hotair--2020-05-30--Ellison: Rioting is okay if it's directed at the police

As Minneapolis continues to be burned , looted and generally destroyed by “ protesters ” who are filling the streets , Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a note of caution to the rioters yesterday .
He wanted everyone to show some kindness to the National Guard units and other military personnel who they may encounter .
That was rather thoughtful of him , assuming anyone actually listens .
It ’ s the sort of message one might hope the AG would be sending .
Sadly , he didn ’ t stop there .
In order to ensure the rioters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to draw a distinction between the National Guard and the police .
You see , it ’ s okay to direct your anger ( and presumably your violence ) against the cops .
But it ’ s not the National Guard ’ s fault .
( Free Beacon ) Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison ( D. ) told Minneapolis residents protesting the death of George Floyd to direct their ire at local police , rather than the National Guard that has been called into the city to help restore order… “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that the National Guard just a week ago was administering COVID-19 tests to help people , ” Ellison said .
“ The presence you see on the street , don ’ t react to them the way you might react to the Minneapolis Police Department .
It ’ s not the same group .
They have different leadership , different authority , and their job is to try to bring peace and calm back again .
Please remember that this is not the group that you associate with unfair conduct.
” If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you might find room to forgive his poor wording .
He ’ s just drawing a distinction between civilian and military law enforcement .
I mean , it ’ s not as if he ’ s actually excusing the rioting , arson and violence , right ?
Sorry to disappoint you , but that ’ s exactly what he ’ s doing .
He went on to quote MLK , saying a riot is how “ the unheard get heard.
” Both the Governor and the Mayor of Minneapolis are at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving the appearance of trying to discourage the rioting .
The Governor was even talking about taking up President Trump on his offer to send in some military police .
Granted , the Mayor ’ s response has been a bit more muted and lacks decisiveness , but he ’ s not completely ordering his cops to stand down and surrendering control of the streets like Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake did during the Freddie Gray riots .
But at the same time as they are trying to calm the city down , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in public and saying that it ’ s basically okay to attack the cops as long as you leave the nice National Guardsmen alone .
In this regard , Ellison is standing in for the role that Rawlings-Blake played in Baltimore in 2015 .
And as I was discussing with some friends on social media this week , after Baltimore burned down , it never really recovered .
While other large cities were seeing significant decreases in their murder rates , Charm City was setting new records for the most killings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and started doing less policing , It ’ s a nasty downward spiral that becomes difficult to pump the brakes on once it begins .
Of course , I ’ m not sure what any of us should have expected .
As the linked article reminds us , when Ellison was in Congress ( in the seat now held by Ilhan Omar ) he openly supported Antifa .
When Minnesota chose to elect an Attorney General who has very little interest in enforcing the law , this was pretty much what they signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to keep all of this in mind next time they go to the polls .
I would also remind the Mayor and the Governor that after Baltimore went up in flames in 2015 , Stephanie Rawlings-Blake ’ s approval ratings plunged so far that she didn ’ t even bother running for another term .
Something needs to be done to bring this situation under control quickly and at least for now , Keith Ellison is part of the problem , not the solution .

As Minneapolis continues to be burned, looted and generally destroyed by “protesters” who are filling the streets, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a note of caution to the rioters yesterday. He wanted everyone to show some kindness to the National Guard units and other military personnel who they may encounter. That was rather thoughtful of him, assuming anyone actually listens. It’s the sort of message one might hope the AG would be sending.
Sadly, he didn’t stop there. In order to ensure the rioters knew what he meant, Ellison went on to draw a distinction between the National Guard and the police. You see, it’s okay to direct your anger (and presumably your violence) against the cops. But it’s not the National Guard’s fault. (Free Beacon)
Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison (D.) told Minneapolis residents protesting the death of George Floyd to direct their ire at local police, rather than the National Guard that has been called into the city to help restore order… “I’d like everyone to recognize the fact that the National Guard just a week ago was administering COVID-19 tests to help people,” Ellison said. “The presence you see on the street, don’t react to them the way you might react to the Minneapolis Police Department. It’s not the same group. They have different leadership, different authority, and their job is to try to bring peace and calm back again. Please remember that this is not the group that you associate with unfair conduct.”
If Ellison had even managed to stop there, you might find room to forgive his poor wording. He’s just drawing a distinction between civilian and military law enforcement. I mean, it’s not as if he’s actually excusing the rioting, arson and violence, right?
Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s exactly what he’s doing. He went on to quote MLK, saying a riot is how “the unheard get heard.”
Both the Governor and the Mayor of Minneapolis are at least mouthing some of the right words and giving the appearance of trying to discourage the rioting. The Governor was even talking about taking up President Trump on his offer to send in some military police. Granted, the Mayor’s response has been a bit more muted and lacks decisiveness, but he’s not completely ordering his cops to stand down and surrendering control of the streets like Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake did during the Freddie Gray riots.
But at the same time as they are trying to calm the city down, they’ve got the Attorney General going out in public and saying that it’s basically okay to attack the cops as long as you leave the nice National Guardsmen alone. In this regard, Ellison is standing in for the role that Rawlings-Blake played in Baltimore in 2015. And as I was discussing with some friends on social media this week, after Baltimore burned down, it never really recovered. While other large cities were seeing significant decreases in their murder rates, Charm City was setting new records for the most killings. The police lost faith in City Hall and started doing less policing, It’s a nasty downward spiral that becomes difficult to pump the brakes on once it begins.
Of course, I’m not sure what any of us should have expected. As the linked article reminds us, when Ellison was in Congress (in the seat now held by Ilhan Omar) he openly supported Antifa. When Minnesota chose to elect an Attorney General who has very little interest in enforcing the law, this was pretty much what they signed up for. Perhaps they’ll want to keep all of this in mind next time they go to the polls. I would also remind the Mayor and the Governor that after Baltimore went up in flames in 2015, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s approval ratings plunged so far that she didn’t even bother running for another term. Something needs to be done to bring this situation under control quickly and at least for now, Keith Ellison is part of the problem, not the solution.


hotair--2020-05-30--SCOTUS upholds church attendance restrictions

Multiple churches around the nation have been appealing restrictions placed on services due to the pandemic .
As of last night , they appear to have their answer from the Supreme Court , though most of them probably won ’ t like it .
South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista , California had asked the court to hear an emergency appeal regarding Governor Gavin Newsom ’ s restrictions on religious gatherings in time for tomorrow ’ s services and the justices delivered their response on schedule .
In a closely split decision , the court ruled 5-4 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Roberts siding with the court ’ s liberal justices against the other four conservative members .
( NY Times ) The Supreme Court on Friday turned away a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services .
The vote was 5 to 4 , with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court ’ s four-member liberal wing to form a majority .
“ Although California ’ s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship , those restrictions appear consistent with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling .
At first glance , it ’ s tough to tell whether Roberts really believes that Newsom ’ s restrictions are allowable under the First Amendment or if he ’ s taking another opportunity to prevent a 5-4 ideological split .
We already know that he ’ s trying to avoid the appearance of a court that ’ s predictably polarized along political lines .
Still , the majority decision does seem to contradict itself in some ways , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Kavanaugh .
Both sides agreed that at least some restrictions on church services were allowable under the circumstances , but the chief difference came in how one defines church services as compared to more secular activities .
Roberts compared church congregations to other activities with similar or even more severe restrictions , such as “ lectures , concerts , movie showings , spectator sports and theatrical performances.
” He contrasted that with more leniently treated “ dissimilar activities , such as operating grocery stores , banks and laundromats , in which people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in close proximity for extended periods.
” Kavanaugh expressed a different view , saying the California restrictions did not allow churches the same leniency as “ comparable secular businesses.
” And those businesses were trusted to “ adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices.
” This was a tough case all the way around and it probably could have gone either way .
Even when considering the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment , we already place certain requirements on churches similar to secular entities even when we ’ re not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about maximum occupancy under the fire codes , parking restrictions and construction safety requirements apply to churches just as they do to grocery stores and laundromats .
So in that sense , as long as everyone else is facing restrictions , the churches wouldn ’ t get a free pass to ignore any and all limitations .
But at the same time , this decision had to come down to two different questions as to how different “ classes ” of operations are defined and which ones are given more freedom to operate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential ” and which are “ nonessential ” under California ’ s rules ?
That seems to already be a settled issue .
Churches are essential services .
But the second half of the equation is the issue of how people typically behave in various settings under discussion .
I would have to agree that people are less likely to “ congregate ” for lengthy periods of time at the grocery store or the laundromat .
Churches are , by definition , sort of the opposite .
We don ’ t call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all .
From the earliest days of these executive orders under a declared state of emergency , I ’ ve tried to remind people that the courts have historically sided with the executives .
So even though this was a sharply divided decision that included some alarmingly vague generalizations , we probably shouldn ’ t be too surprised at the result .

Multiple churches around the nation have been appealing restrictions placed on services due to the pandemic. As of last night, they appear to have their answer from the Supreme Court, though most of them probably won’t like it. South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, California had asked the court to hear an emergency appeal regarding Governor Gavin Newsom’s restrictions on religious gatherings in time for tomorrow’s services and the justices delivered their response on schedule. In a closely split decision, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Newsom, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court’s liberal justices against the other four conservative members. (NY Times)
The Supreme Court on Friday turned away a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority. “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.
At first glance, it’s tough to tell whether Roberts really believes that Newsom’s restrictions are allowable under the First Amendment or if he’s taking another opportunity to prevent a 5-4 ideological split. We already know that he’s trying to avoid the appearance of a court that’s predictably polarized along political lines.
Still, the majority decision does seem to contradict itself in some ways, as was noted in the dissent penned by Kavanaugh. Both sides agreed that at least some restrictions on church services were allowable under the circumstances, but the chief difference came in how one defines church services as compared to more secular activities. Roberts compared church congregations to other activities with similar or even more severe restrictions, such as “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances.” He contrasted that with more leniently treated “dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”
Kavanaugh expressed a different view, saying the California restrictions did not allow churches the same leniency as “comparable secular businesses.” And those businesses were trusted to “adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices.”
This was a tough case all the way around and it probably could have gone either way. Even when considering the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, we already place certain requirements on churches similar to secular entities even when we’re not in a state of emergency. Rules about maximum occupancy under the fire codes, parking restrictions and construction safety requirements apply to churches just as they do to grocery stores and laundromats. So in that sense, as long as everyone else is facing restrictions, the churches wouldn’t get a free pass to ignore any and all limitations.
But at the same time, this decision had to come down to two different questions as to how different “classes” of operations are defined and which ones are given more freedom to operate. First, which ones are “essential” and which are “nonessential” under California’s rules? That seems to already be a settled issue. Churches are essential services. But the second half of the equation is the issue of how people typically behave in various settings under discussion. I would have to agree that people are less likely to “congregate” for lengthy periods of time at the grocery store or the laundromat. Churches are, by definition, sort of the opposite. We don’t call the worshipers a “congregation” for nothing, after all.
From the earliest days of these executive orders under a declared state of emergency, I’ve tried to remind people that the courts have historically sided with the executives. So even though this was a sharply divided decision that included some alarmingly vague generalizations, we probably shouldn’t be too surprised at the result.


hotair--2020-05-31--Dr. Jo Jorgensen on the Libertarian Party in 2020, running for president during a pandemic, riots, a

Dr. Jo Jorgensen on the Libertarian Party in 2020, running for president during a pandemic, riots, and Social Security

Dr. Jo Jorgensen was elected the Libertarian Party ’ s 2020 nominee a week ago at their virtual convention .
In a wide-ranging interview with Hot Air recorded on Friday morning , Jorgensen discussed the George Floyd protests , Social Security , growing the Libertarian Party , ballot access , being an alternative to President Donald Trump and Joe Biden in 2020 , and playing ice hockey .
The transcript has been edited for clarity and , at one point , a cell connection .
Taylor Millard : The president tweeted very early [ Friday ] morning he would send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” How does a President Jorgensen handle rioting and what ’ s kind of your reaction to that tweet ?
Jo Jorgensen : Well , I mean a few things .
First of all , I want to back up and just say it was the government that put all of the tension between the races to begin with .
We ’ ve had , you know , systemic , institutionalized racism since about ten years after the Civil War .
A lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the frustration I have with Democrats and minorities going to the government to solve these problems when the government caused it .
So , if you go back…right after the slaves were freed , just like anybody starting a business , just like I did , the former slaves went around and offered their services for a lower price and they had excellent quality , excellent craftsmanship .
So they offered their services at a lowered price .
What did the whites do ?
Instead of saying , ‘ Okay , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s offer even lower prices.
’ No , they said , ‘ We ’ ll get the government to do the job for us.
’ And so they started passing all sorts of laws that set it up basically racism in the government so that the blacks couldn ’ t compete with the white .
This lasted all the way through the Rosa Parks era .
And , what a lot of people don ’ t realize is that the bus that Rosa Parks was asked to sit in the back of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
So , here we are today , and it ’ s just a horrific situation thanks to a lot of government .
Now , I had not heard President Trump ’ s tweet yet , so I can ’ t really respond to that .
But let me say that , in general , my default position is to not intrude on the state , not intrude unless the federal government is absolutely needed , and I would not have sent people out as early as he did because it looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locally .
The officers were immediately fired and they gave indications that they were investigating charges , and so it sounded like they were doing their job just fine .
I think if the federal government gets involved then people start feeling as though they have no power and the federal government is coming in and taking over everything .
And I think that that just helps escalate .
My question is , would we have the rioting if we hadn ’ t sent the federal government in and instead asked the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll let this unfold , we ’ ll see , we ’ ll just make sure that you take care of this , and we ’ ll step in only if needed.
’ Millard : When it comes to what ’ s going on now with looting and rioting .
You ’ re still taking , not really a hands-off approach , but really a wait and see approach when it comes to what ’ s going on in Minneapolis , Los Angeles , or New York ?
Jorgensen : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and see .
I would say , leave it to the state and the local citizens to see if they need the help .
My question is…has Minnesota gone to the federal government and asked for help ?
If a state came to me and asked for help , of course , I would offer help , but my point is that the federal government just intervenes way too early , in general .
Millard : What ’ s your thought about the executive order regarding social media .
Jo Jorgensen : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is basically that the government needs to stay out of it .
I ’ d like to read it to you , “ We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship , regulation , or control of communications , media , and technology .
We favor the freedom to engage in , or abstain from , any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others , and we oppose government actions in these.
” So basically that people have the freedom to express themselves and that just because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Millard : The Washington Times called you a psychologist grandmother in their write-up of you winning the Libertarian Party nomination , but there ’ s a lot more to you .
You worked in computers ‘ cause you were at IBM , right , and you later co-founded your own company .
Jo Jorgensen : Yes , like many Libertarians , I have had a career in computers .
First of all , I ’ m technically not a psychologist .
Usually , when people say psychologist they think clinical psychologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My degree is actually in industrial-organizational psychology which is more of a business-oriented psychology .
It deals with like leadership , motivation…in the business world .
In fact , I also have an MBA .
But , yes , I did have a computer software duplications company in which we duplicated software , legally , and before that , I sold accounting software , and this is after I worked for IBM .
I was actually in marketing for IBM , and the last to be kind of an independent contractor for software @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here in North Texas , probably an hour and a half north of Waco , near SMU .
You did SMU and Baylor .
Jo Jorgensen : Yeah , that ’ s what I was going to say !
When I worked for IBM , it was actually out of the Fort Worth branch office , although I lived in Dallas , at the time .
So , I got deep Texas roots .
I lived there for eight years .
In fact , I recognized the… area code because I used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same area code ] .
Millard : So you ’ re originally from Illinois , right ?
Jo Jorgensen : Yes , I grew up north of Chicago , and then after I graduated from high school , I went down to Baylor .
Millard : So you ’ ve done Illinois to Texas .
How ’ d you end up in South Carolina ?
Jo Jorgensen : My husband at the time , it was his work .
I ’ ve been here pretty much since 1983 .
Millard : During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being too pragmatic .
I think it had to do with comments made on social security and paying back seniors what they paid in .
Is that pragmatism or just good policy to eventually reach the Libertarian Party ’ s goal of a smaller , weaker government .
Jo Jorgensen : Well , not only do I think it ’ s good policy , I think it ’ s morally correct because you ’ ve got someone who , for 50 years , was required to pay into the Social Security system against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice , in fact the money was taken out before they even received their paycheck .
So for 50 years , their money was taken away .
I think it ’ s only right to give that money back to them .
And so , we can do that , not through the Ponzi scheme that we have right now , where we take from other earners , from younger earners , but by selling national assets…assets belonging to the federal government .
Because , after all , that ’ s what their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not put in a lockbox , their money was spent on these assets , so I look at it that they are part owners , and let ’ s give them their money back .
Millard : What would you do with the rest of Social Security ?
Jo Jorgensen : What do you mean by the rest of it , do you mean the younger people ?
Jo Jorgensen : Have an immediately opt-out so that they wouldn ’ t have to pay into the system .
So they wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paycheck before they even got it .
And they would be allowed to invest in whatever they thought was the best tool for their investment .
The best vehicle for them to get to where they want to be when they retire .
It ’ s certainly going to be a lot better than the Social Security system .
And let me point out something else because again , getting back to race here , a lot people don ’ t realize just how much Social Security hurts blacks and especially black men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates , black men tend to not live as long as white men , white women , or black women .
So , in Social Security , once you put that money in , it ’ s gone .
And if you have some type of retirement account , if you put it into some kind of account or life insurance or whatever now , at least , you ’ ll still maybe die at a younger age than you ’ d like , but at least now the money can go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ One Giant Switzerland ’ metaphor and is that something the average voter is going to understand ?
Jo Jorgensen : I hope so , it ’ s resonating with the average voters .
Basically , in World War II , Switzerland remained neutral , but they still defended themselves .
The problem that the Libertarian Party has had with talking about bringing the troops home is people mistakenly think that that ’ s isolationism .
That we don ’ t want to have anything to do with other countries .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , hey , Switzerland , they ’ re not an island in the middle of Europe there .
They are trading with other people .
There are people going across the borders .
There are people vacationing .
So to give Americans the sense of security , I hope , that we ’ re not talking about being isolationists we ’ re talking about just being a good neighbor .
Millard : We ’ re in the middle of a pandemic , right now , and who knows when this pandemic will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ballot access issue and how are you doing to get your message out during this pandemic .
Jo Jorgensen : We ’ ll see .
And you ’ re right , part of the reason that we nominated the presidential and vice-presidential nominees in May , instead of waiting until the in-person convention in July , was so that we could have a name to put on the ballot .
There was concern that we might not be on the ballot in about two or three states if we waited until July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in May .
But , absolutely , there are states who are suing the government to say , “ Hey , you want us to collect signatures , but you won ’ t allow us to go outside.
” We ’ re still hoping to be on the ballot in all 50 states , but of course , it does make it a challenge .
Millard : How do you solve that challenge ?
Is it just getting out and doing as many interviews as possible ?
Is it organizing activists as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot ?
What are you doing specifically and what is the party doing specifically to get you on the ballot ?
Jo Jorgensen : Well the state parties , of course , are taking the lead .
Each state knows its state the best .
Each state Libertarian organization .
Now we do have national ballot access people who support them whenever they can .
And once I am allowed to travel , of course , I will go to the state that needs me , more than the other states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one of the final debates in which one of the other candidates said , “ I ’ m going to make it a point to go to all 50 states.
” My reply was , “ I ’ d love to go to 50 states , but you know what , I ’ m going to go where I ’ m needed .
And there are some states that have ballot access problems that they may need the publicity .
So , I would definitely go to those states .
As much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all of them , we may have to concentrate on those.
” Millard : The Libertarian Party put Gary Johnson , Bill Weld as the ticket in 2016 but got 3.28 % of the vote .
Why will you bring in more than that 3.28 % ?
Jo Jorgensen : Well , first of all , I do agree that votes are important and we are a political party so of course , we need votes .
But I think that membership is almost as important .
Now , let me qualify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot access , but aside from those states , there are other states in which I would say that membership , the total number of support we bring for our movement , is more important because if we bring more people into the movement , then we have more candidate at all levels : state , local , and federal .
We have more supporters , more donors , more people knocking on doors , and all of that .
And , I ’ d like to point out that , in 1995 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s running mate , we doubled the party ’ s size .
We brought in 8500 new members even though we only got half a million votes .
So , Gary Johnson , with his over four million votes , he brought in only 75-hundred members .
So , what I ’ m hoping to do is bring in more long-time members so they stick around and so that we can grow the movement enough that we don ’ t have to worry about ballot access laws .
But that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But to more directly answer your question : I think that this pandemic , well let me say the government response to this pandemic , will help us .
In that the government came in , and , again , took away all of our liberties to the point of keeping us locked up in our houses .
We can ’ t go to work , people had to shut down their businesses , and they really intruded on our economic liberties with all of their spending .
And , if you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these protests you know Michigan and so forth , in which people are saying , “ No , government !
You ’ ve overstepped your bounds !
We have the right to go outside and go to work !
” And so , I think that a lot of people are now seeing how much power the government has taken and I ’ m hoping that they will look at us as an alternative .
And also , a lot of people voted for Trump .
You know , the reason that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they weren ’ t polling the people who either had never voted or hadn ’ t voted for like 20 years .
And they finally said , “ Oh , yay , there ’ s someone who finally gets it , who finally gets it.
” And now they ’ re discovering that Trump really isn ’ t different than any of the other Republicans .
He ’ s increasing government just as much as everybody else .
He said he ’ d get rid of the deficit – it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is a real alternative .
So , I ’ m hoping that once they see that Trump did not deliver the small government he promised , that maybe they ’ ll take a look around and see us .
Millard : So , what voters are you going for ?
Jo Jorgensen : Mostly , well , first of all , libertarian-leaning voters .
There are estimates that at least 40-million people are libertarian-leaning but either they don ’ t know it or they ’ ve never heard of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the party .
But there are a lot of people who just instinctively they should have the right to marry who they want to marry but also to be able to own a gun .
And also younger people .
I read a great book by Jean Twenge called iGen .
And she looked through a lot of data and pointed out that the current generation that she called iGen are naturally libertarian .
That they do believe what we would normally call , freedom on the left and freedom on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want and to own the gun .
Now , I don ’ t use those terms anymore , I used to say Libertarian takes the best part of the Republican , you know the economic freedom , and the best part of the Democrat , which is the social freedom , but now we ’ ve seen from both parties that they Democrats no longer give us social freedom and the Republicans no longer give us economic freedom .
We ’ re just for freedom in all areas .
Millard : How is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from Gary Johnson in 2016 ?
Jo Jorgensen : One thing I ’ m going to do is try to emphasize my issues .
For instance , we talked about bringing the troops home and if you hadn ’ t brought that up , I would…the other two issues I ’ m strongly pushing are medical care , the extremely high health care costs , and the environment .
And , one of the reasons why I have the environment on my list is that that ’ s what young people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain set of issues that they were very interested in and they pushed those interests , instead of saying , “ Okay , let ’ s see , what are the American voters excited about and let me talk about those.
” So , Libertarian candidates usually haven ’ t talked about the environment too much , but that ’ s what young people are interested in so that ’ s what we need to talk about .
And then health care is just so major out there .
And the myth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a free market system is what ’ s hurting us .
People are saying , “ Well the free market isn ’ t working , so we need to go to single-payer , ” but they don ’ t realize that we haven ’ t had a free market since at least World War II .
So , if we would actually have a truly free market then we wouldn ’ t have many of these problems .
Jo Jorgensen : Am I a spoiler ?
Oh , in other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or am I going to throw the race to one person to the other , I guess that ’ s what you mean .
Jo Jorgensen : Well , you know , there ’ s another myth out there that Libertarians tend to pull more from the right than the left .
But , actually that ’ s not the case .
Libertarians tend to pull , in general , from both sides .
Equally .
Republicans and Democrats .
However , we get most of our support from either Independents or people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or haven ’ t gotten into politics yet .
Millard : Couple last questions…are you and [ running mate Spike Cohen ] a good team ?
Jo Jorgensen : Well , I think we are the best team to unite the party because there was definitely a pragmatic faction and definitely a , let ’ s say , radical faction .
And so now we ’ ve got one of each although I would like to quickly add that I received a B rating from the radical caucus and there was only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that candidate was nowhere near the top six people who were invited to the last round of debate .
So , I tied with the highest rating with the radical caucus from the final round .
I hate to say I ’ m only pragmatic because I do follow the Libertarian Party platform and it ’ s kind of a shame we have to use the term ‘ radical ’ to mean following the platform .
Millard : So , what position do you play in hockey ?
Who ’ s your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chucked knuckles ’ on the ice ?
Jo Jorgensen : [ Laughing ] Oh gosh .
So , I play defense in hockey which is kind of unusual because when any other sport , I love playing offense because I love scoring .
But when it comes to hockey , I just love taking away the puck basically from everybody else .
My favorite team , you know , not many people know this because a lot of people keep asking me who my favorite team is , I don ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , however being from Chicago , if I had to pick a team I would pick the Blackhawks .
But , I ’ ve only watched one entire hockey game from start to finish .
And , would you believe , I ’ ve gotten high-sticked .
I won ’ t talk about chucking knuckles but , hey , I ’ ve been high-sticked and I had to have surgery on my nose…twice .
Millard : Dr. Jorgensen , Jo , thank you so much .
Good luck in November .

Dr. Jo Jorgensen was elected the Libertarian Party’s 2020 nominee a week ago at their virtual convention. In a wide-ranging interview with Hot Air recorded on Friday morning, Jorgensen discussed the George Floyd protests, Social Security, growing the Libertarian Party, ballot access, being an alternative to President Donald Trump and Joe Biden in 2020, and playing ice hockey.
The transcript has been edited for clarity and, at one point, a cell connection.
Taylor Millard: The president tweeted very early [Friday] morning he would send in the National Guard to Minneapolis and “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” How does a President Jorgensen handle rioting and what’s kind of your reaction to that tweet?
Jo Jorgensen: Well, I mean a few things. First of all, I want to back up and just say it was the government that put all of the tension between the races to begin with. We’ve had, you know, systemic, institutionalized racism since about ten years after the Civil War. A lot of people don’t realize and this is the frustration I have with Democrats and minorities going to the government to solve these problems when the government caused it. So, if you go back…right after the slaves were freed, just like anybody starting a business, just like I did, the former slaves went around and offered their services for a lower price and they had excellent quality, excellent craftsmanship. So they offered their services at a lowered price. What did the whites do? Instead of saying, ‘Okay, how do we compete against them? Let’s offer even lower prices.’ No, they said, ‘We’ll get the government to do the job for us.’ And so they started passing all sorts of laws that set it up basically racism in the government so that the blacks couldn’t compete with the white. This lasted all the way through the Rosa Parks era. And, what a lot of people don’t realize is that the bus that Rosa Parks was asked to sit in the back of, was owned and operated by the government. So, here we are today, and it’s just a horrific situation thanks to a lot of government.
Now, I had not heard President Trump’s tweet yet, so I can’t really respond to that. But let me say that, in general, my default position is to not intrude on the state, not intrude unless the federal government is absolutely needed, and I would not have sent people out as early as he did because it looked like it was being taken care of locally. The officers were immediately fired and they gave indications that they were investigating charges, and so it sounded like they were doing their job just fine. I think if the federal government gets involved then people start feeling as though they have no power and the federal government is coming in and taking over everything. And I think that that just helps escalate. My question is, would we have the rioting if we hadn’t sent the federal government in and instead asked the people of Minnesota, ‘Okay, we’ll let this unfold, we’ll see, we’ll just make sure that you take care of this, and we’ll step in only if needed.’
Millard: When it comes to what’s going on now with looting and rioting. You’re still taking, not really a hands-off approach, but really a wait and see approach when it comes to what’s going on in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, or New York?
Jorgensen: Well, I wouldn’t call it wait and see. I would say, leave it to the state and the local citizens to see if they need the help. My question is…has Minnesota gone to the federal government and asked for help? If a state came to me and asked for help, of course, I would offer help, but my point is that the federal government just intervenes way too early, in general.
Millard: What’s your thought about the executive order regarding social media.
Jo Jorgensen: I can give you the Libertarian Party platform which is basically that the government needs to stay out of it. I’d like to read it to you, “We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation, or control of communications, media, and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in, or abstain from, any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others, and we oppose government actions in these.” So basically that people have the freedom to express themselves and that just because you involve technology doesn’t change that.
Millard: The Washington Times called you a psychologist grandmother in their write-up of you winning the Libertarian Party nomination, but there’s a lot more to you. You worked in computers ‘cause you were at IBM, right, and you later co-founded your own company.
Jo Jorgensen: Yes, like many Libertarians, I have had a career in computers. First of all, I’m technically not a psychologist. Usually, when people say psychologist they think clinical psychologist, somebody who treats psychological disorders. My degree is actually in industrial-organizational psychology which is more of a business-oriented psychology. It deals with like leadership, motivation…in the business world. In fact, I also have an MBA. But, yes, I did have a computer software duplications company in which we duplicated software, legally, and before that, I sold accounting software, and this is after I worked for IBM. I was actually in marketing for IBM, and the last to be kind of an independent contractor for software.
Millard: I’m sitting here in North Texas, probably an hour and a half north of Waco, near SMU. You did SMU and Baylor.
Jo Jorgensen: Yeah, that’s what I was going to say! When I worked for IBM, it was actually out of the Fort Worth branch office, although I lived in Dallas, at the time. So, I got deep Texas roots. I lived there for eight years. In fact, I recognized the… area code because I used to have a phone number [with the same area code].
Millard: So you’re originally from Illinois, right?
Jo Jorgensen: Yes, I grew up north of Chicago, and then after I graduated from high school, I went down to Baylor.
Millard: So you’ve done Illinois to Texas. How’d you end up in South Carolina?
Jo Jorgensen: My husband at the time, it was his work. I’ve been here pretty much since 1983.
Millard: During the Libertarian Primary, you were accused of being too pragmatic. I think it had to do with comments made on social security and paying back seniors what they paid in. Is that pragmatism or just good policy to eventually reach the Libertarian Party’s goal of a smaller, weaker government.
Jo Jorgensen: Well, not only do I think it’s good policy, I think it’s morally correct because you’ve got someone who, for 50 years, was required to pay into the Social Security system against their will. They had absolutely no choice, in fact the money was taken out before they even received their paycheck. So for 50 years, their money was taken away. I think it’s only right to give that money back to them. And so, we can do that, not through the Ponzi scheme that we have right now, where we take from other earners, from younger earners, but by selling national assets…assets belonging to the federal government. Because, after all, that’s what their money was spent on. Their money was not put in a lockbox, their money was spent on these assets, so I look at it that they are part owners, and let’s give them their money back.
Millard: What would you do with the rest of Social Security?
Jo Jorgensen: What do you mean by the rest of it, do you mean the younger people?
Millard: Exactly.
Jo Jorgensen: Have an immediately opt-out so that they wouldn’t have to pay into the system. So they wouldn’t have their money disappear from their paycheck before they even got it. And they would be allowed to invest in whatever they thought was the best tool for their investment. The best vehicle for them to get to where they want to be when they retire. It’s certainly going to be a lot better than the Social Security system.
And let me point out something else because again, getting back to race here, a lot people don’t realize just how much Social Security hurts blacks and especially black men. If you look at mortality rates-longevity rates, black men tend to not live as long as white men, white women, or black women. So, in Social Security, once you put that money in, it’s gone. And if you have some type of retirement account, if you put it into some kind of account or life insurance or whatever now, at least, you’ll still maybe die at a younger age than you’d like, but at least now the money can go to your children.
Millard: Explain the ‘One Giant Switzerland’ metaphor and is that something the average voter is going to understand?
Jo Jorgensen: I hope so, it’s resonating with the average voters. Basically, in World War II, Switzerland remained neutral, but they still defended themselves. The problem that the Libertarian Party has had with talking about bringing the troops home is people mistakenly think that that’s isolationism. That we don’t want to have anything to do with other countries. But the Switzerland is a good metaphor to show that, hey, Switzerland, they’re not an island in the middle of Europe there. They are trading with other people. There are people going across the borders. There are people vacationing. So to give Americans the sense of security, I hope, that we’re not talking about being isolationists we’re talking about just being a good neighbor.
Millard: We’re in the middle of a pandemic, right now, and who knows when this pandemic will end. Does the Libertarian Party have a ballot access issue and how are you doing to get your message out during this pandemic.
Jo Jorgensen: We’ll see. And you’re right, part of the reason that we nominated the presidential and vice-presidential nominees in May, instead of waiting until the in-person convention in July, was so that we could have a name to put on the ballot. There was concern that we might not be on the ballot in about two or three states if we waited until July, that’s why we did it in May. But, absolutely, there are states who are suing the government to say, “Hey, you want us to collect signatures, but you won’t allow us to go outside.” We’re still hoping to be on the ballot in all 50 states, but of course, it does make it a challenge.
Millard: How do you solve that challenge? Is it just getting out and doing as many interviews as possible? Is it organizing activists as much as possible to get you on the ballot? What are you doing specifically and what is the party doing specifically to get you on the ballot?
Jo Jorgensen: Well the state parties, of course, are taking the lead. Each state knows its state the best. Each state Libertarian organization. Now we do have national ballot access people who support them whenever they can. And once I am allowed to travel, of course, I will go to the state that needs me, more than the other states. That was another issue that came up in one of the final debates in which one of the other candidates said, “I’m going to make it a point to go to all 50 states.” My reply was, “I’d love to go to 50 states, but you know what, I’m going to go where I’m needed. And there are some states that have ballot access problems that they may need the publicity. So, I would definitely go to those states. As much as I’d like to go to all of them, we may have to concentrate on those.”
Millard: The Libertarian Party put Gary Johnson, Bill Weld as the ticket in 2016 but got 3.28% of the vote. Why will you bring in more than that 3.28%?
Jo Jorgensen: Well, first of all, I do agree that votes are important and we are a political party so of course, we need votes. But I think that membership is almost as important. Now, let me qualify that, some states need votes for ballot access, but aside from those states, there are other states in which I would say that membership, the total number of support we bring for our movement, is more important because if we bring more people into the movement, then we have more candidate at all levels: state, local, and federal. We have more supporters, more donors, more people knocking on doors, and all of that. And, I’d like to point out that, in 1995 and 1996 when I was Harry Browne’s running mate, we doubled the party’s size. We brought in 8500 new members even though we only got half a million votes.
So, Gary Johnson, with his over four million votes, he brought in only 75-hundred members. So, what I’m hoping to do is bring in more long-time members so they stick around and so that we can grow the movement enough that we don’t have to worry about ballot access laws. But that’s kind of my disclaimer up there. But to more directly answer your question: I think that this pandemic, well let me say the government response to this pandemic, will help us. In that the government came in, and, again, took away all of our liberties to the point of keeping us locked up in our houses. We can’t go to work, people had to shut down their businesses, and they really intruded on our economic liberties with all of their spending. And, if you look around the country, see some of these protests you know Michigan and so forth, in which people are saying, “No, government! You’ve overstepped your bounds! We have the right to go outside and go to work!” And so, I think that a lot of people are now seeing how much power the government has taken and I’m hoping that they will look at us as an alternative.
And also, a lot of people voted for Trump. You know, the reason that the predictions were so off with Trump is that they weren’t polling the people who either had never voted or hadn’t voted for like 20 years. And they finally said, “Oh, yay, there’s someone who finally gets it, who finally gets it.” And now they’re discovering that Trump really isn’t different than any of the other Republicans. He’s increasing government just as much as everybody else. He said he’d get rid of the deficit – it’s getting larger. Now people will see that there is a real alternative. So, I’m hoping that once they see that Trump did not deliver the small government he promised, that maybe they’ll take a look around and see us.
Millard: So, what voters are you going for?
Jo Jorgensen: Mostly, well, first of all, libertarian-leaning voters. There are estimates that at least 40-million people are libertarian-leaning but either they don’t know it or they’ve never heard of the party or they don’t know enough about the party. But there are a lot of people who just instinctively they should have the right to marry who they want to marry but also to be able to own a gun. And also younger people. I read a great book by Jean Twenge called iGen. And she looked through a lot of data and pointed out that the current generation that she called iGen are naturally libertarian. That they do believe what we would normally call, freedom on the left and freedom on the right. Freedom to marry who you want and to own the gun. Now, I don’t use those terms anymore, I used to say Libertarian takes the best part of the Republican, you know the economic freedom, and the best part of the Democrat, which is the social freedom, but now we’ve seen from both parties that they Democrats no longer give us social freedom and the Republicans no longer give us economic freedom.
We’re just for freedom in all areas.
Millard: How is your campaign and messaging going to be different from Gary Johnson in 2016?
Jo Jorgensen: One thing I’m going to do is try to emphasize my issues. For instance, we talked about bringing the troops home and if you hadn’t brought that up, I would…the other two issues I’m strongly pushing are medical care, the extremely high health care costs, and the environment. And, one of the reasons why I have the environment on my list is that that’s what young people are interested in…In general, Libertarians have had a certain set of issues that they were very interested in and they pushed those interests, instead of saying, “Okay, let’s see, what are the American voters excited about and let me talk about those.” So, Libertarian candidates usually haven’t talked about the environment too much, but that’s what young people are interested in so that’s what we need to talk about.
And then health care is just so major out there. And the myth, the huge myth, that we have a free market system is what’s hurting us. People are saying, “Well the free market isn’t working, so we need to go to single-payer,” but they don’t realize that we haven’t had a free market since at least World War II. So, if we would actually have a truly free market then we wouldn’t have many of these problems.
Millard: Are you a spoiler?
Jo Jorgensen: Am I a spoiler? Oh, in other words, am I going to win the presidency or am I going to throw the race to one person to the other, I guess that’s what you mean.
Millard: Yes.
Jo Jorgensen: Well, you know, there’s another myth out there that Libertarians tend to pull more from the right than the left. But, actually that’s not the case. Libertarians tend to pull, in general, from both sides. Equally. Republicans and Democrats. However, we get most of our support from either Independents or people who just haven’t voted yet or haven’t gotten into politics yet.
Millard: Couple last questions…are you and [running mate Spike Cohen] a good team?
Jo Jorgensen: Well, I think we are the best team to unite the party because there was definitely a pragmatic faction and definitely a, let’s say, radical faction. And so now we’ve got one of each although I would like to quickly add that I received a B rating from the radical caucus and there was only one presidential candidate who did receive an A and that candidate was nowhere near the top six people who were invited to the last round of debate. So, I tied with the highest rating with the radical caucus from the final round. I hate to say I’m only pragmatic because I do follow the Libertarian Party platform and it’s kind of a shame we have to use the term ‘radical’ to mean following the platform.
Millard: So, what position do you play in hockey? Who’s your favorite team and have you ever ‘chucked knuckles’ on the ice?
Jo Jorgensen: [Laughing] Oh gosh. So, I play defense in hockey which is kind of unusual because when any other sport, I love playing offense because I love scoring. But when it comes to hockey, I just love taking away the puck basically from everybody else. My favorite team, you know, not many people know this because a lot of people keep asking me who my favorite team is, I don’t really watch hockey because I like playing it. So, however being from Chicago, if I had to pick a team I would pick the Blackhawks. But, I’ve only watched one entire hockey game from start to finish. And, would you believe, I’ve gotten high-sticked. I won’t talk about chucking knuckles but, hey, I’ve been high-sticked and I had to have surgery on my nose…twice.
Millard: Dr. Jorgensen, Jo, thank you so much. Good luck in November.


hotair--2020-05-31--NYC Mayor defends cops that drove through crowd... before backtracking

Yet another tale from the ongoing riots ( or “ protests ” ) in the Big Apple this weekend features more interactions between rioters and NYPD vehicles .
But unlike the previous stories where the mob destroys the police cruisers , in this situation , when crowds surrounded and began attacking the vehicles , the cops decided they ’ d had enough and just drove through the crowd .
A few people were knocked down , but nobody was seriously injured and the police proceeded to go about their duties .
I ’ ll embed the video for you here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you find this sort of thing disturbing .
After the fact , Mayor Bill de Blasio was obviously asked for his reaction to these events .
Any time that you mix up Mayor de Blasio with anything involving the police , it rarely turns out well .
He has a terrible reputation among the force and neither rarely has a good word to say about the other .
But in this case , Hizzoner surprised me .
While he found it disturbing , he went to bat for the NYPD and said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been surrounding and attacking a police vehicle .
( NBC News ) New York Mayor Bill de Blasio defended the New York City Police Department after a pair of the force ’ s SUVs drove into a crowd during Saturday ’ s protest against George Floyd ’ s death… “ It is inappropriate for protestors to surround a police vehicle and threaten police officers , ” he said .
“ That ’ s wrong on its face and that hasn ’ t happened in the history of protests in this city.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different element has come into play here who are trying to hurt police officers and trying to damage their vehicles.
” While he wished the officers had not driven into the crowd , de Blasio said he “ understood they didn ’ t start the situation , ” which he said was “ started by a group of protesters converging on a police vehicle.
” If de Blasio had just stopped there and stuck to his position he would have been fine .
In fact , he would have garnered some exceptionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed regret over the fact that the situation had to come to pass , but he defended the police officers who were clearly not the ones creating that dangerous situation .
The people intent on “ hurting police officers ” and damaging emergency vehicles were causing their own problems .
Unfortunately , the political pressure from the left must have gotten to him .
By this morning his tune had changed considerably .
Appearing at a press conference , the Mayor “ clarified ” his previous statements to say that he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sir .
He didn ’ t like it one bit .
“ I did not want to ever see something like that I don ’ t want to ever see it again , ” de Blasio said during a Sunday press conference .
“ And clearly , we need to do a full investigation and look at the actions of those officers and see what was done and why it was done and what could be done differently.
” The mayor said an independent review into the video would be led by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Investigation Commissioner Margaret Garnett and their findings would be concluded in June .
So de Blasio went from finally taking the correct position and doing the right thing to a nearly full reversal back to his typical attitude in less than a day .
I suppose we shouldn ’ t be too surprised .
But as you can see from not only the video above but many other news reports over the past several days , the police quickly run out of options in these situations .
They are outnumbered by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
And these are not peaceful protesters in any sense of the word .
They are brazenly attacking the police , destroying and burning their vehicles , and in at least one case , throwing Molotov cocktails at them .
This isn ’ t a case of graffiti or hurling insults .
There ’ s a war going on out there and the police are being targeted .
If those officers had remained parked where they were trapped by the rioters , they could have wound up with their windows broken out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have had to resort to firearms to save themselves , and you can imagine the headlines that would have come from that , assuming the officers even survived .
So both units wound up driving slowly through the crowd until they cleared the group of thugs that were attacking them .
Frankly , the looters should have considered themselves lucky that nobody was actually run over .
The police showed far more consideration for the mob than the rioters were showing for them .
It ’ s just a pity that Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their backs during this emergency situation .

Yet another tale from the ongoing riots (or “protests”) in the Big Apple this weekend features more interactions between rioters and NYPD vehicles. But unlike the previous stories where the mob destroys the police cruisers, in this situation, when crowds surrounded and began attacking the vehicles, the cops decided they’d had enough and just drove through the crowd. A few people were knocked down, but nobody was seriously injured and the police proceeded to go about their duties. I’ll embed the video for you here. Just assume the normal trigger warning if you find this sort of thing disturbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v0dc44El5U
After the fact, Mayor Bill de Blasio was obviously asked for his reaction to these events. Any time that you mix up Mayor de Blasio with anything involving the police, it rarely turns out well. He has a terrible reputation among the force and neither rarely has a good word to say about the other. But in this case, Hizzoner surprised me. While he found it disturbing, he went to bat for the NYPD and said that the rioters shouldn’t have been surrounding and attacking a police vehicle. (NBC News)
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio defended the New York City Police Department after a pair of the force’s SUVs drove into a crowd during Saturday’s protest against George Floyd’s death… “It is inappropriate for protestors to surround a police vehicle and threaten police officers,” he said. “That’s wrong on its face and that hasn’t happened in the history of protests in this city.” He added that it was “clear that a different element has come into play here who are trying to hurt police officers and trying to damage their vehicles.” While he wished the officers had not driven into the crowd, de Blasio said he “understood they didn’t start the situation,” which he said was “started by a group of protesters converging on a police vehicle.”
If de Blasio had just stopped there and stuck to his position he would have been fine. In fact, he would have garnered some exceptionally rare praise on this page. He expressed regret over the fact that the situation had to come to pass, but he defended the police officers who were clearly not the ones creating that dangerous situation. The people intent on “hurting police officers” and damaging emergency vehicles were causing their own problems.
Unfortunately, the political pressure from the left must have gotten to him. By this morning his tune had changed considerably. Appearing at a press conference, the Mayor “clarified” his previous statements to say that he didn’t like what he saw. No, sir. He didn’t like it one bit.
“I did not want to ever see something like that I don’t want to ever see it again,” de Blasio said during a Sunday press conference. “And clearly, we need to do a full investigation and look at the actions of those officers and see what was done and why it was done and what could be done differently.” The mayor said an independent review into the video would be led by Corporation Counsel James Johnson and NYC Department of Investigation Commissioner Margaret Garnett and their findings would be concluded in June.
So de Blasio went from finally taking the correct position and doing the right thing to a nearly full reversal back to his typical attitude in less than a day. I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised.
But as you can see from not only the video above but many other news reports over the past several days, the police quickly run out of options in these situations. They are outnumbered by a thousand to one or more in most cases. And these are not peaceful protesters in any sense of the word. They are brazenly attacking the police, destroying and burning their vehicles, and in at least one case, throwing Molotov cocktails at them. This isn’t a case of graffiti or hurling insults. There’s a war going on out there and the police are being targeted.
If those officers had remained parked where they were trapped by the rioters, they could have wound up with their windows broken out quickly. At that point, they would have had to resort to firearms to save themselves, and you can imagine the headlines that would have come from that, assuming the officers even survived. So both units wound up driving slowly through the crowd until they cleared the group of thugs that were attacking them. Frankly, the looters should have considered themselves lucky that nobody was actually run over.
The police showed far more consideration for the mob than the rioters were showing for them. It’s just a pity that Mayor de Blasio couldn’t manage to have their backs during this emergency situation.


hotair--2020-05-31--Mayor: George Floyd's body to be returned to Houston, funeral planned

George Floyd was a native of Houston ’ s Third Ward , a predominantly black neighborhood .
Saturday , after a weekend of demonstrations and vigils across the country , it was announced that George Floyd ’ s body will be brought back to Houston .
Mayor Sylvester Turner released a statement .
“ This is the same city that George Floyd grew up in , and his body will be returning to this city , ” Turner said after a night of explosive protests .
“ So the focus needs to be on supporting and lifting up his family.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been announced .
Fort Bend Memorial Planning Center confirmed they are handling Floyd ’ s services .
There was a long , relatively peaceful protest staged Friday in Houston by those wanting to voice anger over the death of George Floyd .
It was organized by the Houston chapter of Black Lives Matter .
I say it was relatively peaceful because while it wasn ’ t 100 % peaceful , it was less violent and destructive to property downtown than some cities have seen .
There was some looting of businesses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their followers and there have been about 200 arrests made since Friday .
Four police officers were injured Friday and eight patrol cars were damaged .
None of these actions are taken lightly by those of us appalled by the violence and mayhem unleashed at these protests .
The protests turned into riots and mob violence aren ’ t honoring George Floyd .
Friday ’ s march and rally turned ugly in some spots .
Broken windows and graffiti were left behind .
One person was asked to leave the protest after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another protester was carrying a machete .
At one point , a group of about 60 to 70 protesters shut down U.S. Highway 59 for half an hour .
Houston Police Officers ’ Union president Joe Gamaldi tweeted that the injured police officers were hospitalized .
Saturday Jack Yates High School alumni honored George Floyd , a 1993 graduate , and football player , with a vigil and walk in MacGregor Park .
Dozens gathered in the park to honor their classmate .
Many wore crimson and gold , the Yates High School @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read “ Enough Injustice Justice Now !
” Before the event began , organizers cautioned attendees to respect the event and maintain a peaceful presence in the park .
“ We ’ re not here to rile up the city , ” said attendee and Yates High School alum Marcus Brooks .
“ We ’ re here to bring love and just harmony but also to celebrate the life of George and bring focus to injustice .
Period .
Not just in Houston but all over the world.
” There have been some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And this man wins the weekend , as far as I ’ m concerned .
He saw the destruction and looting happening downtown Friday night and told his wife he was going down to start cleaning it up .
Bless him .
I ’ ll say this about Houston – these large , organized protests are rare .
This city in which I live is not like other cities , even others in Texas .
Dallas , for example , saw very violent protests and destruction this weekend .
A man was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect his store .
This one is more graphic and comes with a language warning from me .
George Floyd ’ s brother set up a GoFundMe page set up three days ago .
$ 4.6 million has been raised to pay for the funeral , burial , grief counseling , travel , and court costs .
The money will also support his children and their education .

George Floyd was a native of Houston’s Third Ward, a predominantly black neighborhood. Saturday, after a weekend of demonstrations and vigils across the country, it was announced that George Floyd’s body will be brought back to Houston.
Mayor Sylvester Turner released a statement. “This is the same city that George Floyd grew up in, and his body will be returning to this city,” Turner said after a night of explosive protests. “So the focus needs to be on supporting and lifting up his family.” No details about the funeral service have been announced. Fort Bend Memorial Planning Center confirmed they are handling Floyd’s services.
There was a long, relatively peaceful protest staged Friday in Houston by those wanting to voice anger over the death of George Floyd. It was organized by the Houston chapter of Black Lives Matter. I say it was relatively peaceful because while it wasn’t 100% peaceful, it was less violent and destructive to property downtown than some cities have seen. There was some looting of businesses and breaking storefront windows by the professional agitators and their followers and there have been about 200 arrests made since Friday. Four police officers were injured Friday and eight patrol cars were damaged. None of these actions are taken lightly by those of us appalled by the violence and mayhem unleashed at these protests. The protests turned into riots and mob violence aren’t honoring George Floyd.
Friday’s march and rally turned ugly in some spots. Broken windows and graffiti were left behind. One person was asked to leave the protest after she allegedly took out a rifle, another protester was carrying a machete. At one point, a group of about 60 to 70 protesters shut down U.S. Highway 59 for half an hour.
This Verizon store in downtown Houston has been cleared out. Looters broke out the windows and took everything in sight. https://t.co/JWVFZ4E8cq pic.twitter.com/MahLvOpsl3 — Mycah Hatfield (@MycahABC13) May 30, 2020
Houston Police Officers’ Union president Joe Gamaldi tweeted that the injured police officers were hospitalized.
Our officers who were attacked are in the hospital, patrol cars ruined, businesses damaged, this is not who we are as a City and as a community. We will protect your right protest, but we will not allow our city to decay into chaos. — Joe Gamaldi (@JoeGamaldi) May 30, 2020
Saturday Jack Yates High School alumni honored George Floyd, a 1993 graduate, and football player, with a vigil and walk in MacGregor Park.
Dozens gathered in the park to honor their classmate. Many wore crimson and gold, the Yates High School official colors.Others carried posters. One sign read “Enough Injustice Justice Now!” Before the event began, organizers cautioned attendees to respect the event and maintain a peaceful presence in the park. “We’re not here to rile up the city,” said attendee and Yates High School alum Marcus Brooks. “We’re here to bring love and just harmony but also to celebrate the life of George and bring focus to injustice. Period. Not just in Houston but all over the world.”
There have been some bright spots in Houston during this weekend.
Thank you @houstonpolice for protecting the 1st Amendment rights on Houstonians. The respect for protesters matters. @SylvesterTurner @ArtAcevedo pic.twitter.com/OQ5UPNgRWo — Bill Kelly 😷 (@billkellytexas) May 30, 2020
I needed to see this! @houstonpolice has been working 12 hour shifts amid protests. This morning, a group dropped off donuts, coffee and water to officers outside the department. Then we saw officers share with a homeless man. Let's spread kindness today. https://t.co/34Czz6O8q5 pic.twitter.com/MNi69D016I — Mycah Hatfield (@MycahABC13) May 31, 2020
And this man wins the weekend, as far as I’m concerned. He saw the destruction and looting happening downtown Friday night and told his wife he was going down to start cleaning it up. Bless him.
"I said 'let me go down there and let me clean up my city,'" Irving said. "What came to my mind was what JFK said – 'Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.' I'm coming down here to put my little bit in."https://t.co/I2TVygv5xM — Mycah Hatfield (@MycahABC13) May 30, 2020
I’ll say this about Houston – these large, organized protests are rare. This city in which I live is not like other cities, even others in Texas. Dallas, for example, saw very violent protests and destruction this weekend. A man was nearly beaten to death for trying to protect his store.
WARNING GRAPHIC: Dallas Protesters Beat Man to Near-Death Outside Store https://t.co/RWnWLZmzb2 — Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) May 31, 2020
This one is more graphic and comes with a language warning from me.
BREAKING: man critically injured at Dallas riots It appears he attempted to defend a shop with a large sword Looters ran at him, then he charged rioters They then beat him with a skateboard and stoned him with medium sized rocks I called an Ambulance and it’s on the way pic.twitter.com/kFxl3kjsBC — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) May 31, 2020
George Floyd’s brother set up a GoFundMe page set up three days ago. $4.6 million has been raised to pay for the funeral, burial, grief counseling, travel, and court costs. The money will also support his children and their education.


hotair--2020-05-31--The Twitter "platform vs publisher" battle rages on

As the debate over Twitter ’ s decision to begin “ fact checking ” and editing President Trump ’ s tweets continues , particularly on social media , a lot of rhetorical hay is being made over whether or not these actions place more of a burden on Jack Dorsey in terms of the company ’ s responsibilities ( and potential liabilities ) for material posted by users .
Considering what an obscure and seemingly dry subject this is , it ’ s been a bit surprising to see how many people have been engaging in this kerfuffle .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own views in this battle , but I remain surprised at the wide range of opinions that keep popping up .
For example , one tweet I tossed out a few days ago wound up generating quite a bit of feedback , though it seemed a rather obvious point to make .
When I wrote about this issue recently , I focused on the idea that Twitter was continuing to shift its role on the internet from one of being a platform for users to publish their own content to that of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to a piece at National Review from David Harsanyi .
At the time , he was arguing over the merits of Twitter deciding to edit the President ’ s content in that fashion .
But now he ’ s back with a new piece on the same topic .
In this edition , David leads off with a rather contrarian position , saying that it doesn ’ t matter if Twitter is a publisher or a platform .
A number of conservatives seem wedded to the false idea that if social-media sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than “ platforms , ” they can be stripped of liability protections .
Take my friend John Daniel Davidson , who writes in The Federalist : “ If Twitter wants to editorialize and ‘ factcheck ’ President Trump ’ s tweets with disclaimers , then it should be treated like any other publisher.
” But it is .
John makes numerous solid points about the transparently partisan and hypocritical way in which Jack Dorsey runs his business .
And perhaps John believes there should be new legislation governing Internet liability .
Right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no legal distinction between a “ platform ” and a “ publisher ” in Section 230 .
Twitter is already treated like every publisher .
The Wall Street Journal and New York Times are both publishers , and yet they also enjoy Section 230 protections for third-party content .
The law encourages moderation of third-party users .
David focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , noting that whether Twitter performs editing like a publisher or not , it shouldn ’ t matter because they remain protected under Section 230 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawyer either , but the point here is that there ’ s more to consider here than just the nuts and bolts of the law when it comes to responsibilities .
It may be true that you can ’ t sue Twitter over perceived “ damages ” from what someone else tweets from their account .
But the company can be held accountable in other ways , primarily through its success or failure in the eyes of its users .
My whole point from the beginning of this mess is that Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-inflicted wound .
And this is particularly true when you consider David ’ s point about Section 230 .
If Jack Dorsey simply allowed everyone to tweet what they like without the company commenting on it , they would be entirely in the clear .
Yes , law enforcement could push them to delete user tweets that contained illegal content such as child pornography or credible threats of physical violence and terminate those accounts .
But that ’ s not the same level of responsibility that binds actual publishers .
If someone posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website , the editors aren ’ t liable for that content .
But if one of their journalists published something in the same category , the editors have control over whether the material sees the light of day .
In that sense , they are “ responsible ” for everything that shows up in the paper .
Looking at the question in this fashion , we ’ re faced with asking whether Twitter ’ s users are creating content on the platform or whether they should be treated more like the comment section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Replies to tweets could be thought of as comments I suppose , but in the broader view , the billions of tweets that go out every day are the entire body of the content on Twitter .
Nobody is going to sit there and stare at an empty Twitter page all day any more than they would pay for a copy of the Washington Post that had only the top banner followed by blank , white pages devoid of articles .
So contra Harsanyi , there is actually a significant difference between being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform is a technical service , acting much like the internet era version of a corkboard ( as I pointed out in my previous article ) .
The corkboard manufacturer isn ’ t responsible for the notes that wind up being pinned to their product .
But by editing Trump ’ s tweets , Twitter is acting as a publisher.. And they should be held to the same standards .

As the debate over Twitter’s decision to begin “fact checking” and editing President Trump’s tweets continues, particularly on social media, a lot of rhetorical hay is being made over whether or not these actions place more of a burden on Jack Dorsey in terms of the company’s responsibilities (and potential liabilities) for material posted by users. Considering what an obscure and seemingly dry subject this is, it’s been a bit surprising to see how many people have been engaging in this kerfuffle. I’ve been fairly clear on my own views in this battle, but I remain surprised at the wide range of opinions that keep popping up. For example, one tweet I tossed out a few days ago wound up generating quite a bit of feedback, though it seemed a rather obvious point to make.
When Twitter is a platform, users are responsible for their content. When Twitter edits and approves content, it becomes a publisher. Publishers are responsible for all of the content appearing on their outlet. https://t.co/5ezJryHBAp — Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) May 28, 2020
When I wrote about this issue recently, I focused on the idea that Twitter was continuing to shift its role on the internet from one of being a platform for users to publish their own content to that of a publisher. I wrote that article in response to a piece at National Review from David Harsanyi. At the time, he was arguing over the merits of Twitter deciding to edit the President’s content in that fashion. But now he’s back with a new piece on the same topic. In this edition, David leads off with a rather contrarian position, saying that it doesn’t matter if Twitter is a publisher or a platform.
A number of conservatives seem wedded to the false idea that if social-media sites like Twitter act like “publishers” rather than “platforms,” they can be stripped of liability protections. Take my friend John Daniel Davidson, who writes in The Federalist: “If Twitter wants to editorialize and ‘factcheck’ President Trump’s tweets with disclaimers, then it should be treated like any other publisher.” But it is. John makes numerous solid points about the transparently partisan and hypocritical way in which Jack Dorsey runs his business. And perhaps John believes there should be new legislation governing Internet liability. Right now, though, there’s no legal distinction between a “platform” and a “publisher” in Section 230. Twitter is already treated like every publisher. The Wall Street Journal and New York Times are both publishers, and yet they also enjoy Section 230 protections for third-party content. The law encourages moderation of third-party users.
David focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, noting that whether Twitter performs editing like a publisher or not, it shouldn’t matter because they remain protected under Section 230. Like David, I’m not a lawyer either, but the point here is that there’s more to consider here than just the nuts and bolts of the law when it comes to responsibilities.
It may be true that you can’t sue Twitter over perceived “damages” from what someone else tweets from their account. But the company can be held accountable in other ways, primarily through its success or failure in the eyes of its users. My whole point from the beginning of this mess is that Twitter is now taking a beating over a self-inflicted wound. And this is particularly true when you consider David’s point about Section 230.
If Jack Dorsey simply allowed everyone to tweet what they like without the company commenting on it, they would be entirely in the clear. Yes, law enforcement could push them to delete user tweets that contained illegal content such as child pornography or credible threats of physical violence and terminate those accounts. But that’s not the same level of responsibility that binds actual publishers. If someone posts an offensive comment at the Washington Post website, the editors aren’t liable for that content. But if one of their journalists published something in the same category, the editors have control over whether the material sees the light of day. In that sense, they are “responsible” for everything that shows up in the paper.
Looking at the question in this fashion, we’re faced with asking whether Twitter’s users are creating content on the platform or whether they should be treated more like the comment section on a blog or other website. Replies to tweets could be thought of as comments I suppose, but in the broader view, the billions of tweets that go out every day are the entire body of the content on Twitter. Nobody is going to sit there and stare at an empty Twitter page all day any more than they would pay for a copy of the Washington Post that had only the top banner followed by blank, white pages devoid of articles.
So contra Harsanyi, there is actually a significant difference between being a publisher and a platform. A platform is a technical service, acting much like the internet era version of a corkboard (as I pointed out in my previous article). The corkboard manufacturer isn’t responsible for the notes that wind up being pinned to their product. But by editing Trump’s tweets, Twitter is acting as a publisher.. And they should be held to the same standards.


hotair--2020-05-31--Brooklyn protesters block rioters from looting Target

An encouraging moment from last night in NYC .
Although ( a ) one of the protesters later claimed he thought the “ looters ” were undercover NYPD detectives acting as agents provocateurs to make the demonstrators look bad , which , ah , okay , and ( b ) there ’ s been enough damage to Target outlets already that the company ’ s being forced to go dark notwithstanding last night ’ s heroics .
Dozens of stores will close temporarily across the nation ( but especially in Minnesota ) until things calm down .
The Brooklyn store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the only footage of protesters confronting vandals : BuzzFeed has a slew of clips posted to Twitter by black protesters documenting white agitators showing up to their demonstrations to wreak havoc .
Who are those white people ?
Theories abound : Anderson said there were “ several people ” who were behaving like that at the protest , some of whom he believed are “ right-wing conservative individuals who just don ’ t give a damn about black and brown people , or want to make this movement look bad.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks that were antagonizing police .
It was white people throwing stuff at them , ” he said .
“ And then when they kept throwing bags of urine , cans , and water bottles , that ’ s when the police snapped and they started tear-gassing innocent bystanders.
” It ’ s politically convenient to blame “ right-wing conservative individuals , ” another false-flag theory , but in all probability these are mainly black-bloc/Antifa droogs turning out to exploit a breakdown in law enforcement .
Or maybe they ’ re just “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Whatever the answer , there was some truly horrendous nastiness last night as the mobs ran wild : The cops are starting to lose their minds too : No doubt there ’ ll be new footage ranging from the depressing to the horrifying to show you tomorrow .
Until then , sit with this .

An encouraging moment from last night in NYC. Although (a) one of the protesters later claimed he thought the “looters” were undercover NYPD detectives acting as agents provocateurs to make the demonstrators look bad, which, ah, okay, and (b) there’s been enough damage to Target outlets already that the company’s being forced to go dark notwithstanding last night’s heroics. Dozens of stores will close temporarily across the nation (but especially in Minnesota) until things calm down. The Brooklyn store is among them.
Some protestors in Brooklyn calling to loot the Target, but organizers are rushing in front of the store to stop them, keep things non-violent #nycprotest pic.twitter.com/6x70cpcjep — Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) May 31, 2020
This isn’t the only footage of protesters confronting vandals:
https://twitter.com/Joshuajered/status/1266584107087130624
BuzzFeed has a slew of clips posted to Twitter by black protesters documenting white agitators showing up to their demonstrations to wreak havoc. Who are those white people? Theories abound:
Anderson said there were “several people” who were behaving like that at the protest, some of whom he believed are “right-wing conservative individuals who just don’t give a damn about black and brown people, or want to make this movement look bad.” “It wasn’t black and brown folks that were antagonizing police. It was white people throwing stuff at them,” he said. “And then when they kept throwing bags of urine, cans, and water bottles, that’s when the police snapped and they started tear-gassing innocent bystanders.”
It’s politically convenient to blame “right-wing conservative individuals,” another false-flag theory, but in all probability these are mainly black-bloc/Antifa droogs turning out to exploit a breakdown in law enforcement.
Or maybe they’re just “YouTube stars” out for a lark?
https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1267122926266077190
Whatever the answer, there was some truly horrendous nastiness last night as the mobs ran wild:
BREAKING: man critically injured at Dallas riots It appears he attempted to defend a shop with a large sword Looters ran at him, then he charged rioters They then beat him with a skateboard and stoned him with medium sized rocks I called an Ambulance and it’s on the way pic.twitter.com/kFxl3kjsBC — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) May 31, 2020
The cops are starting to lose their minds too:
Share widely: National guard and MPD sweeping our residential street. Shooting paint canisters at us on our own front porch. Yelling “light em up” #JusticeForGeorgeFloyd #JusticeForGeorge #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/bW48imyt55 — Tanya Kerssen (@tkerssen) May 31, 2020
No doubt there’ll be new footage ranging from the depressing to the horrifying to show you tomorrow. Until then, sit with this.


hotair--2020-05-31--Biden campaign staffers contribute to group bailing out rioters in MN

I don ’ t know who needs to hear this but when you choose the side of violent rioters and looters over law enforcement and business owners , it ’ s a bad look , especially for a presidential campaign .
It is being reported that some members of Joe Biden ’ s campaign staff have contributed to a fund in Minnesota that provides bail money for the protesters who are being arrested .
While the contributions are not confirmed to be officially linked with the Biden campaign , thirteen campaign staffers have taken part in a matching donation option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted tweets that donations have been made .
Biden ’ s campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told Reuters that Joe Biden opposes cash bail .
He calls it a “ modern-day debtors prison.
” Minnesota Freedom Fund opposes the practice of making people who are arrested pay money to avoid pre-trial imprisonment .
The group has raised over $ 20M in just four days following the death of George Floyd .
For comparison purposes , the group raised about $ 75,000 to $ 80,000 in 2020 before the death of George Floyd at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The increased donations include about 150,000 unique donors , according to Forbes .
The non-profit fund has raised so much money , as a matter of fact , that they now encourage donations to other organizations .
The non-profit is no longer actively soliciting donations and encouraging people to donate to George Floyd ’ s family and other local organizations run by black community members , such as Black Visions Collective , Reclaim the Block and Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar .
On Friday and Saturday morning , 69 people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Boland said bail costs in Hennepin County are reaching $ 1,000 .
“ Whether from MN or outside our area , we believe the money bail system is inherently biased and we will urge officials to avoid using money bail as a tool .
If they do hold people pending bail , then people incarcerated in Minnesota who meet our guidelines will be considered for relief regardless of state of origin , ” Boland said .
The Fund cleverly used social media to capture the attention of celebrities , offering Twitter users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thus , being able to virtue-signal that they are down with those being arrested – the rioters and looters .
Biden campaign staffers were happy to announce participation on their Twitter accounts .
For example , this is a tweet from a self-described “ Organizer for Joe Biden for President ” : Like clockwork , actors and celebrities jumped on the bandwagon to prove their wholeness .
Once the matching fund challenge began on Thursday , “ dozens ” of donations from the entertainment field have come in , usually around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public figures often get involved to shine a light on injustice .
In 2015 , you may remember , Beyoncé and Jay-Z reportedly donated “ tens of thousands of dollars ” to bail out protesters arrested in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray .
But choosing to help bail out those committing violence and mayhem instead of peacefully marching or gathering as a group to voice opposition to a current event is not the way to go .
What is the incentive to stop violent behavior if the people being arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be out in no time , at no expense of their own ?
Porsha Williams , a granddaughter of an early civil rights leader Hosea Williams in Atlanta , joined in with the Atlanta protest Friday night .
Williams is currently a cast member on the Real Housewives of Atlanta and Dish Nation .
The celebrity tweets received reactions from those not enamored with violent protesters as you would expect .
Many responses pointed to involvement by Antifa and other professional agitators .
Then there was a response by a writer at Jezebel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considers a lack of generosity .
She calls out people like Steve Carrell and Seth Rogen who apparently contributed at the matching funds level of $ 50 .
During an imaginary conversation with her broom ( the quarantine has done strange things to some people ) , she notes that the wealthy celebrities should be contributing at a much higher level .
So , there ’ s that .
Even when celebrities are trying to maintain their official woke status , it ’ s not enough .

I don’t know who needs to hear this but when you choose the side of violent rioters and looters over law enforcement and business owners, it’s a bad look, especially for a presidential campaign. It is being reported that some members of Joe Biden’s campaign staff have contributed to a fund in Minnesota that provides bail money for the protesters who are being arrested.
While the contributions are not confirmed to be officially linked with the Biden campaign, thirteen campaign staffers have taken part in a matching donation option presented by Minnesota Freedom Fund. Staffers posted tweets that donations have been made. Biden’s campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told Reuters that Joe Biden opposes cash bail. He calls it a “modern-day debtors prison.”
Minnesota Freedom Fund opposes the practice of making people who are arrested pay money to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group has raised over $20M in just four days following the death of George Floyd. For comparison purposes, the group raised about $75,000 to $80,000 in 2020 before the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police officer. The increased donations include about 150,000 unique donors, according to Forbes. The non-profit fund has raised so much money, as a matter of fact, that they now encourage donations to other organizations.
The non-profit is no longer actively soliciting donations and encouraging people to donate to George Floyd’s family and other local organizations run by black community members, such as Black Visions Collective, Reclaim the Block and Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar. On Friday and Saturday morning, 69 people were arrested in connection with the protests, and Boland said bail costs in Hennepin County are reaching $1,000. “Whether from MN or outside our area, we believe the money bail system is inherently biased and we will urge officials to avoid using money bail as a tool. If they do hold people pending bail, then people incarcerated in Minnesota who meet our guidelines will be considered for relief regardless of state of origin,” Boland said.
The Fund cleverly used social media to capture the attention of celebrities, offering Twitter users an opportunity to match donations being made, thus, being able to virtue-signal that they are down with those being arrested – the rioters and looters. Biden campaign staffers were happy to announce participation on their Twitter accounts. For example, this is a tweet from a self-described “Organizer for Joe Biden for President”:
Matched. These wounds cut deep and it is up to everyone to fight injustice. Who’s next? #GeorgeFloyd @MNFreedomFund https://t.co/SapscBTAkI pic.twitter.com/lUb5knLG8K — Colleen May (@MissColleenMay) May 29, 2020
Like clockwork, actors and celebrities jumped on the bandwagon to prove their wholeness. Once the matching fund challenge began on Thursday, “dozens” of donations from the entertainment field have come in, usually around the $50 level of contribution.
The chain linking Twitter users to the fund gained even more traction when it was retweeted by the Safdie brothers, two notable independent directors whose recent filmography includes the critically acclaimed 2019 movie Uncut Gems starring Adam Sandler and Idina Menzel.
After this tweet, other Hollywood heavyweights took notice. Since Thursday, Seth Rogen, Ben Schwartz and Steve Carell have all commented that they matched donations to help protesters make bail.
As of Friday morning, other celebrities, including actor and singer Janelle Monáe, television presenter and activist Jameela Jamil, actor Patton Oswalt, and actor and former New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon have donated and tweeted out their support for Minnesota protesters.
Celebrities and public figures often get involved to shine a light on injustice. In 2015, you may remember, Beyoncé and Jay-Z reportedly donated “tens of thousands of dollars” to bail out protesters arrested in Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray. But choosing to help bail out those committing violence and mayhem instead of peacefully marching or gathering as a group to voice opposition to a current event is not the way to go. What is the incentive to stop violent behavior if the people being arrested at the scene know they’ll be out in no time, at no expense of their own?
Porsha Williams, a granddaughter of an early civil rights leader Hosea Williams in Atlanta, joined in with the Atlanta protest Friday night. Williams is currently a cast member on the Real Housewives of Atlanta and Dish Nation.
“We are done, we are tired, and we are not going to take it anymore,” Williams told CBS. “What is going on here in Black America is not OK. We are not OK. We just want to live, and I am here today to make sure that everybody understands that Black lives matter.”
The celebrity tweets received reactions from those not enamored with violent protesters as you would expect. Many responses pointed to involvement by Antifa and other professional agitators. Then there was a response by a writer at Jezebel who blasted the celebs for what she considers a lack of generosity. She calls out people like Steve Carrell and Seth Rogen who apparently contributed at the matching funds level of $50. During an imaginary conversation with her broom (the quarantine has done strange things to some people), she notes that the wealthy celebrities should be contributing at a much higher level.
But then I realized it was a $50 donation that these extremely rich people were all matching—a paltry sum for any of them, I would imagine. “This is actually not wonderful.”
So, there’s that. Even when celebrities are trying to maintain their official woke status, it’s not enough.