hotair--2020-12-02--Washington state: Two women charged with 'terrorist attack' for interfering with train tracks

Samantha Frances Brooks and Ellen Brennan Reiche were arrested Saturday night and have been charged with one count of terrorist attack for interfering with train tracks in Washington state .
The pair are accused of placing a “ shunt ” on a railroad track which simulates a train being in that location .
Essentially a shunt is just a piece of wire strung between the two sides of the track that passes low-voltage electricity from one side to the other .
That signal replicates what happens when a train passes over the tracks and can cause other trains nearby to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train in the way .
The shunt can also cause nearby rail crossing signals not to operate properly .
In fact , the court documents indicate that both things have happened this year .
In one case , a train carrying hazardous material reacted to a shunt placed on the tracks by braking automatically .
The force of this caused a train carrying hazardous materials to decouple in a residential area : On the night of October 11 to October 12 , 2020 , multiple shunts were placed in three different locations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located at BNSF milepost 87.6 caused PTC to engage emergency braking on BNSF train HLYDVBT109A .
The force of this sudden emergency braking caused a failure in a “ draw bar , ” which is the device that couples train cars together , causing the train to separate into two unconnected parts .
This decoupling had the potential to cause a derailment in a residential area , and illustrates some of the potential damage caused by shunting activity .
BNSF train HLYDVBT109A was carrying 12 placarded hazardous material cars , including combustible liquid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decoupling .
In 10 other incidents , railway crossing signals failed to operate because of a shunt placed nearby .
That could have prevented crossing arms from lowering when a real train was coming .
Though the pair are only facing one charge for the incident Saturday night , there have be 41 such incidents in Washington state this year staring in January .
Back in January , the anarchist site It ’ s Going Down published a statement from an anonymous contributor under the heading “ Whatcom County , WA : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wet ’ suwet ’ en Fight Against Colonial Invasion.
” The authors of that piece specifically referenced interfering with the train control system : The piece made clear this was inspired by an indigenous protest in Canada against the Coastal GasLink pipeline and encouraged others to do likewise .
I ’ ll spare you the background to the GasLink pipeline protests in Canada but if you ’ re interested I wrote about it here .
It did turn out to be a pretty huge story in Canada because protesters eventually shut down a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ railways for much of February .
In any case , these shunting attacks on BNSF railways in Washington state continued throughout the year until last Saturday night when Brooks and Reiche were caught because they accidentally triggered a game camera set up near the tracks .
The camera transmitted a photo showing one person standing on the tracks and what looked like a second person crouched over the tracks .
Deputies were sent to investigate and while they were headed to the location a Deputy Chief opened his laptop and witnesses a track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where the individuals had just been seen , as if someone were tampering with the tracks .
At that point he contacted the JTTF task force .
When authorities arrived at the location , Brooks and Reiche tried to run for it but stopped after police identified themselves .
They claimed they had lost their keys and were looking for them on the tracks .
Asked if they had a flashlight or a phone to help them look , Reiche said she ’ d left her phone in her car nearby .
Authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo of the “ Indigenous Land ” sticker above on the bumper ( see above ) .
Remember , these track shunt actions were originally done in solidarity with indigenous protesters in Canada .
Police found a shunt on the tracks in exactly the location where the photo had been triggered earlier and Reiche was holding a paper bag that contained rubber gloves , a Makita drill with a wire brush attachment and some insulated wire “ similar to what had been used in previous shunting incidents.
” Authorities noted that in previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something like a wire brush to ensure a solid connection to the wire .
Writing at the Post-Millenial , Andy Ngo has some additional background information on one of the two alleged domestic terrorists : The pair were in court Monday and have another court date in two weeks .
If convicted on the terrorism charge they face up to 20 years in prison .

Samantha Frances Brooks and Ellen Brennan Reiche were arrested Saturday night and have been charged with one count of terrorist attack for interfering with train tracks in Washington state. The pair are accused of placing a “shunt” on a railroad track which simulates a train being in that location.
Essentially a shunt is just a piece of wire strung between the two sides of the track that passes low-voltage electricity from one side to the other. That signal replicates what happens when a train passes over the tracks and can cause other trains nearby to brake automatically as if there were a train in the way. The shunt can also cause nearby rail crossing signals not to operate properly.
In fact, the court documents indicate that both things have happened this year. In one case, a train carrying hazardous material reacted to a shunt placed on the tracks by braking automatically. The force of this caused a train carrying hazardous materials to decouple in a residential area:
On the night of October 11 to October 12, 2020, multiple shunts were placed in three different locations in Whatcom and Skagit Counties. A shunt located at BNSF milepost 87.6 caused PTC to engage emergency braking on BNSF train HLYDVBT109A. The force of this sudden emergency braking caused a failure in a “draw bar,” which is the device that couples train cars together, causing the train to separate into two unconnected parts. This decoupling had the potential to cause a derailment in a residential area, and illustrates some of the potential damage caused by shunting activity. BNSF train HLYDVBT109A was carrying 12 placarded hazardous material cars, including combustible liquid and flammable gas at the time of the decoupling.
In 10 other incidents, railway crossing signals failed to operate because of a shunt placed nearby. That could have prevented crossing arms from lowering when a real train was coming.
Though the pair are only facing one charge for the incident Saturday night, there have be 41 such incidents in Washington state this year staring in January. Back in January, the anarchist site It’s Going Down published a statement from an anonymous contributor under the heading “Whatcom County, WA: Rail Shut Down In Solidarity With The Wet’suwet’en Fight Against Colonial Invasion.” The authors of that piece specifically referenced interfering with the train control system:
We were able to interrupt the track circuit used to detect the presence or absence of a train on the tracks. With high resolution maps, Google Street view, good scouting, and a little flexibility, this tactic is fast and discreet. On a single rail track with a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system, this simple action can generate enough confusion in the system to cause big slow downs and bureaucratic delays.
The piece made clear this was inspired by an indigenous protest in Canada against the Coastal GasLink pipeline and encouraged others to do likewise. I’ll spare you the background to the GasLink pipeline protests in Canada but if you’re interested I wrote about it here. It did turn out to be a pretty huge story in Canada because protesters eventually shut down a significant portion of the country’s railways for much of February.
In any case, these shunting attacks on BNSF railways in Washington state continued throughout the year until last Saturday night when Brooks and Reiche were caught because they accidentally triggered a game camera set up near the tracks. The camera transmitted a photo showing one person standing on the tracks and what looked like a second person crouched over the tracks. Deputies were sent to investigate and while they were headed to the location a Deputy Chief opened his laptop and witnesses a track signal appear and disappear at the location where the individuals had just been seen, as if someone were tampering with the tracks. At that point he contacted the JTTF task force.
When authorities arrived at the location, Brooks and Reiche tried to run for it but stopped after police identified themselves. They claimed they had lost their keys and were looking for them on the tracks. Asked if they had a flashlight or a phone to help them look, Reiche said she’d left her phone in her car nearby. Authorities looked at the car and took a photo of the “Indigenous Land” sticker above on the bumper (see above). Remember, these track shunt actions were originally done in solidarity with indigenous protesters in Canada.
Police found a shunt on the tracks in exactly the location where the photo had been triggered earlier and Reiche was holding a paper bag that contained rubber gloves, a Makita drill with a wire brush attachment and some insulated wire “similar to what had been used in previous shunting incidents.” Authorities noted that in previous incidents the tracks had been scuffed with something like a wire brush to ensure a solid connection to the wire.
Writing at the Post-Millenial, Andy Ngo has some additional background information on one of the two alleged domestic terrorists:
Reiche, who identifies as “non-binary” and uses “they/them” pronouns, was the deputy field organizer for Washington State Democrats, according to their now-deleted LinkedIn profile. (The official Democrat organization has been reached for comment.) Additionally, Reiche is a radical queer and environmental activist who co-founded the Bellingham Lesbian Collective. They are a co-host on “The L World” lesbian-themed podcast.
The pair were in court Monday and have another court date in two weeks. If convicted on the terrorism charge they face up to 20 years in prison.


hotair--2020-12-02--Jen Psaki in a Russian hammer and sickle hat goes viral, her defense of the photograph is an odd one

Jen Psaki was named as Joe Biden ’ s choice for White House press secretary this week .
As the press swooned over the fact that the Biden administration ’ s communications team will be an all-female one , perhaps none of them thought Psaki would be the first to create a kerfuffle .
Many eyebrows were raised as a photograph taken during her days working in the State Department during the Obama administration resurfaced and went viral .
The photo is one that was taken during a trip to Russia with then-Secretary of State John Kerry .
She was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time .
The people in the photograph , besides Psaki and Kerry , are Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov , and Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova .
Those two were Kerry and Psaki ’ s Russian counterparts .
As such , they exchanged gifts as is tradition .
Unfortunately , Psaki was given a pink ( ! )
hat , a traditional style fur hat .
Instead of a pretty fur hat , the kind that is common there , her ’ s looks ugly and cheap .
The attention-getting part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sickle logo on it .
Psaki is wearing the hat with a huge smile on her face .
Let ’ s think about that for a minute .
The U.S. State Department ’ s spokeswoman is standing on Russian soil wearing a symbol of Communist Russia , standing with the Secretary of State .
What ’ s wrong with this picture ?
Maybe you remember that Barack Obama mocked Mitt Romney for stating that Russia was America ’ s biggest threat in 2012 .
Maybe you remember that video clip of Sergei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2012 , when Obama leaned over and quietly told Lavrov that he ( Obama ) would have more leeway to deal favorably with the Russians after his re-election .
Or maybe you just realize that the freaking symbol for Communist Russia should not be something an American working in the diplomacy community is sporting , even on a dumb hat .
The message is wrong , the optics are bad .
Remember that the new Biden administration has been hailed by their lapdogs in the press as the A team , The Avengers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are supposed to be seasoned professionals , the really smart , experienced people .
Well , when the photograph went viral , Jen Psaki had an interesting response in the midst of all the criticism she has been receiving on social media .
The photo was taken in 2014 .
Jen Psaki now says if you have a problem with her appearing to be a useful idiot for Russia , well , you are the problem , not her use of poor judgment .
On the one hand , she , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ powerful messenger ” and on the other hand she is saying if anyone sees the photo and ( rightly ) comments on the fact that she is wearing the symbol of Communist Russia , well , that person is a rube for the Russian propaganda machine .
That is quite an interesting take on the jam she finds herself in , right ?
Why didn ’ t she just say , look , it was a gift and I put it on for a photograph to be polite ?
Did she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off as soon as she could without offending anyone and that was the only time she wore it ?
Psaki could have quickly cleared it all up but she didn ’ t .
Instead of saying , yeah , it was a dumb thing to do , she doubled-down and blames her critics for speaking up .
Welcome back to the Obama days , y ’ all .
To add fuel to the fire , USA Today fact-checked the photograph .
The press is already hard at work providing cover for the incoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to come to the aid of Jen Psaki .
It decided that the situation is “ missing context ” .
The reactions to the fact check from conservatives concerned about how American public figures represent America overseas is just as you would think it to be .
This is a preview of how the next four years will play out in the media .
Members of the Biden administration will be protected by the press .
The band is back together and the members of the media couldn ’ t be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kayleigh McEnany have been treated .
It ’ s cute that the talking heads on cable news networks are swooning about an all-female communications team but one is already in place in the Trump White House .
Jen Psaki will be treated far better , with kid gloves , in comparison to how the first working mom to be the White House press secretary ( Sanders ) was treated or her successor .

Jen Psaki was named as Joe Biden’s choice for White House press secretary this week. As the press swooned over the fact that the Biden administration’s communications team will be an all-female one, perhaps none of them thought Psaki would be the first to create a kerfuffle. Many eyebrows were raised as a photograph taken during her days working in the State Department during the Obama administration resurfaced and went viral.
The photo is one that was taken during a trip to Russia with then-Secretary of State John Kerry. She was the State Department’s spokesperson at the time. The people in the photograph, besides Psaki and Kerry, are Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova. Those two were Kerry and Psaki’s Russian counterparts. As such, they exchanged gifts as is tradition. Unfortunately, Psaki was given a pink (!) hat, a traditional style fur hat. Instead of a pretty fur hat, the kind that is common there, her’s looks ugly and cheap. The attention-getting part of the hat is a Russian hammer and sickle logo on it. Psaki is wearing the hat with a huge smile on her face.
Let’s think about that for a minute. The U.S. State Department’s spokeswoman is standing on Russian soil wearing a symbol of Communist Russia, standing with the Secretary of State. What’s wrong with this picture? Maybe you remember that Barack Obama mocked Mitt Romney for stating that Russia was America’s biggest threat in 2012. Maybe you remember that video clip of Sergei Lavrov and Barack Obama, also in 2012, when Obama leaned over and quietly told Lavrov that he (Obama) would have more leeway to deal favorably with the Russians after his re-election. Or maybe you just realize that the freaking symbol for Communist Russia should not be something an American working in the diplomacy community is sporting, even on a dumb hat. The message is wrong, the optics are bad.
Remember that the new Biden administration has been hailed by their lapdogs in the press as the A team, The Avengers who have come to save America. These are supposed to be seasoned professionals, the really smart, experienced people. Well, when the photograph went viral, Jen Psaki had an interesting response in the midst of all the criticism she has been receiving on social media. The photo was taken in 2014. Jen Psaki now says if you have a problem with her appearing to be a useful idiot for Russia, well, you are the problem, not her use of poor judgment.
For anyone who hasn’t been the target of Russian propaganda (cc:
@McFaul @HillaryClinton) the purpose is to discredit powerful messengers and to spread misinformation to confuse the public. Anyone who repeats it is (unwitting or not) simply a puppet of the propaganda machine.
For anyone who hasn't been the target of Russian propaganda (cc: @McFaul @HillaryClinton) the purpose is to discredit powerful messengers and to spread misinformation to confuse the public. Anyone who repeats it is (unwitting or not) simply a puppet of the propaganda machine. — Jen Psaki (@jrpsaki) December 1, 2020
On the one hand, she, a spokesperson, is arrogantly claiming she is a “powerful messenger” and on the other hand she is saying if anyone sees the photo and (rightly) comments on the fact that she is wearing the symbol of Communist Russia, well, that person is a rube for the Russian propaganda machine. That is quite an interesting take on the jam she finds herself in, right? Why didn’t she just say, look, it was a gift and I put it on for a photograph to be polite? Did she wear it all day or take it off as soon as she could without offending anyone and that was the only time she wore it? Psaki could have quickly cleared it all up but she didn’t. Instead of saying, yeah, it was a dumb thing to do, she doubled-down and blames her critics for speaking up. Welcome back to the Obama days, y’all.
Oh, WE’RE the problem? Next time, don’t sport the communist hat with a big fucking grin on your face. Or…just own it. Fucking pick one. — Okay. (@corrcomm) December 2, 2020
To add fuel to the fire, USA Today fact-checked the photograph. The press is already hard at work providing cover for the incoming Biden administration. A nationally distributed newspaper decided to come to the aid of Jen Psaki. It decided that the situation is “missing context”.
“The claim: A photo shows Jen Psaki wearing a hammer and sickle hat while posing with officials from Russia,” USA Today wrote before reporting that Psaki did not end up keeping the hat according to a source familiar with the gift exchange. “Our ruling: Missing context.” The “fact check” explained, “The image is real, but claims that the hat was anything more a gift or that Psaki was with Russian officials in any capacity beyond her official role are MISSING CONTEXT.”
The reactions to the fact check from conservatives concerned about how American public figures represent America overseas is just as you would think it to be.
Missing context?! Sorry, this IS inexcusable. Not to sound harsh here, but if you abhor Nazism and Nazi symbols, you ought to equally abhor the communist hammer & sickle. Pleading ignorance here is unacceptable. But I'm just a kid of immigrants who fled the USSR…What do I know https://t.co/Yxr4ZYSmrb — Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) December 1, 2020
What context makes wearing communist symbolism in a photo — while representing the US — acceptable? https://t.co/rMakH8jwo1 — Virginia Kruta (@VAKruta) December 1, 2020
This is a preview of how the next four years will play out in the media. Members of the Biden administration will be protected by the press. The band is back together and the members of the media couldn’t be more thrilled. Think of how Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany have been treated. It’s cute that the talking heads on cable news networks are swooning about an all-female communications team but one is already in place in the Trump White House. Jen Psaki will be treated far better, with kid gloves, in comparison to how the first working mom to be the White House press secretary (Sanders) was treated or her successor.


hotair--2020-12-02--Trump: I'll veto military funding unless the defense bill repeals Section 230

The proper response from Congress to a threat by a lame-duck president to hold up money for the Pentagon is to laugh , tell him to get bent , and then override his veto .
But because Senate Republicans find themselves beholden to a personality cult , and because Section 230 has become a hobbyhorse both for true populists and fake populists like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz , this threat might cause some anxiety within McConnell ’ s caucus .
Trump ’ s actually threatened to veto the defense spending bill twice in the past 10 days .
Initially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stripped out the language it contains authorizing the Pentagon to rename military bases currently named after Confederate generals .
That ’ s a culture-war sticking point for him but it ’ s unanimously backed by congressional Democrats and even enjoys some support among congressional Republicans .
The idea of the president blocking military funding in 2020 to defend the honor of long-dead traitors like John Bell Hood is so insane that it scarcely feels real , but it ’ s real .
We might have a last-second showdown on Capitol Hill between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readiness hanging in the balance because Trump won ’ t budge on honoring the heroes of the American south ’ s defunct slaveholder regime .
But now he ’ s gone and upped the ante .
He wants the language about bases out of the bill and some new language added in : I ’ d like to hear him explain why it ’ s a threat to national security that Twitter can ’ t be sued when some cretin uses its platform to defame someone .
Clearly the natsec argument is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 repeal in the defense bill .
My hunch when I saw his tweets was that maybe he floated it as leverage to convince Democrats to strip out the language on Confederate-named bases after all .
( Some House Dems are open to doing so , not wanting to hold up money for the military . )
That is , if they made a concession by backing down on that , Trump would make a concession by backing down on Section 230 .
According to Axios , though , the opposite seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cave on the bases if Democrats will go along with his Section 230 proposal .
A senior House staffer said the issue has no chance of success with Democrats .
“ It ’ s a f***ing joke , ” said the staffer , who spoke anonymously to discuss private negotiations .
“ This is a complex debate that has no business as an eleventh-hour airdrop.
” The senior staffer said the push to include other proposals targeting Section 230 , even a bipartisan bill led by Senate Majority Whip John Thune ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill won ’ t make it either .
“ Full stop , ” the staffer said… The House and Senate passed their versions of the defense bill with enough bipartisan support to overcome a potential veto .
It ’ s unclear if those margins would hold up if Trump followed through on the threat .
Maybe that ’ s Trump ’ s strategy .
He may have feared , justifiably , that there ’ d be 20 Republican votes in the Senate to override his veto if the only sticking point were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military bases .
So he introduced a second issue with more populist heft knowing that it would have support among righties who are grasping for ways to punish Big Tech for liberal bias .
No one ’ s getting primaried for crossing Trump on the appropriate level of respect for John Bell Hood .
But maybe someone ’ s getting primaried for crossing him on repealing Section 230 , especially with people like Cruz and Hawley around demagoging the issue for the next four years just in case Trump decides not to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto overriden would be humiliating on top of the humiliation of having lost the election .
The Section 230 gambit makes it less likely , if not quite impossible : Whatever you think of repealing Section 230 , the fallout from doing it would be sufficiently chaotic and far-reaching that it ’ s bananas to consider tossing it into an unrelated bill as an afterthought .
It would cause a sea change overnight in how Americans communicate online ; if you ’ re going to make a move like that , it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length and without the sort of hard deadline imposed by the defense bill .
We often remind Democrats when they screech about the urgency of gun control or amnesty that they had the numbers to pass either of those things when they controlled the White House and Congress in 2009 but chose not to .
The same goes for the GOP during the first two years of Trump ’ s term , though : If they were serious about forcing Big Tech to limit content moderation by eliminating its immunity from lawsuits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Granted , Senate Democrats still had the filibuster , but there are some Dems like Elizabeth Warren who are open to revisiting Section 230 in the name of reducing misinformation online .
Maybe McConnell would have found 60 votes .
So why , if this is some urgent populist priority , didn ’ t Trump make the push then instead of now , when he has one foot out the door and congressional Democrats have zero reason to compromise with him ?
Reportedly Senate Republicans might try to compromise with Trump on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill that doesn ’ t fully repeal Section 230 but narrows it .
One bill floating around is the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act sponsored by Republicans Roger Wicker , Lindsey Graham , and Marsha Blackburn .
It would replace the catch-all language in Section 230 authorizing platforms to moderate all “ objectionable ” content with new language limiting them to content that promotes “ self-harm ” or “ terrorism ” or is otherwise “ unlawful.
” So if Twitter were overrun with QAnoners or Holocaust deniers or conspiracy cranks of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , would it be free to do that ?
Not under this act as far as I can see , unless it wanted to lose its immunity from liability under Section 230 .
The OFVDA would force tech platforms to behave more like governments do in how they restrict speech , which sounds nice until you consider it would turn sites like Facebook and Twitter into even bigger toilets of propaganda and extremism than they are now .
Every time I write about Section 230 I end up with the same proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media site as a competitor to the big boys and enforce First Amendment rules on content moderation .
Anything goes apart from libel and true threats .
The site will be overrun with nuts within its first hour ; there might even be enough of them to hurt Facebook ’ s and Twitter ’ s bottom line .
If McConnell wants to compromise with Trump on Big Tech action in the defense bill , that ’ s what he should do .
Or he could take the easy way out and explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for libelous claims made by its users it ’ ll ban Trump immediately to protect itself from being sued over some of his wilder accusations and conspiracy theories .
( Dominion Voting Systems would no doubt love a crack at Twitter ’ s deep pockets . )
The president acts always and everywhere from self-interest .
Convince him that repealing the law would end his access to his favorite website and he ’ ll give up .

The proper response from Congress to a threat by a lame-duck president to hold up money for the Pentagon is to laugh, tell him to get bent, and then override his veto. But because Senate Republicans find themselves beholden to a personality cult, and because Section 230 has become a hobbyhorse both for true populists and fake populists like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, this threat might cause some anxiety within McConnell’s caucus.
Trump’s actually threatened to veto the defense spending bill twice in the past 10 days. Initially he vowed to block it unless Congress stripped out the language it contains authorizing the Pentagon to rename military bases currently named after Confederate generals. That’s a culture-war sticking point for him but it’s unanimously backed by congressional Democrats and even enjoys some support among congressional Republicans. The idea of the president blocking military funding in 2020 to defend the honor of long-dead traitors like John Bell Hood is so insane that it scarcely feels real, but it’s real. We might have a last-second showdown on Capitol Hill between the executive and the legislature with U.S. military readiness hanging in the balance because Trump won’t budge on honoring the heroes of the American south’s defunct slaveholder regime.
But now he’s gone and upped the ante. He wants the language about bases out of the bill and some new language added in:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375839621120
I’d like to hear him explain why it’s a threat to national security that Twitter can’t be sued when some cretin uses its platform to defame someone. Clearly the natsec argument is just a fig leaf to justify including Section 230 repeal in the defense bill.
My hunch when I saw his tweets was that maybe he floated it as leverage to convince Democrats to strip out the language on Confederate-named bases after all. (Some House Dems are open to doing so, not wanting to hold up money for the military.) That is, if they made a concession by backing down on that, Trump would make a concession by backing down on Section 230. According to Axios, though, the opposite seems to be true. Trump is reportedly willing to cave on the bases if Democrats will go along with his Section 230 proposal.
Sounds like it’s not gonna work:
A senior House staffer said the issue has no chance of success with Democrats. “It’s a f***ing joke,” said the staffer, who spoke anonymously to discuss private negotiations. “This is a complex debate that has no business as an eleventh-hour airdrop.” The senior staffer said the push to include other proposals targeting Section 230, even a bipartisan bill led by Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), in the defense bill won’t make it either. “Full stop,” the staffer said… The House and Senate passed their versions of the defense bill with enough bipartisan support to overcome a potential veto. It’s unclear if those margins would hold up if Trump followed through on the threat.
Maybe that’s Trump’s strategy. He may have feared, justifiably, that there’d be 20 Republican votes in the Senate to override his veto if the only sticking point were a boutique issue like the naming of U.S. military bases. So he introduced a second issue with more populist heft knowing that it would have support among righties who are grasping for ways to punish Big Tech for liberal bias. No one’s getting primaried for crossing Trump on the appropriate level of respect for John Bell Hood. But maybe someone’s getting primaried for crossing him on repealing Section 230, especially with people like Cruz and Hawley around demagoging the issue for the next four years just in case Trump decides not to run in 2024 after all.
Having his veto overriden would be humiliating on top of the humiliation of having lost the election. The Section 230 gambit makes it less likely, if not quite impossible:
I will vote to override. Because it’s really not about you https://t.co/rN6Sbbn6rR — Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) December 2, 2020
Whatever you think of repealing Section 230, the fallout from doing it would be sufficiently chaotic and far-reaching that it’s bananas to consider tossing it into an unrelated bill as an afterthought. It would cause a sea change overnight in how Americans communicate online; if you’re going to make a move like that, it should be debated in Congress openly and at length and without the sort of hard deadline imposed by the defense bill. We often remind Democrats when they screech about the urgency of gun control or amnesty that they had the numbers to pass either of those things when they controlled the White House and Congress in 2009 but chose not to. The same goes for the GOP during the first two years of Trump’s term, though: If they were serious about forcing Big Tech to limit content moderation by eliminating its immunity from lawsuits, the time to do it was 2017. Granted, Senate Democrats still had the filibuster, but there are some Dems like Elizabeth Warren who are open to revisiting Section 230 in the name of reducing misinformation online. Maybe McConnell would have found 60 votes.
So why, if this is some urgent populist priority, didn’t Trump make the push then instead of now, when he has one foot out the door and congressional Democrats have zero reason to compromise with him?
Reportedly Senate Republicans might try to compromise with Trump on this by inserting language into the defense bill that doesn’t fully repeal Section 230 but narrows it. One bill floating around is the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act sponsored by Republicans Roger Wicker, Lindsey Graham, and Marsha Blackburn. It would replace the catch-all language in Section 230 authorizing platforms to moderate all “objectionable” content with new language limiting them to content that promotes “self-harm” or “terrorism” or is otherwise “unlawful.” So if Twitter were overrun with QAnoners or Holocaust deniers or conspiracy cranks of other stripes and wanted to boot some of them, would it be free to do that? Not under this act as far as I can see, unless it wanted to lose its immunity from liability under Section 230. The OFVDA would force tech platforms to behave more like governments do in how they restrict speech, which sounds nice until you consider it would turn sites like Facebook and Twitter into even bigger toilets of propaganda and extremism than they are now.
Every time I write about Section 230 I end up with the same proposal: Congress should simply fund its own social media site as a competitor to the big boys and enforce First Amendment rules on content moderation. Anything goes apart from libel and true threats. The site will be overrun with nuts within its first hour; there might even be enough of them to hurt Facebook’s and Twitter’s bottom line. If McConnell wants to compromise with Trump on Big Tech action in the defense bill, that’s what he should do. Or he could take the easy way out and explain to him that once Twitter is responsible for libelous claims made by its users it’ll ban Trump immediately to protect itself from being sued over some of his wilder accusations and conspiracy theories. (Dominion Voting Systems would no doubt love a crack at Twitter’s deep pockets.) The president acts always and everywhere from self-interest. Convince him that repealing the law would end his access to his favorite website and he’ll give up.


hotair--2020-12-02--Clinton aide: Of course Bill visited Epstein on Pedo Island

Did Bill Clinton ’ s longtime “ body man ” /key aide expose the former president as a liar about his activities with Jeffrey Epstein ?
Or is Doug Band using Vanity Fair ’ s Gabriel Sherman to exact revenge for getting squeezed out by Chelsea Clinton after a dispute over Band ’ s Teneo venture ?
Either way , it ’ s popcorn-passing time as Band declares what everyone had already assumed — Bill lied about never going to Epstein ’ s notorious sex-traffic island ( via Twitchy ) : By the fall of 2011 , the rivalry had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Band looked for an advantage anywhere he could find one .
The Clintons ’ ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell provided one .
Band told me he had been trying to push Epstein out of Clinton ’ s orbit ever since their much-discussed 2002 trip to Africa aboard Epstein ’ s private 727 , dubbed the “ Lolita Express.
” Band recalled that Epstein had made a bunch of ridiculous claims on the trip , like boasting that he invented the derivatives market .
Band said he had no idea about Epstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship .
But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money .
In 2006 Epstein donated $ 25,000 to the Clinton Foundation .
Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein ’ s jet around this time , Epstein ’ s flight logs show .
In January 2003 , according to Band , Clinton visited Epstein ’ s private Caribbean island , Little St. James .
Band said it was one of the few trips he declined to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Clinton spokesperson said the president had never been to the island and provided detailed travelogue entries of the period in question that did not contain a visit .
Clinton and his team have ferociously denied ever visiting Epstein ’ s island .
They have also attempted to downplay just how often that Bill rode the Lolita Express too , even after documentary evidence shows him as a passenger on dozens of trips .
They have only acknowledged four occasions , all of which were supposedly in service of charitable efforts .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Bill to have traveled to the island other than for his own recreation , and so they keep denying he was ever there — even while Virginia Roberts Giuffre insists she saw him on the island , albeit behaving himself at the precise moment .
It ’ s not the first time that the carefully crafted Clintonworld narrative on Epstein has been contradicted , but it might be the first time that an insider with real access has contradicted it .
And it ’ s not just Bill either .
Band also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He tells Sherman that Chelsea wanted access to Maxwell ’ s wealth and lifestyle , and that he had to intervene to break the ties before they backfired on the Clintons : Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell , Band said ; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell at the King of Morocco ’ s wedding .
Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close associate of Epstein ’ s .
For instance , Chelsea invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck , New York , after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor .
“ Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes .
Chelsea needed that , ” Band told me .
… In late October 2011 , Band instructed Bill Clinton ’ s office to bar Maxwell from all Clintonworld events as a way of driving a wedge between Maxwell and Chelsea .
“ I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify being close to her , ” Band said .
If true , that will become a very real problem for the only potential heir to the Clintons ’ political hopes .
Tying Chelsea that close to Ghislaine Maxwell , who faces federal prosecution for obstruction in the Epstein case and is accused of being Epstein ’ s pimp for underage girls , will essentially derail any future electoral prospects if it sticks .
After all , the period Band describes took place after Epstein ’ s initial exposure as a sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly described by accusers even if not pursued by law enforcement .
Palling around with Maxwell is the opposite of “ girl power , ” let ’ s just say .
But is Band on the level ?
He has his own axes to grind with Chelsea especially , Sherman reminds us , and vice versa : “ Chelsea hated Doug because he was like a son to her father , ” a Clinton friend said .
Band took offense that Chelsea treated him at times like hired help .
It was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into personal grievance .
“ As a board member , Chelsea had a responsibility to ask questions about Foundation activities she didn ’ t understand or had reservation about .
For some reason , Doug seemed to resent that , ” a Clinton spokesperson said .
Around the time Band launched Teneo in June 2011 , Chelsea summoned Band and his cofounder Declan Kelly to the Clinton office in Harlem .
Band walked in to find Bill flanked by Chelsea and her husband , financier Marc Mezvinsky .
According to Band , Chelsea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer to put her dad on Teneo ’ s advisory board wasn ’ t enough .
She wanted Band to give her and Mezvinsky an ownership position in Teneo .
To Band , it felt like a shakedown .
“ I thought she was kidding or deeply sick , ” he told me .
Band looked across the table at Bill , but he sided with Chelsea .
Band refused to give up an equity stake .
The meeting ended badly .
A Clinton family spokesperson denies that Chelsea asked for equity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2016 , most of this conflict had already made it into the national press .
Are they still waging this war ?
Apparently , which probably should be taken into account with Band ’ s testimony .
After all , as I wrote at that time , it ’ s not as though Band was Mr. Squeaky Clean when it came to ethical considerations on Clinton Foundation operations prior to his exit .
Still , Band ’ s testimony clearly corroborates Giuffre ’ s , and vice versa .
And given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and lying about it — that makes Band a much more reliable narrator .

Did Bill Clinton’s longtime “body man”/key aide expose the former president as a liar about his activities with Jeffrey Epstein? Or is Doug Band using Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman to exact revenge for getting squeezed out by Chelsea Clinton after a dispute over Band’s Teneo venture? Either way, it’s popcorn-passing time as Band declares what everyone had already assumed — Bill lied about never going to Epstein’s notorious sex-traffic island (via Twitchy):
By the fall of 2011, the rivalry had turned into a war of attrition. Band looked for an advantage anywhere he could find one. The Clintons’ ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell provided one. Band told me he had been trying to push Epstein out of Clinton’s orbit ever since their much-discussed 2002 trip to Africa aboard Epstein’s private 727, dubbed the “Lolita Express.” Band recalled that Epstein had made a bunch of ridiculous claims on the trip, like boasting that he invented the derivatives market. Band said he had no idea about Epstein’s sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein’s jet around this time, Epstein’s flight logs show. In January 2003, according to Band, Clinton visited Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined to go on in his time with Clinton. A Clinton spokesperson said the president had never been to the island and provided detailed travelogue entries of the period in question that did not contain a visit.
Clinton and his team have ferociously denied ever visiting Epstein’s island. They have also attempted to downplay just how often that Bill rode the Lolita Express too, even after documentary evidence shows him as a passenger on dozens of trips. They have only acknowledged four occasions, all of which were supposedly in service of charitable efforts. However, there would be no good reason for Bill to have traveled to the island other than for his own recreation, and so they keep denying he was ever there — even while Virginia Roberts Giuffre insists she saw him on the island, albeit behaving himself at the precise moment.
It’s not the first time that the carefully crafted Clintonworld narrative on Epstein has been contradicted, but it might be the first time that an insider with real access has contradicted it. And it’s not just Bill either. Band also implicates Chelsea Clinton in the Epstein orbit. He tells Sherman that Chelsea wanted access to Maxwell’s wealth and lifestyle, and that he had to intervene to break the ties before they backfired on the Clintons:
Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell at the King of Morocco’s wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close associate of Epstein’s. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. “Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that,” Band told me. … In late October 2011, Band instructed Bill Clinton’s office to bar Maxwell from all Clintonworld events as a way of driving a wedge between Maxwell and Chelsea. “I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry. It made it harder for them to justify being close to her,” Band said.
If true, that will become a very real problem for the only potential heir to the Clintons’ political hopes. Tying Chelsea that close to Ghislaine Maxwell, who faces federal prosecution for obstruction in the Epstein case and is accused of being Epstein’s pimp for underage girls, will essentially derail any future electoral prospects if it sticks. After all, the period Band describes took place after Epstein’s initial exposure as a sex criminal, with Maxwell’s role publicly described by accusers even if not pursued by law enforcement. Palling around with Maxwell is the opposite of “girl power,” let’s just say.
But is Band on the level? He has his own axes to grind with Chelsea especially, Sherman reminds us, and vice versa:
“Chelsea hated Doug because he was like a son to her father,” a Clinton friend said. Band took offense that Chelsea treated him at times like hired help. It was a combustible mix that was about to explode into personal grievance. “As a board member, Chelsea had a responsibility to ask questions about Foundation activities she didn’t understand or had reservation about. For some reason, Doug seemed to resent that,” a Clinton spokesperson said. Around the time Band launched Teneo in June 2011, Chelsea summoned Band and his cofounder Declan Kelly to the Clinton office in Harlem. Band walked in to find Bill flanked by Chelsea and her husband, financier Marc Mezvinsky. According to Band, Chelsea said Band’s $2.5 million offer to put her dad on Teneo’s advisory board wasn’t enough. She wanted Band to give her and Mezvinsky an ownership position in Teneo. To Band, it felt like a shakedown. “I thought she was kidding or deeply sick,” he told me. Band looked across the table at Bill, but he sided with Chelsea. Band refused to give up an equity stake. The meeting ended badly. A Clinton family spokesperson denies that Chelsea asked for equity.
This has been leaking out for years. In 2016, most of this conflict had already made it into the national press. Are they still waging this war? Apparently, which probably should be taken into account with Band’s testimony. After all, as I wrote at that time, it’s not as though Band was Mr. Squeaky Clean when it came to ethical considerations on Clinton Foundation operations prior to his exit.
Still, Band’s testimony clearly corroborates Giuffre’s, and vice versa. And given Clinton’s history of reckless behavior — and lying about it — that makes Band a much more reliable narrator.


hotair--2020-12-02--NRA opener in Georgia: Why is Warnock laughing at self-defense for churchgoers?

It ’ s a couple of days old , and it ’ s not quite the bombshell that the NRA ’ s political-action arm claims , but it ’ s a start .
Earlier oppo-research releases about Raphael Warnock regarding an arrest for obstructing a child-abuse case , allegedly participating in a Fidel Castro rally , and vocal defense of Jeremiah Wright ’ s “ God damn America ” sermon made the Democratic senatorial nominee look more toxic in Georgia .
This more or less falls into traditional progressive argument , at least in the thought centers of Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apostles endorses socialism .
The NRA does make the most of Warnock ’ s one-liner disparaging carry permits at church , though : As Western Journal recounts , there are at least a couple of cases in which armed citizens have come to the aid of victims of church shootings .
Less than a year ago , a shooter in a Texas church got shot down before he could kill any more than the two people that had already been murdered .
It took six seconds for five armed congregants to draw their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat almost instantly and proving that responsible carry practices can and do save lives — even in churches .
The reason this falls short of a bombshell has nothing to do with the NRA ’ s presentation .
They really do wring as much as they can out of this short clip , but Warnock ’ s derision is really based on mainstreamish progressive-Democratic derision of carry practices in general , not extremism of the degree found in earlier clips .
Still , it should have impact on Warnock ’ s claims of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire up Second Amendment advocates .
Just because there are bigger and more impactful oppo-research releases doesn ’ t mean others can ’ t be effective too , after all .
There is a cumulative impact that should definitely be considered .
If the NRA managed to dig this up , one has to wonder whether they have better clips down the road , too .
It ’ s been a bit quiet on the oppo-research front in Georgia since the initial spate of stories made headlines .
One has to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire Warnock quiver yet .

It’s a couple of days old, and it’s not quite the bombshell that the NRA’s political-action arm claims, but it’s a start. Earlier oppo-research releases about Raphael Warnock regarding an arrest for obstructing a child-abuse case, allegedly participating in a Fidel Castro rally, and vocal defense of Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” sermon made the Democratic senatorial nominee look more toxic in Georgia.
This more or less falls into traditional progressive argument, at least in the thought centers of Democrats, akin to claims that Acts of the Apostles endorses socialism. The NRA does make the most of Warnock’s one-liner disparaging carry permits at church, though:
BOMBSHELL: Newly found video shows Georgia Senate candidate @ReverendWarnock LAUGHING at church-goers who defend themselves with guns. First Warnock goes after our veterans, now our Second Amendment. Georgians have a clear choice Jan. 5! #gapol #gasen pic.twitter.com/YFtGdiqkOi — NRA (@NRA) November 30, 2020
As Western Journal recounts, there are at least a couple of cases in which armed citizens have come to the aid of victims of church shootings. Less than a year ago, a shooter in a Texas church got shot down before he could kill any more than the two people that had already been murdered. It took six seconds for five armed congregants to draw their weapons and return fire, stopping the threat almost instantly and proving that responsible carry practices can and do save lives — even in churches.
The reason this falls short of a bombshell has nothing to do with the NRA’s presentation. They really do wring as much as they can out of this short clip, but Warnock’s derision is really based on mainstreamish progressive-Democratic derision of carry practices in general, not extremism of the degree found in earlier clips. Still, it should have impact on Warnock’s claims of being a moderate, and it will fire up Second Amendment advocates. Just because there are bigger and more impactful oppo-research releases doesn’t mean others can’t be effective too, after all. There is a cumulative impact that should definitely be considered.
If the NRA managed to dig this up, one has to wonder whether they have better clips down the road, too. It’s been a bit quiet on the oppo-research front in Georgia since the initial spate of stories made headlines. One has to believe that the GOP hasn’t shot its entire Warnock quiver yet.


hotair--2020-12-02--Yep: Another California Democrat ignored social distancing guidance to dine at the French Laundry

And she did it just one day after Gavin Newsom did , it turns out .
What makes this case especially depressing is that San Fran Mayor London Breed had built a reputation as a stickler for good COVID practices , with impressive results .
Back in March , when Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio were wringing their hands about what to do in NYC , Breed had already issued a stay-at-home order for SF .
Result : New York City has seen nearly 25,000 deaths from COVID while San Francisco , which has a bit more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has suffered just 160 to date .
Breed also outperformed colleagues like San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo on Thanksgiving .
While Liccardo was sneaking off to visit his parents after encouraging residents not to travel , Breed reportedly dined alone at home .
If you ’ re going to be a hard-ass in setting rules for social distancing , you ’ re duty-bound to set a good example .
Breed did .
Or so everyone thought .
After this story dropped last night , her spokesman was quick to remind critics that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules by having dinner at the French Laundry on November 7 .
Napa County , where the restaurant is located , allowed both indoor and outdoor dining at the time and it ’ s not clear if Breed ’ s party of eight involved people from more than three households , which is a no-no under California regulations .
( Technically that rule doesn ’ t apply to restaurants , an inane loophole that makes the entire social-distancing scheme seem arbitrary . )
But here ’ s the wrinkle : Breed ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have banned the sort of dinner she attended .
So why the hell did she go ?
If it ’ s unsafe for San Franciscans , why wasn ’ t it unsafe for her ?
Breed took a few days off after election day and joined seven others the night of Nov. 7 to celebrate socialite Gorretti Lo Lui ’ s 60th birthday , Breed ’ s spokesman Jeff Cretan confirmed .
The party of eight dined in the same kind of partially enclosed room with a ceiling and chandelier as Newsom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor dining experience than an outdoor one… While indoor dining was allowed in Napa County at the time with no specified limit on the number of households , the state ’ s guidelines “ strongly discouraged ” social gatherings and capped them at three households… The dinner would have certainly violated San Francisco ’ s health guidelines if it took place in Breed ’ s own city .
San Francisco has issued stricter guidance than the state for several types of businesses , including restaurants , which were not supposed to seat groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone lived together .
Three days after dining at the French Laundry , Breed banned indoor dining in San Francisco altogether .
Yesterday , hours before her soiree at the French Laundry was revealed , she warned San Franciscans that more severe restrictions were on the way as COVID cases in the city climbed .
How seriously do you think locals will take those restrictions knowing that the mayor granted herself a VIP exemption a few weeks ago for nothing more important than a dinner party ?
It could be worse , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the restrictions harsh ( outdoor dining is banned for unclear reasons ) but infuriating VIP exemptions to good pandemic practices are granted right out in the open : [ Phillip Kim ] was “ fairly livid ” Monday afternoon when — less than 24 hours before his scheduled appointment — he received an email informing him that the [ COVID ] testing site was canceling all of Tuesday ’ s appointments “ due to an event being held at this location.
” … Fairly livid would turn to very livid when Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After Kim shared a screenshot of the email with other members of Ktown for All , the activists did a little sleuthing and quickly discovered that the event in question was a film shoot .
Hundreds of coronavirus testing appointments at a transit hub were being canceled to accommodate filming of a gender-swapped remake of “ She ’ s All That ” starring a TikTok personality .
Yes , that is a real sentence and not satire .
Forced to choose between urgently slowing the spread of a killer disease amid rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guaranteed-to-be-unwatchable comedy , city government gave Hollywood priority .
Initially , at least : The decision was reversed after word got around and locals begin reaching for torches and pitchforks .
I ’ ll leave you with this scene from Britain ’ s Parliament to reassure you that no , American politicians aren ’ t uniquely hypocritical .
Exit question : Which public official will eventually get caught breaking quarantine to attend an orgy amid the pandemic ?
There ’ s no shortage of opportunities judging from the news this week .

And she did it just one day after Gavin Newsom did, it turns out. What makes this case especially depressing is that San Fran Mayor London Breed had built a reputation as a stickler for good COVID practices, with impressive results. Back in March, when Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio were wringing their hands about what to do in NYC, Breed had already issued a stay-at-home order for SF. Result: New York City has seen nearly 25,000 deaths from COVID while San Francisco, which has a bit more than a tenth of New York’s population, has suffered just 160 to date.
Breed also outperformed colleagues like San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo on Thanksgiving. While Liccardo was sneaking off to visit his parents after encouraging residents not to travel, Breed reportedly dined alone at home. If you’re going to be a hard-ass in setting rules for social distancing, you’re duty-bound to set a good example. Breed did. Or so everyone thought.
After this story dropped last night, her spokesman was quick to remind critics that she hadn’t technically broken any rules by having dinner at the French Laundry on November 7. Napa County, where the restaurant is located, allowed both indoor and outdoor dining at the time and it’s not clear if Breed’s party of eight involved people from more than three households, which is a no-no under California regulations. (Technically that rule doesn’t apply to restaurants, an inane loophole that makes the entire social-distancing scheme seem arbitrary.) But here’s the wrinkle: Breed’s own rules for the city she governs would have banned the sort of dinner she attended.
So why the hell did she go? If it’s unsafe for San Franciscans, why wasn’t it unsafe for her?
Breed took a few days off after election day and joined seven others the night of Nov. 7 to celebrate socialite Gorretti Lo Lui’s 60th birthday, Breed’s spokesman Jeff Cretan confirmed. The party of eight dined in the same kind of partially enclosed room with a ceiling and chandelier as Newsom did — making it more of an indoor dining experience than an outdoor one… While indoor dining was allowed in Napa County at the time with no specified limit on the number of households, the state’s guidelines “strongly discouraged” social gatherings and capped them at three households… The dinner would have certainly violated San Francisco’s health guidelines if it took place in Breed’s own city. San Francisco has issued stricter guidance than the state for several types of businesses, including restaurants, which were not supposed to seat groups larger than six indoors or outdoors unless everyone lived together. Three days after dining at the French Laundry, Breed banned indoor dining in San Francisco altogether.
Yesterday, hours before her soiree at the French Laundry was revealed, she warned San Franciscans that more severe restrictions were on the way as COVID cases in the city climbed. How seriously do you think locals will take those restrictions knowing that the mayor granted herself a VIP exemption a few weeks ago for nothing more important than a dinner party?
Really bad. California has had the strictest regulations throughout the lockdown, often keeping schools and outdoor stuff closed in a way that hasn't been particularly science-driven, and they've been undermined by Newsom and now Breed in a public, ostentatious way. https://t.co/4wdcqpPXZk — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 2, 2020
It could be worse, I suppose. In L.A., not only are the restrictions harsh (outdoor dining is banned for unclear reasons) but infuriating VIP exemptions to good pandemic practices are granted right out in the open:
[Phillip Kim] was “fairly livid” Monday afternoon when — less than 24 hours before his scheduled appointment — he received an email informing him that the [COVID] testing site was canceling all of Tuesday’s appointments “due to an event being held at this location.”… Fairly livid would turn to very livid when Kim learned of the reason for the closure. After Kim shared a screenshot of the email with other members of Ktown for All, the activists did a little sleuthing and quickly discovered that the event in question was a film shoot. Hundreds of coronavirus testing appointments at a transit hub were being canceled to accommodate filming of a gender-swapped remake of “She’s All That” starring a TikTok personality. Yes, that is a real sentence and not satire.
Forced to choose between urgently slowing the spread of a killer disease amid rising case counts and letting Hollywood make a guaranteed-to-be-unwatchable comedy, city government gave Hollywood priority. Initially, at least: The decision was reversed after word got around and locals begin reaching for torches and pitchforks.
I’ll leave you with this scene from Britain’s Parliament to reassure you that no, American politicians aren’t uniquely hypocritical. Exit question: Which public official will eventually get caught breaking quarantine to attend an orgy amid the pandemic? There’s no shortage of opportunities judging from the news this week.


hotair--2020-12-02--Dems really blew it with their "Defund the Police" rhetoric, says ...

Is Barack Obama imparting wisdom in his Snapchat interview with Peter Hamby , or only restating the obvious ?
Don ’ t bet on it being the latter , at least not among the audience Obama hopes to reach with this advice .
“ The key is deciding , ” Obama says , “ do you want to actually get something done — or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with ?
” Chanting “ Defund the police ” and attacking law enforcement rather than sticking to policies of reform is very much the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Barack Obama suggested in a new interview that “ defund the police ” was little more than a “ snappy slogan ” that polarized many Americans and was ineffectual at producing broader reforms to the criminal justice system in the United States .
… “ If you believe , as I do , that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it ’ s not biased and treats everybody fairly , I guess you can use a snappy slogan , like ‘ defund the police , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , you lost a big audience the minute you say it , which makes it a lot less likely that you ’ re actually going to get the changes you want done.
” “ The key is deciding , do you want to actually get something done , or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with ?
” he added .
“ And if you want to get something done in a democracy , in a country as big and diverse as ours , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet people where they are .
And play a game of addition and not subtraction.
” That ’ s called Politics 101 , isn ’ t it ?
Heck , even Lennon and McCartney got that much right : “ But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao , you ain ’ t gon na make it with anyone anyhow.
” Chanting divisive slogans is bad enough , but Democrats didn ’ t just chant — they put “ defund the police ” policies in effect in cities like Minneapolis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The impact of those policies has been disastrous , which means this isn ’ t just a rhetoric issue .
But even in the electoral context , it ’ s pretty clear that the lesson isn ’ t obvious to the chanters : All of these Squad members and wanna-bes miss Obama ’ s point .
Protesting the treatment of George Floyd is one thing , but declaring autonomous zones , burning cities , and mindlessly defunding law enforcement rather than wisely choosing better policing policies is quite another thing .
One might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked at their shrunken House majority and figured that much out for themselves .
Instead , Obama has to play Captain Obvious to the oblivious .
The most intriguing part of Obama ’ s interview with Hamby wasn ’ t on this obvious point .
It was on another obvious point about attracting young people to the Democratic Party .
It ’ s tough to do that when the encrusted septuagenarian/octagenarian leadership at the top refuses to make room for them , Obama says , as Hamby flashes pictures of Nancy Pelosi and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We stick so long with the same old folks , ” Obama observes , “ and don ’ t make room for new voices.
” Maybe Obama can bring that up with Nancy Pelosi before she officially runs for House Speaker , and before Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn cling to their caucus leadership positions .

Is Barack Obama imparting wisdom in his Snapchat interview with Peter Hamby, or only restating the obvious? Don’t bet on it being the latter, at least not among the audience Obama hopes to reach with this advice. “The key is deciding,” Obama says, “do you want to actually get something done — or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?”
Chanting “Defund the police” and attacking law enforcement rather than sticking to policies of reform is very much the latter, Obama tells Hamby:
Former President Barack Obama suggested in a new interview that “defund the police” was little more than a “snappy slogan” that polarized many Americans and was ineffectual at producing broader reforms to the criminal justice system in the United States. … “If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it’s not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan, like ‘defund the police,’” Obama said. “But, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you’re actually going to get the changes you want done.” “The key is deciding, do you want to actually get something done, or do you want to feel good among the people you already agree with?” he added. “And if you want to get something done in a democracy, in a country as big and diverse as ours, then you’ve got to be able to meet people where they are. And play a game of addition and not subtraction.”
That’s called Politics 101, isn’t it? Heck, even Lennon and McCartney got that much right: “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.” Chanting divisive slogans is bad enough, but Democrats didn’t just chant — they put “defund the police” policies in effect in cities like Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, and others. The impact of those policies has been disastrous, which means this isn’t just a rhetoric issue.
But even in the electoral context, it’s pretty clear that the lesson isn’t obvious to the chanters:
We lose people in the hands of police. It’s not a slogan but a policy demand. And centering the demand for equitable investments and budgets for communities across the country gets us progress and safety. https://t.co/Vu6inw4ms7 — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) December 2, 2020
The murders of generations of unarmed Black folks by police have been horrific. Lives are at stake daily so I’m out of patience with critiques of the language of activists. Whatever a grieving family says is their truth. And I’ll never stop fighting for their justice & healing. — Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) December 2, 2020
With all due respect, Mr. President—let’s talk about losing people. We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor. We’re losing our loved ones to police violence. It’s not a slogan. It’s a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police. https://t.co/Wsxp1Y1bBi — Cori Bush (@CoriBush) December 2, 2020
All of these Squad members and wanna-bes miss Obama’s point. Protesting the treatment of George Floyd is one thing, but declaring autonomous zones, burning cities, and mindlessly defunding law enforcement rather than wisely choosing better policing policies is quite another thing. One might have thought that these Democrats would have looked at their shrunken House majority and figured that much out for themselves. Instead, Obama has to play Captain Obvious to the oblivious.
The most intriguing part of Obama’s interview with Hamby wasn’t on this obvious point. It was on another obvious point about attracting young people to the Democratic Party. It’s tough to do that when the encrusted septuagenarian/octagenarian leadership at the top refuses to make room for them, Obama says, as Hamby flashes pictures of Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein on the screen. “We stick so long with the same old folks,” Obama observes, “and don’t make room for new voices.” Maybe Obama can bring that up with Nancy Pelosi before she officially runs for House Speaker, and before Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn cling to their caucus leadership positions.


hotair--2020-12-02--Cruz to Alito: Maybe you should consider this injunction request in PA

And maybe the Supreme Court should — at least in part .
Late yesterday , Rep. Mike Kelly , Sean Parnell , and other Republican plaintiffs filed an emergency injunction request with Justice Samuel Alito to stay certification of the election in Pennsylvania .
They want the Supreme Court to review the state supreme court ’ s unanimous dismissal of their complaint against Act 77 , by which they hoped to overturn the election and put the choice of electors in the hands of legislators .
It ’ s no surprise to see the appeal to the Supreme Court , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal on the issues , if not the remedies .
The application is too long and detailed to excerpt here , although the legal analysis of the dismissal by our RedState colleague Shipwreckedcrew predicted the challenge in detail .
More interesting , though , is the endorsement they picked up overnight from Senator Ted Cruz .
He distills the appeal down to a compelling arguments about the laches doctrine and the Catch-22 in which plaintiffs find themselves : “ In the current appeal , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge .
But , the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they can not selectively enforce it now .
“ Even more persuasively , the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don ’ t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election , meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22 : before the election , they lacked standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve delayed too long .
The result of the court ’ s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged .
“ Ordinarily , the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes , especially concerning state law .
But these are not ordinary times .
“ As of today , according to Reuters/Ipsos polling , 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘ the election was rigged.
’ That is not healthy for our democracy .
The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution .
Hearing this case-now , on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.
” Note well that Cruz doesn ’ t mention a word about the remedies sought in this case , and for good reason .
The Federal Election Act requires electors to be appointed by a method the state originally chose , which in all fifty states is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t change that after that method has been exercised .
To do so would put the state at high risk of not having their electors count at all .
Furthermore , this is moot anyway now , since the state legislature isn ’ t in session and won ’ t return until after the first of the year , weeks after the Electoral College meets .
And the state has already certified the presidential election results for that matter , too .
However , that still leaves the issue of Act 77 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The state supreme court applied laches in its dismissal , but that really only relates in this case to the remedies demanded , not the core issue of the law ’ s constitutionality .
Both the appeal and Cruz point out that applying laches to the latter creates an impossible Catch-22 for anyone who wants to challenge it .
The justices ruled that the plaintiffs could have challenged the law before the election , but they and Cruz note that they wouldn ’ t have had standing without showing some sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court applies laches .
So when can the law be challenged — only while the vote is being counted ?
It could be answered that at least one of the plaintiffs , Wanda Logan , lost a special election in late February in which Act 77 was in force .
She could have had standing at that point to challenge the law , and laches would not have applied .
The law itself also allowed for a kind of “ free standing ” period for challenges to it in its first 180 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plaintiffs could have filed suit to stop mass mail-in ballots .
However , that still leaves the problem of having a potentially unconstitutional law on the books with no way to challenge it — another kind of Catch-22 .
Had the court followed the advice of the two partial dissenters , it would have remanded the constitutional issue back to the commonwealth ( appellate ) court while denying the election-related remedies up front .
That may be what Alito does with this appeal , too .
It seems very unlikely that Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date of December 8 by stopping the entire process and even hinting that the court might throw out the election .
He could , however , enjoin any further use of Act 77 and recommend cert for the underlying core issue on an expedited basis .
This is an issue that deserves to be heard , even if not for the stakes on which these plaintiffs might desire in the moment .
Update : Legal expert Jonathan Adler is very skeptical about this argument : That ’ s another reason for Kelly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal .
If nothing else , they arguably establish some standing to challenge Act 77 in the next election cycle .

And maybe the Supreme Court should — at least in part. Late yesterday, Rep. Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, and other Republican plaintiffs filed an emergency injunction request with Justice Samuel Alito to stay certification of the election in Pennsylvania. They want the Supreme Court to review the state supreme court’s unanimous dismissal of their complaint against Act 77, by which they hoped to overturn the election and put the choice of electors in the hands of legislators.
It’s no surprise to see the appeal to the Supreme Court, but it’s a very adept appeal on the issues, if not the remedies. The application is too long and detailed to excerpt here, although the legal analysis of the dismissal by our RedState colleague Shipwreckedcrew predicted the challenge in detail. More interesting, though, is the endorsement they picked up overnight from Senator Ted Cruz. He distills the appeal down to a compelling arguments about the laches doctrine and the Catch-22 in which plaintiffs find themselves:
“In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called ‘laches,’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now. “Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged. “Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times. “As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”
Note well that Cruz doesn’t mention a word about the remedies sought in this case, and for good reason. The Federal Election Act requires electors to be appointed by a method the state originally chose, which in all fifty states is a popular vote. Legislatures can’t change that after that method has been exercised. To do so would put the state at high risk of not having their electors count at all. Furthermore, this is moot anyway now, since the state legislature isn’t in session and won’t return until after the first of the year, weeks after the Electoral College meets. And the state has already certified the presidential election results for that matter, too.
However, that still leaves the issue of Act 77 and its apparent violation of the state constitution. The state supreme court applied laches in its dismissal, but that really only relates in this case to the remedies demanded, not the core issue of the law’s constitutionality. Both the appeal and Cruz point out that applying laches to the latter creates an impossible Catch-22 for anyone who wants to challenge it. The justices ruled that the plaintiffs could have challenged the law before the election, but they and Cruz note that they wouldn’t have had standing without showing some sort of injury. After an election, the court applies laches. So when can the law be challenged — only while the vote is being counted?
It could be answered that at least one of the plaintiffs, Wanda Logan, lost a special election in late February in which Act 77 was in force. She could have had standing at that point to challenge the law, and laches would not have applied. The law itself also allowed for a kind of “free standing” period for challenges to it in its first 180 days of effectiveness, during which any of the plaintiffs could have filed suit to stop mass mail-in ballots. However, that still leaves the problem of having a potentially unconstitutional law on the books with no way to challenge it — another kind of Catch-22.
Had the court followed the advice of the two partial dissenters, it would have remanded the constitutional issue back to the commonwealth (appellate) court while denying the election-related remedies up front. That may be what Alito does with this appeal, too. It seems very unlikely that Alito would risk Pennsylvania’s Safe Harbor date of December 8 by stopping the entire process and even hinting that the court might throw out the election. He could, however, enjoin any further use of Act 77 and recommend cert for the underlying core issue on an expedited basis. This is an issue that deserves to be heard, even if not for the stakes on which these plaintiffs might desire in the moment.
Update: Legal expert Jonathan Adler is very skeptical about this argument:
Sounds rather ridiculous to me. (We actually see parallel kssue in admin law all the time, and the solution is to file the early suit, lose, and then fact of prior suit overcomes laches/waiver claim). — Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) December 2, 2020
That’s another reason for Kelly, Parnell, et al to pursue the appeal. If nothing else, they arguably establish some standing to challenge Act 77 in the next election cycle.


hotair--2020-12-02--Interview: The need for more media coverage in the tech sector

This week brought the launch of a new media portal covering a variety of topics dealing heavily with humanity ’ s advancements in technology .
The Debrief covers an array of subjects , focusing on science , aerospace , military and defense , space travel , and even Unidentified Aeriel Phenomenon ( UAP ) .
The portal was launched by a few reporters and broadcasters who are probably familiar to regular readers .
They include investigative journalists Tim McMillan and MJ Banias , along with author , researcher , and radio host Micah Hanks .
Since these are all topics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to time and are of particular interest to me , I invited Micah Hanks to come back and discuss this new endeavor , along with the future of media as it seeks to cover these constantly evolving fields .
We talked about the launch of The Debrief , of course , but as usual , the conversation quickly spiraled off into the realms of the potential threats posed by Artificial Intelligence , genetic engineering , the origins of human consciousness , and even UFOs .
Turn on your volume , click play below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When you ’ re done with that , check out the new article from Tim McMillan that just dropped today .
The Pentagon is still refusing to publicly discuss anything to do with the UAP Task Force and what they have learned from their investigation of inexplicable encounters with UFOs .
But Tim found a number of highly placed military and government officials who were willing to talk .
And what they revealed will be shocking to most of us .
Without giving too much away , multiple sources confirmed that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely clear ” photograph taken by a fighter jet pilot of a “ triangular ” shaped craft that was observed rising up out of the ocean and then shooting up into the sky at tremendous speed .
No one has any idea what it was or where it came from .
The Debrief SCIENTIST PROPOSES A NEW THEORY FOR THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS Podcasts by Micah Hanks Books by Micah Hanks

This week brought the launch of a new media portal covering a variety of topics dealing heavily with humanity’s advancements in technology. The Debrief covers an array of subjects, focusing on science, aerospace, military and defense, space travel, and even Unidentified Aeriel Phenomenon (UAP). The portal was launched by a few reporters and broadcasters who are probably familiar to regular readers. They include investigative journalists Tim McMillan and MJ Banias, along with author, researcher, and radio host Micah Hanks.
Since these are all topics that we touch on here from time to time and are of particular interest to me, I invited Micah Hanks to come back and discuss this new endeavor, along with the future of media as it seeks to cover these constantly evolving fields. We talked about the launch of The Debrief, of course, but as usual, the conversation quickly spiraled off into the realms of the potential threats posed by Artificial Intelligence, genetic engineering, the origins of human consciousness, and even UFOs. Turn on your volume, click play below, and come along for the ride.
When you’re done with that, check out the new article from Tim McMillan that just dropped today. The Pentagon is still refusing to publicly discuss anything to do with the UAP Task Force and what they have learned from their investigation of inexplicable encounters with UFOs. But Tim found a number of highly placed military and government officials who were willing to talk. And what they revealed will be shocking to most of us. Without giving too much away, multiple sources confirmed that the Pentagon is in possession of an “extremely clear” photograph taken by a fighter jet pilot of a “triangular” shaped craft that was observed rising up out of the ocean and then shooting up into the sky at tremendous speed. No one has any idea what it was or where it came from.
Related links:
The Debrief
SCIENTIST PROPOSES A NEW THEORY FOR THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Podcasts by Micah Hanks
Books by Micah Hanks


hotair--2020-12-02--"Staggering": Carjackings up 537% in Minneapolis for, er, some odd reason

Ho hum , just another couple of months in the reduced-policing utopia known as Minneapolis .
With fewer police on the street , that must mean that residents in the city that made “ abolish the police ” official policy must be enjoying a more peaceful and free life , right ?
Well , some are — and the rest are paying for it : Over the past two months , Minneapolis police have logged more than 125 carjackings in the city , a troubling surge that authorities had largely linked to small groups of marauding teens .
But an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent weeks for the same crime .
Within a one-hour period Saturday morning , police reported three separate carjackings in southeast Minneapolis , including one where an elderly woman was struck on the head .
Such attacks are up 537 % this month when compared with last November .
“ The numbers are staggering , ” said police spokesman John Elder .
“ It defies all civility and any shred of common human decency.
” Five hundred and thirty seven percent in a year .
Let that statistic roll around in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could possibly have happened over the past year to allow that sort of explosion in armed robberies , which is exactly what carjackings are ?
Could it be the city council ’ s push to get rid of the police , and the exodus of law-enforcement officers that resulted from it ?
Oh , let ’ s not always see the same hands .
As our friend James Lileks wrote on Monday , this isn ’ t all coming from the poorer areas of the north side , either .
The violence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the violent criminals have had time and resources to organize and look for more lucrative targets .
One housekeeper got three bullets through her window outside of her clients ’ house , and decided to fight back — which turned out a lot better than it might have : She wasn ’ t hit .
She started her car and rammed the vehicle that blocked her .
Whereupon the bad guys got in the car and fled .
Whereupon she gave chase .
There was a cop car nearby , miracle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give assistance to the victim .
They dd not give chase .
The cops explained that there was a big gang of carjackers , quite modern in its multiethnic makeup , and they ’ d gotten some , but more were out there .
They ’ d been hitting the north end of the lakes , and apparently had moved south to see what rich nuts could be cracked .
I should also note that the middle area between the north and south end of the lakes has experienced a zesty spate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I go to pick up Daughter I have my eyes peeled for the youts , the car that darts in front of mine .
There are times I relax and then I remember that I am sitting at an intersection where every corner in this previously bustling commercial district is boarded up .
The plywood still has murals .
The murals enjoin us to heal and to love and to account for our sins .
Apparently this housekeeper didn ’ t get the Minneapolis “ lie back and think of England ” memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not bad advice when they have a gun pointed at you , either .
A car is not worth your life , after all .
But when it ’ s all you have to allow you to earn a living , you ’ re not going to want to blithely surrender it just so the city council can feel good about themselves , either .
It ’ s not just carjackings either .
Murders have hit 15-year highs , too : The spree comes amid a nearly unprecedented spike in violent crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 killing of George Floyd in police custody and the civil unrest that followed .
In November , the toll of people shot this year surpassed 500 in Minneapolis , the most in 15 years .
Seventy-nine homicides is the highest count since the mid-1990s , an era when the city earned the grim moniker “ Murderapolis.
” What does the city council have to say for the state of affairs over which they have presided ?
Lileks notes that council president Lisa Bender still continues to “ unspool an endless bolt of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her leadership : A lot of the other incidents like car thefts and armed robberies are also related to groups that are known to the city , that are known to law enforcement .
So for me the package looks like increasing accountability for law enforcement , investing in community-based safety strategies that we know work to prevent violence , investing in alternatives to policing so that we ’ re not relying on police to answer every single kind of call that ’ s coming into 911 , so that we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s working to keep people safe .
It ’ s thinking like that which has given the impression of impunity to criminals throughout the Twin Cities .
In fact , it ’ s not an “ impression ” at all .
It ’ s reality , thanks to the battered and retreating police department and the hostility of this city council to the rule of law .

Ho hum, just another couple of months in the reduced-policing utopia known as Minneapolis. With fewer police on the street, that must mean that residents in the city that made “abolish the police” official policy must be enjoying a more peaceful and free life, right? Well, some are — and the rest are paying for it:
Over the past two months, Minneapolis police have logged more than 125 carjackings in the city, a troubling surge that authorities had largely linked to small groups of marauding teens. But an increasing number of adults have been arrested in recent weeks for the same crime. Within a one-hour period Saturday morning, police reported three separate carjackings in southeast Minneapolis, including one where an elderly woman was struck on the head. Such attacks are up 537% this month when compared with last November. “The numbers are staggering,” said police spokesman John Elder. “It defies all civility and any shred of common human decency.”
Five hundred and thirty seven percent in a year. Let that statistic roll around in your noggin for a few moments. What could possibly have happened over the past year to allow that sort of explosion in armed robberies, which is exactly what carjackings are? Could it be the city council’s push to get rid of the police, and the exodus of law-enforcement officers that resulted from it? Oh, let’s not always see the same hands.
As our friend James Lileks wrote on Monday, this isn’t all coming from the poorer areas of the north side, either. The violence is beginning to meander to more wealthy neighborhoods, as the violent criminals have had time and resources to organize and look for more lucrative targets. One housekeeper got three bullets through her window outside of her clients’ house, and decided to fight back — which turned out a lot better than it might have:
She wasn’t hit. She started her car and rammed the vehicle that blocked her. Whereupon the bad guys got in the car and fled. Whereupon she gave chase. Unwise, but impressive. There was a cop car nearby, miracle of miracles, and he stopped to give assistance to the victim. They dd not give chase. The cops explained that there was a big gang of carjackers, quite modern in its multiethnic makeup, and they’d gotten some, but more were out there. They’d been hitting the north end of the lakes, and apparently had moved south to see what rich nuts could be cracked. I should also note that the middle area between the north and south end of the lakes has experienced a zesty spate of carjacking as well, and every time I go to pick up Daughter I have my eyes peeled for the youts, the car that darts in front of mine. There are times I relax and then I remember that I am sitting at an intersection where every corner in this previously bustling commercial district is boarded up. The plywood still has murals. The murals enjoin us to heal and to love and to account for our sins.
Apparently this housekeeper didn’t get the Minneapolis “lie back and think of England” memo to cooperate with criminals. That’s not bad advice when they have a gun pointed at you, either. A car is not worth your life, after all. But when it’s all you have to allow you to earn a living, you’re not going to want to blithely surrender it just so the city council can feel good about themselves, either.
It’s not just carjackings either. Murders have hit 15-year highs, too:
The spree comes amid a nearly unprecedented spike in violent crime, particularly shootings, since the May 25 killing of George Floyd in police custody and the civil unrest that followed. In November, the toll of people shot this year surpassed 500 in Minneapolis, the most in 15 years. Seventy-nine homicides is the highest count since the mid-1990s, an era when the city earned the grim moniker “Murderapolis.”
What does the city council have to say for the state of affairs over which they have presided? Lileks notes that council president Lisa Bender still continues to “unspool an endless bolt of fatuous vapidity” as crime explodes under her leadership:
A lot of the other incidents like car thefts and armed robberies are also related to groups that are known to the city, that are known to law enforcement. So for me the package looks like increasing accountability for law enforcement, investing in community-based safety strategies that we know work to prevent violence, investing in alternatives to policing so that we’re not relying on police to answer every single kind of call that’s coming into 911, so that we have a more holistic system of safety that’s working to keep people safe.
It’s thinking like that which has given the impression of impunity to criminals throughout the Twin Cities. In fact, it’s not an “impression” at all. It’s reality, thanks to the battered and retreating police department and the hostility of this city council to the rule of law.