hotair--2020-06-21--Not happy: Families of Aunt Jemimas react to her cancellation

Voices are rising up against the decision of Quaker Oats to cancel Aunt Jemima .
Family members of women who portrayed Aunt Jemima are not happy about erasing the iconic marketing symbol now .
Lillian Richard , an East Texas native , is credited with putting Hawkins , Texas on the map .
The small town of 1,278 as of the 2010 census was even named the pancake capital of Texas by the state ’ s historical commission because of her .
Visitors are welcomed by signs proclaiming the town as “ Home of Lillian Richard ‘ Aunt Jemima.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oats .
Vera Harris is the family historian for the Richard family .
She can ’ t believe that Quaker Oats is taking Aunt Jemima off its boxes of pancake mix and bottles of syrup .
She asks that the company reconsider erasing history .
“ A lot of people want it removed .
We want the world to know that our cousin Lillian was one of the Aunt Jemima ’ s and she made an honest living .
We would ask that you reconsider just wiping all that away .
There wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially for black women back in that time .
She was discovered by Quaker Oats to be their brand person , ” Harris said .
Lillian Richard became a goodwill ambassador for Quaker Oats , and for decades , portrayed Aunt Jemima all over Texas .
“ She made an honest living out of it for a number of years .
She toured around Texas , ” Harris said .
Just outside of Hawkins is a historical sign recognizing Lillian Richard as one of several women who portrayed Aunt Jemima .
Her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ms. Harris wishes everyone would just take a breath .
She thinks that activism has gone too far .
Who can blame Ms. Harris for speaking up ?
Her family doesn ’ t want Lillian to be erased from history .
Lillian worked for Quaker Oats for 23 years .
She died in 1956 .
Keep in mind that during the years Lillian and other women who were portraying Aunt Jemima for Quakers Oats jobs were not plentiful for women , especially African-American women from small towns .
Her family is rightfully proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on another timely subject – she and the Richards family are also against the renaming of military bases .
The family is against that because many of their relatives are veterans .
Hawkins Chamber of Commerce is calling the Quaker Oats decision as an overreach .
Town residents agree .
Bessie Peeples is with the Hawkins Chamber of Commerce and said she believes the decision to drop the image of Aunt Jemima is wrong .
“ I think they are going overboard in trying to over correct something that I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Peeples said .
“ I don ’ t see where she [ has ] anything to do with what is happening in the world today… ” resident Kenneth Lemons said .
“ I just don ’ t see them buying a box without her picture on it , ” resident John Bowden added .
A sister publication , Townhall , ran a piece about the grandson of one Aunt Jemima .
The grandson of Anna Short Harrington , Larnell Evans Sr. , is speaking out .
Harrington was discovered as the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ms.Green was hired in 1893 to service pancakes at Chicago ’ s World ’ s Fair .
She wore an apron and headscarf while serving pancakes , which she did until her death in 1923 .
Mr. Evans says if Quaker Oats wants to make amends for the use of Aunt Jemima ’ s likeness in marketing , the company should pay out some restitution to his family .
From The Patch : “ This is an injustice for me and my family .
This is part of my history , sir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The racism they talk about , using images from slavery , that comes from the other side — white people .
This company profits off images of our slavery .
And their answer is to erase my great-grandmother ’ s history .
A black female .
… It hurts.
” Quaker Oats used Harrington ’ s likeness on products and advertising , and it sent her around the country to serve flapjacks dressed as “ Aunt Jemima.
” The gig made her a national celebrity .
Quaker Oats also used Harrington ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nephew claimed in a 2014 lawsuit seeking $ 3 billion from Quaker Oats for not paying royalties to Harrington ’ s descendants .
The attempt to make Quaker Oats pay restitution in federal court failed .
“ She worked for that Quaker Oats for 20 years .
She traveled all the way around the United States and Canada making pancakes as Aunt Jemima for them , ” he said .
“ This woman served all those people , and it was after slavery .
She worked as Aunt Jemima .
That was her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I feel as a black man sitting here telling you about my family history they ’ re trying to erase ?
” Aunt Jemima was based on a real person , not some Mammy stereotype .
All of this canceling of iconic marketing symbols is to ease liberal white guilt , as Mr. Evans points out .
It ’ s interesting to learn that his grandmother wasn ’ t compensated for her pancake recipe .
The women who portrayed Aunt Jemima , either as the original one or an ambassador traveling across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were groundbreaking African-American women who deserve the dignity and respect of not being erased from history today .

Voices are rising up against the decision of Quaker Oats to cancel Aunt Jemima. Family members of women who portrayed Aunt Jemima are not happy about erasing the iconic marketing symbol now.
Lillian Richard, an East Texas native, is credited with putting Hawkins, Texas on the map. The small town of 1,278 as of the 2010 census was even named the pancake capital of Texas by the state’s historical commission because of her. Visitors are welcomed by signs proclaiming the town as “Home of Lillian Richard ‘Aunt Jemima.’
Ms. Richard was an ambassador for Quaker Oats. Vera Harris is the family historian for the Richard family. She can’t believe that Quaker Oats is taking Aunt Jemima off its boxes of pancake mix and bottles of syrup. She asks that the company reconsider erasing history.
“A lot of people want it removed. We want the world to know that our cousin Lillian was one of the Aunt Jemima’s and she made an honest living. We would ask that you reconsider just wiping all that away. There wasn’t a lot of jobs, especially for black women back in that time. She was discovered by Quaker Oats to be their brand person,” Harris said. Lillian Richard became a goodwill ambassador for Quaker Oats, and for decades, portrayed Aunt Jemima all over Texas. “She made an honest living out of it for a number of years. She toured around Texas,” Harris said.
Just outside of Hawkins is a historical sign recognizing Lillian Richard as one of several women who portrayed Aunt Jemima. Her family and community is proud of her. Ms. Harris wishes everyone would just take a breath. She thinks that activism has gone too far.
“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything. because good or bad, it is our history. Removing that wipes away a part of me. A part of each of us. We are proud of our cousin,” Harris said.
Who can blame Ms. Harris for speaking up? Her family doesn’t want Lillian to be erased from history. Lillian worked for Quaker Oats for 23 years. She died in 1956. Keep in mind that during the years Lillian and other women who were portraying Aunt Jemima for Quakers Oats jobs were not plentiful for women, especially African-American women from small towns. Her family is rightfully proud of her accomplishments. Harris also weighed in on another timely subject – she and the Richards family are also against the renaming of military bases. The family is against that because many of their relatives are veterans.
Hawkins Chamber of Commerce is calling the Quaker Oats decision as an overreach. Town residents agree.
Bessie Peeples is with the Hawkins Chamber of Commerce and said she believes the decision to drop the image of Aunt Jemima is wrong. “I think they are going overboard in trying to over correct something that I don’t believe was ever the intent,” Peeples said. “I don’t see where she [has] anything to do with what is happening in the world today…” resident Kenneth Lemons said. “I just don’t see them buying a box without her picture on it,” resident John Bowden added.
A sister publication, Townhall, ran a piece about the grandson of one Aunt Jemima. The grandson of Anna Short Harrington, Larnell Evans Sr., is speaking out. Harrington was discovered as the original Aunt Jemima after replacing Nancy Green. Ms.Green was hired in 1893 to service pancakes at Chicago’s World’s Fair. She wore an apron and headscarf while serving pancakes, which she did until her death in 1923. Mr. Evans says if Quaker Oats wants to make amends for the use of Aunt Jemima’s likeness in marketing, the company should pay out some restitution to his family. From The Patch:
“This is an injustice for me and my family. This is part of my history, sir,” Larnell Evans Sr. told me. “The racism they talk about, using images from slavery, that comes from the other side — white people. This company profits off images of our slavery. And their answer is to erase my great-grandmother’s history. A black female. … It hurts.” Quaker Oats used Harrington’s likeness on products and advertising, and it sent her around the country to serve flapjacks dressed as “Aunt Jemima.” The gig made her a national celebrity. Quaker Oats also used Harrington’s pancake recipe, Evans and a nephew claimed in a 2014 lawsuit seeking $3 billion from Quaker Oats for not paying royalties to Harrington’s descendants. The attempt to make Quaker Oats pay restitution in federal court failed. “She worked for that Quaker Oats for 20 years. She traveled all the way around the United States and Canada making pancakes as Aunt Jemima for them,” he said. “This woman served all those people, and it was after slavery. She worked as Aunt Jemima. That was her job. … How do you think I feel as a black man sitting here telling you about my family history they’re trying to erase?”
Aunt Jemima was based on a real person, not some Mammy stereotype. All of this canceling of iconic marketing symbols is to ease liberal white guilt, as Mr. Evans points out. It’s interesting to learn that his grandmother wasn’t compensated for her pancake recipe. The women who portrayed Aunt Jemima, either as the original one or an ambassador traveling across the country to sell Quaker Oats products, were groundbreaking African-American women who deserve the dignity and respect of not being erased from history today.


hotair--2020-06-21--Fear and the worth of sparrows: Sunday reflection

Jesus said to the Twelve : “ Fear no one .
Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed , nor secret that will not be known .
What I say to you in the darkness , speak in the light ; what you hear whispered , proclaim on the housetops .
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can not kill the soul ; rather , be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna .
Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin ?
Yet not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your Father ’ s knowledge .
Even all the hairs of your head are counted .
So do not be afraid ; you are worth more than many sparrows .
Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father .
But whoever denies me before others , I will deny before my heavenly Father.
” We grow up with this schoolyard taunt .
We live with it for the rest of our lives , it seems .
Fear and shame over fear are two keys for manipulating people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and certainly as adults .
People will go to great lengths to avoid fear , and others will go to great lengths to use it to get what they want .
Sometimes we don ’ t even need to have that question asked in order for it to work on our decisions and choices .
Fear , especially in its inchoate form , can feel omnipresent and suffocating .
We will do anything to put it aside .
In more specific forms , we do our best to avoid it , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not be in our best interests to deal with it .
That ’ s not always on the playground , either .
But the question remains , and it requires an answer : what are we afraid of ?
Death ?
Pain ?
Ruin ?
Perhaps all of these , but there may be a deeper answer than those — the loss of our own sense of dominion .
We see a glimpse of this in our first reading from Jeremiah today .
The prophet talks about the rise of fear around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just before the sacking of Jerusalem .
Jeremiah warned that Judah ’ s refusal to trust the Lord and do His will had abandoned Him , leaving the kingdom and the city at the mercy of worldly powers .
Rather than listen to Jeremiah , the city and Jeremiah ’ s own friends turned on him .
If the Judeans feared death and destruction above all other things , would they not have listened to Jeremiah ?
After all , the Northern Kingdom had been destroyed by the Assyrians a century earlier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into captivity and never returned .
A similar fate awaited Jerusalem for the same reasons , Jeremiah warned .
If the fear of death , pain , and ruin drives us most , why not pay heed to Jeremiah and mend those ways ?
This episode tells us that we value something more than just life or peace .
Jerusalem wanted to control its world without reckoning with the Lord .
In fact , the city ’ s leaders relied on a kind of hostaging of the temple to justify its actions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the temple to be destroyed regardless of how the Judeans acted .
As long as they controlled the temple , they controlled the Lord — or so they thought .
They had turned it into an idol of their own making rather than recognize the Lord ’ s presence as a gift to them in a covenant that worked bi-directionally .
And the Judeans ended up realizing their worst fears in their stubbornness .
They got sent into exile and the city got sacked .
It took seventy years for them to regain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learned a very hard lesson about Who ’ s really in charge around here .
This is the point Jesus makes to His disciples , both about the Father ’ s supremacy and the foolishness of fear .
In His way , He asks what are you afraid of , but to make the point of the senselessness of fear .
It matters not what others think of you , nor does your life in this world matter much if you have prepared yourself for the next .
“ Do not be afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not kill the soul , ” Jesus teaches , “ rather , be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
” That is not to say that Jesus does not understand our fears .
He lived as a human and had His own profound encounter with fear in Gethsemane , which serves as a model for how to deal with our own .
The front-page image on this post reminds us of Christ ’ s encounter with mortal fear , how He sweat blood in anticipation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea to the Father to let the cup pass .
However , Jesus also embraced the Father ’ s will and put that above His own human-nature desire to live longer .
The image from Caracciolo ’ s painting also gives us a glimpse of the comfort Jesus received from the Father in that firm knowledge of His will .
This reminds us that fear itself is not shameful , but the idea that our will should be driven by it puts us at risk of serious sin .
Dominion is His , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and only for a short time for each of us .
We are part of His creation , not the other way around , Jesus reminds us in his mention of sparrows .
They are of little worth in our material reckoning , Jesus says ; in our time , we might have said , “ Aren ’ t sparrows a dime a dozen ?
” However , the Father loves them so much that He knows the fate of every last one of them .
How much more does the Father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creation ?
Even when we presume to become gods ourselves ?
This teaching brings us comfort when fear grips our hearts .
Jesus ’ triumph on the Cross and in His Resurrection serves as signs pointing to the power of faith over fear .
If we put our trust in the Lord and recognize His dominion , then nothing can harm us in the eternal sense .
As children of God , that eternal sense should be our priority , and our stewardship in this world our opportunity to express it .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear , but it will put an end to fear ’ s power over us .
The front-page image is a detail from “ Christ on the Mount of Olives ( Christ ’ s Fear of Death ) ” by Battistello Caracciolo , c. 1615-17 , currently on display at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna , Austria .
Via Wikimedia Commons .
“ Sunday Reflection ” is a regular feature , looking at the specific readings used in today ’ s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world .
The reflection represents only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help prepare myself for the Lord ’ s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion .
Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here .

This morning’s Gospel reading is Matthew 10:26–33:
Jesus said to the Twelve: “Fear no one. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known. What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light; what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.”
“What are you afraid of?”
We grow up with this schoolyard taunt. We live with it for the rest of our lives, it seems. Fear and shame over fear are two keys for manipulating people, something we understand instinctually even as children, and certainly as adults. People will go to great lengths to avoid fear, and others will go to great lengths to use it to get what they want.
Sometimes we don’t even need to have that question asked in order for it to work on our decisions and choices. Fear, especially in its inchoate form, can feel omnipresent and suffocating. We will do anything to put it aside. In more specific forms, we do our best to avoid it, or failing that, to take actions that might not be in our best interests to deal with it. That’s not always on the playground, either.
But the question remains, and it requires an answer: what are we afraid of? Death? Pain? Ruin? Perhaps all of these, but there may be a deeper answer than those — the loss of our own sense of dominion.
We see a glimpse of this in our first reading from Jeremiah today. The prophet talks about the rise of fear around him, originating from his unpopular prophecies just before the sacking of Jerusalem. Jeremiah warned that Judah’s refusal to trust the Lord and do His will had abandoned Him, leaving the kingdom and the city at the mercy of worldly powers. Rather than listen to Jeremiah, the city and Jeremiah’s own friends turned on him.
“I hear the whisperings of many: ‘Terror on every side! Denounce! let us denounce him!’ All those who were my friends are on the watch for any misstep of mine. ‘Perhaps he will be trapped; then we can prevail, and take our vengeance on him.’
If the Judeans feared death and destruction above all other things, would they not have listened to Jeremiah? After all, the Northern Kingdom had been destroyed by the Assyrians a century earlier for the same sins. The Israelites went into captivity and never returned. A similar fate awaited Jerusalem for the same reasons, Jeremiah warned. If the fear of death, pain, and ruin drives us most, why not pay heed to Jeremiah and mend those ways?
This episode tells us that we value something more than just life or peace. Jerusalem wanted to control its world without reckoning with the Lord. In fact, the city’s leaders relied on a kind of hostaging of the temple to justify its actions, arguing that the Lord would never allow the temple to be destroyed regardless of how the Judeans acted. As long as they controlled the temple, they controlled the Lord — or so they thought. They had turned it into an idol of their own making rather than recognize the Lord’s presence as a gift to them in a covenant that worked bi-directionally.
And the Judeans ended up realizing their worst fears in their stubbornness. They got sent into exile and the city got sacked. It took seventy years for them to regain their freedom, by which time they learned a very hard lesson about Who’s really in charge around here.
This is the point Jesus makes to His disciples, both about the Father’s supremacy and the foolishness of fear. In His way, He asks what are you afraid of, but to make the point of the senselessness of fear. It matters not what others think of you, nor does your life in this world matter much if you have prepared yourself for the next. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,” Jesus teaches, “rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.”
That is not to say that Jesus does not understand our fears. He lived as a human and had His own profound encounter with fear in Gethsemane, which serves as a model for how to deal with our own. The front-page image on this post reminds us of Christ’s encounter with mortal fear, how He sweat blood in anticipation of His excruciating death, and His plea to the Father to let the cup pass. However, Jesus also embraced the Father’s will and put that above His own human-nature desire to live longer. The image from Caracciolo’s painting also gives us a glimpse of the comfort Jesus received from the Father in that firm knowledge of His will.
This reminds us that fear itself is not shameful, but the idea that our will should be driven by it puts us at risk of serious sin. Dominion is His, not ours; ours is but stewardship, and only for a short time for each of us. We are part of His creation, not the other way around, Jesus reminds us in his mention of sparrows. They are of little worth in our material reckoning, Jesus says; in our time, we might have said, “Aren’t sparrows a dime a dozen?” However, the Father loves them so much that He knows the fate of every last one of them. How much more does the Father love those He gave stewardship over His creation? Even when we presume to become gods ourselves?
This teaching brings us comfort when fear grips our hearts. Jesus’ triumph on the Cross and in His Resurrection serves as signs pointing to the power of faith over fear. If we put our trust in the Lord and recognize His dominion, then nothing can harm us in the eternal sense. As children of God, that eternal sense should be our priority, and our stewardship in this world our opportunity to express it. That won’t put an end to fear, but it will put an end to fear’s power over us.
The front-page image is a detail from “Christ on the Mount of Olives (Christ’s Fear of Death)” by Battistello Caracciolo, c. 1615-17, currently on display at the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria. Via Wikimedia Commons.
“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature, looking at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here.


hotair--2020-06-21--NYC disbanded its anti-crime unit. Guess what happened next

Almost a week ago , following calls from the streets for “ police reform ” in New York City , Mayor Bill de Blasio and his Police Chief responded by disbanding the city ’ s more than 600-person plainclothes anti-crime unit .
( Because your go-to move when facing a rolling series of riots and arson attacks is to dump your anti-crime unit . )
That seemed to please at least some of the anti-cop activists and agitators while scaring the bejesus out of homeowners and small businesses .
So how ’ s that decision working out for them so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post and some of the NYPD men and women in blue who haven ’ t been canceled yet , pretty much as you probably would have predicted .
Shootings and murders have shot up – pun intended – with violent crime rates more than double the same period last year .
Shootings are surging this week in New York City , with 27 incidents and 36 victims reported since Monday — the day the NYPD disbanded its plainclothes anti-crime unit , The Post learned on Friday .
By comparison , the same week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the entire week .
“ This is what the politicians wanted — no bail , nobody in Rikers , cops not arresting anyone , ” one angry law enforcement source said Friday .
“ All those things equal people walking around on the street with guns , shooting each other.
” Who could possibly have predicted this ?
The shootings , all of which took place in less than a week , included at least four murders in Brooklyn , the Bronx and East New York .
That last one probably shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise , since East New York resembles a war zone on the best of days .
But the others have been taking place in neighborhoods where crime levels have been far more under control for years .
As far as Brooklyn goes , there were five shootings there just on Thursday night .
To put this in perspective , the city recorded 97 shootings in just the first couple of weeks of June .
Last year there were 87 shootings in the entire month .
A certain number of these incidents can probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantage of the protests and riots to go out and settle a few scores .
The police are so tied up keeping track of all the demonstrations and trying to prevent more businesses – and their own squad cars – from being torched that there isn ’ t enough time or resources to cover their usual beats .
That ’ s going to lead to some opportunism on the part of New York ’ s gangs .
None of that comes as any consolation to the pedestrians who are just trying to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however .
This is also a good moment to stop and ask ourselves just how these gun crime rates are spiraling upward so quickly .
This is New York City .
It has some of the harshest gun control laws in the entire country .
It ’ s nearly impossible to legally purchase a firearm there no matter how pristine your record is .
You ’ d think halting nearly all gun sales would cut down on gun crimes , wouldn ’ t you ?
At least that ’ s the theory the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been discussed here repeatedly , Mayor Bill de Blasio has had a terrible relationship with the NYPD and the police unions from day one .
His willingness to jump on every social justice bandwagon that rolls down Fifth Avenue and blame the police before the criminals hasn ’ t exactly done much for morale among the troops .
And his willingness to “ defund the police ” just as Gotham is seeing its first serious increase in violent crime rates after decades of progress isn ’ t helping matters .
Don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue flu ” spreading into the Big Apple in the near future , both in solidarity with other police forces around the country and in response to the way they ’ ve been hung out to dry on their home turf .

Almost a week ago, following calls from the streets for “police reform” in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio and his Police Chief responded by disbanding the city’s more than 600-person plainclothes anti-crime unit. (Because your go-to move when facing a rolling series of riots and arson attacks is to dump your anti-crime unit.) That seemed to please at least some of the anti-cop activists and agitators while scaring the bejesus out of homeowners and small businesses. So how’s that decision working out for them so far? According to the New York Post and some of the NYPD men and women in blue who haven’t been canceled yet, pretty much as you probably would have predicted. Shootings and murders have shot up – pun intended – with violent crime rates more than double the same period last year.
Shootings are surging this week in New York City, with 27 incidents and 36 victims reported since Monday — the day the NYPD disbanded its plainclothes anti-crime unit, The Post learned on Friday. By comparison, the same week last year there were only 12 shootings for the entire week. “This is what the politicians wanted — no bail, nobody in Rikers, cops not arresting anyone,” one angry law enforcement source said Friday. “All those things equal people walking around on the street with guns, shooting each other.”
Who could possibly have predicted this? The shootings, all of which took place in less than a week, included at least four murders in Brooklyn, the Bronx and East New York. That last one probably shouldn’t be too much of a surprise, since East New York resembles a war zone on the best of days. But the others have been taking place in neighborhoods where crime levels have been far more under control for years.
As far as Brooklyn goes, there were five shootings there just on Thursday night. To put this in perspective, the city recorded 97 shootings in just the first couple of weeks of June. Last year there were 87 shootings in the entire month.
A certain number of these incidents can probably be written off to gang members taking advantage of the protests and riots to go out and settle a few scores. The police are so tied up keeping track of all the demonstrations and trying to prevent more businesses – and their own squad cars – from being torched that there isn’t enough time or resources to cover their usual beats. That’s going to lead to some opportunism on the part of New York’s gangs. None of that comes as any consolation to the pedestrians who are just trying to avoid becoming part of the body count, however.
This is also a good moment to stop and ask ourselves just how these gun crime rates are spiraling upward so quickly. This is New York City. It has some of the harshest gun control laws in the entire country. It’s nearly impossible to legally purchase a firearm there no matter how pristine your record is. You’d think halting nearly all gun sales would cut down on gun crimes, wouldn’t you? At least that’s the theory the Democrats generally run with.
As has been discussed here repeatedly, Mayor Bill de Blasio has had a terrible relationship with the NYPD and the police unions from day one. His willingness to jump on every social justice bandwagon that rolls down Fifth Avenue and blame the police before the criminals hasn’t exactly done much for morale among the troops. And his willingness to “defund the police” just as Gotham is seeing its first serious increase in violent crime rates after decades of progress isn’t helping matters. Don’t be shocked if you see the “blue flu” spreading into the Big Apple in the near future, both in solidarity with other police forces around the country and in response to the way they’ve been hung out to dry on their home turf.


hotair--2020-06-21--Fired U.S. Attorney admits he's been fired... sort of

Tagging onto Allahpundit ’ s post from yesterday , the definitive answer as to what happened in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney ’ s office is still far from definitive .
In the short period of time between Friday evening and Sunday morning , the bizarre saga of ( former ) U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman has taken more twists and turns than an Olympic luge run .
Yesterday I puzzled over how Berman ’ s dismissal by either Donald Trump or Bill Barr ( depending who you ask ) was handled in such an apparently slapdash fashion .
In less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcing the Berman was resigning to Berman saying he wasn ’ t .
Then Barr said Trump had fired Berman .
The President claimed that he hadn ’ t .
But Barr isn ’ t authorized to fire Berman , so if Trump didn ’ t do it , then Berman is still the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan , right ?
( We can pause here if you feel the need to take an aspirin and lie down for a bit . )
Well , none of that matters this morning .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Berman is now admitting he ’ s fired .
Or he ’ s resigning .
I ’ m really not sure anymore , but he ’ s leaving the office “ effective immediately.
” ( NY Post ) Geoffrey Berman on Saturday night agreed to step down as one of the nation ’ s most powerful U.S .
Attorneys , ending a day-long power tug-of-war that stretched from his Manhattan headquarters to the White House and Justice Department in Washington .
In a statement issued at 6 p.m. , Berman said he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the office over to his Deputy U.S. Attorney , Audrey Strauss .
Berman credited his decision — which came after a day of refusing to step down — to Attorney General William Barr backtracking on his original demand that his successor be attorney and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton .
I ’ m confident that Berman crafted his statement carefully and his choice of words was interesting .
He didn ’ t say he was “ resigning ” but he also didn ’ t mention being fired .
He simply said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me circle back to something I wrote about this yesterday .
“ [ Berman ] can ’ t technically refuse to leave the office because all U.S .
Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President .
If Trump says he ’ s fired , he ’ s fired.
” But now the President is saying he didn ’ t fire Berman , so the former U.S. Attorney has technically resigned .
But in order to get him to do it , Barr had to sweeten the pot by agreeing to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief Jay Clayton as his replacement .
Instead , Berman ’ s former deputy , Audrey Strauss will be stepping up to fill his shoes until the Senate confirms… somebody .
Barr has now placed Trump in something of a delicate position , assuming we believe that this was all Barr ’ s idea to begin with .
( More on that in a moment . )
Yes , the GOP still has enough votes to ram through Clayton if they can keep everyone in line .
But the Democrats have the perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ ll simply argue that there ’ s already a perfectly viable person serving in the office ( Strauss ) who has literally been prosecuting cases since Jimmy Carter was in office .
She actually had to come out of retirement in 2018 to take the role of Berman ’ s deputy .
Clayton , on the other hand , has never prosecuted so much as a jaywalking ticket .
Returning to how this all began , do any of you honestly believe that Bill Barr would have taken it upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving President Trump a courtesy call ?
Given the obvious political fallout of this transition and the media circus that followed , that should be a firing offense on Barr ’ s part if he did .
Trump is denying this publicly , but that ’ s a bit much for even me to swallow .
And the fallout started last night .
The ( at least temporary ) surrender on Clayton is already being fed into the CNN/MSNBC translator and defined as a victory for The Resistance .
And if a couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clayton confirmation vote , the Democrats will chalk that one up in the W column also , leaving Trump with yet another “ acting ” person in the U.S. Attorney ’ s office in Manhattan who he never wanted in the first place .
Bill Barr has been a loyalist in Trump ’ s camp from day one , so it ’ s difficult to see him getting the boot over this .
But somebody messed up majorly in how this was handled .
Yes , Donald Trump loves stories where he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sticking it to his enemies .
But he also likes stories where he wins the fight .
That ’ s looking far from certain at this point .

Tagging onto Allahpundit’s post from yesterday, the definitive answer as to what happened in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office is still far from definitive. In the short period of time between Friday evening and Sunday morning, the bizarre saga of (former) U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman has taken more twists and turns than an Olympic luge run. Yesterday I puzzled over how Berman’s dismissal by either Donald Trump or Bill Barr (depending who you ask) was handled in such an apparently slapdash fashion. In less than a day, we went from Barr announcing the Berman was resigning to Berman saying he wasn’t. Then Barr said Trump had fired Berman. The President claimed that he hadn’t. But Barr isn’t authorized to fire Berman, so if Trump didn’t do it, then Berman is still the U.S. Attorney for Manhattan, right? (We can pause here if you feel the need to take an aspirin and lie down for a bit.)
Well, none of that matters this morning. It seems that a deal was cut and Berman is now admitting he’s fired. Or he’s resigning. I’m really not sure anymore, but he’s leaving the office “effective immediately.” (NY Post)
Geoffrey Berman on Saturday night agreed to step down as one of the nation’s most powerful U.S. Attorneys, ending a day-long power tug-of-war that stretched from his Manhattan headquarters to the White House and Justice Department in Washington. In a statement issued at 6 p.m., Berman said he would leave immediately, and turn control of the office over to his Deputy U.S. Attorney, Audrey Strauss. Berman credited his decision — which came after a day of refusing to step down — to Attorney General William Barr backtracking on his original demand that his successor be attorney and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton.
I’m confident that Berman crafted his statement carefully and his choice of words was interesting. He didn’t say he was “resigning” but he also didn’t mention being fired. He simply said, “I will be leaving…”
Let me circle back to something I wrote about this yesterday. “[Berman] can’t technically refuse to leave the office because all U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If Trump says he’s fired, he’s fired.” But now the President is saying he didn’t fire Berman, so the former U.S. Attorney has technically resigned. But in order to get him to do it, Barr had to sweeten the pot by agreeing to back down on installing Securities and Exchange Commission chief Jay Clayton as his replacement. Instead, Berman’s former deputy, Audrey Strauss will be stepping up to fill his shoes until the Senate confirms… somebody.
Barr has now placed Trump in something of a delicate position, assuming we believe that this was all Barr’s idea to begin with. (More on that in a moment.) Yes, the GOP still has enough votes to ram through Clayton if they can keep everyone in line. But the Democrats have the perfect excuse to make it a party-line vote. They’ll simply argue that there’s already a perfectly viable person serving in the office (Strauss) who has literally been prosecuting cases since Jimmy Carter was in office. She actually had to come out of retirement in 2018 to take the role of Berman’s deputy. Clayton, on the other hand, has never prosecuted so much as a jaywalking ticket.
Returning to how this all began, do any of you honestly believe that Bill Barr would have taken it upon himself to can Berman without at least giving President Trump a courtesy call? Given the obvious political fallout of this transition and the media circus that followed, that should be a firing offense on Barr’s part if he did. Trump is denying this publicly, but that’s a bit much for even me to swallow. And the fallout started last night. The (at least temporary) surrender on Clayton is already being fed into the CNN/MSNBC translator and defined as a victory for The Resistance. And if a couple of nervous Republicans bail out on the Clayton confirmation vote, the Democrats will chalk that one up in the W column also, leaving Trump with yet another “acting” person in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan who he never wanted in the first place.
Bill Barr has been a loyalist in Trump’s camp from day one, so it’s difficult to see him getting the boot over this. But somebody messed up majorly in how this was handled. Yes, Donald Trump loves stories where he’s portrayed as being a fighter and sticking it to his enemies. But he also likes stories where he wins the fight. That’s looking far from certain at this point.


hotair--2020-06-21--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

We thought we were done seeing him on Sunday mornings once impeachment faded from America ’ s radar , but no , like the coronavirus , Adam Schiff never really goes away .
His second wave begins this morning with a double-barreled “ I told you so ” on “ Meet the Press.
” He was booked initially to comment on John Bolton ’ s new book , which appears to confirm House Democrats ’ suspicions of a quid pro quo with Ukraine and their larger thesis that Trump treats foreign policy as a subset of his election campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that played out 36 hours ago in the Southern District of New York presents him with a new opportunity to rant about corruption by Trump and Bill Barr .
Will House Democrats hold hearings into the ( attempted ) firing of Geoffrey Berman ?
Will they call Berman to testify ?
Will they … impeach Trump again if Berman claims that he was targeted because his office was investigating Trump ’ s cronies ?
Stay tuned .
Actually , since it ’ s Jerry Nadler who ’ s chairman of the House Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are better directed to him .
And they will be : Nadler ’ s also a guest this morning , sitting down with “ State of the Union ” to discuss the Berman matter .
Elsewhere this morning , Tim Scott will offer a prognosis on the Senate GOP ’ s police reform bill to “ This Week.
” And DHS Secretary Chad Wolf will offer a prognosis of his own , specifically about the fate of DACA in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ’ s decision this week .
Trump is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that subject : His base wants him to double down on ending the program , in keeping with his campaign promises from 2016 , whereas the other two-thirds of the country wants legal status for DREAMers to stand .
The president will follow his instincts by sticking with righties in the belief that he can ’ t afford to alienate core supporters , no matter how much that might alienate the majority of other voters .
Wolf will be on “ Meet the Press ” and “ Face the Nation ” to preview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms will chat with “ State of the Union ” about the killing of Rayshard Brooks , the ongoing police sick-out that followed the murder charge against Garrett Rolfe , and her probably dwindling prospects of being named Joe Biden ’ s VP .
Biden wants to avoid controversies related to police brutality and race in his choice of nominee , which is why Amy Klobuchar ’ s chances evaporated after George Floyd ’ s murder .
Bottoms is going to spend months in a political storm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with activists on one side demanding prison for Rolfe and police on the other insisting that Rolfe ’ s been railroaded .
That ’ s probably reason enough for Biden to stay away from her .
The full line-up is at the AP .

We thought we were done seeing him on Sunday mornings once impeachment faded from America’s radar, but no, like the coronavirus, Adam Schiff never really goes away. His second wave begins this morning with a double-barreled “I told you so” on “Meet the Press.” He was booked initially to comment on John Bolton’s new book, which appears to confirm House Democrats’ suspicions of a quid pro quo with Ukraine and their larger thesis that Trump treats foreign policy as a subset of his election campaign. But the “Friday night massacre” that played out 36 hours ago in the Southern District of New York presents him with a new opportunity to rant about corruption by Trump and Bill Barr. Will House Democrats hold hearings into the (attempted) firing of Geoffrey Berman? Will they call Berman to testify? Will they … impeach Trump again if Berman claims that he was targeted because his office was investigating Trump’s cronies? Stay tuned.
Actually, since it’s Jerry Nadler who’s chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, not Schiff, those questions are better directed to him. And they will be: Nadler’s also a guest this morning, sitting down with “State of the Union” to discuss the Berman matter.
Elsewhere this morning, Tim Scott will offer a prognosis on the Senate GOP’s police reform bill to “This Week.” And DHS Secretary Chad Wolf will offer a prognosis of his own, specifically about the fate of DACA in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision this week. Trump is caught in a familiar political bind on that subject: His base wants him to double down on ending the program, in keeping with his campaign promises from 2016, whereas the other two-thirds of the country wants legal status for DREAMers to stand. The president will follow his instincts by sticking with righties in the belief that he can’t afford to alienate core supporters, no matter how much that might alienate the majority of other voters. Wolf will be on “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” to preview next steps on winding down DACA.
Finally, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms will chat with “State of the Union” about the killing of Rayshard Brooks, the ongoing police sick-out that followed the murder charge against Garrett Rolfe, and her probably dwindling prospects of being named Joe Biden’s VP. Biden wants to avoid controversies related to police brutality and race in his choice of nominee, which is why Amy Klobuchar’s chances evaporated after George Floyd’s murder. Bottoms is going to spend months in a political storm generated by Brooks’s death, with activists on one side demanding prison for Rolfe and police on the other insisting that Rolfe’s been railroaded. That’s probably reason enough for Biden to stay away from her. The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-06-20--1619 Project author: 'It would be an honor' to call these the 1619 riots <span class='red'>(Update:

1619 Project author: 'It would be an honor' to call these the 1619 riots (Update: She's back)

Nikole Hannah Jones , Pulitzer Prize winning author of the lead editorial of the NY Times ’ 1619 Project , has been responding to people on Twitter this morning and some of the responses are interesting .
Let ’ s start with this NY Times column by Jamelle Bouie which opens : Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Republican Party freed the slaves .
They helped set freedom in motion and eventually codified it into law with the 13th Amendment , but they were not themselves responsible for the end of slavery .
They were not the ones who brought about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slaves ?
The slaves freed the slaves… Emancipation wasn ’ t a gift bestowed on the slaves ; it was something they took for themselves , the culmination of their long struggle for freedom , which began as soon as chattel slavery was established in the 17th century , and gained even greater steam with the Revolution and the birth of a country committed , at least rhetorically , to freedom and equality .
Andrew Sullivan pointed out that this seems to downplay rather significantly the Union ’ s contribution to defeating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hannah-Jones responded with this : Nothing Sullivan said suggests he is offended by black agency .
I ’ m not offended by this evidence of black agency either .
It ’ s a fact that nearly 200,000 black people fought for the Union .
It seems right to honor that contribution to history and to respect the agency behind it .
No argument here .
It ’ s also a fact that the total number of people who joined the Union Army over the course of the war was about 2.1 million .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ white farmers .
Shouldn ’ t we also honor their contribution and the agency behind it ?
Last night , the NY Post published a piece titled “ Call them the 1619 riots.
” The piece is capped by a photo whose caption reads , “ A Thomas Jefferson statue toppled outside Jefferson High School in Portland , Oregon.
” Here ’ s Hannah-Jones response : Clearly she ’ s not upset about tearing down a statue of Jefferson .
But that wasn ’ t the only statue torn down last night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people toppled a statue of Ulysses S. Grant , the man to whom Gen. Lee surrendered .
Politico ’ s Marc Caputo said the people doing this were crazy .
Hannah-Jones took offense to the wording of one of his tweets : A little push back and she went right to Hitler .
Is there a Pulitzer for proving Godwin ’ s law ?
There are also some significant problems with her argument .
While a modern person in some ways , OBL seemed to yearn for a much older time , circa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the phrase “ man of his time ” doesn ’ t suit him at all .
Hitler wasn ’ t just an ordinary person going along with then-current assumptions about race and racism .
The reason he comes up in arguments like this is because he wasn ’ t just a man of his time , he was a world-historic monster .
Maybe you ’ re wondering like I am where Hannah-Jones draws the line on vandalism as progress .
She gave us a hint ( since deleted ) : To sum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tearing down statues of Jefferson but says she won ’ t call for doing the same to statues of Grant and Lincoln .
However , when a statue of Grant is torn down , she won ’ t comment or object .
In fact , if she objects to having that vandalism associated with her project , she doesn ’ t say so .
So I guess the question that remains is : If rioters take jackhammers to the Lincoln Memorial will she still feel honored to call this the 1619 riots ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great loss or a sign of progress for which they are partly responsible ?
I said this jokingly yesterday but you can bet there are some people who ’ d really like to see it happen .
Where do the 1619 riots end ?
Update : Looks like Nikole Hannah-Jones has deleted her account .
I wonder if someone at the NY Times had a conversation with her about endorsing riots .
But actually , looking at this , she appears to have been part of two other controversies since then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theory involving setting off fireworks .
Apparently this isn ’ t bored kids , this is a plot to destabilize Black Lives Matter .
This is of course , complete nonsense : Honestly , this claim is about as solid as the idea that the Revolutionary War was about protecting slavery .
She also seems to have offended some Native Americans with a claim about the Trail of Tears : So , take your pick .
She decided for some reason it was time to close her account .
And , hey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honoring this riot-endorsing , conspiracy-monger with the highest prize in journalism .
Great job .
Update : Her account was definitely down for a few hours but now it ’ s back .

Nikole Hannah Jones, Pulitzer Prize winning author of the lead editorial of the NY Times’ 1619 Project, has been responding to people on Twitter this morning and some of the responses are interesting. Let’s start with this NY Times column by Jamelle Bouie which opens:
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Republican Party freed the slaves. They helped set freedom in motion and eventually codified it into law with the 13th Amendment, but they were not themselves responsible for the end of slavery. They were not the ones who brought about its final destruction. Who freed the slaves? The slaves freed the slaves… Emancipation wasn’t a gift bestowed on the slaves; it was something they took for themselves, the culmination of their long struggle for freedom, which began as soon as chattel slavery was established in the 17th century, and gained even greater steam with the Revolution and the birth of a country committed, at least rhetorically, to freedom and equality.
Andrew Sullivan pointed out that this seems to downplay rather significantly the Union’s contribution to defeating the South and ending slavery.
Lincoln, and the hundreds of thousands of war dead in the Union, did not free the slaves. In fact, the Union dead barely feature in this version of history. https://t.co/useFYbgbWS — Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) June 19, 2020
And Nikole Hannah-Jones responded with this:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1274174767948496898
Nothing Sullivan said suggests he is offended by black agency. I’m not offended by this evidence of black agency either. It’s a fact that nearly 200,000 black people fought for the Union. It seems right to honor that contribution to history and to respect the agency behind it. No argument here.
It’s also a fact that the total number of people who joined the Union Army over the course of the war was about 2.1 million. Most of them were relatively young, white farmers. Shouldn’t we also honor their contribution and the agency behind it?
Last night, the NY Post published a piece titled “Call them the 1619 riots.” The piece is capped by a photo whose caption reads, “A Thomas Jefferson statue toppled outside Jefferson High School in Portland, Oregon.” Here’s Hannah-Jones response:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1274351225492967424
Clearly she’s not upset about tearing down a statue of Jefferson. But that wasn’t the only statue torn down last night. In San Francisco, a group of people toppled a statue of Ulysses S. Grant, the man to whom Gen. Lee surrendered. Politico’s Marc Caputo said the people doing this were crazy.
Lost Cause meet Crazy Cause: using Juneteenth to tear down of the San Fran. statue of Ulysses S. Grant —who won the Civil War that led to emancipation, long before had freed the 1 slave he had been given & who was later eulogized by Frederick Douglasspic.twitter.com/SjArCUYlQR — Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) June 20, 2020
Grant’s presidency had big trouble, but got the 15th Amend passed, he crushed the 1st iteration of the KKK & he tried reforming U.S. Indian policy Later, when Prussia’s leader told him he had had to save the Union,
Grant said: “Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery” — Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) June 20, 2020
Hannah-Jones took offense to the wording of one of his tweets:
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1274377882828255238
A little push back and she went right to Hitler. Is there a Pulitzer for proving Godwin’s law?
There are also some significant problems with her argument. While a modern person in some ways, OBL seemed to yearn for a much older time, circa the 7th Century. As for Hitler, the phrase “man of his time” doesn’t suit him at all. Hitler wasn’t just an ordinary person going along with then-current assumptions about race and racism. The reason he comes up in arguments like this is because he wasn’t just a man of his time, he was a world-historic monster.
Maybe you’re wondering like I am where Hannah-Jones draws the line on vandalism as progress. She gave us a hint (since deleted):
To sum up, Hannah-Jones seems to approve of tearing down statues of Jefferson but says she won’t call for doing the same to statues of Grant and Lincoln. However, when a statue of Grant is torn down, she won’t comment or object. In fact, if she objects to having that vandalism associated with her project, she doesn’t say so.
So I guess the question that remains is: If rioters take jackhammers to the Lincoln Memorial will she still feel honored to call this the 1619 riots? Would the NY Times cover that as a great loss or a sign of progress for which they are partly responsible? I said this jokingly yesterday but you can bet there are some people who’d really like to see it happen. Where do the 1619 riots end?
Well, glad I saw this before it gets dynamited. pic.twitter.com/a4bcHXr3rl — John Sexton (@verumserum) June 19, 2020
Update: Looks like Nikole Hannah-Jones has deleted her account. I wonder if someone at the NY Times had a conversation with her about endorsing riots. But actually, looking at this, she appears to have been part of two other controversies since then. The first is her endorsement of a conspiracy theory involving setting off fireworks. Apparently this isn’t bored kids, this is a plot to destabilize Black Lives Matter.
This is incredibly irresponsible on every level. pic.twitter.com/hFSmxe8HtA — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 21, 2020
This is of course, complete nonsense:
3/ FWIW, from an acquaintance in BK pic.twitter.com/xKAMtrZIba — Jesse Singal (@jessesingal) June 21, 2020
Honestly, this claim is about as solid as the idea that the Revolutionary War was about protecting slavery. She also seems to have offended some Native Americans with a claim about the Trail of Tears:
So, take your pick. She decided for some reason it was time to close her account. And, hey, congrats to the Pulitzer committee for honoring this riot-endorsing, conspiracy-monger with the highest prize in journalism. Great job.
Update: Her account was definitely down for a few hours but now it’s back.


hotair--2020-06-21--Democrats aren't quite ignoring the Green Party this year

The Democratic Party appears more worried about the Green Party .
Sort of .
Longtime Green Party activist Howie Hawkins is likely their nominee for this fall ’ s election after grabbing another primary win this past weekend .
The socialist pitched his platform to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters in April deriding Democrat Joe Biden as a “ Neoliberal Hawk ” and President Donald Trump as a “ racist incompetent ” ( let ’ s not forgot the Midwest union members who had Trump as their second pick behind Sanders in 2016. )
.
“ To settle for Biden as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition of the corporate establishment to Medicare for All , a full-strength Green New Deal , and an Economic Bill of Rights to end poverty and economic despair , ” Hawkins pleaded to Sanders fans .
“ We are running out of time on the pandemic , climate , nuclear arms , and deadly poverty and economic despair .
Real solutions can ’ t wait .
Let ’ s continue to fight [ for ] socialist solutions through the November election and beyond .
Keep the revolution alive .
We are fighting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest about a desire for socialism .
Sanders , despite his claims of independence , remains a Democrat Party loyalist having endorsed Biden for the White House .
Several former staffers are attempting to bring in more Sanders supporters towards Biden ’ s candidacy with a Super PAC .
Proving there is concern regarding Hawkins ’ and the Green Party despite assurances from PAC organizers of the opposite .
“ I think there ’ s less of a concern than there was in 2016 , ” Jeff Weaver told POLITICO while suggesting people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would win despite also noting Trump might win .
“ We know Trump can win…I think the Biden campaign has done a much better job of reaching out to the progressive wing of the party and to progressives outside the party in order to bring them in.
” Clinton ’ s former campaign manager painted a slightly different picture for POLITICO , suggesting more of a push for third-party voters was needed .
“ Biden is not over 50 % in the battleground states and often his lead is in the margin of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next five months , ” said Robby Mook .
“ What matters most is reminding people that Trump could win.
” Ah yes , the old “ protect the duopoly at all costs ” strategy by blaming third party voters for picking principle over major party .
This notion the major parties need to pick good candidates or at least competent ones without a long history of horrendous policies matters not when dealing with the so-called “ most important election of our time.
” To quote John Stossel , “ Give me a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election .
Hillary Clinton cost herself the 2016 election because she was a rotten candidate ( Ed noted this in his own piece on the POLITICO article ) !
Voters owe zero fealty to any political party or candidate due to the label at the end of their name .
Candidates and parties must prove their worth to voters .
It ’ s not the other way around despite the claims from party bosses , advocates , and candidates .
The hubris from both parties is mind-boggling and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other statue .
It is understandable why Americans remain in this cycle of picking one major party over the other .
They ’ ve been taught that way .
The so-called lesser of two evils .
It ’ s why Republicans and Democrats told 2016 voters , “ You must vote for us because we ’ re not “ Trump/Clinton.
” It ’ s why Democrats are telling likely non-Trump voters to go for Biden this year because he ’ s “ not Trump.
” This strategy works despite its foolhardiness because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time to get rid of this nonsense .
Democrats may be slightly paying more attention to the Green Party but there ’ s no guarantee Biden ’ s voting history or VP will bring them in line simply because he ’ s “ not Trump.
” It ’ s on Biden ’ s head if he fails to win 2020 , not Howie Hawkins or Dr. Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party or other third parties .
It ’ s on Trump ’ s head if he fails to win re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it should be !
You want to win an election , and you ’ re in a major party ?
Put up a good candidate !
Also , stop rigging the system to make sure your candidates are the only ones on the debate stage .
But that ’ s an argument for another column .

The Democratic Party appears more worried about the Green Party. Sort of.
Longtime Green Party activist Howie Hawkins is likely their nominee for this fall’s election after grabbing another primary win this past weekend. The socialist pitched his platform to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters in April deriding Democrat Joe Biden as a “Neoliberal Hawk” and President Donald Trump as a “racist incompetent” (let’s not forgot the Midwest union members who had Trump as their second pick behind Sanders in 2016.).
“To settle for Biden as the lesser evil is to join the opposition of the corporate establishment to Medicare for All, a full-strength Green New Deal, and an Economic Bill of Rights to end poverty and economic despair,” Hawkins pleaded to Sanders fans. “We are running out of time on the pandemic, climate, nuclear arms, and deadly poverty and economic despair. Real solutions can’t wait. Let’s continue to fight [for] socialist solutions through the November election and beyond. Keep the revolution alive. We are fighting for our future.”
At least Hawkins is honest about a desire for socialism.
Sanders, despite his claims of independence, remains a Democrat Party loyalist having endorsed Biden for the White House. Several former staffers are attempting to bring in more Sanders supporters towards Biden’s candidacy with a Super PAC. Proving there is concern regarding Hawkins’ and the Green Party despite assurances from PAC organizers of the opposite.
“I think there’s less of a concern than there was in 2016,” Jeff Weaver told POLITICO while suggesting people voted third-party because they believed Hillary Clinton would win despite also noting Trump might win. “We know Trump can win…I think the Biden campaign has done a much better job of reaching out to the progressive wing of the party and to progressives outside the party in order to bring them in.”
Clinton’s former campaign manager painted a slightly different picture for POLITICO, suggesting more of a push for third-party voters was needed.
“Biden is not over 50% in the battleground states and often his lead is in the margin of error. Anything could happen in the next five months,” said Robby Mook. “What matters most is reminding people that Trump could win.”
Ah yes, the old “protect the duopoly at all costs” strategy by blaming third party voters for picking principle over major party. This notion the major parties need to pick good candidates or at least competent ones without a long history of horrendous policies matters not when dealing with the so-called “most important election of our time.” To quote John Stossel, “Give me a break.” Jill Stein didn’t cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton cost herself the 2016 election because she was a rotten candidate (Ed noted this in his own piece on the POLITICO article)!
Voters owe zero fealty to any political party or candidate due to the label at the end of their name. Candidates and parties must prove their worth to voters. It’s not the other way around despite the claims from party bosses, advocates, and candidates. The hubris from both parties is mind-boggling and why the duopoly needs tearing down before any other statue.
It is understandable why Americans remain in this cycle of picking one major party over the other. They’ve been taught that way. The so-called lesser of two evils. It’s why Republicans and Democrats told 2016 voters, “You must vote for us because we’re not “Trump/Clinton.” It’s why Democrats are telling likely non-Trump voters to go for Biden this year because he’s “not Trump.” This strategy works despite its foolhardiness because of tradition and only tradition.
It’s time to get rid of this nonsense. Democrats may be slightly paying more attention to the Green Party but there’s no guarantee Biden’s voting history or VP will bring them in line simply because he’s “not Trump.” It’s on Biden’s head if he fails to win 2020, not Howie Hawkins or Dr. Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party or other third parties. It’s on Trump’s head if he fails to win re-election, not third parties. This is as it should be!
You want to win an election, and you’re in a major party? Put up a good candidate! Also, stop rigging the system to make sure your candidates are the only ones on the debate stage. But that’s an argument for another column.


hotair--2020-06-22--Shaun King: It's time to tear down images of white Jesus

It ’ s extremely on-brand for America 2020 that wokesters would get bored with “ Black Lives Matter ” just as the idea ’ s gaining acceptance and proceed immediately to “ Crucify White Jesus.
” Or , as I assume King would prefer to phrase it , “ Make Jesus Semitic Again.
” Either way , if you ’ re out to smash idols , there ’ s no sense messing around with small potatoes like George Washington .
Go for the gold .
Stephen “ redsteeze ” Miller reminds me that King was a featured speaker at Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not all Bernie admirers were thrilled by his affiliation with the candidate , though : “ I woke up this morning to once again see Shaun King trending , and my immediate reaction was , ‘ What the hell did he do this time ? '
” To think , in an alternate universe where Sanders went on to win the Democratic nomination , the status of “ white Jesus ” is suddenly a major issue in the upcoming presidential election .
I regret that it isn ’ t .
Out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to see what Trump would do with that one .
Given a choice between enforcing prohibitions on modern blasphemy , i.e .
sins against wokeness , and enforcing the old-fashioned kind , it ’ s no contest for King .
By “ they should all come down , ” though , does he mean … mobs raiding churches ?
Or something superficially more civilized , like pressuring the local city council into banning images of Jesus that look “ too Caucasian ” and then watching the ban get laughed out of court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left , either way .
I encourage them to take King ’ s advice and to upload photos and videos of the deed to commemorate it when it ’ s done .
The Senate picture isn ’ t looking great right now for the GOP .
A Year-Zero PC purge of images of Christ might be just what the doctor ordered .
Eventually some mischief-maker will push back by creating an image of Mohammed as some ultra-Aryan blonde Nordic god and the country ’ s circuits will fry as it tries to navigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an insult to Islam to depict Mohammed , but it ’ d be a bigger insult to destroy the image , except that the white supremacy inherent in depicting Mohammed as white requires us to destroy it , although maybe the image is aimed at encouraging white people not to view Mohammed as “ the other , ” in which case we should promote it .
I can picture King tearing up the image , then reconsidering and taping it back together , then tearing it up again , then taping it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an image of Jesus , specifically , would require us to deem it too white for comfort ?
Blue eyes are a given but what about lightish brown hair ?
On skin tone , would there be like a reverse “ brown paper bag test , ” or some sort of quadroon/octoroon system for rating how Semitic he looks in a given image ?
( “ He ’ s no more than an eighth Jewish in this painting .
Burn it.
” ) The idea of Shaun King treating physical appearance as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

It’s extremely on-brand for America 2020 that wokesters would get bored with “Black Lives Matter” just as the idea’s gaining acceptance and proceed immediately to “Crucify White Jesus.”
Or, as I assume King would prefer to phrase it, “Make Jesus Semitic Again.”
Either way, if you’re out to smash idols, there’s no sense messing around with small potatoes like George Washington. Go for the gold.
Stephen “redsteeze” Miller reminds me that King was a featured speaker at Bernie Sanders’s campaign launch in 2019. Not all Bernie admirers were thrilled by his affiliation with the candidate, though: “I woke up this morning to once again see Shaun King trending, and my immediate reaction was, ‘What the hell did he do this time?'” To think, in an alternate universe where Sanders went on to win the Democratic nomination, the status of “white Jesus” is suddenly a major issue in the upcoming presidential election.
I regret that it isn’t. Out of sheer morbid curiosity, I’d like to see what Trump would do with that one.
Given a choice between enforcing prohibitions on modern blasphemy, i.e. sins against wokeness, and enforcing the old-fashioned kind, it’s no contest for King. By “they should all come down,” though, does he mean … mobs raiding churches? Or something superficially more civilized, like pressuring the local city council into banning images of Jesus that look “too Caucasian” and then watching the ban get laughed out of court?
A good look for the American left, either way. I encourage them to take King’s advice and to upload photos and videos of the deed to commemorate it when it’s done. The Senate picture isn’t looking great right now for the GOP. A Year-Zero PC purge of images of Christ might be just what the doctor ordered.
Eventually some mischief-maker will push back by creating an image of Mohammed as some ultra-Aryan blonde Nordic god and the country’s circuits will fry as it tries to navigate the politics of that. It’s an insult to Islam to depict Mohammed, but it’d be a bigger insult to destroy the image, except that the white supremacy inherent in depicting Mohammed as white requires us to destroy it, although maybe the image is aimed at encouraging white people not to view Mohammed as “the other,” in which case we should promote it. I can picture King tearing up the image, then reconsidering and taping it back together, then tearing it up again, then taping it back up…
Exit question: Which features in an image of Jesus, specifically, would require us to deem it too white for comfort? Blue eyes are a given but what about lightish brown hair? On skin tone, would there be like a reverse “brown paper bag test,” or some sort of quadroon/octoroon system for rating how Semitic he looks in a given image? (“He’s no more than an eighth Jewish in this painting. Burn it.”) The idea of Shaun King treating physical appearance as a yardstick for racial authenticity is phenomenal.


hotair--2020-06-22--Trump to AOC: Run against Schumer in 2022 -- you'd be a "big improvement"

As difficult as it might be to imagine , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would not , in fact , be a “ big improvement ” over Chuck Schumer , not even from Donald Trump ’ s perspective .
She would most certainly not beat the incumbent Senate Minority Leader , who might find himself the sudden recipient of some conservative support if this primary challenge ever came to pass .
In fact , there ’ s at least some reason to suspect that Ocasio-Cortez might not be in position to challenge Schumer in the first place after November .
Count this as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impulse , part of what makes him Twitter ’ s biggest asset : The idea of an AOC challenge to Schumer has floated around for a while , and apparently is still percolating — at least on Twitter : The sacking of Rep. Joe Crowley two years ago and the prospect of giving Rep. Eliot L. Engel the boot Tuesday in the New York Democratic primary has far-left activists dreaming big about the future .
So big , in fact , that liberals are kicking around the idea that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titan of the Democratic Party establishment : Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer .
“ Just going to say something out loud that should be obvious : The fastest way to speed up the process of changing the corrupt , do-nothing , status-quo-protecting culture of the national Democratic Party is for @ AOC to defeat @ ChuckSchumer in a Democratic primary in 2022 , ” David Sirota , a senior adviser to Sen. Bernard Sanders ’ presidential campaign , recently said in a post on Twitter .
That might work … if all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AOC ’ s Brooklyn neighborhood .
Outside of New York City , though , the state tends to run more center-rightish .
They are less of a one-party state than California , for example , although they are trending in that direction .
New York isn ’ t a hard-Left state yet , and AOC would likely get her clock cleaned if she tried to challenge Schumer .
Crowley got caught napping about his constituency and got Eric Cantored for it ; Schumer wouldn ’ t make that mistake .
As John Fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 primary , this time it might be AOC ’ s turn to get Eric Cantored : Now , in Tuesday ’ s primary , AOC faces a moderate challenger who says it ’ s AOC who has become a distant figure to her poor Bronx and Queens constituents , one more interested in superstardom and her 7.3 million Twitter followers than in bringing jobs to the district .
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera , a former business-news anchor on CNBC , says AOC should have backed Amazon ’ s proposed second headquarters in her district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , AOC was the project ’ s loudest opponent , and she took credit for its demise in 2019 .
“ You voted against your community , ” Caruso-Cabrera told AOC last week , during one of their few debates , noting that AOC is such a rigid ideologue that she was the only Democrat to vote against the Payroll Protection Plan , which includes funds for hospitals and COVID-19 testing .
Caruso-Cabrera says that “ Medicare for All is not the answer , ” and she calls AOC ’ s Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their last debate she also accused the incumbent of being a “ divisive ” and “ polarizing ” figure within the Democratic Party — one who wouldn ’ t even commit to voting for Joe Biden in the fall .
Plus , there ’ s this development in the race : It ’ s tough to knock out an incumbent in a primary challenge — not impossible , clearly , but not easy .
Ocasio-Cortez hasn ’ t been napping , at least ; as Fund notes , she has a 40-person staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million in this race .
However , the lost Amazon deal stings especially hard now in the COVID-19 crisis , where a center might have made up for a lot of lost jobs for furloughed retail workers .
If voters remember that in NY-14 when they go to the polls tomorrow , AOC might not be in position to challenge for any statewide office in 2022 , let alone Schumer ’ s Senate seat .
The last thing we need in the Senate is a Bernie Sanders clone anyway .
So how would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” especially for a president who derides AOC ’ s socialism ?
It wouldn ’ t be , of course ; Trump ’ s just trolling Schumer and having some fun .
Let ’ s hope the last laugh isn ’ t on us , though .

As difficult as it might be to imagine, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would not, in fact, be a “big improvement” over Chuck Schumer, not even from Donald Trump’s perspective. She would most certainly not beat the incumbent Senate Minority Leader, who might find himself the sudden recipient of some conservative support if this primary challenge ever came to pass. In fact, there’s at least some reason to suspect that Ocasio-Cortez might not be in position to challenge Schumer in the first place after November.
Count this as part of Trump’s ever-present trolling impulse, part of what makes him Twitter’s biggest asset:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1274923712324796421
The idea of an AOC challenge to Schumer has floated around for a while, and apparently is still percolating — at least on Twitter:
The sacking of Rep. Joe Crowley two years ago and the prospect of giving Rep. Eliot L. Engel the boot Tuesday in the New York Democratic primary has far-left activists dreaming big about the future. So big, in fact, that liberals are kicking around the idea that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could launch a 2022 primary challenge against a titan of the Democratic Party establishment: Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer. “Just going to say something out loud that should be obvious: The fastest way to speed up the process of changing the corrupt, do-nothing, status-quo-protecting culture of the national Democratic Party is for @AOC to defeat @ChuckSchumer in a Democratic primary in 2022,” David Sirota, a senior adviser to Sen. Bernard Sanders’ presidential campaign, recently said in a post on Twitter.
That might work … if all of the state of New York was AOC’s Brooklyn neighborhood. Outside of New York City, though, the state tends to run more center-rightish. They are less of a one-party state than California, for example, although they are trending in that direction. New York isn’t a hard-Left state yet, and AOC would likely get her clock cleaned if she tried to challenge Schumer. Crowley got caught napping about his constituency and got Eric Cantored for it; Schumer wouldn’t make that mistake.
As John Fund points out in his look at the 2020 primary, this time it might be AOC’s turn to get Eric Cantored:
Now, in Tuesday’s primary, AOC faces a moderate challenger who says it’s AOC who has become a distant figure to her poor Bronx and Queens constituents, one more interested in superstardom and her 7.3 million Twitter followers than in bringing jobs to the district. Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former business-news anchor on CNBC, says AOC should have backed Amazon’s proposed second headquarters in her district, with its 25,000 new jobs. Instead, AOC was the project’s loudest opponent, and she took credit for its demise in 2019. “You voted against your community,” Caruso-Cabrera told AOC last week, during one of their few debates, noting that AOC is such a rigid ideologue that she was the only Democrat to vote against the Payroll Protection Plan, which includes funds for hospitals and COVID-19 testing. Caruso-Cabrera says that “Medicare for All is not the answer,” and she calls AOC’s Green New Deal “divisive policy.” During their last debate she also accused the incumbent of being a “divisive” and “polarizing” figure within the Democratic Party — one who wouldn’t even commit to voting for Joe Biden in the fall.
Plus, there’s this development in the race:
Some kinda curious developments in #NY14: @AOC launched a negative ad on her primary opponent @MCaruso_Cabrera over the weekend, and MCC recently kicked her campaign $1 million of her own money. I'm NOT saying AOC is gonna lose, but interesting spending! https://t.co/Dt38y1ifbe pic.twitter.com/PF7X2lV23Q — Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) June 22, 2020
It’s tough to knock out an incumbent in a primary challenge — not impossible, clearly, but not easy. Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t been napping, at least; as Fund notes, she has a 40-person staff and has raised a whopping $6.3 million in this race. However, the lost Amazon deal stings especially hard now in the COVID-19 crisis, where a center might have made up for a lot of lost jobs for furloughed retail workers. If voters remember that in NY-14 when they go to the polls tomorrow, AOC might not be in position to challenge for any statewide office in 2022, let alone Schumer’s Senate seat.
The last thing we need in the Senate is a Bernie Sanders clone anyway. So how would that be a “big improvement,” especially for a president who derides AOC’s socialism? It wouldn’t be, of course; Trump’s just trolling Schumer and having some fun. Let’s hope the last laugh isn’t on us, though.


hotair--2020-06-22--Cuomo: We had so many nursing home deaths because the feds didn't tell us the virus was coming from

Cuomo: We had so many nursing home deaths because the feds didn't tell us the virus was coming from Europe

After three months , this is the best this guy can do to explain away his apocalyptic error of sending infected patients back into nursing homes ?
Watch two minutes here , then read on .
He made the same point about supposedly being blindsided by infection in Europe in a press briefing on May 8 .
Pro Publica nailed him for it in a scathing piece published a week later : “ Nobody was saying , ‘ Beware of people coming from Europe.
’ We weren ’ t testing people coming from Europe , ” Cuomo said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time if you have a European visitor or European guest , make sure they get tested .
They walked right through the airport.
” The narrative , of course , fails to note people were not just flying from Europe to New York , but to California and other cities and states .
And it seems to portray New York , its health departments and government officials , as somehow innocent bystanders , incapable of having themselves seen the threat from Europe and factored that in their response .
That Italy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was hardly a secret .
The whole point of that Pro Publica story , which is worth your time if you haven ’ t read it before , is that policy choices made by Cuomo and Bill de Blasio doomed New York to a singularly horrific encounter with COVID-19 .
On the opposite coast , fellow Democrats Gavin Newsom and London Breed moved quickly to lock down their state and city in the early days of the outbreak , snuffing community spread and preventing God knows how many deaths .
The Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own a few weeks ago that confirmed that bad policy by Cuomo , de Blasio , and their health departments may have had an outsized impact on the ferocious spread of coronavirus in New York .
“ Early signs of the virus ’ s arrival—including a rise in patients with flulike symptoms visiting hospitals—went largely uninvestigated by hospital , state and city officials , ” the WSJ reported .
“ While leaders in states like California and Ohio acted quickly to contain the spread , Messrs. Cuomo and de Blasio delayed taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as the number of cases swelled , despite warnings from doctors , nurses and schoolteachers.
” California issued its lockdown order on March 19 , when it had around 1,000 confirmed cases .
New York had more than five times that number at the time and still wasn ’ t locked down for several more days .
Pro Publica came back recently with another investigation , this time aimed squarely at Cuomo ’ s infamous nursing-home policy .
His order on March 25 didn ’ t just require nursing homes to reaccept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free up beds in hospitals for the expected surge .
It also required them to accept new residents even if they had been treated for COVID-19 — and it couldn ’ t test them to see if they were still infected when they arrived .
But it gets worse : The policy lasted for nearly two disastrous months because Cuomo ’ s health department just wasn ’ t paying attention to what was going on in nursing homes .
When all was said and done , the state lost six percent of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of nursing-home residents who tested positive , six percent of the entire state nursing-home population .
( In New Jersey , which followed a similar policy , it was 12 percent . )
One New York county executive flatly refused to implement Cuomo ’ s policy at the sole nursing home located in his county , deeming it borderline insane .
Not one resident there has died of COVID-19 .
One reason Cuomo ’ s touchy about this subject is that it ’ s punctured his media bubble to such a degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mocked for it by other governors .
Remember last week how he threatened to quarantine visitors to New York from Florida because of the outbreak there ?
Ron DeSantis had a thought about that : The other reason he ’ s touchy is that there ’ s some grumbling in New York about the state ’ s cautious pace on reopening .
The spikes happening in states like Florida , Texas , and Arizona that reopened early are a chance for him to pat himself on the back for his own alleged prudence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at some length .
But that leads him into a lie when he says , “ The number of deaths [ elsewhere ] are still going up , Stephanie .
Look at Florida.
” But deaths in Florida aren ’ t going up .
Cases are going up , but because those cases are disproportionately among younger people who can weather the virus , deaths are flat — for now : He ’ s flailing here because he has nothing credible to say in defense of his nursing-home policy .
It was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no way to spin it .

After three months, this is the best this guy can do to explain away his apocalyptic error of sending infected patients back into nursing homes? Watch two minutes here, then read on.
He made the same point about supposedly being blindsided by infection in Europe in a press briefing on May 8. Pro Publica nailed him for it in a scathing piece published a week later:
“Nobody was saying, ‘Beware of people coming from Europe.’ We weren’t testing people coming from Europe,” Cuomo said. “We weren’t telling anyone at the time if you have a European visitor or European guest, make sure they get tested. They walked right through the airport.” The narrative, of course, fails to note people were not just flying from Europe to New York, but to California and other cities and states. And it seems to portray New York, its health departments and government officials, as somehow innocent bystanders, incapable of having themselves seen the threat from Europe and factored that in their response. That Italy and Spain were being overwhelmed by the virus was hardly a secret.
The whole point of that Pro Publica story, which is worth your time if you haven’t read it before, is that policy choices made by Cuomo and Bill de Blasio doomed New York to a singularly horrific encounter with COVID-19. On the opposite coast, fellow Democrats Gavin Newsom and London Breed moved quickly to lock down their state and city in the early days of the outbreak, snuffing community spread and preventing God knows how many deaths. The Wall Street Journal followed up with an investigation of its own a few weeks ago that confirmed that bad policy by Cuomo, de Blasio, and their health departments may have had an outsized impact on the ferocious spread of coronavirus in New York. “Early signs of the virus’s arrival—including a rise in patients with flulike symptoms visiting hospitals—went largely uninvestigated by hospital, state and city officials,” the WSJ reported. “While leaders in states like California and Ohio acted quickly to contain the spread, Messrs. Cuomo and de Blasio delayed taking measures to close the state and city even as the number of cases swelled, despite warnings from doctors, nurses and schoolteachers.”
California issued its lockdown order on March 19, when it had around 1,000 confirmed cases. New York had more than five times that number at the time and still wasn’t locked down for several more days.
Pro Publica came back recently with another investigation, this time aimed squarely at Cuomo’s infamous nursing-home policy. His order on March 25 didn’t just require nursing homes to reaccept infected patients, a measure designed to free up beds in hospitals for the expected surge. It also required them to accept new residents even if they had been treated for COVID-19 — and it couldn’t test them to see if they were still infected when they arrived. But it gets worse:
A complicating factor in evaluating the effect of the March 25 directive is that the state Health Department did not track in real time what happened when COVID-19 patients were transferred from hospitals to nursing homes. One senior nursing home industry official said the state Health Department didn’t even begin comprehensively counting COVID-19 deaths in these facilities until well into April, although the department has disputed that claim.
The policy lasted for nearly two disastrous months because Cuomo’s health department just wasn’t paying attention to what was going on in nursing homes. When all was said and done, the state lost six percent of its nursing-home population. Note: Not six percent of nursing-home residents who tested positive, six percent of the entire state nursing-home population. (In New Jersey, which followed a similar policy, it was 12 percent.) One New York county executive flatly refused to implement Cuomo’s policy at the sole nursing home located in his county, deeming it borderline insane. Not one resident there has died of COVID-19.
One reason Cuomo’s touchy about this subject is that it’s punctured his media bubble to such a degree that he’s now being openly mocked for it by other governors. Remember last week how he threatened to quarantine visitors to New York from Florida because of the outbreak there? Ron DeSantis had a thought about that:
Florida's @GovRonDeSantis taking a shot at @NYGovCuomo during today's COVID briefing. Cuomo says he's mulling a quarantine on travelers from Florida (FL is already doing this to travelers from NY). Here was DeSantis's response: pic.twitter.com/YhVqrIUV6r — Forrest Saunders (@FBSaunders) June 20, 2020
The other reason he’s touchy is that there’s some grumbling in New York about the state’s cautious pace on reopening. The spikes happening in states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona that reopened early are a chance for him to pat himself on the back for his own alleged prudence, which he does in the clip at some length. But that leads him into a lie when he says, “The number of deaths [elsewhere] are still going up, Stephanie. Look at Florida.” But deaths in Florida aren’t going up. Cases are going up, but because those cases are disproportionately among younger people who can weather the virus, deaths are flat — for now:
He’s flailing here because he has nothing credible to say in defense of his nursing-home policy. It was an egregious mistake with egregious life-and-death consequences. There’s no way to spin it.


hotair--2020-06-22--Archaeologists discover circle of ancient pits near Stonehenge

This isn ’ t the sort of thing we usually cover but I thought this was pretty interesting so I ’ m taking a break from politics and protests .
Researchers in England have discovered a massive new element to an existing Neolithic site near Stonehenge .
The find is a series of large pits arranged in a circle around an ancient town called Durrington Walls which existed at the time Stonehenge was under construction about 4,500 years ago .
The study , published online on Sunday , outlines the discovery of a large circle of shafts surrounding the ancient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ henge monument — about two miles from Stonehenge .
The trenches , each of which is around 30 feet wide and 15 feet deep , are thought to have been part of a ritual boundary area between the two sites… “ As the place where the builders of Stonehenge lived and feasted , Durrington Walls is key to unlocking the story of the wider Stonehenge landscape , ” Nick Snashall , the National Trust archaeologist for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site , said in a statement .
Calling the finding an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would “ write a whole new chapter in the story of the Stonehenge landscape.
” Dr. Vincent Gaffney said the location of the pits , which seem to be arranged equidistant from Durrington Walls is the earliest evidence that ancient people living in the area had some basic math skills .
“ Stonehenge was for the dead , Durrington was for the living , ” Dr. Gaffney said .
“ But now , what we are probably looking at was this great big boundary around them probably warning people of what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pits had been set at a deliberate distance and that their locations would have had to be paced out from a central point .
That is a significant clue about people living in the area at the time , he said , because it “ means they could count ” — making it among the earliest evidence for counting in what is now Britain .
The pits were discovered by researchers who drove around the area on ATVs pulling battery powered magnetometers .
So no excavation of the pits has been done at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to do so anytime soon .
What everyone seems to be impressed by here is really the scale of this .
The diameter of the circle created by the pits was approximately two miles , making this the largest Neolithic site in England and possibly in all of Europe .
If you ’ re interested in more about Stonehenge , here ’ s a NY Times piece from 2015 about discoveries at the site .
Finally , here ’ s a BBC report on the current discovery .

This isn’t the sort of thing we usually cover but I thought this was pretty interesting so I’m taking a break from politics and protests. Researchers in England have discovered a massive new element to an existing Neolithic site near Stonehenge. The find is a series of large pits arranged in a circle around an ancient town called Durrington Walls which existed at the time Stonehenge was under construction about 4,500 years ago.
The study, published online on Sunday, outlines the discovery of a large circle of shafts surrounding the ancient village — known as the Durrington Walls henge monument — about two miles from Stonehenge. The trenches, each of which is around 30 feet wide and 15 feet deep, are thought to have been part of a ritual boundary area between the two sites… “As the place where the builders of Stonehenge lived and feasted, Durrington Walls is key to unlocking the story of the wider Stonehenge landscape,” Nick Snashall, the National Trust archaeologist for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site, said in a statement. Calling the finding an “astonishing discovery,” she said it would “write a whole new chapter in the story of the Stonehenge landscape.”
Dr. Vincent Gaffney said the location of the pits, which seem to be arranged equidistant from Durrington Walls is the earliest evidence that ancient people living in the area had some basic math skills.
“Stonehenge was for the dead, Durrington was for the living,” Dr. Gaffney said. “But now, what we are probably looking at was this great big boundary around them probably warning people of what they are approaching.” He said that the pits had been set at a deliberate distance and that their locations would have had to be paced out from a central point. That is a significant clue about people living in the area at the time, he said, because it “means they could count” — making it among the earliest evidence for counting in what is now Britain.
The pits were discovered by researchers who drove around the area on ATVs pulling battery powered magnetometers. So no excavation of the pits has been done at this point and there is apparently no plan to do so anytime soon. What everyone seems to be impressed by here is really the scale of this. The diameter of the circle created by the pits was approximately two miles, making this the largest Neolithic site in England and possibly in all of Europe.
If you’re interested in more about Stonehenge, here’s a NY Times piece from 2015 about discoveries at the site. Finally, here’s a BBC report on the current discovery.