hotair--2020-08-09--Now racism is a "public health crisis" in Nevada, justifying executive action

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak has jumped on the recent bandwagon of declaring racism to be a public health crisis .
He signed an executive order declaring this to be the case last Wednesday .
As a Democratic governor in a purplish state , this was probably a no-brainer for Sisolak , though some might wonder why he waited this long when several other states , along with multiple larger cities and counties have already done it .
His explanation , as shown in the excerpt below from the Reno Gazette-Journal , is pretty much standard boilerplate from the DNC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which we ’ ll get to in a moment , is what he does with this newly declared state of emergency .
Nevada is the latest state to declare racism a public health crisis .
In a state where minorities make up more than half the population , Gov .
Steve Sisolak on Wednesday signed a proclamation aimed at raising awareness “ so Nevada does not perpetuate poor health outcomes due to systemic racism during and after the pandemic , ” according to a Governor ’ s Office press release .
Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Colorado , Ohio and Wisconsin and more than 20 cities and counties nationwide , to have declared racism a public health crisis .
“ Institutional and systemic racism has gone on far too long in this country and in this state .
Based on research , we are taking a proactive approach in joining fellow leaders around the country to declare racism as a public health crisis , ” Sisolak said .
Let ’ s just get the obligatory observation out of the way upfront .
Racism is bad , mmkay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holdouts from the Klan and the Neo-Nazis have put the pieces together on that one .
Where the two sides in the current debate break down is in determining what actually qualifies as racism in the current era and what falls into the general category of labeling everyone that you have a political difference of opinion with as a racist or a Nazi .
But that ’ s a sidebar that we can save for another day .
The next thing to make a note of is that racism , in and of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes for minority citizens in America .
At least not directly .
Poorer health outcomes are consistently seen in areas where there are poorer educational outcomes , lower incomes and standards of living , higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and higher crime rates .
And yes , all too often ( though not exclusively ) these conditions describe minority-majority neighborhoods , particularly in larger cities .
Are those remnants of a time ( sadly not that many generations ago ) when racism was far more blatant and out in the open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re starting from the bottom of the hill as opposed to halfway up it , the climb is more challenging .
But with all of that out of the way , let ’ s get to the real question I wanted to address today .
So Governor Sisolak has declared a public state of emergency .
That executive order , just like all of the ones dealing with the pandemic , opens the doors to all manner of mischief now that the Governor has his pen out and ready for action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ created outside of the legislative process have been issued in the name of stopping the spread of the pandemic .
But what orders might we see coming down the pike to address racism ?
I ’ m going to commit the horrible sin of quoting myself here .
This is something I wrote back in March ( which seems like a million years ago now ) in a piece dealing with mayors sending in the police to break up parties in the name of flattenign the curve .
The same principles apply here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve raised here in the past about the limits of executive authority and emergency powers during a crisis .
Just because the Mayor issued a public “ order ” for everyone to shelter in place and not gather together in groups larger than ten people , there was no new municipal ordinance passed .
There is no law on the books that they could be charged with when they showed up in front of a judge .
And as much as it pains us to admit it , stupidity is still not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue orders like these and the courts have generally backed them up , at least for the duration of a significant crisis .
But under the rule of law , we still rely largely on the cooperation of the public to achieve the desired effect .
Are we seriously going to start throwing people in jail if they go to a party at their friend ’ s apartment ?
If you don ’ t think this question applies to this new executive order , you haven ’ t been paying attention .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch officials at any level can do during a declared crisis .
In Illinois , Black students will be allowed to return to in-person classes in school before White students .
The same thing is happening in the Big Apple .
What about when the long-awaited vaccines start becoming more widely available ?
Will they be made available in some specific order based on skin color ?
Do you think it couldn ’ t happen ?
As long as the state of crisis is in place , Governors can get away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court challenge is finished the point would likely be moot anyway .
As I said , I realize I ’ ve been beating this deceased equine since the beginning of the pandemic , but it ’ s more true today than ever .
When the executives cut the legislatures out of the lawmaking loop , the fox is guarding the henhouse .
And sadly , too many of them will take advantage of it .
So what ’ s next ?
Which governor will declare gun violence to be a state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or possession of firearms by executive order ?
If you ’ re laughing at the idea , don ’ t expect any sympathy when it happens .

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak has jumped on the recent bandwagon of declaring racism to be a public health crisis. He signed an executive order declaring this to be the case last Wednesday. As a Democratic governor in a purplish state, this was probably a no-brainer for Sisolak, though some might wonder why he waited this long when several other states, along with multiple larger cities and counties have already done it. His explanation, as shown in the excerpt below from the Reno Gazette-Journal, is pretty much standard boilerplate from the DNC and many activist groups. The real question, which we’ll get to in a moment, is what he does with this newly declared state of emergency.
Nevada is the latest state to declare racism a public health crisis. In a state where minorities make up more than half the population, Gov. Steve Sisolak on Wednesday signed a proclamation aimed at raising awareness “so Nevada does not perpetuate poor health outcomes due to systemic racism during and after the pandemic,” according to a Governor’s Office press release. Nevada is one of a handful of states, including Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin and more than 20 cities and counties nationwide, to have declared racism a public health crisis. “Institutional and systemic racism has gone on far too long in this country and in this state. Based on research, we are taking a proactive approach in joining fellow leaders around the country to declare racism as a public health crisis,” Sisolak said.
Let’s just get the obligatory observation out of the way upfront. Racism is bad, mmkay? I think everyone but a few holdouts from the Klan and the Neo-Nazis have put the pieces together on that one. Where the two sides in the current debate break down is in determining what actually qualifies as racism in the current era and what falls into the general category of labeling everyone that you have a political difference of opinion with as a racist or a Nazi. But that’s a sidebar that we can save for another day.
The next thing to make a note of is that racism, in and of itself, does not cause poorer health outcomes for minority citizens in America. At least not directly. Poorer health outcomes are consistently seen in areas where there are poorer educational outcomes, lower incomes and standards of living, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and higher crime rates. And yes, all too often (though not exclusively) these conditions describe minority-majority neighborhoods, particularly in larger cities. Are those remnants of a time (sadly not that many generations ago) when racism was far more blatant and out in the open? Absolutely they are. When you’re starting from the bottom of the hill as opposed to halfway up it, the climb is more challenging.
But with all of that out of the way, let’s get to the real question I wanted to address today. So Governor Sisolak has declared a public state of emergency. That executive order, just like all of the ones dealing with the pandemic, opens the doors to all manner of mischief now that the Governor has his pen out and ready for action. We already know what sort of orders created outside of the legislative process have been issued in the name of stopping the spread of the pandemic. But what orders might we see coming down the pike to address racism?
I’m going to commit the horrible sin of quoting myself here. This is something I wrote back in March (which seems like a million years ago now) in a piece dealing with mayors sending in the police to break up parties in the name of flattenign the curve. The same principles apply here.
This circles back to questions I’ve raised here in the past about the limits of executive authority and emergency powers during a crisis. Just because the Mayor issued a public “order” for everyone to shelter in place and not gather together in groups larger than ten people, there was no new municipal ordinance passed. There is no law on the books that they could be charged with when they showed up in front of a judge. And as much as it pains us to admit it, stupidity is still not a crime. Mayors and governors can issue orders like these and the courts have generally backed them up, at least for the duration of a significant crisis. But under the rule of law, we still rely largely on the cooperation of the public to achieve the desired effect. Are we seriously going to start throwing people in jail if they go to a party at their friend’s apartment?
If you don’t think this question applies to this new executive order, you haven’t been paying attention. There aren’t many limits to what executive branch officials at any level can do during a declared crisis. In Illinois, Black students will be allowed to return to in-person classes in school before White students. The same thing is happening in the Big Apple. What about when the long-awaited vaccines start becoming more widely available? Will they be made available in some specific order based on skin color? Do you think it couldn’t happen? As long as the state of crisis is in place, Governors can get away with almost anything. And by the time the court challenge is finished the point would likely be moot anyway.
As I said, I realize I’ve been beating this deceased equine since the beginning of the pandemic, but it’s more true today than ever. When the executives cut the legislatures out of the lawmaking loop, the fox is guarding the henhouse. And sadly, too many of them will take advantage of it. So what’s next? Which governor will declare gun violence to be a state of emergency and just start regulating the sale or possession of firearms by executive order? If you’re laughing at the idea, don’t expect any sympathy when it happens.


hotair--2020-08-10--Many businesses look at fleeing Minneapolis

A few days ago , John explored the story of how as many as one-third of the currently serving police officers in Minneapolis may be taking an early exit from their careers and the dearth of potential replacements available .
While it ’ s hard to blame the cops for considering clearing out of town under the current conditions , they may have company as they ’ re loading up the U-Haul rental trucks .
A number of business owners in Minneapolis appear to have had it with their properties being smashed , emptied and set on fire .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t be restored , they will be looking to relocate to somewhere safer and taking all of their jobs with them .
( CBS Minnesota ) A new survey by the Downtown Council shows 45 business owners say they are considering leaving downtown – citing the lack of people working or socializing downtown – and the idea that the police department could be dismantled .
Though they won ’ t say which businesses are considering pulling out of downtown , the council says one of the businesses employs 600 people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ spaces .
“ We are seeing a lot of restaurants take a hit right now , ” says realtor Kris Lindahl .
He says to expect shared kitchens for restaurants and smaller spaces in general .
One factor in these decisions is definitely the government restrictions and social distancing requirements imposed on all businesses .
Restaurants and bars in particular have had a rough time of it , but retail stores aren ’ t much better off .
Limiting customer access to as little as one-quarter capacity and having fewer checkout stations translates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are willing to wait .
Conducting business outdoors simply isn ’ t an option for everyone , and that ’ s particularly true in Minnesota when winter rolls around .
But those aren ’ t the only reasons that these employers are looking at pulling up stakes .
The Downtown Council notes that virtually all of the owners thinking of moving on cited as a concern “ the idea that the police department could be dismantled.
” Does this honestly come as a surprise to anyone ?
The need for a police department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly when they failed to show up .
But even if the city somehow manages to return to a more “ normal ” state ( whatever that means these days ) , you still need cops to discourage criminals who might otherwise go on emptying the stores anyway .
And customers will not be as willing to come to the downtown area to go shopping if they don ’ t feel secure .
All of this should leave us wondering if we aren ’ t seeing a glimpse of the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of America ’ s big cities .
Analysts are already posing the question , are we seeing the end of cities ?
Our urban centers are taking double hits at the moment .
The first is , of course , the risks being exposed by the pandemic .
The population density in most cities is so high that disease transmission is immeasurably harder to control .
Just look at the infection rates this spring in New York City as compared to the rural counties to the northwest for one example .
Staying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more difficult than in the suburbs or rural areas .
But disease control isn ’ t the only consideration here .
Most of our major cities undergoing massive social unrest have other things in common .
They tend to be run by liberal politicians who enact layers of dangerous , socialist policies making it more difficult for citizens to arm themselves and harder for the police to maintain order .
Once the mobs get fired up about the latest outrage du ’ jour , things get out of control quickly as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this regard , Minneapolis is far from unique .
It was just the first one to reach the tipping point before the real meltdown began .
Others , such as Seattle and Portland , are catching up quickly .
So perhaps these cops and business owners are ahead of the curve in this .
Get out while the getting is good and grab some suburban or rural land before everyone else gets the same idea and begins driving up the prices .

A few days ago, John explored the story of how as many as one-third of the currently serving police officers in Minneapolis may be taking an early exit from their careers and the dearth of potential replacements available. While it’s hard to blame the cops for considering clearing out of town under the current conditions, they may have company as they’re loading up the U-Haul rental trucks. A number of business owners in Minneapolis appear to have had it with their properties being smashed, emptied and set on fire. And if some semblance of normalcy and security can’t be restored, they will be looking to relocate to somewhere safer and taking all of their jobs with them. (CBS Minnesota)
A new survey by the Downtown Council shows 45 business owners say they are considering leaving downtown – citing the lack of people working or socializing downtown – and the idea that the police department could be dismantled. Though they won’t say which businesses are considering pulling out of downtown, the council says one of the businesses employs 600 people. That could mean a lot of empty spaces. “We are seeing a lot of restaurants take a hit right now,” says realtor Kris Lindahl. He says to expect shared kitchens for restaurants and smaller spaces in general.
One factor in these decisions is definitely the government restrictions and social distancing requirements imposed on all businesses. Restaurants and bars in particular have had a rough time of it, but retail stores aren’t much better off. Limiting customer access to as little as one-quarter capacity and having fewer checkout stations translates to long lines and not all customers are willing to wait. Conducting business outdoors simply isn’t an option for everyone, and that’s particularly true in Minnesota when winter rolls around.
But those aren’t the only reasons that these employers are looking at pulling up stakes. The Downtown Council notes that virtually all of the owners thinking of moving on cited as a concern “the idea that the police department could be dismantled.”
Does this honestly come as a surprise to anyone? The need for a police department became glaringly obvious during the recent riots, particularly when they failed to show up. But even if the city somehow manages to return to a more “normal” state (whatever that means these days), you still need cops to discourage criminals who might otherwise go on emptying the stores anyway. And customers will not be as willing to come to the downtown area to go shopping if they don’t feel secure.
All of this should leave us wondering if we aren’t seeing a glimpse of the future, not just for Minneapolis, but for all of America’s big cities. Analysts are already posing the question, are we seeing the end of cities? Our urban centers are taking double hits at the moment. The first is, of course, the risks being exposed by the pandemic. The population density in most cities is so high that disease transmission is immeasurably harder to control. Just look at the infection rates this spring in New York City as compared to the rural counties to the northwest for one example. Staying isolated in such a concrete jungle is far more difficult than in the suburbs or rural areas.
But disease control isn’t the only consideration here. Most of our major cities undergoing massive social unrest have other things in common. They tend to be run by liberal politicians who enact layers of dangerous, socialist policies making it more difficult for citizens to arm themselves and harder for the police to maintain order. Once the mobs get fired up about the latest outrage du’ jour, things get out of control quickly as we’ve seen all across America lately.
In this regard, Minneapolis is far from unique. It was just the first one to reach the tipping point before the real meltdown began. Others, such as Seattle and Portland, are catching up quickly. So perhaps these cops and business owners are ahead of the curve in this. Get out while the getting is good and grab some suburban or rural land before everyone else gets the same idea and begins driving up the prices.


hotair--2020-08-10--Far-left Portland mayoral candidate can't bring herself to denounce violence

I joked on Friday after Portland ’ s latest nightly travesty that Mayor Ted Wheeler was destined to be challenged at the polls for his response .
But , Portland being Portland , it would be a challenge from the left , accusing him of being too pro-cop .
I didn ’ t realize when I wrote that that it ’ s already come to pass .
He just missed winning a clear majority of the vote in Portland ’ s May election , finishing with 49 percent of the vote .
The second-place finisher was ultra-left Sarah Iannarone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crowded field .
A poll taken in late June found Wheeler and Iannarone effectively tied , with a third of Portland voters undecided .
Given that the six weeks since that poll was taken haven ’ t been a model of tranquility for the city , God only knows how much of an anti-incumbent vote might be out there now .
Iannarone could be a legit contender .
The “ Antifa mayor , ” they call her .
She doesn ’ t seem to mind .
Iannarone has been labeled by some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor ” – a nickname she has embraced during her campaign .
“ I am antifa , ” she tweeted in September .
“ I stand proudly beside the good people of this city organizing in countless ways every day to oppose hate in its myriad forms.
” Two months later , she tweeted , “ If they ’ re going to call me ‘ Antifa Mayor , ’ then I might as well fight fascism.
” That ’ s cute .
See , she ’ s not Antifa , she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or is she ?
Last year she was quoted in a piece in Playboy about anti-fascism , in which she said , “ I feel a responsibility to change the public discourse around antifascism , absolutely .
Because this problem exists within the system , it ’ s important we use radical tactics—though I definitely think electoral politics matter , and that ’ s why I ’ m running.
” Radical tactics ?
She ’ s asked about that in the clip below and mumbles something about defunding the police .
Okay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppose the attacks on cops that are happening , no ?
That ’ s a softball to end all softballs , but Iannarone … won ’ t give her a straight answer .
The host is forced to ask repeatedly until finally the candidate croaks out , “ I don ’ t condone violence , ” but keep watching and you ’ ll also hear her say , “ Peaceful protests , in my opinion , might not necessarily be moving the conversation forward.
” What does that mean ?
Iannarone , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means Portland as a community should have been doing more to address the protesters ’ concerns before it reached this point .
But very clearly , between the wink-wink Antifa nickname she ’ s embraced , the reference to “ radical tactics , ” and her apprehension about condemning violence , she ’ s playing footsie with the lefty droogs who are trying to blind cops by shining lasers in their eyes .
She ’ s not going to full-throatedly endorse them but she ’ s certainly not going to get indignant about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to set police precincts and courthouses on fire .
If a right-wing politician skirted around clear condemnation of violence by white nationalists and played rhetorical games about radicalism the way Iannarone did here , liberals would have no difficulty identifying it as a “ dog whistle ” of approval .
We ’ ll see if Portland voters can manage that when the whistle is coming from the DSA crowd .
Anyway , I hope she wins .
Let ’ s see what happens to a city coping with anarchist violence when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of city government .

I joked on Friday after Portland’s latest nightly travesty that Mayor Ted Wheeler was destined to be challenged at the polls for his response. But, Portland being Portland, it would be a challenge from the left, accusing him of being too pro-cop.
I didn’t realize when I wrote that that it’s already come to pass. He just missed winning a clear majority of the vote in Portland’s May election, finishing with 49 percent of the vote. The second-place finisher was ultra-left Sarah Iannarone, who nabbed a respectable 24 percent in a crowded field. A poll taken in late June found Wheeler and Iannarone effectively tied, with a third of Portland voters undecided. Given that the six weeks since that poll was taken haven’t been a model of tranquility for the city, God only knows how much of an anti-incumbent vote might be out there now. Iannarone could be a legit contender.
The “Antifa mayor,” they call her. She doesn’t seem to mind.
Iannarone has been labeled by some in conservative media as the “Antifa mayor” – a nickname she has embraced during her campaign. “I am antifa,” she tweeted in September. “I stand proudly beside the good people of this city organizing in countless ways every day to oppose hate in its myriad forms.” Two months later, she tweeted, “If they’re going to call me ‘Antifa Mayor,’ then I might as well fight fascism.”
That’s cute. See, she’s not Antifa, she’s just anti-fascist, as most Americans are. Or is she? Last year she was quoted in a piece in Playboy about anti-fascism, in which she said, “I feel a responsibility to change the public discourse around antifascism, absolutely. Because this problem exists within the system, it’s important we use radical tactics—though I definitely think electoral politics matter, and that’s why I’m running.”
Radical tactics? She’s asked about that in the clip below and mumbles something about defunding the police. Okay, says the host, but you oppose the attacks on cops that are happening, no? That’s a softball to end all softballs, but Iannarone … won’t give her a straight answer. The host is forced to ask repeatedly until finally the candidate croaks out, “I don’t condone violence,” but keep watching and you’ll also hear her say, “Peaceful protests, in my opinion, might not necessarily be moving the conversation forward.” What does that mean?
Iannarone, I think, would say that she simply means Portland as a community should have been doing more to address the protesters’ concerns before it reached this point. But very clearly, between the wink-wink Antifa nickname she’s embraced, the reference to “radical tactics,” and her apprehension about condemning violence, she’s playing footsie with the lefty droogs who are trying to blind cops by shining lasers in their eyes. She’s not going to full-throatedly endorse them but she’s certainly not going to get indignant about week after week after week of people trying to set police precincts and courthouses on fire. If a right-wing politician skirted around clear condemnation of violence by white nationalists and played rhetorical games about radicalism the way Iannarone did here, liberals would have no difficulty identifying it as a “dog whistle” of approval. We’ll see if Portland voters can manage that when the whistle is coming from the DSA crowd.
Anyway, I hope she wins. Let’s see what happens to a city coping with anarchist violence when there’s a clear sympathizer in charge of city government.


hotair--2020-08-10--Veepstakes fundraising contest has a winner, and it's ....

Before today , I would have bet money that Elizabeth Warren would never get selected as Joe Biden ’ s running mate .
However , I might have also bet even more money that Warren couldn ’ t outraise her competitors in the 2020 Democratic Veepstakes .
Warren eschewed any super-PAC help in the primaries , and then foundered so badly that she had to beg for super-PAC intervention at the tail end of her campaign .
Of course , Joe Biden won the nomination based on a similar , earlier rescue from his own inept fundraising operation .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the vetting process enters its final stage , there ’ s another lesser-noticed facet to the veepstakes : how much cash the contenders have raised for him , and their ability to juice donations if they ’ re chosen .
Of Biden ’ s prospective running mates , Sen. Elizabeth Warren has brought in the most money for him , totaling more than $ 7.7 million combined from a high-dollar event — which she vocally swore off during her own campaign — and a grass-roots event that drew 50,000 participants .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her own small-dollar list , as well as his .
On Tuesday , Warren will host another event for Biden , alongside Rep. Katie Porter ( D-Calif. ) , with tickets ranging from $ 250 to $ 25,000 , according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO .
Sen. Kamala Harris — who headlined two fundraisers alongside Biden and appeared at several other events — has raised more than $ 5 million , according to a source familiar with the total .
And Sen. Tammy Duckworth has co-headlined three fundraisers with Joe and Jill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bringing in more than $ 3 million for the campaign .
For the VP hopefuls and their donor backers , hosting events that generate eye-popping totals is “ a flex , ” or a means of showing off their political muscle , said one Democrat affiliated with one of the considered running mate candidates .
Another Democrat aligned with a different VP contender called it a “ measurable sign of enthusiasm behind certain people.
” Color me skeptical about this putting Warren in position for the bottom of the ticket .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman of color , ” a label which gives him some flexibility but not nearly enough to overcome a Warren pick .
In fact , given Warren ’ s baggage with questionable-at-best claims of Native American heritage to advance her earlier career ( along with other instances of fabulism ) , picking Warren would make the “ woman of color ” pledge into a sick joke .
This does show one other point , however — the problem with picking someone out of the House for running mate .
Note well that Karen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finish on the medal platform in this contest .
Bass raised $ 2.2 million in California , which is pretty impressive for a candidate who only represents 700,000 people in a congressional district , but it ’ s also California — a Democratic piggy bank for decades .
It ’ s only a third of what South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has raised for Biden , and he ’ s not on the presumed veepstakes shortlist at all .
The top three finishers all come out of the Senate .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all but the most senior House members , and they have much larger constituencies as well .
Democrats and Republicans both tend to look to the Senate for running mates , in large part for those reasons .
Plus , both Warren and Harris raised their own profiles by running for the nomination .
Duckworth represents Illinois , another ATM machine for Democrats .
Duckworth might be a good choice for Biden despite only taking the bronze in the fundraising race .
She didn ’ t take part in the primary , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP can use against her .
Duckworth is a war hero , and she is a woman of color , having Thai-Chinese heritage on her mother ’ s side ; she was born in Bangkok , a natural-born American thanks to her father ’ s citizenship .
That might raise some kooky conspiracy theories on the Right , which Biden might enjoy provoking , especially if Trump takes part in it .
At least no one knows whether Duckworth has the skill to campaign nationally , while we already know that Warren and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills to hold up well .
Biden would probably still be better off with Michelle Lujan Grisham , whose Hispanic heritage would appeal to a constituency Biden needs more badly , and which is a much larger part of the electorate .
Black voters might resent a non-African-American pick , but a boost in enthusiasm from Hispanics might outweigh any negative drain from the Democrats ’ most loyal demographic .
Duckworth ’ s not a bad choice , though .

Before today, I would have bet money that Elizabeth Warren would never get selected as Joe Biden’s running mate. However, I might have also bet even more money that Warren couldn’t outraise her competitors in the 2020 Democratic Veepstakes. Warren eschewed any super-PAC help in the primaries, and then foundered so badly that she had to beg for super-PAC intervention at the tail end of her campaign.
Of course, Joe Biden won the nomination based on a similar, earlier rescue from his own inept fundraising operation. The bar is low, apparently:
But as the vetting process enters its final stage, there’s another lesser-noticed facet to the veepstakes: how much cash the contenders have raised for him, and their ability to juice donations if they’re chosen. Of Biden’s prospective running mates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has brought in the most money for him, totaling more than $7.7 million combined from a high-dollar event — which she vocally swore off during her own campaign — and a grass-roots event that drew 50,000 participants. She’s also sent multiple emails to her own small-dollar list, as well as his. On Tuesday, Warren will host another event for Biden, alongside Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), with tickets ranging from $250 to $25,000, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO. Sen. Kamala Harris — who headlined two fundraisers alongside Biden and appeared at several other events — has raised more than $5 million, according to a source familiar with the total. And Sen. Tammy Duckworth has co-headlined three fundraisers with Joe and Jill Biden, and appeared at other events, bringing in more than $3 million for the campaign. For the VP hopefuls and their donor backers, hosting events that generate eye-popping totals is “a flex,” or a means of showing off their political muscle, said one Democrat affiliated with one of the considered running mate candidates. Another Democrat aligned with a different VP contender called it a “measurable sign of enthusiasm behind certain people.”
Color me skeptical about this putting Warren in position for the bottom of the ticket. Biden has repeatedly pledged to choose a “woman of color,” a label which gives him some flexibility but not nearly enough to overcome a Warren pick. In fact, given Warren’s baggage with questionable-at-best claims of Native American heritage to advance her earlier career (along with other instances of fabulism), picking Warren would make the “woman of color” pledge into a sick joke.
This does show one other point, however — the problem with picking someone out of the House for running mate. Note well that Karen Bass and Val Demings didn’t finish on the medal platform in this contest. Bass raised $2.2 million in California, which is pretty impressive for a candidate who only represents 700,000 people in a congressional district, but it’s also California — a Democratic piggy bank for decades. It’s only a third of what South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has raised for Biden, and he’s not on the presumed veepstakes shortlist at all.
The top three finishers all come out of the Senate. That’s because senators have higher national profiles than all but the most senior House members, and they have much larger constituencies as well. Democrats and Republicans both tend to look to the Senate for running mates, in large part for those reasons. Plus, both Warren and Harris raised their own profiles by running for the nomination. Duckworth represents Illinois, another ATM machine for Democrats.
Duckworth might be a good choice for Biden despite only taking the bronze in the fundraising race. She didn’t take part in the primary, meaning there are no lingering attacks that the GOP can use against her. Duckworth is a war hero, and she is a woman of color, having Thai-Chinese heritage on her mother’s side; she was born in Bangkok, a natural-born American thanks to her father’s citizenship. That might raise some kooky conspiracy theories on the Right, which Biden might enjoy provoking, especially if Trump takes part in it. At least no one knows whether Duckworth has the skill to campaign nationally, while we already know that Warren and Harris don’t really have the skills to hold up well.
Biden would probably still be better off with Michelle Lujan Grisham, whose Hispanic heritage would appeal to a constituency Biden needs more badly, and which is a much larger part of the electorate. Black voters might resent a non-African-American pick, but a boost in enthusiasm from Hispanics might outweigh any negative drain from the Democrats’ most loyal demographic. Duckworth’s not a bad choice, though.


hotair--2020-08-10--Trump yanked from briefing mid-sentence by Secret Service after suspect shot outside White House

And somehow each one is weirder and more disturbing than the last .
To cleanse the palate , here ’ s something new for the ballooning “ stuff I never thought I ’ d see ” file .
There are no details about what happened , who the suspect is , or why he was shot as I write this at 7 p.m .
ET .
A reporter in the briefing room seems to believe it was the Secret Service who fired , not regular D.C. police , so maybe there really was an attempt to enter the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thankfully .
Speaking of presidential brushes with mortality , we may be less than a day away from the oldest would-be president in American history announcing who his VP nominee will be .
If you want to know why Biden ’ s pick is being so closely watched despite the fact that running mates almost never matter on Election Day , Rasmussen has data suggesting this one might matter a lot .
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59 % of Likely U.S .
Voters believe it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mate will be president before the end of Biden ’ s four-year term if he wins this fall , with 39 % who say it ’ s Very Likely .
Thirty-five percent ( 35 % ) consider it unlikely that Biden ’ s vice presidential choice will be president before his four-year term ends , but that includes only 14 % who think it ’ s Not At All Likely .
Even 49 % of Democrats think it ’ s likely Biden ’ s vice president will become president in the next four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Republicans and 57 % of voters not affiliated with either major party .
If more than half of all voters believe they ’ re voting for Biden ’ s VP to become president as much as they ’ re voting for Biden himself then in theory this is a momentous pick .
In practice , though , not so much : Just 45 percent say Biden ’ s choice will be “ very important ” to their vote this year .
Normally 76 percent or so of Americans say a nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their vote .
What explains the lower interest in Biden ’ s choice despite his age ?
I think it ’ s the simple fact that , for so many people , the election is a referendum on Trump himself .
It doesn ’ t matter who the Democratic VP nominee is ; it really doesn ’ t matter who the Democratic presidential nominee is either , so long as he ’ s sufficiently generic ( and Biden is ) .
This is an up-or-down vote on Trump .
Even the perceived likelihood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t affect that .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a … Biden-esque soundbite from today ’ s presser .

2020, you’re full of surprises.
And somehow each one is weirder and more disturbing than the last.
To cleanse the palate, here’s something new for the ballooning “stuff I never thought I’d see” file.
Watch: President Trump was escorted out from his briefing today after an apparent shooting outside the White House https://t.co/MmlbG42Epz pic.twitter.com/gAeMS5i8Vt — POLITICO (@politico) August 10, 2020
There are no details about what happened, who the suspect is, or why he was shot as I write this at 7 p.m. ET. A reporter in the briefing room seems to believe it was the Secret Service who fired, not regular D.C. police, so maybe there really was an attempt to enter the White House.
Sounded like a gun shot right outside the White House. Secret service making press clear the lawn. Law enforcement holding guns everywhere. pic.twitter.com/KQx6HWcKij — @skylerhenry (@SkylerHenry) August 10, 2020
No police or USSS were injured, thankfully.
Speaking of presidential brushes with mortality, we may be less than a day away from the oldest would-be president in American history announcing who his VP nominee will be. If you want to know why Biden’s pick is being so closely watched despite the fact that running mates almost never matter on Election Day, Rasmussen has data suggesting this one might matter a lot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it’s likely Biden’s running mate will be president before the end of Biden’s four-year term if he wins this fall, with 39% who say it’s Very Likely. Thirty-five percent (35%) consider it unlikely that Biden’s vice presidential choice will be president before his four-year term ends, but that includes only 14% who think it’s Not At All Likely. Even 49% of Democrats think it’s likely Biden’s vice president will become president in the next four years, although that compares to 73% of Republicans and 57% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
If more than half of all voters believe they’re voting for Biden’s VP to become president as much as they’re voting for Biden himself then in theory this is a momentous pick. In practice, though, not so much: Just 45 percent say Biden’s choice will be “very important” to their vote this year. Normally 76 percent or so of Americans say a nominee’s running mate is important to their vote. What explains the lower interest in Biden’s choice despite his age? I think it’s the simple fact that, for so many people, the election is a referendum on Trump himself. It doesn’t matter who the Democratic VP nominee is; it really doesn’t matter who the Democratic presidential nominee is either, so long as he’s sufficiently generic (and Biden is). This is an up-or-down vote on Trump. Even the perceived likelihood that Biden will die in office can’t affect that.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a … Biden-esque soundbite from today’s presser.


hotair--2020-08-10--NY Times: Taking protests to private homes is the left's hot new trend

The NY Times published a story today about the growing trend of activists taking protests away from city centers and instead bringing them to the private homes of mayors and city counsel members .
Most of the people on the receiving end don ’ t think this is a good trend .
SEATTLE — The city was exploring a proposal to cut 50 percent of the police department ’ s budget to promote racial justice and alternatives to policing last month , but Debora Juarez , the first enrolled Native American on the Seattle City Council , was not yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a steep cut without a plan for how to carry it out… Over several days and nights , activists have appeared on her street in North Seattle , shining lights into her windows , shouting at her through a bullhorn and scrawling messages in the street : “ Corporate bootlicker , ” one of the messages said… Last month in Oakland , protesters showed up at the home of Mayor Libby Schaaf .
This 2 am protest was also over the police budget .
The Times reports that when Schaaf heard the noise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Frightened , she thought first of her 14-year-old son , who was asleep upstairs , and her 12-year-old daughter , who was away at a sleepover .
“ I did what any mother would do — I ran upstairs to my children ’ s bedroom , ” Ms. Schaaf said… “ This felt like a threat that certainly had a violent tone , ” Ms. Schaaf said .
“ And the intense damage to our property was significant.
” In Seattle , Mayor Jenny Durkan also had protesters show up at her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep her address a secret .
( Among other things , she doesn ’ t order delivery pizza to avoid giving out her address . )
Protesters were able to find where she lives anyway , and wrote messages outside her home , including “ Guillotine Jenny.
” Ms. Durkan , the first openly lesbian mayor in the city ’ s history , also received messages containing crass sexual suggestions… Ms. Durkan said she had no problem with people who want to criticize , like the hundreds who jeered at her when she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
Facing public criticism is part of the job , she said .
But she said the exposure of her home address , combined with threatening messages on the street and in her email inbox , has left her feeling unsafe .
The Times deserves some credit for pointing out a pattern that reflects badly on leftist activists , but the piece remains pretty agnostic about the practice of protesting at people ’ s homes .
In one case the story describes a Seattle City Council member , Teresa Mosqueda , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at her home as something of a success .
The Times doesn ’ t mention that a group of protesters attacked a neighbor who asked them to quiet down last month while they were on the way to Mosqueda ’ s house .
I ’ m glad the progressive mayors of these cities are willing to call out the protesters for going too far .
It ’ s just a shame that they only do it when the revolution comes to their neighborhood .
Back when CHAZ took over part of someone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to a block party .
But it wasn ’ t a block party , at least not at night when residents were left to fend for themselves against armed people roaming the streets .
Maybe this is what it takes for progressive leaders to get the message .

The NY Times published a story today about the growing trend of activists taking protests away from city centers and instead bringing them to the private homes of mayors and city counsel members. Most of the people on the receiving end don’t think this is a good trend.
SEATTLE — The city was exploring a proposal to cut 50 percent of the police department’s budget to promote racial justice and alternatives to policing last month, but Debora Juarez, the first enrolled Native American on the Seattle City Council, was not yet willing to throw her support behind such a steep cut without a plan for how to carry it out… Over several days and nights, activists have appeared on her street in North Seattle, shining lights into her windows, shouting at her through a bullhorn and scrawling messages in the street: “Corporate bootlicker,” one of the messages said… “It’s not a peaceful protest — it’s terror,” Ms. Juarez said.
Last month in Oakland, protesters showed up at the home of Mayor Libby Schaaf. This 2 am protest was also over the police budget. The Times reports that when Schaaf heard the noise outside she became afraid for her children:
Frightened, she thought first of her 14-year-old son, who was asleep upstairs, and her 12-year-old daughter, who was away at a sleepover. “I did what any mother would do — I ran upstairs to my children’s bedroom,” Ms. Schaaf said… “This felt like a threat that certainly had a violent tone,” Ms. Schaaf said. “And the intense damage to our property was significant.”
In Seattle, Mayor Jenny Durkan also had protesters show up at her house, despite her extensive efforts to keep her address a secret. (Among other things, she doesn’t order delivery pizza to avoid giving out her address.)
Protesters were able to find where she lives anyway, and wrote messages outside her home, including “Guillotine Jenny.” Ms. Durkan, the first openly lesbian mayor in the city’s history, also received messages containing crass sexual suggestions… Ms. Durkan said she had no problem with people who want to criticize, like the hundreds who jeered at her when she spoke with protesters outside City Hall earlier this year. Facing public criticism is part of the job, she said. But she said the exposure of her home address, combined with threatening messages on the street and in her email inbox, has left her feeling unsafe.
The Times deserves some credit for pointing out a pattern that reflects badly on leftist activists, but the piece remains pretty agnostic about the practice of protesting at people’s homes. In one case the story describes a Seattle City Council member, Teresa Mosqueda, who met with protesters who showed up at her home as something of a success. The Times doesn’t mention that a group of protesters attacked a neighbor who asked them to quiet down last month while they were on the way to Mosqueda’s house.
I’m glad the progressive mayors of these cities are willing to call out the protesters for going too far. It’s just a shame that they only do it when the revolution comes to their neighborhood. Back when CHAZ took over part of someone else’s neighborhood, Mayor Durkan compared it to a block party. But it wasn’t a block party, at least not at night when residents were left to fend for themselves against armed people roaming the streets. Maybe this is what it takes for progressive leaders to get the message.


hotair--2020-08-10--Interview: Ryan Sprague explains everything you need to know about UFOs

This week I sat down with author , researcher and television and podcast host Ryan Sprague .
As you may recall , I previously did a review of Ryan ’ s recently updated and rereleased book Somewhere in the Skies .
That produced some interesting feedback to say the least , so I contacted Ryan about doing an interview for our network on not only some of the latest , fascinating news regarding UFOs and government revelations about same , but how this phenomenon has directly impacted some of the people whose lives have been touched by it .
Ryan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the sky that he simply couldn ’ t explain as a teenager , and how that led him on a lifelong journey of exploration that continues to this day .
We also discuss the apparent shift in attitudes toward this phenomenon not just among the public , but in mainstream journalistic circles .
Has the “ stigma ” been lifted for people choosing to come forward and offer testimony on this subject ?
I also convince our guest to weigh in on whether or not we now have sufficient data to conclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that literally from out of this world or if it still might be advanced gear cooked up by the Russians , the Chinese or even our own government .
Towards the end , as a special treat for those of you who enjoy researching this type of information , Ryan and I veer away from the best-known UFO tales of the past ( Roswell , the Pheonix lights , the Nimitz encounters ) .
I get him to dig into his many years of research and share some of the lesser-known , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world of UFO lore .
He never fails to bring some surprises to the table with him .
Enjoy .
Ryan ’ s book : Somewhere in the Skies .
A Human Approach to the UFO Phenomenon More information on Ryan ’ s podcast and other projects .
Somewhere in the Skies

This week I sat down with author, researcher and television and podcast host Ryan Sprague. As you may recall, I previously did a review of Ryan’s recently updated and rereleased book Somewhere in the Skies. That produced some interesting feedback to say the least, so I contacted Ryan about doing an interview for our network on not only some of the latest, fascinating news regarding UFOs and government revelations about same, but how this phenomenon has directly impacted some of the people whose lives have been touched by it.
Ryan describes his own experience of seeing something in the sky that he simply couldn’t explain as a teenager, and how that led him on a lifelong journey of exploration that continues to this day. We also discuss the apparent shift in attitudes toward this phenomenon not just among the public, but in mainstream journalistic circles. Has the “stigma” been lifted for people choosing to come forward and offer testimony on this subject? I also convince our guest to weigh in on whether or not we now have sufficient data to conclude that we’re dealing with something that literally from out of this world or if it still might be advanced gear cooked up by the Russians, the Chinese or even our own government.
Towards the end, as a special treat for those of you who enjoy researching this type of information, Ryan and I veer away from the best-known UFO tales of the past (Roswell, the Pheonix lights, the Nimitz encounters). I get him to dig into his many years of research and share some of the lesser-known, but equally fascinating and credible reports from the world of UFO lore. He never fails to bring some surprises to the table with him. Enjoy.
Ryan’s book: Somewhere in the Skies. A Human Approach to the UFO Phenomenon
More information on Ryan’s podcast and other projects. Somewhere in the Skies


hotair--2020-08-10--Trump hits back: Go figure that RINO Ben Sasse is criticizing me again now that he's won his primary

It pains me to agree with him in a dispute with a more genuinely conservative figure , but when the guy ’ s right , he ’ s right .
And he ’ s right about Sasse finding his spine only when it ’ s politically convenient .
He is not , however , right about Sasse ’ s critique being “ foolish.
” Let ’ s back up .
If you missed yesterday ’ s post , Sasse dinged Trump in a statement this weekend for practicing Obama-style pen-and-phone executive unilateralism .
Lots of people , me included , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of a stickler about congressional prerogatives last year when Trump declared an emergency and started moving Pentagon money around to try to pay for the border wall .
Could it be because he was facing a potentially rough Senate primary challenge from the right back then and is safely past that challenge now ?
The president thinks so .
And the president is right : Sasse also declared last fall that there was “ terrible stuff ” in the White House transcript of Trump ’ s “ quid pro quo ” phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in the end he voted not just to acquit Trump at his impeachment trial but not to allow witnesses to testify .
How would he have voted on that if he weren ’ t up for reelection this fall ?
Meh , he probably would have voted the same way , knowing that he ’ ll have another Senate primary eventually .
Superficially it feels unfair to dunk on Sasse for electoral calculations since all politicians make them , especially ones as young as him .
What grates in his case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator have had to do with how Congress no longer functions effectively .
“ We need better , more independent leaders ” isn ’ t just political boilerplate for Sasse , as it is with most pols , it ’ s his whole pitch .
( Well , half of his pitch .
Abortion and China are his two other hobbyhorses , as you know if you get press releases from his office . )
Yet , when given multiple opportunities to go his own way on a big vote that might displease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stayed in line .
He may disdain the Senate but he seems to like the prestige of being a senator enough to consider his deviations from Trumpist orthodoxy very carefully .
This weekend ’ s complaint about “ unconstitutional slop ” comes at a moment of maximum political safety — Sasse is past his primary , he ’ s crossing a president who ’ s likely to lose this fall , he ’ s rebranding himself as a “ constitutional conservative ” in anticipation of the party ’ s ideological pivot next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no policy implications that might piss off one side or the other .
Eventually he ’ ll vote no on whatever relief package passes the Senate and burnish his “ fiscal conservative ” cred too , possibly with an eye to a presidential run in 2024 .
He deserved a Twitter brushback pitch from Trump for his cynicism .
He replied this afternoon , more tactfully than he did this weekend .
“ I care about you personally ” ?
Sasse isn ’ t wrong on the merits .
Whether Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or just plain ol ’ “ slop ” is less important than the fact that they move the country further towards a model in which Americans look to the president and the Supreme Court for all major policymaking , not to Congress .
Down that path lies ruin , say Yuval Levin and Adam White , remembering Republicans ’ righteous complaints about Obama ’ s DACA/DAPA overreach on immigration .
What would Democrats say if a Republican president tried changing the law with the stroke of a pen , wondered Ted Cruz in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White , here we are : That is precisely what has now happened , and it is indeed wrong .
But so far , most Republicans in Congress seem reticent to say so .
As in the Obama years , the president ’ s party in Congress is all too eager to encourage an executive incursion onto legislative turf .
And thus , one kind of constitutional failure invites another : An absence of the necessary constitutional self-restraint on the part of the presidents is answered with an absence of the necessary constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are both failings of constitutional virtue .
And they are not the only such failures at the juncture of the two elected branches .
They have emerged alongside Congress ’ s eagerness to delegate its power to administrative agencies and the Senate ’ s lack of interest in asserting its advice-and-consent powers ( as the executive branch fills with “ acting ” officers in the Trump era just as it did with recess appointments in the Obama years ) .
Yep .
And the hypocrisy goes both ways , of course .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nancy Pelosi experiencing a very belated constitutional awakening triggered by Trump ’ s executive orders .
As for righties , they ’ ll end up splitting into two familiar groups on the propriety of his actions — the group that thinks if it was bad when Obama did it then it ’ s bad when Trump does it and therefore he shouldn ’ t do it , and the group that thinks if Obama did it then Trump should be allowed to do it irrespective of whether it was bad when Obama did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group one at this point , possibly much bigger .
Which is why Levin and White are worried , rightly .
Exit question via Axios : Did Trump try to set a “ tax trap ” for Biden with his executive action on the payroll tax ?
The idea might have been to bait Biden into declaring that he ’ ll undo Trump ’ s deferral of the tax as soon as he ’ s in office , which sets up Republicans to accuse Biden of wanting to hike everyone ’ s taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in the context of the payroll tax , though , is that it also sets Biden up to claim that Trump wants to slash entitlements , an attack he ’ s already pursuing .
If Trump wanted to set a political trap of dubious legality involving taxes , he would have been better off deferring the collection of a certain amount of income tax instead .

It pains me to agree with him in a dispute with a more genuinely conservative figure, but when the guy’s right, he’s right. And he’s right about Sasse finding his spine only when it’s politically convenient.
He is not, however, right about Sasse’s critique being “foolish.”
Let’s back up. If you missed yesterday’s post, Sasse dinged Trump in a statement this weekend for practicing Obama-style pen-and-phone executive unilateralism.
Sasse: “The pen-and-phone theory of executive lawmaking is unconstitutional slop. President Obama did not have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration law with DACA, and President Trump does not have the power to unilaterally rewrite the payroll tax law.” pic.twitter.com/bcI0Qiia3d — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) August 9, 2020
Lots of people, me included, wondered why Sasse wasn’t as much of a stickler about congressional prerogatives last year when Trump declared an emergency and started moving Pentagon money around to try to pay for the border wall. Could it be because he was facing a potentially rough Senate primary challenge from the right back then and is safely past that challenge now?
The president thinks so. And the president is right:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1292832946077007886
Sasse also declared last fall that there was “terrible stuff” in the White House transcript of Trump’s “quid pro quo” phone call with Ukraine’s president, but in the end he voted not just to acquit Trump at his impeachment trial but not to allow witnesses to testify. How would he have voted on that if he weren’t up for reelection this fall?
Meh, he probably would have voted the same way, knowing that he’ll have another Senate primary eventually. Superficially it feels unfair to dunk on Sasse for electoral calculations since all politicians make them, especially ones as young as him. What grates in his case is that his most memorable speeches as a senator have had to do with how Congress no longer functions effectively. “We need better, more independent leaders” isn’t just political boilerplate for Sasse, as it is with most pols, it’s his whole pitch. (Well, half of his pitch. Abortion and China are his two other hobbyhorses, as you know if you get press releases from his office.) Yet, when given multiple opportunities to go his own way on a big vote that might displease Trump, he put his career first and stayed in line.
He may disdain the Senate but he seems to like the prestige of being a senator enough to consider his deviations from Trumpist orthodoxy very carefully. This weekend’s complaint about “unconstitutional slop” comes at a moment of maximum political safety — Sasse is past his primary, he’s crossing a president who’s likely to lose this fall, he’s rebranding himself as a “constitutional conservative” in anticipation of the party’s ideological pivot next year, and his criticism of Trump has no policy implications that might piss off one side or the other. Eventually he’ll vote no on whatever relief package passes the Senate and burnish his “fiscal conservative” cred too, possibly with an eye to a presidential run in 2024. He deserved a Twitter brushback pitch from Trump for his cynicism.
He replied this afternoon, more tactfully than he did this weekend. “I care about you personally”?
Sasse isn’t wrong on the merits. Whether Trump’s orders are “unconstitutional slop” or just plain ol’ “slop” is less important than the fact that they move the country further towards a model in which Americans look to the president and the Supreme Court for all major policymaking, not to Congress. Down that path lies ruin, say Yuval Levin and Adam White, remembering Republicans’ righteous complaints about Obama’s DACA/DAPA overreach on immigration. What would Democrats say if a Republican president tried changing the law with the stroke of a pen, wondered Ted Cruz in 2014? Well, say Levin and White, here we are:
That is precisely what has now happened, and it is indeed wrong. But so far, most Republicans in Congress seem reticent to say so. As in the Obama years, the president’s party in Congress is all too eager to encourage an executive incursion onto legislative turf. And thus, one kind of constitutional failure invites another: An absence of the necessary constitutional self-restraint on the part of the presidents is answered with an absence of the necessary constitutional assertiveness on the part of Congress. These are both failings of constitutional virtue. And they are not the only such failures at the juncture of the two elected branches. They have emerged alongside Congress’s eagerness to delegate its power to administrative agencies and the Senate’s lack of interest in asserting its advice-and-consent powers (as the executive branch fills with “acting” officers in the Trump era just as it did with recess appointments in the Obama years).
Yep. And the hypocrisy goes both ways, of course. Watch below and you’ll find Nancy Pelosi experiencing a very belated constitutional awakening triggered by Trump’s executive orders. As for righties, they’ll end up splitting into two familiar groups on the propriety of his actions — the group that thinks if it was bad when Obama did it then it’s bad when Trump does it and therefore he shouldn’t do it, and the group that thinks if Obama did it then Trump should be allowed to do it irrespective of whether it was bad when Obama did it. Group two is bigger than group one at this point, possibly much bigger. Which is why Levin and White are worried, rightly.
Exit question via Axios: Did Trump try to set a “tax trap” for Biden with his executive action on the payroll tax? The idea might have been to bait Biden into declaring that he’ll undo Trump’s deferral of the tax as soon as he’s in office, which sets up Republicans to accuse Biden of wanting to hike everyone’s taxes. The problem with that “trap” in the context of the payroll tax, though, is that it also sets Biden up to claim that Trump wants to slash entitlements, an attack he’s already pursuing. If Trump wanted to set a political trap of dubious legality involving taxes, he would have been better off deferring the collection of a certain amount of income tax instead.


hotair--2020-08-10--Kim Gardner says the McCloskeys are turning their prosecution into 'political theater'

Last month the McCloskeys filed twin motions to have St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner disqualified from their case .
Their argument was that Gardner had used their case for political fundraising both before and after charging them .
After referencing the case , the fundraiser concluded , “ Kim needs your help to fight back !
Her election is only weeks away.
” Last week , Kim Gardner responded to those motions and her response accuses the McCloskeys of turning their prosecution into “ political theater ” and claims there was nothing wrong with mentioning the case in fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , were responding to criticism of Gardner from high-ranking Republican politicians .
“ She did not tie her reelection to the prosecution on this or any case , ” Gardner ’ s filing said .
“ … Not a word discussed , referenced or implied that the future prosecution of this case was related in any way to the circuit attorney obtaining financial support from those receiving the email.
” I have no idea how the court is going to rule on this but a lawyer for the McCloskeys didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louis Post Dispatch , “ she spends multiple pages detailing the complaints of various politicians and anonymous commentators .
They are not parties , they are not the prosecutor , and she should understand the difference.
” I want to get into the weeds a bit here because it appears to me that Gardner ’ s motion contains some obvious errors .
Gardner ’ s argument is that her fundraising emails were really about the reaction of President trump , so her motion highlights those portions of the email .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first email as it appears in the motion : And here ’ s how the motion describes that email : The first email , sent before charges were filed , makes a single passing reference to the Defendants , pointing out that people might already be “ familiar ” with their actions…The rest of the email has nothing to do with the Defendants , but highlights statements about the Circuit Attorney by the governor and the president…The email concludes by asking supporters to ‘ stand with [ the Circuit Attorney ] , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email wants supporters to stand up for the Circuit Attorney legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion…It in no way links any decision or outcome the Circuit Attorney made in this specific case to fundraising efforts .
That claim , that there is only a single passing reference to the McCloskeys in the email , is false .
If you look at the block of text above , there are at least two clear references to the McCloskeys , not one .
The first is as Gardner ’ s motion describes it , i.e .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ brandished guns.
” But there ’ s a second reference which reads “ President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens… ” So that ’ s two references to the McCloskeys , meaning this was neither a single reference nor a passing one .
In fact , you could argue their are three references to the McCloskeys because President Trump ’ s quote about “ law-abiding citizens ” also is about them .
And given that they were the reason that President Trump and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s at least arguable that the entire email is about the McCloskeys .
As for the email not linking to any decision or outcome , doesn ’ t the framing of the entire thing suggest that Gardner ’ s opponents , i.e .
those who are defending the McCloskeys innocence , are wrong to do so ?
Doesn ’ t her criticism of Trump calling them ‘ law-abiding citizens ’ suggest that they are not ?
You can claim that “ Kim needs your help to fight back ” is merely a reference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way this is framed it certainly reads as if fighting back means fighting against the idea that “ the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest ” are innocent .
In other words , it reads like a promise to go after them tied to a request for money .
But we ’ ll have to wait and see what a judge makes of all this .

Last month the McCloskeys filed twin motions to have St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner disqualified from their case. Their argument was that Gardner had used their case for political fundraising both before and after charging them. After referencing the case, the fundraiser concluded, “Kim needs your help to fight back! Her election is only weeks away.” Last week, Kim Gardner responded to those motions and her response accuses the McCloskeys of turning their prosecution into “political theater” and claims there was nothing wrong with mentioning the case in fundraising appeals:
The campaign emails, Gardner said, were responding to criticism of Gardner from high-ranking Republican politicians. “She did not tie her reelection to the prosecution on this or any case,” Gardner’s filing said. “… Not a word discussed, referenced or implied that the future prosecution of this case was related in any way to the circuit attorney obtaining financial support from those receiving the email.”
I have no idea how the court is going to rule on this but a lawyer for the McCloskeys didn’t seem impressed. He told the St. Louis Post Dispatch, “she spends multiple pages detailing the complaints of various politicians and anonymous commentators. They are not parties, they are not the prosecutor, and she should understand the difference.”
I want to get into the weeds a bit here because it appears to me that Gardner’s motion contains some obvious errors. Gardner’s argument is that her fundraising emails were really about the reaction of President trump, so her motion highlights those portions of the email. For instance, here’s the text of the first email as it appears in the motion:
And here’s how the motion describes that email:
The first email, sent before charges were filed, makes a single passing reference to the Defendants, pointing out that people might already be “familiar” with their actions…The rest of the email has nothing to do with the Defendants, but highlights statements about the Circuit Attorney by the governor and the president…The email concludes by asking supporters to ‘stand with [the Circuit Attorney],’ with the clear implication being that the email wants supporters to stand up for the Circuit Attorney legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion…It in no way links any decision or outcome the Circuit Attorney made in this specific case to fundraising efforts.
That claim, that there is only a single passing reference to the McCloskeys in the email, is false. If you look at the block of text above, there are at least two clear references to the McCloskeys, not one. The first is as Gardner’s motion describes it, i.e. a reference to “the couple who brandished guns.” But there’s a second reference which reads “President Trump and the Governor are fighting for the two who pointed guns at peaceful citizens…” So that’s two references to the McCloskeys, meaning this was neither a single reference nor a passing one.
In fact, you could argue their are three references to the McCloskeys because President Trump’s quote about “law-abiding citizens” also is about them. And given that they were the reason that President Trump and the Governor were criticizing Gardner, it’s at least arguable that the entire email is about the McCloskeys.
As for the email not linking to any decision or outcome, doesn’t the framing of the entire thing suggest that Gardner’s opponents, i.e. those who are defending the McCloskeys innocence, are wrong to do so? Doesn’t her criticism of Trump calling them ‘law-abiding citizens’ suggest that they are not? You can claim that “Kim needs your help to fight back” is merely a reference to her prosecutorial discretion, but the way this is framed it certainly reads as if fighting back means fighting against the idea that “the couple who brandished guns during a peaceful protest” are innocent. In other words, it reads like a promise to go after them tied to a request for money. But we’ll have to wait and see what a judge makes of all this.


hotair--2020-08-10--Canadians manning the border to keep out American illegals

I ’ ve been beating this dead horse for years , but it ’ s good to see that somebody is finally listening .
Something must be done about the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border without permission .
And now some of the good people of Canada are finally stepping up and taking charge .
They ’ re keeping watch for American illegal aliens trying to sneak into the Great White North , and when they spot some they ’ re reporting them to the Mounties or , in some cases , directly intervening themselves .
This situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman with dual Canadian-American citizenship and an elderly father in Calgary , Canada .
She was preparing to travel up there to care for him when a friend warned her that Canadians were spotting cars with U.S. plates on their side of the border and either reporting them or vandalizing the cars .
( NY Times ) “ The Canadians are actually doing damage to vehicles with United States plates on them , ” he cautioned , giving me my first inkling that it wasn ’ t just public health officials who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the death rate from the coronavirus has been roughly half that of its southern neighbor .
As a dual citizen I was entitled to cross the border , closed to most Americans because of the pandemic .
With an octogenarian father in Calgary who had been largely isolated during the stay-at-home orders , I was willing to submit to Canada ’ s mandatory two-week quarantine in order to visit .
But my friend ’ s warning proved prescient .
Some concerned residents who fear that the virus will be spread to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own hands , spurring so many reports of intimidation that the premier of British Columbia , John Horgan , reminded angry Canadians to “ Be Calm .
Be Kind ” at a July 27 news conference .
Some of the Canadians living near the border have done more than simply report the perceived trespassers to the authorities .
There have been multiple reported incidents of harassment , including cars being vandalized , random rude gestures , and at least one report of a ( minor ) physical assault .
The problem here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with American plates are being driven by Americans who are in the country illegally .
In fact , most of them aren ’ t .
Canada has closed its border to nonessential traffic , but there are exceptions made for people who work there in essential businesses , have relatives living in the country or those driving through to Alaska .
And as the linked report indicates , many Canadian citizens have cars with American plates if they have jobs that take them to our country regularly .
So the people being harassed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aliens in most cases .
But there have been some of those incidents as well .
Some Americans have been discovered sneaking into Banff National Park located in Alberta .
Ten of our citizens were fined $ 1,200 each and deported after they were discovered in the park illegally .
Should we be upset about this ?
Not at all .
If we ’ re going to insist on secure borders and enforcement of our immigration laws ( as we must ) and we want Mexico to take responsibility for helping to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border , we should expect no less of our own people .
Throw the book at them as far as I ’ m concerned .
What ’ s good for the goose , etc .
Of course , that message isn ’ t really being driven home by John Horgan , the premier of British Columbia .
In a recent news conference , he “ suggested ” that those with U.S. plates on their cars perhaps take public transit .
Or that they get their plates changed .
Or , failing that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Way to crack the whip there , John .
That should teach us a lesson .

I’ve been beating this dead horse for years, but it’s good to see that somebody is finally listening. Something must be done about the flood of illegal aliens crossing the border without permission. And now some of the good people of Canada are finally stepping up and taking charge. They’re keeping watch for American illegal aliens trying to sneak into the Great White North, and when they spot some they’re reporting them to the Mounties or, in some cases, directly intervening themselves.
This situation wound up impacting Karen Schwartz, a woman with dual Canadian-American citizenship and an elderly father in Calgary, Canada. She was preparing to travel up there to care for him when a friend warned her that Canadians were spotting cars with U.S. plates on their side of the border and either reporting them or vandalizing the cars. (NY Times)
“The Canadians are actually doing damage to vehicles with United States plates on them,” he cautioned, giving me my first inkling that it wasn’t just public health officials who were serious about keeping Americans out of Canada, where the death rate from the coronavirus has been roughly half that of its southern neighbor. As a dual citizen I was entitled to cross the border, closed to most Americans because of the pandemic. With an octogenarian father in Calgary who had been largely isolated during the stay-at-home orders, I was willing to submit to Canada’s mandatory two-week quarantine in order to visit. But my friend’s warning proved prescient. Some concerned residents who fear that the virus will be spread to their communities have been taking matters into their own hands, spurring so many reports of intimidation that the premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, reminded angry Canadians to “Be Calm. Be Kind” at a July 27 news conference.
Some of the Canadians living near the border have done more than simply report the perceived trespassers to the authorities. There have been multiple reported incidents of harassment, including cars being vandalized, random rude gestures, and at least one report of a (minor) physical assault.
The problem here is that not all of the cars with American plates are being driven by Americans who are in the country illegally. In fact, most of them aren’t. Canada has closed its border to nonessential traffic, but there are exceptions made for people who work there in essential businesses, have relatives living in the country or those driving through to Alaska. And as the linked report indicates, many Canadian citizens have cars with American plates if they have jobs that take them to our country regularly. So the people being harassed and damaged aren’t even illegal aliens in most cases.
But there have been some of those incidents as well. Some Americans have been discovered sneaking into Banff National Park located in Alberta. Ten of our citizens were fined $1,200 each and deported after they were discovered in the park illegally.
Should we be upset about this? Not at all. If we’re going to insist on secure borders and enforcement of our immigration laws (as we must) and we want Mexico to take responsibility for helping to keep its citizens on their side of the border, we should expect no less of our own people. Throw the book at them as far as I’m concerned. What’s good for the goose, etc.
Of course, that message isn’t really being driven home by John Horgan, the premier of British Columbia. In a recent news conference, he “suggested” that those with U.S. plates on their cars perhaps take public transit. Or that they get their plates changed. Or, failing that, perhaps they could ride a bike. Way to crack the whip there, John. That should teach us a lesson.


hotair--2020-08-10--WSJ on Trump's EOs: Yes, Obama did it first -- and it's still a bad idea

Political masterstroke ?
True enough , declares the Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board .
By issuing his executive orders this weekend — actually one EO and three other action types — Trump escaped from Nancy Pelosi ’ s trillion-dollar pork trap .
Walking away was the right choice , the editorial declares — but the EO raises more potential for executive overreach than it allows for problem-solving in the short term .
Pelosi and Chuck Schumer weren ’ t negotiating in the first place , the WSJ ’ s editors point out : They are demanding $ 800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extension of $ 600 a week in jobless insurance into 2021 despite its disincentive to work , and they refuse to budge on Covid-19 liability protection for businesses and nonprofits .
They want election mandates on states that have nothing to do with the pandemic .
This is less a negotiation than a stick-up .
The Democratic political calculation has been that Mr. Trump would listen to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and roll over again .
This would let them impose much of their long-term agenda , divide Republicans in Congress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welfare-state expansions permanent next year when they expect to run Congress and the White House .
Pelosi and Schumer claim they did shift off their position — at least in total cash ask .
Yesterday both claimed that they reduced their total spending demand of $ 3.5 trillion by a trillion dollars , which would have been a little less than halfway to the GOP ’ s $ 1 trillion limit .
The leverage of the EOs could push Democrats to negotiate a bit more than they want , although whether that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s guess .
And it ’ s also true that EOs will allow Trump some room to chart his own course for economic recovery , although the necessary restraints on scope might mean that those efforts might not produce a lot of results on their own .
The precedential weight of presidential orders worries the WSJ ’ s editors , however .
The short-term political gain comes at the expense of constitutional checks on executive power , even if this has its own precedents in the previous administration : Yes , Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health insurers cost-sharing subsidies under ObamaCare without an appropriation from Congress .
More famously , as part of his “ pen ” and “ phone ” strategy , he used executive diktats to provide work permits for millions of undocumented aliens .
Democrats and the media cheered these abuses , and Mrs. Pelosi ’ s charge now that Mr. Trump ’ s orders are “ absurdly unconstitutional ” is partisan hypocrisy .
Mr. Trump ’ s FEMA order may survive because no states are commandeered nor individuals harmed , and it lasts only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runs out .
The House would have standing to sue , but Mrs. Pelosi might not like the political look of suing to deny Americans extended jobless benefits .
These columns opposed Mr. Obama ’ s orders , and one constitutional abuse doesn ’ t justify another .
Mr. Trump ’ s FEMA order is a bad legal precedent that a President Kamala Harris could cite if a GOP Congress blocked her agenda on , say , climate change .
We have raised the climate-change emergency hypothesis on more than one occasion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Governance on an emergency basis is a dangerous habit and one that ’ s tough to end .
Conservatives are already objecting to the same impulse at the state levels , with governors like Gretchen Whitmer issuing EOs that absurdly restrict gardening and travel between one ’ s own properties .
Conservatives also ridiculed Obama for his pen-and-phone nonsense explanations on using EOs to bypass Congress , and we ’ re still fighting to end DACA on that basis as well .
What do we gain in this instance in exchange for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by emergency decree ?
Not a whole lot , the WSJ ’ s editors rightly note .
Trump gains a campaign issue on forgiving payroll taxes rather than deferring them , but thanks to the ambiguity of that situation , it seems more likely that employers will just hoard the cash and wait out on passing the cash along to employees .
The eviction moratoria are reasonably straightforward but limited , and put some political risk on Trump from angry landlords who might not be too happy about getting their income stream even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has promised actually comes from the CARES Act anyway , the WSJ notes .
That ’ s pretty small potatoes for a one-time “ owning of the libs.
” Trump might have done better to have withdrawn from the negotiations and standing on principle , perhaps by casting a few Senate Republicans under the bus .
At some point , Trump will no longer be president , but both sides may be contributing to the building of a truly imperial executive by playing these kind of short-term political games .
The founders wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen — and conservatives may well regret choosing tactic over principle in the long run .

Political masterstroke? True enough, declares the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. By issuing his executive orders this weekend — actually one EO and three other action types — Trump escaped from Nancy Pelosi’s trillion-dollar pork trap. Walking away was the right choice, the editorial declares — but the EO raises more potential for executive overreach than it allows for problem-solving in the short term.
Pelosi and Chuck Schumer weren’t negotiating in the first place, the WSJ’s editors point out:
They are demanding $800 billion in aid to the states, an extension of $600 a week in jobless insurance into 2021 despite its disincentive to work, and they refuse to budge on Covid-19 liability protection for businesses and nonprofits. They want election mandates on states that have nothing to do with the pandemic. This is less a negotiation than a stick-up. The Democratic political calculation has been that Mr. Trump would listen to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and roll over again. This would let them impose much of their long-term agenda, divide Republicans in Congress, and set the table to make their welfare-state expansions permanent next year when they expect to run Congress and the White House.
Pelosi and Schumer claim they did shift off their position — at least in total cash ask. Yesterday both claimed that they reduced their total spending demand of $3.5 trillion by a trillion dollars, which would have been a little less than halfway to the GOP’s $1 trillion limit. The leverage of the EOs could push Democrats to negotiate a bit more than they want, although whether that will create more room for compromise is anyone’s guess. And it’s also true that EOs will allow Trump some room to chart his own course for economic recovery, although the necessary restraints on scope might mean that those efforts might not produce a lot of results on their own.
The precedential weight of presidential orders worries the WSJ’s editors, however. The short-term political gain comes at the expense of constitutional checks on executive power, even if this has its own precedents in the previous administration:
Yes, Mr. Obama did it first. He paid health insurers cost-sharing subsidies under ObamaCare without an appropriation from Congress. More famously, as part of his “pen” and “phone” strategy, he used executive diktats to provide work permits for millions of undocumented aliens. Democrats and the media cheered these abuses, and Mrs. Pelosi’s charge now that Mr. Trump’s orders are “absurdly unconstitutional” is partisan hypocrisy. Mr. Trump’s FEMA order may survive because no states are commandeered nor individuals harmed, and it lasts only through Dec. 6 or until the money runs out. The House would have standing to sue, but Mrs. Pelosi might not like the political look of suing to deny Americans extended jobless benefits. These columns opposed Mr. Obama’s orders, and one constitutional abuse doesn’t justify another. Mr. Trump’s FEMA order is a bad legal precedent that a President Kamala Harris could cite if a GOP Congress blocked her agenda on, say, climate change.
We have raised the climate-change emergency hypothesis on more than one occasion, but it’s worth noting again. Governance on an emergency basis is a dangerous habit and one that’s tough to end. Conservatives are already objecting to the same impulse at the state levels, with governors like Gretchen Whitmer issuing EOs that absurdly restrict gardening and travel between one’s own properties. Conservatives also ridiculed Obama for his pen-and-phone nonsense explanations on using EOs to bypass Congress, and we’re still fighting to end DACA on that basis as well.
What do we gain in this instance in exchange for giving up the principled objection to governance by emergency decree? Not a whole lot, the WSJ’s editors rightly note. Trump gains a campaign issue on forgiving payroll taxes rather than deferring them, but thanks to the ambiguity of that situation, it seems more likely that employers will just hoard the cash and wait out on passing the cash along to employees. The eviction moratoria are reasonably straightforward but limited, and put some political risk on Trump from angry landlords who might not be too happy about getting their income stream even further delayed. The loan relief Trump has promised actually comes from the CARES Act anyway, the WSJ notes.
That’s pretty small potatoes for a one-time “owning of the libs.” Trump might have done better to have withdrawn from the negotiations and standing on principle, perhaps by casting a few Senate Republicans under the bus. At some point, Trump will no longer be president, but both sides may be contributing to the building of a truly imperial executive by playing these kind of short-term political games. The founders wrote the Constitution knowing full well that could happen — and conservatives may well regret choosing tactic over principle in the long run.


hotair--2020-08-10--Chicago police superintendent: Looting was 'fueled by misinformation'

“ The seeds for the shameful destruction we saw last night were sown in the 5700 block of South Racine Avenue , ” Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said today .
Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about the looting that took place in Chicago last night .
There were reports that it was inspired by a police shooting that took place earlier in the day , however those reports didn ’ t seem definitive .
But Superintendent Brown confirmed them .
He explained that a 20-year-old man had fired at police while running away .
Police fired back and struck the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital and is expected to survive .
“ After the shooting a crowd gathered on the south side following the police action .
Tempers flared , fueled by misinformation as the afternoon turned to evening , ” Brown said .
He continued , “ DPT became aware of several social media posts encouraging looting downtown.
” In response , 400 officers were sent downtown and got there as the first looting began .
“ This was an incident of pure criminality , ” Brown said .
He pointed out that 100 people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In the last seven days a total of nine officers have been shot at in Chicago .
What we are seeing is violence against police.
” He described an incident last night when police officers attempting to arrest a looter were shot at by another car driving by .
A bullet was found lodged inside the police car .
After Brown spoke , Mayor Lightfoot took a tough stance and vowed to protect the businesses which had been looted .
To the looters she said , “ We are coming for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and visibly shaking at times during her speech .
She said , “ I call upon our State ’ s Attorney and our courts to make sure that these individuals who are arrested and those to come are held accountable.
” She added , ” These people need to be held accountable and not cycle through the system .
And judges that are holding these cases , you need to step up and be responsible.
” After the speeches there was a Q & A and Sup .
Brown was asked about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear of consequences .
He replied “ They based that on what happened previously , that we made a lot of arrests during May and June and not many of those cases were prosecuted to the fullest extent.
” Brown continued , “ And I think that ’ s my point and the mayor ’ s point : We have to have consequences for the arrests that Chicago police officers make through great threat to their own safety .
They ’ re being shot at to make these arrests .
And these looters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being emboldened by no consequences in the criminal system .
They get released .
Many charges get dropped.
” A reporter restated what Brown had said “ the courts and the prosecutors were not doing their job ” and Chief Brown replied , “ Don ’ t take it from me .
Just go by what ’ s been done…There were no consequences for the people that were arrested.
” At this point Mayor Lightfoot stepped in and said to the reporter “ Don ’ t bait us.
” You can watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sound to me like the reporter was baiting anyone he really just restated what Sup .
Brown had said .
In fact , before the Mayor interjected , Sup .
Brown was agreeing with the reporter .
Here it is queued up to the moment before Mayor Lightfoot called out the reporter .
To sum all of this up , you have an angry crowd spreading misinformation about a police shooting followed by looting and rioting .
If that sounds familiar it should .
Yesterday was the 6th anniversary of the death of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also involved misinformation about a police shooting followed by looting and rioting .
To this day , Brown ’ s death is considered one of the foundational moments for the rise of Black Lives Matter and lots of people still march in the streets chanting “ Hands up , don ’ t shoot.
” But just last month St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell announced that after a secret , 5-month re-investigation of the Brown case , no charges would be filed .
Why ?
Because the evidence does not support prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did .
In June , video of an arrest went viral in Madison , Wisconsin and a riot followed in which a state senator was beaten up to the point that he had to be hospitalized .
The mob often isn ’ t very careful about the details .
All it takes is a little bit of prompting on social media and you get riots like what we saw in Chicago last night .
That ’ s a pattern that is being repeated but it ’ s one the media does not want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s been part of BLM from the start .

“The seeds for the shameful destruction we saw last night were sown in the 5700 block of South Racine Avenue,” Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said today.
Earlier today Allahpundit wrote about the looting that took place in Chicago last night. There were reports that it was inspired by a police shooting that took place earlier in the day, however those reports didn’t seem definitive. But Superintendent Brown confirmed them. He explained that a 20-year-old man had fired at police while running away. Police fired back and struck the shooter. He is now in the hospital and is expected to survive.
“After the shooting a crowd gathered on the south side following the police action. Tempers flared, fueled by misinformation as the afternoon turned to evening,” Brown said. He continued, “DPT became aware of several social media posts encouraging looting downtown.” In response, 400 officers were sent downtown and got there as the first looting began.
“This was an incident of pure criminality,” Brown said. He pointed out that 100 people were arrested and 13 officers were injured overnight. “In the last seven days a total of nine officers have been shot at in Chicago. What we are seeing is violence against police.” He described an incident last night when police officers attempting to arrest a looter were shot at by another car driving by. A bullet was found lodged inside the police car.
After Brown spoke, Mayor Lightfoot took a tough stance and vowed to protect the businesses which had been looted. To the looters she said, “We are coming for you.”
Mayor Lightfoot was clearly angry and visibly shaking at times during her speech. She said, “I call upon our State’s Attorney and our courts to make sure that these individuals who are arrested and those to come are held accountable.” She added,” These people need to be held accountable and not cycle through the system. And judges that are holding these cases, you need to step up and be responsible.”
After the speeches there was a Q&A and Sup. Brown was asked about his statement that people had been looting without fear of consequences. He replied “They based that on what happened previously, that we made a lot of arrests during May and June and not many of those cases were prosecuted to the fullest extent.” Brown continued, “And I think that’s my point and the mayor’s point: We have to have consequences for the arrests that Chicago police officers make through great threat to their own safety. They’re being shot at to make these arrests. And these looters, these thieves, these criminals they are being emboldened by no consequences in the criminal system. They get released. Many charges get dropped.”
A reporter restated what Brown had said “the courts and the prosecutors were not doing their job” and Chief Brown replied, “Don’t take it from me. Just go by what’s been done…There were no consequences for the people that were arrested.”
At this point Mayor Lightfoot stepped in and said to the reporter “Don’t bait us.” You can watch for yourself but it doesn’t sound to me like the reporter was baiting anyone he really just restated what Sup. Brown had said. In fact, before the Mayor interjected, Sup. Brown was agreeing with the reporter. Here it is cued up to the moment before Mayor Lightfoot called out the reporter.
To sum all of this up, you have an angry crowd spreading misinformation about a police shooting followed by looting and rioting. If that sounds familiar it should.
Yesterday was the 6th anniversary of the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson. That situation also involved misinformation about a police shooting followed by looting and rioting. To this day, Brown’s death is considered one of the foundational moments for the rise of Black Lives Matter and lots of people still march in the streets chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot.” But just last month St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell announced that after a secret, 5-month re-investigation of the Brown case, no charges would be filed. Why? Because the evidence does not support prosecution of Officer Darren Wilson. It never did.
In June, video of an arrest went viral in Madison, Wisconsin and a riot followed in which a state senator was beaten up to the point that he had to be hospitalized. The mob often isn’t very careful about the details. All it takes is a little bit of prompting on social media and you get riots like what we saw in Chicago last night. That’s a pattern that is being repeated but it’s one the media does not want to notice or talk about even though it’s been part of BLM from the start.