mental capacity?


hotair--2020-09-11--If wokeness is a religion, can we keep a wall of separation between it and the state?

I can ’ t take any credit for this idea as it comes entirely from James Lindsay .
Wednesday he published his argument along these lines and it is more than 30,000 words long .
So long that I ’ ve only read a fraction of it at this point but the gist of the argument is clear : Critical Social Justice has already encroached deeply into our public education system and halls of government in the United States .
In fact , this trend is accelerating to a pitch so extreme that complaints that schools are operating in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses of a basic and liberal education , as they were initially conceived , are rapidly becoming plausible .
The second is that a time may come in the not-distant future in which this totalizing and totalitarian worldview could be installed as the de facto state religion , even while it elides categorization as such .
The state endorsement—or worse , enforcement—of any faith falls directly afoul of the protections the U.S. Constitution was written to ensure to individual citizens , and , in fact , to other systems of faith that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which totalizing worldviews that are not traditionally recognizable as faiths should be treated in the same way for the same reasons ?
While the answer to this question is not immediately clear , it must have to do with how they function in society and in the lives of those who believe them .
Therefore , to put it directly : It is my belief that the contents of the Critical Social Justice worldview should be protected as matters of private conscience only , and they should also be limited as such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contend that the Free-exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment apply to Critical Social Justice .
It is therefore not merely a philosophical exercise to ask whether or not Critical Social Justice constitutes a religion but also a serious legal one that gets to the very core of what the American Experiment has always been about—freedom of belief and from state religion .
It is my intention here to make this case as briefly as possible , which means it will still be very long .
Almost immediately , Lindsay confronts a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a post-modern framework , one which doesn ’ t rely on any metaphysical beliefs in forces outside man himself .
In short , it ’ s a religion without a god or gods .
As a general note that was central to my preceding piece , it is crucial that one understand Critical Social Justice as a fundamentally postmodern phenomenon .
As most religions that we are familiar with present in a genuinely premodern way by invoking literally believed spiritual forces that exist in a separate plane of reality or as imperceptible-but-causal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and practice in ritualistic ways that are , in turn , recognizably holdovers from premodern liturgical contexts , it can be difficult to see a postmodern faith for what it is .
In a postmodern faith , God is dead , and the forces that work in a mysterious way in the world are necessarily sociological as a result .
Formalized liturgical modes have been deconstructed and replaced with something more decentralized , chaotic , and even ironic .
Because the central object of interest in all postmodern thought is social power , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social power and the “ social ” phenomena that construct them .
Lindsay ’ s answer to this is that religions can be described not just metaphysically but sociologically .
Religions are , in the most general description , moral communities that provide three basic types of psychosocial ( combined psychological and social ) needs for their adherents and participants : meaning-making , a sense of control , and the capacity to establish , police , and understand one ’ s place in a community of people with shared ( religious ) values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion may remain fuzzy and elusive , speaking functionally , these properties seem to form an identifiable skeleton upon which the meat of the matter is organized .
It should be almost immediately obvious that the worldview of Critical Social Justice satisfies all of these criteria .
Life in the community gains meaning in the ( almost cosmic ) battle for “ liberation ” against systemic oppression , and individual meaning ( and agency ) are defined almost entirely in terms of this struggle .
The point of the struggle is obviously to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which can be achieved by gaining control over the machinations of society and the harms that an improperly managed society will mete out to some of its members , often the most vulnerable .
A hierarchical community is set up by the doctrine of intersectionality around this view of the world , and policing of one ’ s status within it ( as assessed under the term “ positionality ” ) is famously vigorous within Critical Social Justice-run communities .
A volume could be written on this topic , and yet even these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point that “ Woke ” communities are moral communities to most readers even passingly familiar with the ideology .
Lindsay does eventually argue that Social Justice has a kind of deity and a kind of teleology ( though again not a metaphysical one ) : Religious moral law positions God as Moral Lawgiver and ( Moral ) Judge , and if we were to follow Aquinas again , we could say something like that there is something that gives moral law and is the ultimate judge of moral wrongdoing , and this all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though not necessarily in others and in not all regards , Critical Social Justice quite plainly has a God-concept , and it might be called ( following but extending from Marx ) “ the Eye at the End of History , ” which is something of a metaphor for that which looks back upon all of history from its end with the capacity to judge that which was on the right side of history and that which wasn ’ t .
The Eye at the End of History will be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the colonized and decolonizers from the colonizers , and the oppressed from the oppressors .
While they don ’ t believe this Eye of History is a metaphysical being they behave as if such a moral lawgiver exists .
And in the light of this future judgment it ’ s possible to make all kinds of absolute judgments about good and evil in the world .
And not only in the world but in the adherents themselves .
Lindsay spends several thousand words comparing the Social Justice believers to the Puritans and notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on sin , introspection , confession and the need for outside correction .
Here ’ s his conclusion to the section about Social Justice as religion : I think this does a thorough job of summarizing the case that Critical Social Justice , as an ideological worldview , is very similar to religion in most of the relevant ways .
It forms a moral community that is designed to meet the same psychosocial needs as religions are , though it is decentralized and disorganized ( I have previously called it “ disorganized religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be nearer the mark ) .
It provides a mythology , metaphysics , and moral law that binds the community and enables “ divinity ” -based psychosocial valuation of adherents and others , and this gives rise to clear “ critical ” duties of conscience in everyone the system can touch .
It ontologically grounds its moral commandments against the long view from the End of History , as a kind of legacy-based moral lawgiver and adjudicator .
It possesses its own epistemological framework as well—one rooted in the critical mythology of problematization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discursive production .
Since it proceeds from a mythology with its own creation myth , metaphysics , and moral law , this view is totalizing to those who adhere to it , as is typical of religious belief .
This system of belief is , in fact , constructed along the same lines as how Augustine organized Christianity and Aquinas “ proved ” the existence of God .
Finally , it gives way to fundamentalism of both types and manifests in puritanical form , which is something that , while it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within sects or cults that arise within religious movements and worldviews .
From there he moves on to the legal argument , i.e .
if it is a religion then it should be bound by the same rules as other religions including the separation between church and state .
At this point , I ’ ll skip ahead to his conclusion : Given the situation we find ourselves in , in society today , this matter demands serious debate .
If this argument is correct , Critical Social Justice must be protected under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that any who wish to hold this religious view for themselves as a matter of personal conscience must be protected in doing so .
That is their fundamental right , and it shall not be infringed .
In the same turn , the rest of us have fundamental rights to our own consciences as well , and Critical Social Justice has no standing upon which it can infringe upon them , or us .
The Establishment Clause should remove Critical Social Justice from our schools , our administrative state , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this faith , like any other , can not receive state endorsement or become a state religion .
It ’ s quite an audacious argument and I think Lindsay makes a convincing case that wokeism is a kind of alternate religion for a lot of people on the left .
Whether it could be treated as such under the Constitution in an interesting question .
It ’ s one thing to argue that it ’ s rational to do so but then you ’ ll wind up being shouted down by tens or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who aren ’ t the least bit interested in debating you on the point .
It ’ s just not part of their game .

I can’t take any credit for this idea as it comes entirely from James Lindsay. Wednesday he published his argument along these lines and it is more than 30,000 words long. So long that I’ve only read a fraction of it at this point but the gist of the argument is clear:
Critical Social Justice has already encroached deeply into our public education system and halls of government in the United States. In fact, this trend is accelerating to a pitch so extreme that complaints that schools are operating in the service of political indoctrination rather than as houses of a basic and liberal education, as they were initially conceived, are rapidly becoming plausible. The second is that a time may come in the not-distant future in which this totalizing and totalitarian worldview could be installed as the de facto state religion, even while it elides categorization as such. The state endorsement—or worse, enforcement—of any faith falls directly afoul of the protections the U.S. Constitution was written to ensure to individual citizens, and, in fact, to other systems of faith that would disagree with it. The question is, which totalizing worldviews that are not traditionally recognizable as faiths should be treated in the same way for the same reasons? While the answer to this question is not immediately clear, it must have to do with how they function in society and in the lives of those who believe them. Therefore, to put it directly: It is my belief that the contents of the Critical Social Justice worldview should be protected as matters of private conscience only, and they should also be limited as such. That is, I want to contend that the Free-exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment apply to Critical Social Justice. It is therefore not merely a philosophical exercise to ask whether or not Critical Social Justice constitutes a religion but also a serious legal one that gets to the very core of what the American Experiment has always been about—freedom of belief and from state religion. It is my intention here to make this case as briefly as possible, which means it will still be very long.
Almost immediately, Lindsay confronts a problem with his argument: Wokeness exists in a post-modern framework, one which doesn’t rely on any metaphysical beliefs in forces outside man himself. In short, it’s a religion without a god or gods.
As a general note that was central to my preceding piece, it is crucial that one understand Critical Social Justice as a fundamentally postmodern phenomenon. As most religions that we are familiar with present in a genuinely premodern way by invoking literally believed spiritual forces that exist in a separate plane of reality or as imperceptible-but-causal “energies” and engage in worship and practice in ritualistic ways that are, in turn, recognizably holdovers from premodern liturgical contexts, it can be difficult to see a postmodern faith for what it is. In a postmodern faith, God is dead, and the forces that work in a mysterious way in the world are necessarily sociological as a result. Formalized liturgical modes have been deconstructed and replaced with something more decentralized, chaotic, and even ironic. Because the central object of interest in all postmodern thought is social power, postmodern “deities” are systems of social power and the “social” phenomena that construct them.
Lindsay’s answer to this is that religions can be described not just metaphysically but sociologically.
Religions are, in the most general description, moral communities that provide three basic types of psychosocial (combined psychological and social) needs for their adherents and participants: meaning-making, a sense of control, and the capacity to establish, police, and understand one’s place in a community of people with shared (religious) values. While the precise definition of a religion may remain fuzzy and elusive, speaking functionally, these properties seem to form an identifiable skeleton upon which the meat of the matter is organized. It should be almost immediately obvious that the worldview of Critical Social Justice satisfies all of these criteria. Life in the community gains meaning in the (almost cosmic) battle for “liberation” against systemic oppression, and individual meaning (and agency) are defined almost entirely in terms of this struggle. The point of the struggle is obviously to achieve liberation from all systemic oppression, which can be achieved by gaining control over the machinations of society and the harms that an improperly managed society will mete out to some of its members, often the most vulnerable. A hierarchical community is set up by the doctrine of intersectionality around this view of the world, and policing of one’s status within it (as assessed under the term “positionality”) is famously vigorous within Critical Social Justice-run communities. A volume could be written on this topic, and yet even these few sentences are enough to convey the point that “Woke” communities are moral communities to most readers even passingly familiar with the ideology.
Lindsay does eventually argue that Social Justice has a kind of deity and a kind of teleology (though again not a metaphysical one):
Religious moral law positions God as Moral Lawgiver and (Moral) Judge, and if we were to follow Aquinas again, we could say something like that there is something that gives moral law and is the ultimate judge of moral wrongdoing, and this all men call God. In this respect, though not necessarily in others and in not all regards, Critical Social Justice quite plainly has a God-concept, and it might be called (following but extending from Marx) “the Eye at the End of History,” which is something of a metaphor for that which looks back upon all of history from its end with the capacity to judge that which was on the right side of history and that which wasn’t. The Eye at the End of History will be able to tell the abolitionists from the slavers, the colonized and decolonizers from the colonizers, and the oppressed from the oppressors.
While they don’t believe this Eye of History is a metaphysical being they behave as if such a moral lawgiver exists. And in the light of this future judgment it’s possible to make all kinds of absolute judgments about good and evil in the world. And not only in the world but in the adherents themselves. Lindsay spends several thousand words comparing the Social Justice believers to the Puritans and notes how both groups have a similar fixation on sin, introspection, confession and the need for outside correction. Here’s his conclusion to the section about Social Justice as religion:
I think this does a thorough job of summarizing the case that Critical Social Justice, as an ideological worldview, is very similar to religion in most of the relevant ways. It forms a moral community that is designed to meet the same psychosocial needs as religions are, though it is decentralized and disorganized (I have previously called it “disorganized religion,” though “decentralized” might be nearer the mark). It provides a mythology, metaphysics, and moral law that binds the community and enables “divinity”-based psychosocial valuation of adherents and others, and this gives rise to clear “critical” duties of conscience in everyone the system can touch. It ontologically grounds its moral commandments against the long view from the End of History, as a kind of legacy-based moral lawgiver and adjudicator. It possesses its own epistemological framework as well—one rooted in the critical mythology of problematization and postmodern mythology of lived experience and discursive production. Since it proceeds from a mythology with its own creation myth, metaphysics, and moral law, this view is totalizing to those who adhere to it, as is typical of religious belief. This system of belief is, in fact, constructed along the same lines as how Augustine organized Christianity and Aquinas “proved” the existence of God. Finally, it gives way to fundamentalism of both types and manifests in puritanical form, which is something that, while it is not limited to religion, is very common within sects or cults that arise within religious movements and worldviews.
From there he moves on to the legal argument, i.e. if it is a religion then it should be bound by the same rules as other religions including the separation between church and state. At this point, I’ll skip ahead to his conclusion:
Given the situation we find ourselves in, in society today, this matter demands serious debate. If this argument is correct, Critical Social Justice must be protected under the Free-exercise Clause of the First Amendment, so that any who wish to hold this religious view for themselves as a matter of personal conscience must be protected in doing so. That is their fundamental right, and it shall not be infringed. In the same turn, the rest of us have fundamental rights to our own consciences as well, and Critical Social Justice has no standing upon which it can infringe upon them, or us. The Establishment Clause should remove Critical Social Justice from our schools, our administrative state, and the halls of our government, as this faith, like any other, cannot receive state endorsement or become a state religion.
It’s quite an audacious argument and I think Lindsay makes a convincing case that wokeism is a kind of alternate religion for a lot of people on the left. Whether it could be treated as such under the Constitution in an interesting question. It’s one thing to argue that it’s rational to do so but then you’ll wind up being shouted down by tens or hundreds of thousands of Social Justice Warriors who aren’t the least bit interested in debating you on the point. It’s just not part of their game.