hotair--2020-09-23--Patricia Heaton warns Christians: Be prepared for "onslaught" of media hate

Actress Patricia Heaton is a unicorn in Hollywood .
She ’ s a conservative , pro-life woman who sometimes expresses political opinions through social media .
Last weekend she posted a warning to her followers on Twitter – be prepared to hear an “ onslaught of arrogant pronouncements ” from people who are “ ignorant of religion.
” Though she didn ’ t tweet in specifics , she was clearly motivated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Trump ’ s list of potential nominees to succeed her on the Supreme Court .
While she wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she did address Catholics in her warning of what is to come .
She warns of critics “ who wouldn ’ t recognize God if He bit them on the bum.
” Heaton posted a short thread on Twitter which calls out an article in Newsweek .
One name on Trump ’ s short list of potential nominees , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , was trashed by that publication for her religious beliefs .
Amy Coney Barrett ( ACB ) is described as a devout Catholic .
She and her family ( she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 adopted from Haiti and one special needs child ) belong to a Christian covenant community known as the People of Praise .
It is not a church or denomination , and membership is open to any baptized Christian who affirms the Nicene Creed and agrees to the community ’ s covenant .
According to its website , People of Praise “ is a community where Christians from diverse church backgrounds can share life , work , prayer and mission while still maintaining active membership in their local congregations.
” In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service .
How dare she belong to such an organization .
Liberal activists draw a link between People of Praise and The Handmaid ’ s Tale , a book by Canadian author Margaret Atwood that was turned into a Netflix series .
Published in 1985 , it is a tale of a dystopian community , a totalitarian state known as Gilead , set in a near-future New England .
Women in the community are forced into sexual servitude to repopulate the world which has been devastated by environmental disasters and a plummeting birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a feminist ’ s fantasy where the subserviant women rise up against the patriarchy .
The women in the book wear those long red capes and white bonnets you ’ ve seen during the Supreme Court nomination process of Brett Kavanaugh .
Liberal women love to reference this book against conservatives and I ’ m willing to bet that most of them haven ’ t even read it .
Articles in Newsweek , Reuters and Refinery29 connected People of Praise to the 1985 dystopian novel “ The Handmaid ’ s Tale , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 on Hulu .
Reuters reported that female leaders in the group were referred to as “ handmaids ” until 2018 .
“ Handmaid ’ s Tale ?
U.S. Supreme Court candidate ’ s religious community under scrutiny , ” tweeted Reuters , as shown on the Federalist .
Judge Barrett “ is affiliated with a type of Christian religious group that served as inspiration for Margaret Atwood ’ s dystopian novel , The Handmaid ’ s Tale , ” said Newsweek .
The basis for the reports was a 2017 New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former members who said that Judge Barrett and her husband were members , which People of Praise has neither confirmed nor denied .
Newsweek said the group was the inspiration for the novel by Margaret Atwood , then ran a correction citing a 2017 New Yorker report saying that her research included a newspaper clipping about another charismatic Catholic group , People of Hope .
Newsweek issued a feckless apology that did nothing to correct the narrative .
In 2017 , when ACB was enduring a contentious Senate confirmation hearing to be seated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 7th Circuit , on which she serves now , Senator Feinstein showed her anti-Catholic bias by telling her that “ the dogma lives loudly within you.
” This is the type of ignorant arrogance to which Patricia Heaton refers to now .
Senator Sasse calls the attacks from the left “ wacky McCarthyism ” .
He ’ s not wrong .
Liberal women are the first to speak up about supporting other women .
The hypocrisy in that , though , is that their support is only for other liberal women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drop of a hat .
In this case , they intend to pursue attacks against ACB over her religion and service to others .
ACB is reported to be Trump ’ s likely choice .
She has already been vetted by the U.S. Senate and technically , if the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman is so inclined , could be brought up for a vote without the show circus of a televised hearing now .
Frankly , the Democrats should get what they deserve – a highly-qualified conservative Supreme Court nominee ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The rest of the country will be grateful .

Actress Patricia Heaton is a unicorn in Hollywood. She’s a conservative, pro-life woman who sometimes expresses political opinions through social media. Last weekend she posted a warning to her followers on Twitter – be prepared to hear an “onslaught of arrogant pronouncements” from people who are “ignorant of religion.”
Though she didn’t tweet in specifics, she was clearly motivated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and President Trump’s list of potential nominees to succeed her on the Supreme Court. While she wasn’t specific in terms of politics, she did address Catholics in her warning of what is to come. She warns of critics “who wouldn’t recognize God if He bit them on the bum.” Heaton posted a short thread on Twitter which calls out an article in Newsweek. One name on Trump’s short list of potential nominees, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was trashed by that publication for her religious beliefs.
Friends, be prepared for social media to be filled with an onslaught of arrogant pronouncements based on breathtaking ignorance of religion in general, Christianity specifically and Catholicism in particularly by people who wouldn’t recognize God if He bit them on the bum. — Patricia Heaton (@PatriciaHeaton) September 21, 2020
The @Newsweek article never mentions that families in People of Praise move into low income or troubled neighborhoods with their kids and work to improve the lives of their neighbors (info which is available on their website). — Patricia Heaton (@PatriciaHeaton) September 22, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is described as a devout Catholic. She and her family (she is mom to seven children, including 2 adopted from Haiti and one special needs child) belong to a Christian covenant community known as the People of Praise. It is not a church or denomination, and membership is open to any baptized Christian who affirms the Nicene Creed and agrees to the community’s covenant. According to its website, People of Praise “is a community where Christians from diverse church backgrounds can share life, work, prayer and mission while still maintaining active membership in their local congregations.” In other words, the community is one dedicated to service. How dare she belong to such an organization.
Liberal activists draw a link between People of Praise and The Handmaid’s Tale, a book by Canadian author Margaret Atwood that was turned into a Netflix series. Published in 1985, it is a tale of a dystopian community, a totalitarian state known as Gilead, set in a near-future New England. Women in the community are forced into sexual servitude to repopulate the world which has been devastated by environmental disasters and a plummeting birth rate. In other words, it is a feminist’s fantasy where the subserviant women rise up against the patriarchy. The women in the book wear those long red capes and white bonnets you’ve seen during the Supreme Court nomination process of Brett Kavanaugh. Liberal women love to reference this book against conservatives and I’m willing to bet that most of them haven’t even read it.
Articles in Newsweek, Reuters and Refinery29 connected People of Praise to the 1985 dystopian novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which became a miniseries starting in 2017 on Hulu. Reuters reported that female leaders in the group were referred to as “handmaids” until 2018. “Handmaid’s Tale? U.S. Supreme Court candidate’s religious community under scrutiny,” tweeted Reuters, as shown on the Federalist. Judge Barrett “is affiliated with a type of Christian religious group that served as inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale,” said Newsweek. The basis for the reports was a 2017 New York Times article that cited unnamed current and former members who said that Judge Barrett and her husband were members, which People of Praise has neither confirmed nor denied. Newsweek said the group was the inspiration for the novel by Margaret Atwood, then ran a correction citing a 2017 New Yorker report saying that her research included a newspaper clipping about another charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope.
Newsweek issued a feckless apology that did nothing to correct the narrative.
The source for this article's claim is . . . that Newsweek piece that has been corrected and should have been retracted. — Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) September 22, 2020
This false Sarah Midkiff story was originally posted hours after the Newsweek correction https://t.co/kidjviKQoO — Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) September 22, 2020
In 2017, when ACB was enduring a contentious Senate confirmation hearing to be seated on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, on which she serves now, Senator Feinstein showed her anti-Catholic bias by telling her that “the dogma lives loudly within you.” This is the type of ignorant arrogance to which Patricia Heaton refers to now. Senator Sasse calls the attacks from the left “wacky McCarthyism”. He’s not wrong.
Sen. Ben Sasse, Nebraska Republican, swung to Judge Barrett’s defense, describing People of Praise as “basically a Bible study” and calling on senators to “condemn this wacky McCarthyism.” “These ugly smears against Judge Barrett are a combination of anti-Catholic bigotry and QAnon-level stupidity,” said Mr. Sasse in a statement. “People of Praise is basically a Bible study—and just like billions of Christians around the world, Judge Barrett reads the Bible, prays, and tried to serve her community.”
Liberal women are the first to speak up about supporting other women. The hypocrisy in that, though, is that their support is only for other liberal women. They smear and ridicule conservative women at the drop of a hat. In this case, they intend to pursue attacks against ACB over her religion and service to others.
ACB is reported to be Trump’s likely choice. She has already been vetted by the U.S. Senate and technically, if the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman is so inclined, could be brought up for a vote without the show circus of a televised hearing now. Frankly, the Democrats should get what they deserve – a highly-qualified conservative Supreme Court nominee’s quick confirmation and placement on the court. The rest of the country will be grateful.


hotair--2020-09-23--Unlawful assembly has already been declared in Louisville <span class='red'>(Update: Two officers sh

Unlawful assembly has already been declared in Louisville (Update: Two officers shot)

The announcement that no charges were brought against officers for the death of Breonna Taylor has led to a BLM protest march through the city .
There have been some scuffles with police and about an hour ago ( as I write this ) police declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to clear the area .
There are several reporters on the ground .
Let ’ s start with Townhall ’ s Julio Rosas : Lots of shields in that truck : The Krassenstein brothers are already labeling this a false flag : Of course there ’ s video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but those idiots don ’ t care : Rosas caught this death threat followed by scuffles with police and arrests : Another view of the standoff with police : There ’ s also a caravan of BLM supporters in cars : Some people shouting at police trying to provoke a reaction from them or the crowd : Some people are already turning on local businesses : It ’ s not even dark yet .
Things always get worse once it ’ s dark .
I ’ ll update this post as the night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopeful this is going to remain peaceful or even “ mostly peaceful.
” Update : Two police officers were shot in downtown Louisville : At least two Louisville Metro Police officers were shot in downtown Louisville Wednesday night , just eight hours after an indictment was returned in the Breonna Taylor case .
A source with knowledge of the situation confirmed the number of officers to The Courier Journal .
I can ’ t verify this yet this is a clip that I see circulating that may depict the moment the shooting took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is the usual assortment of fires and broken windows : There is supposed to be a briefing on the shooting coming up .
I ’ ll update this once it ’ s available .
Here ’ s how this is getting covered .
Infuriating : Update : The police statement was very brief .
Two officers were shot and both are in stable condition with non-life threatening injures .
One is in surgery .
A suspect has been arrested :

The announcement that no charges were brought against officers for the death of Breonna Taylor has led to a BLM protest march through the city. There have been some scuffles with police and about an hour ago (as I write this) police declared an unlawful assembly and ordered everyone to clear the area. There are several reporters on the ground. Let’s start with Townhall’s Julio Rosas:
On the ground in Louisville, Ky. for @townhallcom and the protesting crowd just heard the charges the grand jury announced for the Breonna Taylor case. They are not happy at all, some people are crying. pic.twitter.com/DwGcYKyha4 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
As the BLM crowd chanted, “If we didn’t get it, burn it down!” they have marched outside the barricaded zone in Louisville and have shut down traffic in an intersection. pic.twitter.com/cIUtveA7xV — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Fairly quickly the police arrived:
The protesters had a supply truck:
Tense scene as the BLM crowd marched though the streets while passing by Louisville police cars and officers. pic.twitter.com/tPyvxsJsKt — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Lots of shields in that truck:
The Krassenstein brothers are already labeling this a false flag:
Does anyone else think that the Trump campaign or Republicans could be behind this Uhaul van handing out shields and "abolish the police" signs in Louisville? It would just be so easy for Trump and the GOP to sell their stupid narrative, wouldn't it? pic.twitter.com/vn8Aj8lCpF — Mrs. Krassenstein (@HKrassenstein) September 23, 2020
Of course there’s video of the marchers with these same signs but those idiots don’t care:
Protesters have organized a full front line now as they move through the streets #Louisville #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/WHmiwVM2DU — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
Rosas caught this death threat followed by scuffles with police and arrests:
The BLM crowd was marching in the street until they were stopped by Louisville police in riot gear. The police moved in and rioters started to fight with the police and arrests have been made. pic.twitter.com/Y9lAV76SJP — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Another view of the standoff with police:
First standoff between police and protesters. pic.twitter.com/zkz6Xydg8Q — John Eligon (@jeligon) September 23, 2020
Some initial vandalism:
Protesters storm a restaurant and begin throwing tables and chairs on the outdoor patio #Louisville #LouisvilleProtest #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/yYukW8b3FG — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
An unlawful assembly was declared:
Cops declare an unlawful assembly downtown and telling protesters to leave. Protesters fairly thin in numbers but lots of police. Two armored vehicles and lots of batons. pic.twitter.com/jICtZwIhO0 — John Eligon (@jeligon) September 23, 2020
Another speaker announcement from the LMPD declaring the demonstration an unlawful assembly #Louisville #LouisvilleProtest #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/ev19d2i2EJ — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
There’s also a caravan of BLM supporters in cars:
Some people shouting at police trying to provoke a reaction from them or the crowd:
Arrests are being made:
Arrests being made after the unlawful assembly declaration, as police try to clear the crowd of protesters #Louisville #LouisvilleProtest #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/XNIxLKCO74 — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
Some people are already turning on local businesses:
Hearing reports the windows survived despite protesters banging on them with their bats and wooden beams. The scene got too chaotic there along Bardstown to fully assess, will find out more if I can. — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
Bottles are being thrown:
Someone threw a glass bottle towards the police, hit one of the protesters instead #Louisville #LouisvilleProtests #BreonnaTaylor pic.twitter.com/uH0GhCXXRI — Brendan Gutenschwager (@BGOnTheScene) September 23, 2020
It’s not even dark yet. Things always get worse once it’s dark.
I’ll update this post as the night goes on. I’m not hopeful this is going to remain peaceful or even “mostly peaceful.”
Update: Two police officers were shot in downtown Louisville:
At least two Louisville Metro Police officers were shot in downtown Louisville Wednesday night, just eight hours after an indictment was returned in the Breonna Taylor case. A source with knowledge of the situation confirmed the number of officers to The Courier Journal.
I can’t verify this yet this is a clip that I see circulating that may depict the moment the shooting took place.
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1308928098709262339
In addition to the shooting there is the usual assortment of fires and broken windows:
Police came out of the Hall of Justice in Louisville to put out the fires that had been started and were attacked with projectiles by rioters. The police fell back inside the building. An unlawful assembly has been declared. pic.twitter.com/EVEbqje7gr — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 23, 2020
Some people in the crowd are breaking uncovered windows as they walk down the street in Louisville. pic.twitter.com/hJfwqBwB7t — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) September 24, 2020
Louisville: A group of rioters attempted to hide from police in the grass near a highway underpass They were quickly found out pic.twitter.com/BxcOBMy8BQ — Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) September 24, 2020
There is supposed to be a briefing on the shooting coming up. I’ll update this once it’s available.
Here’s how this is getting covered. Infuriating:
If “gunshots rang out,” it wasn’t peaceful. https://t.co/3XrA4bXAaY — Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) September 24, 2020
Update: The police statement was very brief. Two officers were shot and both are in stable condition with non-life threatening injures. One is in surgery. A suspect has been arrested:


hotair--2020-09-24--Video of the day: Woman tasered for not wearing a mask at an outdoor middle-school football game

“ You can ’ t arrest someone for not wearing a mask !
” exclaims one observer toward the end of the video .
As is seen here , police can , at least in Logan , Ohio .
Whether or not that arrest holds up remains to be seen , but an even better question arises — is mask defiance a good reason to taser someone ?
And what does all this struggling and shouting do for suppressing COVID-19 transmission ?
Or maybe just more basically … isn ’ t this insane ?
Via Third Base Politics , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schools parent has been detained and arrested following noncompliance with state mask mandates during an eighth-grade football game at Logan this evening according to MCS Athletic Director Cody Venderlic .
“ I ’ m grateful that it didn ’ t happen in Marietta , but it saddens me that it was Marietta that caused it in Logan , ” said Venderlic .
“ As athletic directors , we ’ ve talked about this too and the biggest challenge about dealing with visiting fans is people behave much better at home than when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MCS Board Member Doug Mallett is also seen in both of the videos , rising when the woman appears to have been tased by the police officer administering the arrest .
‘ It escalated pretty fast into an ugly situation , he tased her pretty fast , ” said Mallett .
“ I didn ’ t see where she was putting anybody at risk , I guess that ’ s a Logan rule .
It depends on interpretation , it ’ s a state rule , but I thought there was some wiggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I tried to stay out of it until he got the taser out.
” It escalated fast , but there ’ s blame on both sides for that .
The enforcement of the mask mandate may have been heavy-handed , but police have the authority to detain people for violations of the law .
Resisting arrest leads to escalating force , including tasering when that resistance becomes physical to the point of obstruction .
The proper action for the woman would have been to comply with being detained while objecting , and have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With that said , and acknowledging that the school had informed everyone of the requirement to wear a mask , let ’ s look at the actual risk this woman presented .
There wasn ’ t anyone outside her family “ bubble ” within six feet of her breath ; in fact , it doesn ’ t look like there was anyone within twenty feet of her until the police officer approached .
Besides that , this game was played outdoors , where transmission risk is minimal anyway .
Masks make sense indoors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in this case the transmission risk from woman was likely zero .
A request to put the mask back on should have sufficed , or even a ticket requiring a fine , but what transpires in this video exponentially increased the risk of transmission .
How did that serve the public good that the mask mandate is supposedly serving ?
This comes at a time when we are having massive debates about policing , and this is an ironic display of how mandates can create bad outcomes in law enforcement .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have fewer intrusive laws and emergency mandates .
Masks might be a rational choice for a mandate in a pandemic , but the imposition of them has felt much more like political pandering without any thought as to their enforcement consequences .
This video puts those absurd consequences on full display .
And with that , here ’ s an exit question : shouldn ’ t the police be wearing masks , too ?
Watch the clip carefully to see who is and isn ’ t wearing masks , a point not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

“You can’t arrest someone for not wearing a mask!” exclaims one observer toward the end of the video. As is seen here, police can, at least in Logan, Ohio. Whether or not that arrest holds up remains to be seen, but an even better question arises — is mask defiance a good reason to taser someone? And what does all this struggling and shouting do for suppressing COVID-19 transmission?
Or maybe just more basically … isn’t this insane? Via Third Base Politics, and NSFW language included:
A Marietta City Schools parent has been detained and arrested following noncompliance with state mask mandates during an eighth-grade football game at Logan this evening according to MCS Athletic Director Cody Venderlic. “I’m grateful that it didn’t happen in Marietta, but it saddens me that it was Marietta that caused it in Logan,” said Venderlic. “As athletic directors, we’ve talked about this too and the biggest challenge about dealing with visiting fans is people behave much better at home than when they’re on the road.” … MCS Board Member Doug Mallett is also seen in both of the videos, rising when the woman appears to have been tased by the police officer administering the arrest. ‘It escalated pretty fast into an ugly situation, he tased her pretty fast,” said Mallett. “I didn’t see where she was putting anybody at risk, I guess that’s a Logan rule. It depends on interpretation, it’s a state rule, but I thought there was some wiggle room if you have health issues. I tried to stay out of it until he got the taser out.”
It escalated fast, but there’s blame on both sides for that. The enforcement of the mask mandate may have been heavy-handed, but police have the authority to detain people for violations of the law. Resisting arrest leads to escalating force, including tasering when that resistance becomes physical to the point of obstruction. The proper action for the woman would have been to comply with being detained while objecting, and have an attorney work it out afterward.
With that said, and acknowledging that the school had informed everyone of the requirement to wear a mask, let’s look at the actual risk this woman presented. There wasn’t anyone outside her family “bubble” within six feet of her breath; in fact, it doesn’t look like there was anyone within twenty feet of her until the police officer approached. Besides that, this game was played outdoors, where transmission risk is minimal anyway. Masks make sense indoors or where participant density is significant, but in this case the transmission risk from woman was likely zero. A request to put the mask back on should have sufficed, or even a ticket requiring a fine, but what transpires in this video exponentially increased the risk of transmission. How did that serve the public good that the mask mandate is supposedly serving?
This comes at a time when we are having massive debates about policing, and this is an ironic display of how mandates can create bad outcomes in law enforcement. If we want less intrusive policing, we should have fewer intrusive laws and emergency mandates. Masks might be a rational choice for a mandate in a pandemic, but the imposition of them has felt much more like political pandering without any thought as to their enforcement consequences. This video puts those absurd consequences on full display.
And with that, here’s an exit question: shouldn’t the police be wearing masks, too? Watch the clip carefully to see who is and isn’t wearing masks, a point not lost on the witnesses in the stands.


hotair--2020-09-24--Dems: On second thought, please don't send your ballot through the mail

I think this is partly a Trump thing and partly a “ you know , maybe mail-in ballots aren ’ t that great an idea after all ” thing .
Driving the news : In Colorado , former Gov .
John Hickenlooper , who ’ s running against Sen. Cory Gardner , told Axios that he ’ s encouraging voters to physically take their mail-in ballots to a dropbox and to do so “ early , really early.
” Paulette Jordan , a Democratic candidate for Senate in Idaho , told Axios that she ’ s encouraging voters to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the county courthouse .
Black PAC has moved from exclusively educating voters on voting by mail to informing about all available options : in-person , absentee , early voting and voting on Election Day .
The Collective PAC — the largest Black-led political action committee targeting Black voters and candidates — is pivoting , too .
“ We ’ re shifting away from making plans to vote by mail to voting early in person , ” Quentin James , the group ’ s founder , told Axios .
The Trump part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counting on being ahead on election night when the same-day votes are counted , whereupon he ’ ll insist that he ’ s the rightful winner of the election because all mail-in ballots are inherently suspect .
( They aren ’ t . )
The term “ blue shift ” has begun creeping into election analyses lately : That ’ s the idea that , a la Arizona 2018 , because Democratic voters are much more likely to vote by mail , Democratic candidates may “ come from behind ” in a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots .
The Republican candidate ( e.g.
, Martha McSally ) ends up leading when the election-day votes are counted but then the Democrat ( Kyrsten Sinema ) overtakes her in the following days as mail votes are tallied — that ’ s the “ blue shift.
” Because Trump can ’ t tolerate the idea of losing , he ’ s going to seize on it as prima facie proof of fraud this November even though it ’ s a perfectly straightforward electoral dynamic .
Of course , if he hadn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own base that mail-in voting is necessarily corrupt , there wouldn ’ t be as much of a blue shift as there is .
There ’ d be lots of Republican votes in the mail to be counted too .
As it is , though : Trump-lovers will be at the polls in person on Election Day ( or during early voting ) .
Trump-haters will be mailing their votes in .
The “ blue shift ” will be extreme , and the more extreme it is , the easier it is for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be convinced that his loss can only be attributable to cheating .
So go figure that Democrats are suddenly scrambling to deny him that talking point by convincing their voters to vote in-person too .
Of course , there ’ s another way to avoid a “ blue shift.
” We could simply have states start counting mail-in ballots *before* Election Day , not the day-of .
We count votes cast during early voting before Election Day , right ?
Well , do it for mail-in votes too .
That way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on election night , denying Trump his opportunity to call foul .
( But not denying it completely .
Provisional ballots will still need to be counted after Election Day , as will any mail-in votes submitted in states that allow ballots to be cast so long as they ’ re postmarked by Election Day . )
A noteworthy point here : Interesting that the GOP is resisting this otherwise sensible move , no ?
It ’ d be one thing if they opposed mail-in voting altogether ; if you buy Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be trusted , ending the practice would make sense .
But blocking efforts to count valid mail-in ballots before Election Day seems inexplicable — unless they ’ re actually trying to enable Trump ’ s attempt to undermine public confidence in the election results .
That is , if Trump is destined to lose , Republicans may *want* a blue shift to make it easier for him to cry that he was cheated after the fact .
That ’ s the state of our country right now .
If it serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s institutions , that ’ s what you do .
There ’ s a non-Trump component to all this too , though .
Although he grossly exaggerates the unreliability of mail-in ballots to serve his own interests , he doesn ’ t overstate them completely .
Nervous election-watchers have been following the legal saga in Pennsylvania over “ naked ballots , ” another term of art you ’ ll be hearing more often in the weeks to come .
“ Naked ballot ” comes from the fact that mail-in votes in PA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both of which are provided with the ballot .
The inner envelope is for secrecy , to allow the voter to vote “ anonymously.
” The outer envelope lists the voter ’ s identifying information and contains the inner envelope and the ballot .
A poll worker validates that the info on the outer ballot is correct , then opens the envelope and places the inner envelope containing the anonymous ballot in a stack to be counted by someone else .
The question : Since many Americans are … not bright , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what happens when people inevitably send a ballot through the mail in only the outer envelope , without the inner secrecy envelope — i.e .
a “ naked ballot ” ?
Does that ballot count ?
But throwing out naked ballots could be costly for Biden , in a state President Donald Trump won by only about 44,000 votes in 2016 , or less than 1 % .
“ While everyone is talking about the significance of extending the mail-ballot deadline , it is the naked ballot ruling that is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , chair of the Philadelphia city commissioners , wrote in a letter to state legislative leaders urging them to change the law to allow the ballots to be counted .
Deeley warned there will likely be tens of thousands thrown out — maybe more than 100,000 .
Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes four years ago .
Because Democrats are much more likely to vote by mail than Republicans , a “ naked ballot ” controversy involving 100,000 ballots might well erase a Biden victory in the state and , with it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once again , is to get Democrats to vote early and in-person .
Look who ’ s starting to speak up about it : There ’ s one weird wrinkle to Sleepy Joe ’ s newfound support for in-person voting .
If that ’ s safe enough to do , why isn ’ t door-knocking in swing states safe enough for his campaign staff and voters ?
He ’ s at serious risk of losing Florida , and probably not just Florida , because he ’ s ceded the field to Republicans on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote is safe in a pandemic , interacting with voters at their front doors while standing six feet away and wearing a mask should be safe too .
Here ’ s Deborah Birx last month putting the risk from in-person voting in perspective .

I think this is partly a Trump thing and partly a “you know, maybe mail-in ballots aren’t that great an idea after all” thing.
Driving the news: In Colorado, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, who’s running against Sen. Cory Gardner, told Axios that he’s encouraging voters to physically take their mail-in ballots to a dropbox and to do so “early, really early.” Paulette Jordan, a Democratic candidate for Senate in Idaho, told Axios that she’s encouraging voters to take their filled out mail ballots in person to the county courthouse. Black PAC has moved from exclusively educating voters on voting by mail to informing about all available options: in-person, absentee, early voting and voting on Election Day. The Collective PAC — the largest Black-led political action committee targeting Black voters and candidates — is pivoting, too. “We’re shifting away from making plans to vote by mail to voting early in person,” Quentin James, the group’s founder, told Axios.
The Trump part of this equation is that he’s counting on being ahead on election night when the same-day votes are counted, whereupon he’ll insist that he’s the rightful winner of the election because all mail-in ballots are inherently suspect. (They aren’t.) The term “blue shift” has begun creeping into election analyses lately: That’s the idea that, a la Arizona 2018, because Democratic voters are much more likely to vote by mail, Democratic candidates may “come from behind” in a close race during the post-election counting of those ballots. The Republican candidate (e.g., Martha McSally) ends up leading when the election-day votes are counted but then the Democrat (Kyrsten Sinema) overtakes her in the following days as mail votes are tallied — that’s the “blue shift.” Because Trump can’t tolerate the idea of losing, he’s going to seize on it as prima facie proof of fraud this November even though it’s a perfectly straightforward electoral dynamic.
Of course, if he hadn’t spent months trying to convince his own base that mail-in voting is necessarily corrupt, there wouldn’t be as much of a blue shift as there is. There’d be lots of Republican votes in the mail to be counted too. As it is, though:
Trump-lovers will be at the polls in person on Election Day (or during early voting). Trump-haters will be mailing their votes in. The “blue shift” will be extreme, and the more extreme it is, the easier it is for Trump to convince those who are eager to be convinced that his loss can only be attributable to cheating. So go figure that Democrats are suddenly scrambling to deny him that talking point by convincing their voters to vote in-person too.
Of course, there’s another way to avoid a “blue shift.” We could simply have states start counting mail-in ballots *before* Election Day, not the day-of. We count votes cast during early voting before Election Day, right? Well, do it for mail-in votes too. That way, most of the votes will be known on election night, denying Trump his opportunity to call foul. (But not denying it completely. Provisional ballots will still need to be counted after Election Day, as will any mail-in votes submitted in states that allow ballots to be cast so long as they’re postmarked by Election Day.) A noteworthy point here:
This is true. But Rust Belt is key here. Ohio counts mail ballots first on election night BECAUSE clerks can start opening envelopes weeks b4 Election Day. In WI/MI/PA clerks can't open mail ballot envelopes UNTIL election day. MI & PA are working on change but GOP is resisting https://t.co/CK7lBpC3Ib — Jon Ward (@jonward11) September 24, 2020
Interesting that the GOP is resisting this otherwise sensible move, no? It’d be one thing if they opposed mail-in voting altogether; if you buy Trump’s line that the process simply can’t be trusted, ending the practice would make sense. But blocking efforts to count valid mail-in ballots before Election Day seems inexplicable — unless they’re actually trying to enable Trump’s attempt to undermine public confidence in the election results. That is, if Trump is destined to lose, Republicans may *want* a blue shift to make it easier for him to cry that he was cheated after the fact.
That’s the state of our country right now. If it serves the party to sow distrust in America’s institutions, that’s what you do.
There’s a non-Trump component to all this too, though. Although he grossly exaggerates the unreliability of mail-in ballots to serve his own interests, he doesn’t overstate them completely. Nervous election-watchers have been following the legal saga in Pennsylvania over “naked ballots,” another term of art you’ll be hearing more often in the weeks to come. “Naked ballot” comes from the fact that mail-in votes in PA need to be enclosed in *two* envelopes, both of which are provided with the ballot. The inner envelope is for secrecy, to allow the voter to vote “anonymously.” The outer envelope lists the voter’s identifying information and contains the inner envelope and the ballot. A poll worker validates that the info on the outer ballot is correct, then opens the envelope and places the inner envelope containing the anonymous ballot in a stack to be counted by someone else. The question: Since many Americans are … not bright, and can’t follow basic instructions, what happens when people inevitably send a ballot through the mail in only the outer envelope, without the inner secrecy envelope — i.e. a “naked ballot”? Does that ballot count?
Uh, no, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled:
But throwing out naked ballots could be costly for Biden, in a state President Donald Trump won by only about 44,000 votes in 2016, or less than 1%. “While everyone is talking about the significance of extending the mail-ballot deadline, it is the naked ballot ruling that is going to cause electoral chaos,” Lisa Deeley, chair of the Philadelphia city commissioners, wrote in a letter to state legislative leaders urging them to change the law to allow the ballots to be counted. Deeley warned there will likely be tens of thousands thrown out — maybe more than 100,000.
Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes four years ago. Because Democrats are much more likely to vote by mail than Republicans, a “naked ballot” controversy involving 100,000 ballots might well erase a Biden victory in the state and, with it, a Biden presidency.
The solution, once again, is to get Democrats to vote early and in-person. Look who’s starting to speak up about it:
In-person early voting should be easy and convenient for all. The Flint, MI City Clerk's office will be open the last three weekends before Election Day for folks to cast their ballots. It's an example that cities and states across the country should follow. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 24, 2020
There’s one weird wrinkle to Sleepy Joe’s newfound support for in-person voting. If that’s safe enough to do, why isn’t door-knocking in swing states safe enough for his campaign staff and voters? He’s at serious risk of losing Florida, and probably not just Florida, because he’s ceded the field to Republicans on basic face-to-face organizing. If turning out to vote is safe in a pandemic, interacting with voters at their front doors while standing six feet away and wearing a mask should be safe too.
Here’s Deborah Birx last month putting the risk from in-person voting in perspective.


hotair--2020-09-24--HuffPost: After Ginsburg died, I joined the Satanic Temple to fight for abortion rights

Maybe you ’ re thinking this is a gag but it doesn ’ t seem to be .
A guest writer at HuffPost says that in the wake of Justice Ginsburg ’ s death she ’ s decided to join the Satanic Temple to protect abortion rights : I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls .
I often walk with my children to get ice cream and spend weekends hiking through a national park .
I am not the type of person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but these are not normal times… When Justice Ginsburg died , I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before .
Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before .
And , so , I have turned to Satanism .
As the author goes on to explain , the Satanism she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigious atheists , not people sacrificing goats : Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition .
In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God , Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists .
They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan .
Instead , the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion .
The basic argument here is that with Ginsburg gone and Trump likely to replace her with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett , Roe v. Wade could be on its last legs .
So she wants to support a group that is going to more aggressively use the law to undermine that outcome .
The author highlights a Rolling Stone article last month about the Satanic Temple ’ s efforts to argue abortion restrictions can by bypassed under the Hobby Lobby exemption .
Essentially , the Temple is arguing that abortion is a sacred ritual , but so far their track record with their argument isn ’ t very impressive : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple state and federal court cases on behalf of members who were pregnant and sought an abortion at the time the lawsuits were filed .
So far , it has been unsuccessful .
It lost in 2019 before the Missouri Supreme Court , which ruled that the challenged Missouri abortion law does not require any patient to actually have an ultrasound ( though one must be offered ) or read the state pamphlet ( though it must be provided ) .
In June this year , the federal appeals court that covers Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exempt from generally applicable and neutral state laws just because their religious beliefs disagree with the law .
The Satanic Temple , who may wind up appealing this to the Supreme Court , isn ’ t backing down , and it issued a press release earlier this month again claiming that it is exempt from state abortion restrictions .
The church is clearly reading the tea leaves about how the Supreme Court is treating religious liberty .
It ’ s also counting on the Court ultimately being evenhanded with its religious liberty jurisprudence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s dominant religion , it should benefit all religions .
There ’ s reason to doubt whether the Court will apply these principles neutrally , but if it does , The Satanic Temple may eventually win .
To be clear , the win the Temple is seeking isn ’ t really to exempt its members from abortion laws so much as to prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider the religious exemption itself .
This is the same approach the group used to fight a 10 commandments display in Arkansas .
The group claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statue of a Satanic figure on state grounds in the hopes that authorities would remove the 10 commandments display to prevent that from happening .
What the group is doing is somewhat similar to what conservative speakers have been doing for the past few years by showing up at places like Berkeley to hold speeches .
It ’ s a test of free speech in a real world environment .
But obviously no one dies at a Ben Shapiro speech on a college campus ( though activists often suggest they will ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people oppose it in the first place .
Countries around the world , including those that are far more secular than ours , limit when and where abortions can take place .
I think the real flaw in the argument here is the logic of taking this to the Supreme Court .
It ’ s like saying the Seattle City Council is full of left-wing cranks and then taking your complaint to the Seattle City Council and expecting them to agree with you .
It seems counter-intuitive to say the least .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left .
There ’ s already an argument out there that woke politics operates exactly like a religion , albeit one without a belief in any genuine divine being ( just like the Satanic Temple ) .
Should people be able to declare themselves exempt from laws instituted based on woke politics as well as abortion restrictions ?
Finally , if you thought I was exaggerating about the Temple claiming abortion is a ritual , well , here they are making that argument .
This is creepy but again these folks are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re atheists using this imagery to troll people .

Maybe you’re thinking this is a gag but it doesn’t seem to be. A guest writer at HuffPost says that in the wake of Justice Ginsburg’s death she’s decided to join the Satanic Temple to protect abortion rights:
I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls. I often walk with my children to get ice cream and spend weekends hiking through a national park. I am not the type of person who would normally consider becoming a Satanist, but these are not normal times…
When Justice Ginsburg died, I knew immediately that action was needed on a scale we have not seen before. Our democracy has become so fragile that the loss of one of the last guardians of common sense and decency in government less than two months before a pivotal election has put our civil and reproductive rights in danger like never before. And, so, I have turned to Satanism.
As the author goes on to explain, the Satanism she’s joining is essentially a group of litigious atheists, not people sacrificing goats:
Members of the Satanic Temple do not believe in the supernatural or superstition. In the same way that some Unitarians and some Jews do not believe in God, Satanic Temple members do not worship Satan and most are atheists. They are not affiliated in any way with the Church of Satan. Instead, the Satanic Temple uses the devil as a symbol of rebellion.
The basic argument here is that with Ginsburg gone and Trump likely to replace her with a far more conservative judge, such Amy Coney Barrett, Roe v. Wade could be on its last legs. So she wants to support a group that is going to more aggressively use the law to undermine that outcome. The author highlights a Rolling Stone article last month about the Satanic Temple’s efforts to argue abortion restrictions can by bypassed under the Hobby Lobby exemption. Essentially, the Temple is arguing that abortion is a sacred ritual, but so far their track record with their argument isn’t very impressive:
The Satanic Temple has made these claims in multiple state and federal court cases on behalf of members who were pregnant and sought an abortion at the time the lawsuits were filed. So far, it has been unsuccessful. It lost in 2019 before the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled that the challenged Missouri abortion law does not require any patient to actually have an ultrasound (though one must be offered) or read the state pamphlet (though it must be provided). In June this year, the federal appeals court that covers Missouri ruled that the Satanists cannot be exempt from generally applicable and neutral state laws just because their religious beliefs disagree with the law. The Satanic Temple, who may wind up appealing this to the Supreme Court, isn’t backing down, and it issued a press release earlier this month again claiming that it is exempt from state abortion restrictions. The church is clearly reading the tea leaves about how the Supreme Court is treating religious liberty. It’s also counting on the Court ultimately being evenhanded with its religious liberty jurisprudence — if it benefits the country’s dominant religion, it should benefit all religions. There’s reason to doubt whether the Court will apply these principles neutrally, but if it does, The Satanic Temple may eventually win.
To be clear, the win the Temple is seeking isn’t really to exempt its members from abortion laws so much as to prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider the religious exemption itself. This is the same approach the group used to fight a 10 commandments display in Arkansas. The group claimed it had a right to put a statue of a Satanic figure on state grounds in the hopes that authorities would remove the 10 commandments display to prevent that from happening.
What the group is doing is somewhat similar to what conservative speakers have been doing for the past few years by showing up at places like Berkeley to hold speeches. It’s a test of free speech in a real world environment. But obviously no one dies at a Ben Shapiro speech on a college campus (though activists often suggest they will). Abortion is fundamentally different which is why people oppose it in the first place. Countries around the world, including those that are far more secular than ours, limit when and where abortions can take place.
I think the real flaw in the argument here is the logic of taking this to the Supreme Court. It’s like saying the Seattle City Council is full of left-wing cranks and then taking your complaint to the Seattle City Council and expecting them to agree with you. It seems counter-intuitive to say the least.
I wonder if pushing this could backfire on the left. There’s already an argument out there that woke politics operates exactly like a religion, albeit one without a belief in any genuine divine being (just like the Satanic Temple). Should people be able to declare themselves exempt from laws instituted based on woke politics as well as abortion restrictions?
Finally, if you thought I was exaggerating about the Temple claiming abortion is a ritual, well, here they are making that argument. This is creepy but again these folks are aren’t Satanists, they’re atheists using this imagery to troll people.


hotair--2020-09-24--McConnell: We'll have a fair hearing for the SCOTUS pick, followed by a first-class confirmation

Will they or won ’ t they ?
Ever since Rush Limbaugh suggested skipping the confirmation hearing for Donald Trump ’ s upcoming Supreme Court nominee , people have wondered whether Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell would just have the Judiciary Committee vote on the basis of a previous confirmation process .
That would be easy enough to do with either Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa , both confirmed to the federal bench since 2017 , although perhaps tougher to justify for others .
In a floor speech this morning , McConnell sounded as though he was setting up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be necessary .
“ Far left ” attacks on Republican nominees are all the same anyway , McConnell argued , “ every single time.
” Remember , for instance , when the Supreme Court was about to start “ ending freedom for women in this country ” with the addition of … David Souter ?
Good times , good times : We do not yet know which legal all-star from his list he will nominate .
But strangely enough , we already do know exactly what the far left will start shouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Isn ’ t that a little curious , when you stop to think about it ?
A confirmation process is ostensibly about the qualifications and credentials of the nominee .
So why is it that practically any citizen could sit down at their kitchen table right now , days before the nomination , and write down in advance the list of ludicrous accusations the far left is guaranteed to be screaming by Saturday night ?
It ’ s because year after year , decade after decade , the far left ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1990 , they got the band back together yet again .
This time , the sky was falling for sure .
President Bush had picked someone whose record was ‘ very troubling ’ … whose jurisprudence would surely , quote , ‘ threaten to undo the advances made by women , minorities , dissenters , and other disadvantaged groups ’ … whose confirmation would mean , quote , ‘ ending freedom for women in this country.
’ Talk about wearing out the volume knob .
Oh , that was future Justice David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slogan simply said ‘ Stop Souter Or Women Will Die.
’ He , too , would go on to become a favorite Justice of many of these very same groups .
McConnell could have argued from his second history lesson in as many days that a confirmation hearing was essentially meaningless .
Why bother with yet another rerun ?
However , at the very , very end of his speech , McConnell commits to a hearing anyway — albeit a more focused hearing , McConnell hopes : Fortunately , the far-left scam artists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special interest groups ’ fundraising appeals do not get a vote .
The fate of this nomination will be determined by the United States Senators whom the American people elected to do this job .
A fair hearing , a fair process , and fair vote on the actual nominee .
Forget about fill-in-the-blank.
” A fair hearing , whose outcome won ’ t at all be in doubt , nor will the floor vote that takes place shortly afterward .
To the extent that the hearing becomes “ unfair , ” McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it being scripted hysteria rather than legitimate criticism of the nomination .
And if it gets really ugly , as in Kavanaugh-character-assassination ugly , McConnell might not even need to make a public case .
Voters will see it for themselves right before they make their final ballot decisions .
Watch the whole speech , the second classic in as many days for McConnell : Note : The headline references a line from Silverado spoken by Brian Dennehy , in which he promises Danny Glover to “ give you a fair trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an utter failure of our culture , that clip is nowhere to be found on YouTube .
Come on people …

Will they or won’t they? Ever since Rush Limbaugh suggested skipping the confirmation hearing for Donald Trump’s upcoming Supreme Court nominee, people have wondered whether Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell would just have the Judiciary Committee vote on the basis of a previous confirmation process. That would be easy enough to do with either Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa, both confirmed to the federal bench since 2017, although perhaps tougher to justify for others.
In a floor speech this morning, McConnell sounded as though he was setting up an argument that a hearing wouldn’t be necessary. “Far left” attacks on Republican nominees are all the same anyway, McConnell argued, “every single time.” Remember, for instance, when the Supreme Court was about to start “ending freedom for women in this country” with the addition of … David Souter? Good times, good times:
We do not yet know which legal all-star from his list he will nominate. But strangely enough, we already do know exactly what the far left will start shouting the instant she or he is introduced. Isn’t that a little curious, when you stop to think about it? A confirmation process is ostensibly about the qualifications and credentials of the nominee. So why is it that practically any citizen could sit down at their kitchen table right now, days before the nomination, and write down in advance the list of ludicrous accusations the far left is guaranteed to be screaming by Saturday night? It’s because year after year, decade after decade, the far left’s playbook stays exactly the same. … In 1990, they got the band back together yet again. This time, the sky was falling for sure. President Bush had picked someone whose record was ‘very troubling’… whose jurisprudence would surely, quote, ‘threaten to undo the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups’… whose confirmation would mean, quote, ‘ending freedom for women in this country.’ Talk about wearing out the volume knob. Oh, that was future Justice David Souter, by the way. One slogan simply said ‘Stop Souter Or Women Will Die.’ He, too, would go on to become a favorite Justice of many of these very same groups.
McConnell could have argued from his second history lesson in as many days that a confirmation hearing was essentially meaningless. Why bother with yet another rerun? However, at the very, very end of his speech, McConnell commits to a hearing anyway — albeit a more focused hearing, McConnell hopes:
Fortunately, the far-left scam artists do not get a vote. The special interest groups’ fundraising appeals do not get a vote. The fate of this nomination will be determined by the United States Senators whom the American people elected to do this job. A fair hearing, a fair process, and fair vote on the actual nominee. Forget about fill-in-the-blank.”
A fair hearing, whose outcome won’t at all be in doubt, nor will the floor vote that takes place shortly afterward. To the extent that the hearing becomes “unfair,” McConnell sounds prepared to make a public case of it being scripted hysteria rather than legitimate criticism of the nomination. And if it gets really ugly, as in Kavanaugh-character-assassination ugly, McConnell might not even need to make a public case. Voters will see it for themselves right before they make their final ballot decisions.
Watch the whole speech, the second classic in as many days for McConnell:
Note: The headline references a line from Silverado spoken by Brian Dennehy, in which he promises Danny Glover to “give you a fair trial, followed by a first-class hanging.” In an utter failure of our culture, that clip is nowhere to be found on YouTube. Come on people …


hotair--2020-09-24--NY Times: Durham 'sought documents' about Clinton Foundation investigation

The NY Times has a scoop here about the Durham investigation but it ’ s also clearly looking to politicize and problematize the investigation so we get this headline : “ In Politically Charged Inquiry , Durham Sought Details About Scrutiny of Clintons.
” The opening graph is working the same angle , so much so that the actual news doesn ’ t even get mentioned .
The authors want to lay a lot of partisan groundwork : The framing is thick in this piece but eventually we do get to the news : Mr. Durham , the U.S. attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review the Russia inquiry , has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation , according to people familiar with the matter… Some former law enforcement officials declined to talk to Mr. Durham ’ s team about the foundation investigation because they felt the nature of his inquiry was highly unusual , according to people familiar with the investigation .
Mr. Durham ’ s staff members sought information about the debate over the subpoenas that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 and have also approached current agents about the matter , but it is not clear what they told investigators .
There isn ’ t any sourcing information in this story but if I had to take a guess , this is coming from those “ former law enforcement officials ” who declined to talk .
But that ’ s just a guess .
The partisan thrust of the story ( the authors do everything but call this a witch hunt ) and the troubling facts about the Clinton Foundation eventually collide in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she was part of a quid pro quo in which the foundation received large donations in exchange for supporting the sale of Uranium One , a Canadian company with ties to mining stakes in the United States , to a Russian nuclear agency .
The deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state under President Barack Obama and had a voting seat on the panel .
That link doesn ’ t go to Breitbart of any right-wing source .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pieces the NY Times has published in the past five years : “ Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.
” If you haven ’ t read this 2015 piece you really should .
It contains some pretty startling facts about how a Canadian investor managed to get valuable Uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan with an assist from the Bill Clinton .
Those rights eventually wound up in the hands of Russia : The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan , where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first big uranium deal , with Mr. Clinton at his side .
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra ’ s private jet to Almaty , Kazakhstan , where they dined with the authoritarian president , Nursultan A. Nazarbayev .
Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev ’ s bid to head an international elections monitoring group , undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan ’ s poor human rights record by , among others , his wife , then a senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Giustra ’ s fledgling company , UrAsia Energy Ltd. , signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom .
Shortly after the deal closed , Giustra wound up donating millions to the Clinton Foundation .
My favorite part of this story is probably this detail which took place in 2007 [ emphasis added ] : Mr. Dzhakishev , the Kazatomprom chief , said he traveled to Chappaqua , N.Y. , to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home .
Mr. Dzhakishev said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan ’ s intention  not publicly known at the time  to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse , a United States supplier of nuclear technology… Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him , but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation ’ s proposal to a former president .
Mr. Clinton “ said this was very important for America , ” said Mr. Dzhakishev , who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred .
Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton .
Wednesday , after The Times told them that others said a meeting , in Mr. Clinton ’ s home , had in fact taken place , both men acknowledged it .
The moral of this story is that the Clintons always lie until they are caught .
I wonder if that lesson will apply to the Durham investigation ?

The NY Times has a scoop here about the Durham investigation but it’s also clearly looking to politicize and problematize the investigation so we get this headline: “In Politically Charged Inquiry, Durham Sought Details About Scrutiny of Clintons.” The opening graph is working the same angle, so much so that the actual news doesn’t even get mentioned. The authors want to lay a lot of partisan groundwork:
From the beginning, John H. Durham’s inquiry into the Russia investigation has been politically charged. President Trump promoted it as certain to uncover a “deep state” plot against him, Attorney General William P. Barr rebuked the investigators under scrutiny, and he and Mr. Durham publicly second-guessed an independent inspector general and traveled the globe to chase down conspiracy theories.
The framing is thick in this piece but eventually we do get to the news:
Mr. Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut assigned by Mr. Barr to review the Russia inquiry, has sought documents and interviews about how federal law enforcement officials handled an investigation around the same time into allegations of political corruption at the Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with the matter… Some former law enforcement officials declined to talk to Mr. Durham’s team about the foundation investigation because they felt the nature of his inquiry was highly unusual, according to people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Durham’s staff members sought information about the debate over the subpoenas that the F.B.I. tried to obtain in 2016 and have also approached current agents about the matter, but it is not clear what they told investigators.
There isn’t any sourcing information in this story but if I had to take a guess, this is coming from those “former law enforcement officials” who declined to talk. But that’s just a guess.
The partisan thrust of the story (the authors do everything but call this a witch hunt) and the troubling facts about the Clinton Foundation eventually collide in this awkward paragraph:
Critics have suggested that she was part of a quid pro quo in which the foundation received large donations in exchange for supporting the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with ties to mining stakes in the United States, to a Russian nuclear agency. The deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state under President Barack Obama and had a voting seat on the panel.
That link doesn’t go to Breitbart of any right-wing source. It goes to one of the best investigatory pieces the NY Times has published in the past five years: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” If you haven’t read this 2015 piece you really should. It contains some pretty startling facts about how a Canadian investor managed to get valuable Uranium mining rights in Kazakhstan with an assist from the Bill Clinton. Those rights eventually wound up in the hands of Russia:
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side. The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator. Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
Shortly after the deal closed, Giustra wound up donating millions to the Clinton Foundation. My favorite part of this story is probably this detail which took place in 2007 [emphasis added]:
Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention  not publicly known at the time  to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology… Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation’s proposal to a former president. Mr. Clinton “said this was very important for America,” said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton’s home. Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.
The moral of this story is that the Clintons always lie until they are caught. I wonder if that lesson will apply to the Durham investigation?


hotair--2020-09-24--Trump undercuts FDA: The proposed guidelines slowing down vaccine approval sound "like a political m

Trump undercuts FDA: The proposed guidelines slowing down vaccine approval sound "like a political move"

A leftover from last night that got lost in the shuffle because there was bigger news from this press conference .
This is big too , though .
Read this for essential background if you missed it on Tuesday .
The FDA is so alarmed by disintegrating public willingness to get a COVID vaccine once it ’ s available that they ’ ve proposed new guidelines that would slow down the approval process , requiring drug manufacturers to follow phase-three trial subjects for two months after they ’ ve received the vaccine to make sure it works and there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trust that corners aren ’ t being cut to bring this product to market , which gets harder every time Trump offers an unrealistic timeline for approval .
The entire country understands that he wants an emergency-use authorization from the FDA before Election Day so that he has something to crow about on the campaign trail .
And most of the country is worried that any pressure he puts on the FDA to meet that timeline will force them into approving a vaccine that ’ s not ready for primetime .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reassure the public that that won ’ t happen .
Trump doesn ’ t care about that .
He wants his campaign talking point , so here he is grinding the public ’ s trust under his shoe by casually suggesting he might block the new guidelines so that the FDA has to work faster .
I speculated on Tuesday that Alex Azar and HHS were angling to block the new guidelines on his behalf , but no .
According to Politico , the strict new FDA standards cleared an HHS review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal ownership of a move that would make the vaccine approval process less diligent .
And just as a further kick to the FDA ’ s groin , he openly speculates that “ political ” motives are driving the slowdown .
The reality is the opposite : The FDA fears that the process has already been politicized to the point that the public has lost confidence in it and so they ’ re doing what they can to signal that science remains their top priority .
Trump ’ s response is to politicize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time .
In fact , his electoral motives are so obvious that even if the FDA ends up with encouraging data on a particular vaccine by late October and is otherwise inclined to authorize that vaccine for emergency use , they may worry that putting *anything* out before Election Day at this point — even a meritorious vaccine — will make the public so suspicious of political chicanery behind the scenes that it ’ ll do more harm than good .
If Americans conclude that a vaccine released before November 3 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true or not , it ’ ll set back the cause of getting the country vaccinated next year .
The irony is that by impugning the scientists in charge of the approval process and signaling repeatedly that he ’ s on an election timetable , he ’ s going to end up negating any political benefit he might get from a vaccine being approved before November 3 .
No one ’ s going to trust a product that emerges before that date now ; he might get a small burst of enthusiasm from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for him , but there ’ ll be a thousand independent experts on TV lambasting him for having pushed through a vaccine that really should have been studied on a longer timeline , as the FDA had suggested .
He ’ s making the same mistake here that he made by pushing to reopen businesses in April , when he decided that he had to get the economy going ASAP or he ’ d be sunk on Election Day .
He ’ d be far better off politically now if he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public wanted , and made a show of the fact that he was putting Americans ’ safety first .
That would have boosted his numbers on handling the pandemic and the ensuing economic recovery might have been more durable since there may have been lower community spread after the delayed reopening .
What ’ s also weird is the idea that if he doesn ’ t approve the FDA ’ s proposed guidelines the agency might approve a vaccine more quickly .
Is there any reason to believe that ?
Presumably the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their time in reviewing available data to give drug manufacturers a longer period to observe trial subjects .
At the end of the day , Trump can ’ t force the FDA to approve anything or make them work at a particular pace .
If he got frustrated and end up resorting to issuing an approval himself , over the FDA ’ s objection , it would be a fiasco .
Even MAGA fans would balk at getting that shot .
The backlash might cost him the election .
He ’ s at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he realizes it or not .
What ’ s destined to happen here , I think , is relative quiet from the presidential Twitter account until mid-October , followed by a burst of browbeating sh*tposting once he starts to worry that they really aren ’ t going to have something for him before mid-October .
That ’ ll do plenty of long-term damage to public confidence in the vaccine too , at least on the right : A true blue Trump fan can ’ t rightly get a vaccine that was held back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes of costing him the election , now can they ?
Andrew Cuomo announced earlier today that he ’ s going to form a panel of experts to perform its own review of vaccine candidates to make sure that they ’ re up to snuff scientifically and weren ’ t rammed through as some sort of campaign ploy by the president .
On the one hand , that ’ s a perfect example of how bitter partisanship has become in America 2020 : We can ’ t even trust the federal government ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other party .
On the other hand , the whole reason the FDA took to proposing these “ slowdown ” guidelines is that Americans now have good reason not to trust that the vaccine approval process will be free from political interference .
Cuomo ’ s panel might actually prove useful to the cause of getting America vaccinated if it reviews the FDA ’ s approved vaccine and says , “ Yeah , this looks good to us too.
” If the Republican White House says it ’ s safe and the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s safe , well , it must be safe .
Here ’ s the head of the FDA yesterday , forced into the surreal position of having to reassure Congress that he will not , in fact , let the president bully him into approving a bum vaccine that ’ ll affect the health of 330 million people .

A leftover from last night that got lost in the shuffle because there was bigger news from this press conference.
This is big too, though. Read this for essential background if you missed it on Tuesday. The FDA is so alarmed by disintegrating public willingness to get a COVID vaccine once it’s available that they’ve proposed new guidelines that would slow down the approval process, requiring drug manufacturers to follow phase-three trial subjects for two months after they’ve received the vaccine to make sure it works and there are no side effects. They want Americans to trust that corners aren’t being cut to bring this product to market, which gets harder every time Trump offers an unrealistic timeline for approval. The entire country understands that he wants an emergency-use authorization from the FDA before Election Day so that he has something to crow about on the campaign trail. And most of the country is worried that any pressure he puts on the FDA to meet that timeline will force them into approving a vaccine that’s not ready for primetime. The FDA’s guidelines are an attempt to reassure the public that that won’t happen.
Trump doesn’t care about that. He wants his campaign talking point, so here he is grinding the public’s trust under his shoe by casually suggesting he might block the new guidelines so that the FDA has to work faster.
President Trump said today that the White House may not approve tougher FDA guidelines for authorizing the emergency use of any coronavirus vaccines. "That has to be approved by the White House," he said of the FDA guidance. "We may or may not approve it" https://t.co/aLppEdJXFx pic.twitter.com/UpDkEOOtWd — POLITICO (@politico) September 24, 2020
I speculated on Tuesday that Alex Azar and HHS were angling to block the new guidelines on his behalf, but no. According to Politico, the strict new FDA standards cleared an HHS review. The clip above is Trump taking personal ownership of a move that would make the vaccine approval process less diligent. And just as a further kick to the FDA’s groin, he openly speculates that “political” motives are driving the slowdown. The reality is the opposite: The FDA fears that the process has already been politicized to the point that the public has lost confidence in it and so they’re doing what they can to signal that science remains their top priority. Trump’s response is to politicize it further.
And not for the first time. In fact, his electoral motives are so obvious that even if the FDA ends up with encouraging data on a particular vaccine by late October and is otherwise inclined to authorize that vaccine for emergency use, they may worry that putting *anything* out before Election Day at this point — even a meritorious vaccine — will make the public so suspicious of political chicanery behind the scenes that it’ll do more harm than good. If Americans conclude that a vaccine released before November 3 is inherently suspect, whether that’s true or not, it’ll set back the cause of getting the country vaccinated next year.
The irony is that by impugning the scientists in charge of the approval process and signaling repeatedly that he’s on an election timetable, he’s going to end up negating any political benefit he might get from a vaccine being approved before November 3. No one’s going to trust a product that emerges before that date now; he might get a small burst of enthusiasm from hardcore fans who were already planning to vote for him, but there’ll be a thousand independent experts on TV lambasting him for having pushed through a vaccine that really should have been studied on a longer timeline, as the FDA had suggested. He’s making the same mistake here that he made by pushing to reopen businesses in April, when he decided that he had to get the economy going ASAP or he’d be sunk on Election Day. He’d be far better off politically now if he had gone a bit slower, as the public wanted, and made a show of the fact that he was putting Americans’ safety first. That would have boosted his numbers on handling the pandemic and the ensuing economic recovery might have been more durable since there may have been lower community spread after the delayed reopening.
What’s also weird is the idea that if he doesn’t approve the FDA’s proposed guidelines the agency might approve a vaccine more quickly. Is there any reason to believe that? Presumably the FDA can enforce the guidelines informally, taking their time in reviewing available data to give drug manufacturers a longer period to observe trial subjects. At the end of the day, Trump can’t force the FDA to approve anything or make them work at a particular pace. If he got frustrated and end up resorting to issuing an approval himself, over the FDA’s objection, it would be a fiasco. Even MAGA fans would balk at getting that shot. The backlash might cost him the election.
He’s at the mercy of his science bureaucrats whether he realizes it or not. What’s destined to happen here, I think, is relative quiet from the presidential Twitter account until mid-October, followed by a burst of browbeating sh*tposting once he starts to worry that they really aren’t going to have something for him before mid-October. That’ll do plenty of long-term damage to public confidence in the vaccine too, at least on the right: A true blue Trump fan can’t rightly get a vaccine that was held back by the “deep state” in hopes of costing him the election, now can they?
Andrew Cuomo announced earlier today that he’s going to form a panel of experts to perform its own review of vaccine candidates to make sure that they’re up to snuff scientifically and weren’t rammed through as some sort of campaign ploy by the president. On the one hand, that’s a perfect example of how bitter partisanship has become in America 2020: We can’t even trust the federal government’s scientists when they work for the other party. On the other hand, the whole reason the FDA took to proposing these “slowdown” guidelines is that Americans now have good reason not to trust that the vaccine approval process will be free from political interference. Cuomo’s panel might actually prove useful to the cause of getting America vaccinated if it reviews the FDA’s approved vaccine and says, “Yeah, this looks good to us too.” If the Republican White House says it’s safe and the Democratic governor’s science board says it’s safe, well, it must be safe.
Here’s the head of the FDA yesterday, forced into the surreal position of having to reassure Congress that he will not, in fact, let the president bully him into approving a bum vaccine that’ll affect the health of 330 million people.


hotair--2020-09-24--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: SCOTUS dance, Biden's trance, riots advance, Satanist stance, and more

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: SCOTUS dance, Biden's trance, riots advance, Satanist stance, and more perchance!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ re Zooming again , since that appeared to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s top stories : • The latest on the Supreme Court , and the WaPo ’ s idea of “ modern history ” • All of this and more !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown @ @

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’re Zooming again, since that appeared to work out pretty well, and tackling today’s top stories:
Joe Biden’s lid (which Jeff Dunetz denies)
The latest on the Supreme Court, and the WaPo’s idea of “modern history”
Twin Cities Trump supporter’s home torched — why?
All of this and more!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-09-24--Blackouts, wildfires, homelessness, high taxes and far left politics are driving people out of Calif

Blackouts, wildfires, homelessness, high taxes and far left politics are driving people out of California

There have been some high profile moves out of California recently including Ben Shapiro , who moved his company to Nashville , and Joe Rogan , who recently moved to Austin .
They are just part of a growing exodus of people , especially conservatives , who have had enough of the state ’ s high taxes , high cost of living , far-left politics and endless problems including homelessness , wildfires and self-inflicted blackouts .
Last night CBS Los Angeles did a story ( video below ) on the Sheratons , a family of five that is moving out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job and was unable to find another one .
He and his wife love the California weather , but the high prices and congestion are squeezing them out .
After 11 years , they are moving to Delaware to start over .
The story goes on to highlight a moving company based in Pasadena whose owner says that in the past only about 5 percent of their work involved out-of-state moves .
However , out-of-state moves have now become about 40 percent of their business , so much that they can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year NBC Bay Area reported that tens of thousands of Californians were leaving the state with a majority citing the high cost of living and high taxes and a substantial number also citing the far-left politics in the state .
And that was before COVID hit .
Politics has become a significant part of this for many .
There are now several companies that cater to conservatives looking to move somewhere where they can feel more comfortable : Last month Gary Cook and his wife packed their three rescue cats into a rented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to build a new life after 18 years in Wine Country .
Cook says it wasn ’ t the fires that drove them out but the high cost of living , high taxes , power outages and politics .
He said that as a conservative , he felt he no longer had a voice in California politically .
‘ There were significant changes going on that changed our outlook on the whole California dream , ’ Cook said .
Scott Fuller , who runs a real estate relocation business , says his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new life elsewhere .
His company called Leaving the Bay Area and Leaving SoCal helps people move away , sell their homes , and find others… ‘ For a lot of people , [ California ’ s ] losing its luster .
For the average person who maybe came out here for the weather , I think they ’ re saying the trade-off is just not worth it any longer , ’ Fuller said to the Post .
A realtor in Idaho started a similar site called Exit California which helps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott Shepard has watched these forces collide from his new home in Coeur d ’ Alene , Idaho .
The California-bred realtor started relocation website ExitCalifornia.org and a namesake Facebook page early last year , when he saw a business opportunity in the endless stories of friends and neighbors moving out of state .
Now , during the pandemic , the site is so busy he doesn ’ t even have to pay for online ads .
“ It ’ s starting to kind of take on a life of its own , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be straight and say that it is primarily political .
Then it really does come down to the cost and taxes.
” Of course not everyone on the receiving end of this California exodus is thrilled about it .
Last year a mayoral candidate in Boise , Idaho suggesting building a wall to keep Californians out .
The official numbers released by the state for 2018-2019 show the population is still growing .
The number of births in the state ( minus the number of deaths ) is still high enough to offset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At least that was the case prior to the pandemic .
We ’ ll have to wait and see how it looks for 2020 .
But it ’ s clear that this is a growing trend .
A lot of people have had enough of California and are looking elsewhere for a better life .

There have been some high profile moves out of California recently including Ben Shapiro, who moved his company to Nashville, and Joe Rogan, who recently moved to Austin. They are just part of a growing exodus of people, especially conservatives, who have had enough of the state’s high taxes, high cost of living, far-left politics and endless problems including homelessness, wildfires and self-inflicted blackouts.
Last night CBS Los Angeles did a story (video below) on the Sheratons, a family of five that is moving out of California after the husband lost his job and was unable to find another one. He and his wife love the California weather, but the high prices and congestion are squeezing them out. After 11 years, they are moving to Delaware to start over.
The story goes on to highlight a moving company based in Pasadena whose owner says that in the past only about 5 percent of their work involved out-of-state moves. However, out-of-state moves have now become about 40 percent of their business, so much that they can’t keep up with the demand.
Last year NBC Bay Area reported that tens of thousands of Californians were leaving the state with a majority citing the high cost of living and high taxes and a substantial number also citing the far-left politics in the state. And that was before COVID hit.
Politics has become a significant part of this for many. There are now several companies that cater to conservatives looking to move somewhere where they can feel more comfortable:
Last month Gary Cook and his wife packed their three rescue cats into a rented SUV and drove from Napa to Idaho, to build a new life after 18 years in Wine Country. Cook says it wasn’t the fires that drove them out but the high cost of living, high taxes, power outages and politics. He said that as a conservative, he felt he no longer had a voice in California politically. ‘There were significant changes going on that changed our outlook on the whole California dream,’ Cook said. Scott Fuller, who runs a real estate relocation business, says his business is booming as locals flee for a new life elsewhere. His company called Leaving the Bay Area and Leaving SoCal helps people move away, sell their homes, and find others… ‘For a lot of people, [California’s] losing its luster. For the average person who maybe came out here for the weather, I think they’re saying the trade-off is just not worth it any longer,’ Fuller said to the Post.
A realtor in Idaho started a similar site called Exit California which helps to guide people out of the state:
Scott Shepard has watched these forces collide from his new home in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The California-bred realtor started relocation website ExitCalifornia.org and a namesake Facebook page early last year, when he saw a business opportunity in the endless stories of friends and neighbors moving out of state. Now, during the pandemic, the site is so busy he doesn’t even have to pay for online ads. “It’s starting to kind of take on a life of its own,” Shepard said. “I would be straight and say that it is primarily political. Then it really does come down to the cost and taxes.”
Of course not everyone on the receiving end of this California exodus is thrilled about it. Last year a mayoral candidate in Boise, Idaho suggesting building a wall to keep Californians out.
The official numbers released by the state for 2018-2019 show the population is still growing. The number of births in the state (minus the number of deaths) is still high enough to offset the number of people leaving every year. At least that was the case prior to the pandemic. We’ll have to wait and see how it looks for 2020. But it’s clear that this is a growing trend. A lot of people have had enough of California and are looking elsewhere for a better life.


hotair--2020-09-24--Whodunit: Twin Cities Trump supporter's home torched, tagged with BLM and anarchist graffiti

Just how insane has this election cycle become ?
A fire at the home of a Trump supporter in the Twin Cities suburbs now has the FBI and ATF investigating it as a potentially politically motivated arson .
Dennis Molla had hung large Trump banners on his garage and trailers , and it just so happens that those are where the fire started that could have killed him , his wife , their two small children , and seven dogs .
Who could have done such a thing ?
Graffiti left at the time might provide one clue : Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 6900 block of N. Morgan Avenue shortly before 4 a.m .
It burned down the detached garage and totaled three vehicles inside , according to police .
Minor damage was done to the house , and no injuries were reported .
Officers and firefighters helped the family save three dogs and four puppies from the home , police said .
“ This fire is considered suspicious , and our investigation remains extremely active , ” a statement from police read .
Officers saw what appeared to be fresh spray paint on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ BLM ” and an “ A ” with a circle around it , according to police .
The symbol often is a reference to anarchists .
Well , that certainly seems like a mighty big hint .
However , don ’ t jump to conclusions quite yet .
It ’ s possible , theoretically , that this could be a Jussie Smollett sort of situation — a hoax for the sake of publicity and sympathy .
This seems very unlikely here , though , since those usually just involve light damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home .
This very easily could have killed everyone in the house .
It ’ s also possible that it was set by the same boogeymen that our local news media like to use as excuses for violent demonstrations and riots : white supremacists .
That ’ d be a “ hoax ” of another sort , although that ’ s also a bit of a stretch .
Why target some random home in the ‘ burbs for that kind of operation ?
If they ’ re even present here in any significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been established — they ’ d be more likely to stir things up in the city , not that far outside of where the BLM/Antifa action is .
It ’ s possible , though , even if it ’ s less than likely .
This makes it look as though it ’ s more serious : Police Cmdr .
Garrett Flesland said that while investigators pursue a motive , “ everything is on the table .
We are keeping our minds and our ears open .
We ’ re just going to let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Along with local agencies , the FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives are also investigating the fire .
A reward of $ 5,000 is being offered for information leading to the identification of whoever is responsible .
Tips can be called in to 1-800-723-2020 .
Molla ’ s experience with drive-by surveillance over the past week since hanging the signs tends to suggest the more obvious suspects , ie , Antifa and/or BLM radicals conducting intimidation tactics .
The involvement of the FBI and ATF @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are open to that possibility , too .
Otherwise , this would be a local law enforcement issue , not something in the feds ’ jurisdiction .
If this was politically motivated arson , it then becomes a potential terrorism investigation , and that would land fully within federal jurisdiction .
Stay tuned to see what develops , and to see if any more attacks take place too , for that matter .
In real life rather than in fiction , the whodunits often end with the obvious suspects .

Just how insane has this election cycle become? A fire at the home of a Trump supporter in the Twin Cities suburbs now has the FBI and ATF investigating it as a potentially politically motivated arson. Dennis Molla had hung large Trump banners on his garage and trailers, and it just so happens that those are where the fire started that could have killed him, his wife, their two small children, and seven dogs.
Who could have done such a thing? Graffiti left at the time might provide one clue:
Police and firefighters responded to the blaze in the 6900 block of N. Morgan Avenue shortly before 4 a.m. It burned down the detached garage and totaled three vehicles inside, according to police. Minor damage was done to the house, and no injuries were reported. Officers and firefighters helped the family save three dogs and four puppies from the home, police said. “This fire is considered suspicious, and our investigation remains extremely active,” a statement from police read. Officers saw what appeared to be fresh spray paint on the garage that read “Biden 2020,” “BLM” and an “A” with a circle around it, according to police. The symbol often is a reference to anarchists.
Well, that certainly seems like a mighty big hint. However, don’t jump to conclusions quite yet. It’s possible, theoretically, that this could be a Jussie Smollett sort of situation — a hoax for the sake of publicity and sympathy. This seems very unlikely here, though, since those usually just involve light damage, especially to one’s own home. This very easily could have killed everyone in the house.
It’s also possible that it was set by the same boogeymen that our local news media like to use as excuses for violent demonstrations and riots: white supremacists. That’d be a “hoax” of another sort, although that’s also a bit of a stretch. Why target some random home in the ‘burbs for that kind of operation? If they’re even present here in any significant numbers — which still hasn’t been established — they’d be more likely to stir things up in the city, not that far outside of where the BLM/Antifa action is. It’s possible, though, even if it’s less than likely.
This makes it look as though it’s more serious:
Police Cmdr. Garrett Flesland said that while investigators pursue a motive, “everything is on the table. We are keeping our minds and our ears open. We’re just going to let the evidence take us where it goes.” Along with local agencies, the FBI and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are also investigating the fire. A reward of $5,000 is being offered for information leading to the identification of whoever is responsible. Tips can be called in to 1-800-723-2020.
Molla’s experience with drive-by surveillance over the past week since hanging the signs tends to suggest the more obvious suspects, ie, Antifa and/or BLM radicals conducting intimidation tactics. The involvement of the FBI and ATF in this investigation shows that law enforcement are open to that possibility, too. Otherwise, this would be a local law enforcement issue, not something in the feds’ jurisdiction. If this was politically motivated arson, it then becomes a potential terrorism investigation, and that would land fully within federal jurisdiction.
Stay tuned to see what develops, and to see if any more attacks take place too, for that matter. In real life rather than in fiction, the whodunits often end with the obvious suspects.