hotair--2020-07-21--Tucker Carlson: NYT plans to doxx us in upcoming exposé

“ They ’ d call it criminal behavior if we did it , ” Tucker Carlson declared last night , “ and that tells you everything.
” Indeed it would — if the New York Times plans to release Carlson ’ s home address in an upcoming story .
Carlson accused the paper of preparing to doxx him in order to intimidate him off the air and out of the public square .
How would they feel if the tables were turned , Carlson wondered .
He might not have to wait long to find out : Carlson and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Washington DC-area home two years ago after Antifa protesters found out where he lived , Carlson explained : Two years ago , a left-wing journalist publicized our home address in Washington .
A group of screaming antifa lunatics showed up while I was at work .
They vandalized our home .
They threatened my wife .
She called 911 while hiding in a closet .
A few weeks later they showed up again at our house .
For the next year , they sent letters to our home threatening to kill us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt cowardly to sell our home and leave .
We raised our kids there in the neighborhood and we loved it .
But in the end that ’ s what we did .
We have four children .
It just wasn ’ t worth it .
But The New York Times followed us .
The paper has assigned a political activist called Murray Carpenter to write a story about where we are now .
They ’ ve hired a photographer called Tristan Spinski to take pictures .
Their story about where we live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
Editors there know exactly what will happen to my family when it does run .
I called them today and I told them .
But they didn ’ t care .
They hate my politics .
They want they show off the air .
If one of my children gets hurt because of a story they wrote , they won ’ t considered it collateral damage , they know it ’ s the whole point of the exercise : To inflict pain on our family , to terrorize us , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the kind of people they are .
Carlson hinted that he might fight fire with fire this time around : They ’ ll deny this of course , they ’ ll say it ’ s just journalism , just the facts .
Really ?
So , how would Murray Carpenter and his photographer Tristan Spinski feel if we told you where they live , if we put pictures of their homes on the air ?
What if we publicized the home address of everyone of the soulless robot editors at The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incitement to violence against my family ?
What about the media editor , Jim Windolf ?
We could do that .
We know who they are .
Would that qualify as journalism ?
We doubt they ’ d consider it journalism .
They ’ d call it criminal behavior if we did it and that tells you everything .
We ’ ll get back to that in a moment .
But did the New York Times plan to doxx Carlson in the first place ?
In a statement shortly after the broadcast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publish where Carlson lives , and also said that Carlson knew that before he went on the air : Is that an unequivocal denial ?
Meghan McCain doesn ’ t think so , pointing out that newspapers don ’ t have to publish a precise address to doxx someone : Right now , it sounds like a pair of competing claims , but that might be moot .
By this morning , the Washington Post reported that Carlson ’ s viewers had already turned the tables on the NYT ’ s reporter : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tucker Carlson made a surprising accusation : the New York Times , he said , was trying to endanger him and his family by revealing where they live in an upcoming story .
As he lambasted the newspaper on-air , Carlson suggested that his prime-time show could expose the home addresses of the reporter and Times editors .
Within hours , an army of conservative Twitter accounts started publicly posting the address and personal information of the reporter Carlson identified as the story ’ s writer .
Many encouraged people to harass the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post , a spokesperson for the Times denied Carlson ’ s claims .
“ While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions , the Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson ’ s , which Carlson was aware of before tonight ’ s broadcast , ” the spokesperson said .
The spokesperson declined to comment further when asked about the reporter ’ s doxing .
The Post makes this sound as though Carlson cooked up the doxxing story to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one involving a fired staffer and racist past postings , and the other a sexual harassment suit against Fox News .
That seems a rather unlikely explanation , since it won ’ t actually distract anyone in the media from those stories anyway .
I mean , really ; the Post makes it clear in this very story that they ’ re going to include those allegations in everything they write about Carlson .
Does anyone think other media outlets will drop those stories to cover this one , or use them all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh , let ’ s not always see the same hands .
Perhaps a better explanation is that Carlson got wind of some questions the reporter has been asking and decided to pre-empt any attempt to doxx him by warning the paper up front about it .
And not just warn against the doxxing , but also to issue a thinly veiled threat to respond in kind .
After getting chased out of his previous residence , one could understand why Carlson might be a little sensitive to that possibility .
If it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carlson owes the NYT an apology and a retraction , but perhaps first we should ask the NYT to lay its cards on the table — including the kind of questions their reporter was asking .
In the meantime , for everyone else , let ’ s remember that doxxing is bad , mm-kay ?
It ’ s not journalism when the NYT does it , and it ’ s not journalism when randos on social media do it , either .
Tucker can take care of himself .

“They’d call it criminal behavior if we did it,” Tucker Carlson declared last night, “and that tells you everything.” Indeed it would — if the New York Times plans to release Carlson’s home address in an upcoming story. Carlson accused the paper of preparing to doxx him in order to intimidate him off the air and out of the public square. How would they feel if the tables were turned, Carlson wondered.
He might not have to wait long to find out:
Tucker responds to intrusive reporting by The New York Times. pic.twitter.com/xj4z69G9cA — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) July 21, 2020
Carlson and his family were forced to move out of their Washington DC-area home two years ago after Antifa protesters found out where he lived, Carlson explained:
Two years ago, a left-wing journalist publicized our home address in Washington. A group of screaming antifa lunatics showed up while I was at work. They vandalized our home. They threatened my wife. She called 911 while hiding in a closet. A few weeks later they showed up again at our house. For the next year, they sent letters to our home threatening to kill us. We tried to ignore it and felt cowardly to sell our home and leave. We raised our kids there in the neighborhood and we loved it. But in the end that’s what we did. We have four children. It just wasn’t worth it. But The New York Times followed us. The paper has assigned a political activist called Murray Carpenter to write a story about where we are now. They’ve hired a photographer called Tristan Spinski to take pictures. Their story about where we live is slated to run the paper this week. Editors there know exactly what will happen to my family when it does run. I called them today and I told them. But they didn’t care. They hate my politics. They want they show off the air. If one of my children gets hurt because of a story they wrote, they won’t considered it collateral damage, they know it’s the whole point of the exercise: To inflict pain on our family, to terrorize us, to control what we say. That’s the kind of people they are.
Carlson hinted that he might fight fire with fire this time around:
They’ll deny this of course, they’ll say it’s just journalism, just the facts. Really? So, how would Murray Carpenter and his photographer Tristan Spinski feel if we told you where they live, if we put pictures of their homes on the air? What if we publicized the home address of everyone of the soulless robot editors at The New York Times who assigned and manage this incitement to violence against my family? What about the media editor, Jim Windolf? We could do that. We know who they are. Would that qualify as journalism? We doubt they’d consider it journalism. They’d call it criminal behavior if we did it and that tells you everything.
Hint, hint.
We’ll get back to that in a moment. But did the New York Times plan to doxx Carlson in the first place? In a statement shortly after the broadcast, the paper denied that it plans to publish where Carlson lives, and also said that Carlson knew that before he went on the air:
.@nytimes does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson's residence, which Carlson was aware of before his broadcast tonight. pic.twitter.com/npg93Cdmbm — NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) July 21, 2020
Is that an unequivocal denial? Meghan McCain doesn’t think so, pointing out that newspapers don’t have to publish a precise address to doxx someone:
This is extremely dangerous and a weird new norm. Even printing his neighborhood or building or home area is really dangerous. Why people feel comfortable doing this to people with whom their politics they hate is sick. It is the most violating thing in the entire world. https://t.co/hI67GEcaYq — Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) July 21, 2020
Right now, it sounds like a pair of competing claims, but that might be moot. By this morning, the Washington Post reported that Carlson’s viewers had already turned the tables on the NYT’s reporter:
On Monday night, Fox News host Tucker Carlson made a surprising accusation: the New York Times, he said, was trying to endanger him and his family by revealing where they live in an upcoming story. As he lambasted the newspaper on-air, Carlson suggested that his prime-time show could expose the home addresses of the reporter and Times editors. Within hours, an army of conservative Twitter accounts started publicly posting the address and personal information of the reporter Carlson identified as the story’s writer. Many encouraged people to harass the reporter. In a statement to The Washington Post, a spokesperson for the Times denied Carlson’s claims. “While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions, the Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson’s, which Carlson was aware of before tonight’s broadcast,” the spokesperson said. The spokesperson declined to comment further when asked about the reporter’s doxing.
The Post makes this sound as though Carlson cooked up the doxxing story to distract from two separate scandal stories, one involving a fired staffer and racist past postings, and the other a sexual harassment suit against Fox News. That seems a rather unlikely explanation, since it won’t actually distract anyone in the media from those stories anyway. I mean, really; the Post makes it clear in this very story that they’re going to include those allegations in everything they write about Carlson. Does anyone think other media outlets will drop those stories to cover this one, or use them all together to make it more viral?
Oh, let’s not always see the same hands.
Perhaps a better explanation is that Carlson got wind of some questions the reporter has been asking and decided to pre-empt any attempt to doxx him by warning the paper up front about it. And not just warn against the doxxing, but also to issue a thinly veiled threat to respond in kind. After getting chased out of his previous residence, one could understand why Carlson might be a little sensitive to that possibility. If it turns out to be false, then Carlson owes the NYT an apology and a retraction, but perhaps first we should ask the NYT to lay its cards on the table — including the kind of questions their reporter was asking.
In the meantime, for everyone else, let’s remember that doxxing is bad, mm-kay? It’s not journalism when the NYT does it, and it’s not journalism when randos on social media do it, either. Tucker can take care of himself.


hotair--2020-07-21--AP: Should we capitalize "white" too? Naw...

Last month we took a look at a decision impacting the Associated Press style guide which dictated that the word “ black ” would be capitalized when referring to people , as in “ Black voters.
” This change did not apply to black when used as a descriptor of coloration .
( “ A black cat crossed my path.
” ) Since we were already capitalizing Hispanic , Asian and Native American , I saw nothing wrong with the idea and , in fact , had begun adopting it myself last winter .
At the end of that discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to become a question in response to this move by the AP .
What about white when talking about the various flavors of Caucasians around the world ?
I ’ ll confess to a bit of laziness on my part when I arrived at that question .
While it would certainly make sense in terms of consistency in wordsmithing and I would have no objection to it , I also didn ’ t feel particularly stressed out by it and didn ’ t see it as a linguistic hill I felt like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a linguistic hill on which I felt like dying .
Happy now ? )
In any event , as predicted , the AP received feedback on that very issue and apparently felt compelled to update their guidance on this subject .
So will everyone following their style guide now be capitalizing White people going forward ?
That would be a hard nope , linguaphiles .
The introduction of Black people to formal text does not , at least according to the Associated Press , necessitate a corresponding change when discussing white people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes about as much sense as teats on a boar hog .
( Free Beacon ) John Daniszewski , AP ’ s editor at large for standards , said in a memo to the news outlet ’ s staff that white skin color plays into “ systemic inequalities and injustices , ” and opposed capitalizing “ white ” on the grounds that it could risk legitimizing white supremacy… Daniszewski said in a blog post last month that the term “ Black ” is capitalized to reflect the shared culture and identity of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s announcement , he said the same considerations do not apply when referring to “ white ” in a racial context .
“ White people generally do not share the same history and culture , or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color , ” Daniszewski said .
It ’ s unclear how John Daniszewski wound up landing the job of editor at large for standards with that sort of thinking .
If we ’ re going to be sticklers for proper writing , we follow the rules that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , we should at least strive for consistency .
This decision fails both tests miserably , no matter how fast and loose you choose to play such decisions .
I will grumble a bit here at Mr. Daniszewski for forcing me to go dig out my copy of the Gregg Reference Manual by William Sabin and look up something I should have committed to memory in the 1970s but obviously failed to do .
Gregg is basically the gold standard for such questions and you will find it on the desks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a living .
In section 348 , covering capitalization when addressing races , peoples and languages , we find the following : “ Capitalize the names of races , peoples , tribes and languages .
Caucasians , Americans , Native Americans , the Japanese , Hispanics , Mandarin Chinese .
BUT : ” ( editor ’ s note : Gregg applies all caps and boldface to the word “ but ” in this entry ) “ the blacks , the whites.
” ( Italicized emphasis mine . )
So we began veering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as soon as we started writing Black people , though as I originally wrote , it ’ s an understandable adaptation to make .
But our fundamental reference guides clearly place both black and white in the same category .
If you ’ re going to change one , you ’ re going to need to change both .
Strictly as a side note , I ’ m going to attempt to correct my own laziness and begin capitalizing White people from here on out as well in the interest of consistency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ re going to split the decision between the two adjectives as Mr. Daniszewski has done , you ’ ll need to have a pretty good reason .
But all he offers us is a claim that capitalizing White “ could risk legitimizing white supremacy.
” Seriously ?
That ’ s what your degree in English Literature imparted to you ?
If that ’ s the case , why does the Associated Press capitalize Klu Klux Klan ?
Talk about legitimizing white supremacy !
Hoo boy .
This is a garbage decision and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line with the rest of its own industry .
Thus far , the major papers and websites for media outlets have fallen into two camps .
The Wall Street Journal , the New York Times , and the Los Angeles Times have already begun capitalizing “ black ” and not “ white , ” But CNN , Fox News , and the San Diego Union-Tribune capitalize both words when referring to race .
Neither decision is in keeping with the standard rules of the road for writers , but it would be nice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a consistent fashion .

Last month we took a look at a decision impacting the Associated Press style guide which dictated that the word “black” would be capitalized when referring to people, as in “Black voters.” This change did not apply to black when used as a descriptor of coloration. (“A black cat crossed my path.”) Since we were already capitalizing Hispanic, Asian and Native American, I saw nothing wrong with the idea and, in fact, had begun adopting it myself last winter.
At the end of that discussion, I touched on what was obviously going to become a question in response to this move by the AP. What about white when talking about the various flavors of Caucasians around the world? I’ll confess to a bit of laziness on my part when I arrived at that question. While it would certainly make sense in terms of consistency in wordsmithing and I would have no objection to it, I also didn’t feel particularly stressed out by it and didn’t see it as a linguistic hill I felt like dying on. (Okay, okay… a linguistic hill on which I felt like dying. Happy now?)
In any event, as predicted, the AP received feedback on that very issue and apparently felt compelled to update their guidance on this subject. So will everyone following their style guide now be capitalizing White people going forward? That would be a hard nope, linguaphiles. The introduction of Black people to formal text does not, at least according to the Associated Press, necessitate a corresponding change when discussing white people. Unfortunately, their explanation for this decision makes about as much sense as teats on a boar hog. (Free Beacon)
John Daniszewski, AP’s editor at large for standards, said in a memo to the news outlet’s staff that white skin color plays into “systemic inequalities and injustices,” and opposed capitalizing “white” on the grounds that it could risk legitimizing white supremacy… Daniszewski said in a blog post last month that the term “Black” is capitalized to reflect the shared culture and identity of those who identify as black. In Monday’s announcement, he said the same considerations do not apply when referring to “white” in a racial context. “White people generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color,” Daniszewski said.
It’s unclear how John Daniszewski wound up landing the job of editor at large for standards with that sort of thinking. If we’re going to be sticklers for proper writing, we follow the rules that have long been well established. Failing that, we should at least strive for consistency. This decision fails both tests miserably, no matter how fast and loose you choose to play such decisions.
I will grumble a bit here at Mr. Daniszewski for forcing me to go dig out my copy of the Gregg Reference Manual by William Sabin and look up something I should have committed to memory in the 1970s but obviously failed to do. Gregg is basically the gold standard for such questions and you will find it on the desks of most anyone who has to craft prose for a living. In section 348, covering capitalization when addressing races, peoples and languages, we find the following:
“Capitalize the names of races, peoples, tribes and languages. Caucasians, Americans, Native Americans, the Japanese, Hispanics, Mandarin Chinese. BUT:” (editor’s note: Gregg applies all caps and boldface to the word “but” in this entry) “the blacks, the whites.” (Italicized emphasis mine.)
So we began veering away from the rules of the road as soon as we started writing Black people, though as I originally wrote, it’s an understandable adaptation to make. But our fundamental reference guides clearly place both black and white in the same category. If you’re going to change one, you’re going to need to change both. Strictly as a side note, I’m going to attempt to correct my own laziness and begin capitalizing White people from here on out as well in the interest of consistency.
At any rate, if you’re going to split the decision between the two adjectives as Mr. Daniszewski has done, you’ll need to have a pretty good reason. But all he offers us is a claim that capitalizing White “could risk legitimizing white supremacy.” Seriously? That’s what your degree in English Literature imparted to you? If that’s the case, why does the Associated Press capitalize Klu Klux Klan? Talk about legitimizing white supremacy! Hoo boy.
This is a garbage decision and the AP isn’t even staying in line with the rest of its own industry. Thus far, the major papers and websites for media outlets have fallen into two camps. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times have already begun capitalizing “black” and not “white,” But CNN, Fox News, and the San Diego Union-Tribune capitalize both words when referring to race. Neither decision is in keeping with the standard rules of the road for writers, but it would be nice if we could all break the rules in a consistent fashion.


hotair--2020-07-22--Huge. Ohio Republican state House Speaker arrested in staggering corruption case

Assuming these allegations prove true ( and the FBI certainly seems to believe they ’ ve got the goods ) , we may have just witnessed one of the biggest political corruption scandals in the nation ’ s history unfolding before our eyes .
And it ’ s not even a federal official , but a state officeholder .
Before dawn yesterday morning , federal agents , joined by local police and County Sherriffs , arrived at the farm of Ohio state House Speaker Larry Householder ( R ) to take him into custody .
And the charges against Householder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not in a good way , obviously .
He ’ s charged , along with some associates , with taking more than $ 60 million in bribes from a vaguely described group of interests associated with two nuclear power plants in the state .
The amount of money changing hands is breathtaking .
FBI agents were at the farm of Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder on Tuesday morning , hours ahead of a planned announcement of a $ 60 million bribe investigation by federal prosecutors .
FBI agents were carrying out “ law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property in Glenford in southeastern Ohio , FBI spokesman Todd Lindgren said , without providing details .
The Perry County Sheriff ’ s Office also confirmed it was assisting the FBI at Householder ’ s farm .
Lindgren noted the upcoming news conference by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio , David DeVillers , whose office planned to announce “ charges related to $ 60 million bribe to state official & associates.
” Householder didn ’ t go down alone in this bust .
Also arrested were one of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairman , a lobbyist and a political consultant .
Everyone was later released on bail after surrendering their passports and any weapons they might have possessed .
The details are a bit fuzzy at this point , but the entire alleged scheme revolves around Speaker Householder ’ s successful drive to ram through a bailout of the two nuclear power plants .
The program involved a new fee on households that would go toward subsidizing the power plants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars .
In exchange for these “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received tens of millions of dollars funneled through a company he controlled named Generation Now .
Householder himself allegedly began receiving payments of $ 250,000 per quarter through Generation now .
Large chunks were funneled into his reelection campaign committee while at least another $ 100,000 went toward renovations at his farm .
In addition to the federal corruption charges , the Speaker is also reportedly looking at FEC campaign finance violations .
The crazy part of all of this is the fact that this isn ’ t Householder ’ s first trip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held the office of Speaker back in the early 2000s before being forced out by term limits .
At the time of his departure , he was already under investigation for “ alleged money laundering and irregular campaign practices.
” But once he was out of office and back to civilian life , the government closed the investigation without bringing any charges .
As I said above , the scope of this alleged scheme is simply jaw-dropping .
My grandmother used to have a saying about how if you ’ re thinking of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a million dollars .
One has to wonder if someone gave Householder similar advice as a child .
This idea that an energy lobbyist group could generate sixty million dollars to pay bribes to one of the top officials in the state government and do it in such a blatant fashion simply boggles the mind .

Assuming these allegations prove true (and the FBI certainly seems to believe they’ve got the goods), we may have just witnessed one of the biggest political corruption scandals in the nation’s history unfolding before our eyes. And it’s not even a federal official, but a state officeholder. Before dawn yesterday morning, federal agents, joined by local police and County Sherriffs, arrived at the farm of Ohio state House Speaker Larry Householder (R) to take him into custody. And the charges against Householder are nothing short of spectacular, though not in a good way, obviously. He’s charged, along with some associates, with taking more than $60 million in bribes from a vaguely described group of interests associated with two nuclear power plants in the state. The amount of money changing hands is breathtaking.
FBI agents were at the farm of Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder on Tuesday morning, hours ahead of a planned announcement of a $60 million bribe investigation by federal prosecutors. FBI agents were carrying out “law enforcement activity” on Householder’s property in Glenford in southeastern Ohio, FBI spokesman Todd Lindgren said, without providing details. The Perry County Sheriff’s Office also confirmed it was assisting the FBI at Householder’s farm. Lindgren noted the upcoming news conference by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, David DeVillers, whose office planned to announce “charges related to $60 million bribe to state official & associates.”
Householder didn’t go down alone in this bust. Also arrested were one of his aides, a former Ohio State GOP chairman, a lobbyist and a political consultant. Everyone was later released on bail after surrendering their passports and any weapons they might have possessed.
The details are a bit fuzzy at this point, but the entire alleged scheme revolves around Speaker Householder’s successful drive to ram through a bailout of the two nuclear power plants. The program involved a new fee on households that would go toward subsidizing the power plants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. In exchange for these “services,” Householder and his colleagues received tens of millions of dollars funneled through a company he controlled named Generation Now.
Householder himself allegedly began receiving payments of $250,000 per quarter through Generation now. Large chunks were funneled into his reelection campaign committee while at least another $100,000 went toward renovations at his farm. In addition to the federal corruption charges, the Speaker is also reportedly looking at FEC campaign finance violations.
The crazy part of all of this is the fact that this isn’t Householder’s first trip to the alleged corruption rodeo. He held the office of Speaker back in the early 2000s before being forced out by term limits. At the time of his departure, he was already under investigation for “alleged money laundering and irregular campaign practices.” But once he was out of office and back to civilian life, the government closed the investigation without bringing any charges.
As I said above, the scope of this alleged scheme is simply jaw-dropping. My grandmother used to have a saying about how if you’re thinking of stealing a penny you should just steal a million dollars. One has to wonder if someone gave Householder similar advice as a child. This idea that an energy lobbyist group could generate sixty million dollars to pay bribes to one of the top officials in the state government and do it in such a blatant fashion simply boggles the mind.


hotair--2020-07-21--Republican Party of Texas elects Allen West as chairman, Sets course to keep Texas red

Allen West , a former member of Congress from Florida and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel , moved to Texas in 2014 .
Last weekend , he was elected Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas during the party ’ s state convention .
His was a hard-fought race against the incumbent chairman .
He defeated Chairman James Dickey , who served in that position since 2017 .
West is described by words like ‘ firebrand ’ and is known for his aggressive speaking style .
Though he only served one term in Congress , he was a Tea Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the side of Democrats .
He even called for the impeachment of then-President Obama and said at the time to a radio show host that Obama was “ probably the dumbest person walking around in America right now.
” Let ’ s just say he doesn ’ t hold back .
Frankly , West may be just what the Republican Party of Texas needs .
He ’ s a fierce competitor who has real fundraising skills .
And , he is unapologetically conservative .
The state party needs a shot in the arm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national Democrats are pouring money into Texas congressional races , as well as trying to make the Senate race competitive .
Senator Cornyn is up for re-election and the Democrats are salivating for a Senate seat , especially from Texas , to help boost Biden ’ s chances .
Trump will win Texas , don ’ t get me wrong , but down-ballot races are not so clear cut .
Since their successes in 2018 , Democrats are hoping to turn more Republican-held Congressional seats into Democrat seats .
And , Democrats really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
West issued a statement after his victory during the state ’ s virtual convention .
President Trump offered congratulations , too .
West ’ s ascension comes four months before what could be an unusually competitive Election Day in America ’ s biggest red state .
Democrats need just nine seats to flip the Texas House for the first time in 20 years , and Joe Biden this month put up a modest ad buy in Texas , raising questions about President Donald Trump ’ s vulnerability in the longtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and privileged that Republicans of Texas have selected me to Chair their party and to be at the helm during this coming election cycle , ” West said in a statement .
“ We need to focus on maintaining the conservative policies that made Texas strong and drive voter outreach across the state.
” The GOP state convention was rife with problems because , at the last minute , it had to be conducted virtually due to the spike in coronavirus cases in the Houston area .
It was a bumpy ride over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Monday morning , West declared victory .
At noon Monday , Chairman Dickey passed the gavel to West .
Retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West , of Garland , defeated James Dickey , first elected state chairman in 2017 .
West won 22 state Senate districts to Dickey ’ s four , with five yet to report .
In the spirit of unity , West , who claimed victory around 3:30 a.m. , joined Dickey at the convention podium at noon Monday , where Dickey withdrew from the race and handed West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself to be a very important counselor and mentor to me , ” West told Dickey , “ because I know how to jump out of airplanes , but I ’ m gon na learn to be a pretty good chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.
” As I noted , West is not shy in his words .
During his speech to convention delegates , he referred to Governor Abbott ’ s executive orders to contain the pandemic as tyranny .
He addressed the convention from the San Jacinto Monument on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas independence .
“ Today there ’ s a new battleground , there ’ s a new battlefield , and it ’ s really not too much different from what they faced — the despotism , the tyranny that we see in the great state of Texas , where we have executive orders and mandates , people telling us what we can and can not do , who is essential , who is not essential , ” West said .
There was no mistaking his meaning , coming two days after Abbott , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged the hostility among many in his audience to his orders but defended them as right and necessary .
“ The reality is that Allen West took a direct swipe at the governor in his speech to the delegates in telling them , this is why you need to vote for me , ” said Luke Macias , a Republican political consultant who represents some of the most conservative candidates in Texas .
“ And that ’ s what the delegates were looking for , they were looking for someone who still stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and Allen West stood up and said , ‘ I will be that person for you , ’ and that ’ s what the grassroots wanted , ” Macias said .
This should be an interesting few months as we go into the November election .
Chairman Dickey was also rooted in Tea Party conservatism .
Dickey , however , has fallen out of favor with the grassroots Republicans .
They accused him of being more attentive to elected officials in the state legislature than to them .
West criticized the problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hung the blame on Dickey .
Though West has served as a senior adviser at an organization called the Committee to Defend the President , he hasn ’ t always been a Trump fan .
In a speech in 2017 , he graded Trump ’ s performance as a ‘ C ’ for his first year in office .
Last May , West was injured in a motorcycle crash while riding in protest of coronavirus lockdowns .
Maybe it ’ s time for a bomb-thrower to head the state party .
Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of victory in state and federal offices .
All of the statewide offices are still held by Republicans but the state legislature is at risk .
The likes of Beto O ’ Rourke and national Democrats are setting their sights on flipping the state legislature .
They know that if Texas goes back to being a blue state , it will be impossible for a Republican to win the presidency .
We ’ ll see how West does in holding them off .

Allen West, a former member of Congress from Florida and retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, moved to Texas in 2014. Last weekend, he was elected Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas during the party’s state convention. His was a hard-fought race against the incumbent chairman. He defeated Chairman James Dickey, who served in that position since 2017.
West is described by words like ‘firebrand’ and is known for his aggressive speaking style. Though he only served one term in Congress, he was a Tea Party favorite and known as a thorn in the side of Democrats. He even called for the impeachment of then-President Obama and said at the time to a radio show host that Obama was “probably the dumbest person walking around in America right now.” Let’s just say he doesn’t hold back.
Frankly, West may be just what the Republican Party of Texas needs. He’s a fierce competitor who has real fundraising skills. And, he is unapologetically conservative. The state party needs a shot in the arm as we head into November. The national Democrats are pouring money into Texas congressional races, as well as trying to make the Senate race competitive. Senator Cornyn is up for re-election and the Democrats are salivating for a Senate seat, especially from Texas, to help boost Biden’s chances. Trump will win Texas, don’t get me wrong, but down-ballot races are not so clear cut. Since their successes in 2018, Democrats are hoping to turn more Republican-held Congressional seats into Democrat seats. And, Democrats really want to turn the state legislature blue, too.
West issued a statement after his victory during the state’s virtual convention. President Trump offered congratulations, too.
West’s ascension comes four months before what could be an unusually competitive Election Day in America’s biggest red state. Democrats need just nine seats to flip the Texas House for the first time in 20 years, and Joe Biden this month put up a modest ad buy in Texas, raising questions about President Donald Trump’s vulnerability in the longtime Republican stronghold. “I am honored and privileged that Republicans of Texas have selected me to Chair their party and to be at the helm during this coming election cycle,” West said in a statement. “We need to focus on maintaining the conservative policies that made Texas strong and drive voter outreach across the state.” Trump acknowledged West’s victory on Monday, tweeting, “Congratulations Allen, great job!”
The GOP state convention was rife with problems because, at the last minute, it had to be conducted virtually due to the spike in coronavirus cases in the Houston area. It was a bumpy ride over the weekend but in the wee hours of Monday morning, West declared victory. At noon Monday, Chairman Dickey passed the gavel to West.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West, of Garland, defeated James Dickey, first elected state chairman in 2017. West won 22 state Senate districts to Dickey’s four, with five yet to report. In the spirit of unity, West, who claimed victory around 3:30 a.m., joined Dickey at the convention podium at noon Monday, where Dickey withdrew from the race and handed West the convention gavel. “Please consider yourself to be a very important counselor and mentor to me,” West told Dickey, “because I know how to jump out of airplanes, but I’m gonna learn to be a pretty good chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.”
As I noted, West is not shy in his words. During his speech to convention delegates, he referred to Governor Abbott’s executive orders to contain the pandemic as tyranny. He addressed the convention from the San Jacinto Monument on Saturday which commemorates the 1836 battle for Texas independence.
“Today there’s a new battleground, there’s a new battlefield, and it’s really not too much different from what they faced — the despotism, the tyranny that we see in the great state of Texas, where we have executive orders and mandates, people telling us what we can and cannot do, who is essential, who is not essential,” West said. There was no mistaking his meaning, coming two days after Abbott, in his message to the convention, acknowledged the hostility among many in his audience to his orders but defended them as right and necessary. “The reality is that Allen West took a direct swipe at the governor in his speech to the delegates in telling them, this is why you need to vote for me,” said Luke Macias, a Republican political consultant who represents some of the most conservative candidates in Texas. “And that’s what the delegates were looking for, they were looking for someone who still stands up and says, ‘Enough,’ and Allen West stood up and said, ‘I will be that person for you,’ and that’s what the grassroots wanted,” Macias said.
This should be an interesting few months as we go into the November election. Chairman Dickey was also rooted in Tea Party conservatism. Dickey, however, has fallen out of favor with the grassroots Republicans. They accused him of being more attentive to elected officials in the state legislature than to them. West criticized the problems that became obvious during the virtual convention and hung the blame on Dickey.
“I have been witnessing this debacle of a Republican Party of Texas convention,” West said, noting that, days after the convention opened, he had just received his credentials and voting code. “Chairman Dickey, you’re still disenfranchising delegates,” West said, calling on Dickey to shut down the convention until every delegate was properly credentialed, “because right now it looks like, intentionally you are only placating your supporters and you’re disenfranchising a lot of delegates.”
Though West has served as a senior adviser at an organization called the Committee to Defend the President, he hasn’t always been a Trump fan. In a speech in 2017, he graded Trump’s performance as a ‘C’ for his first year in office. Last May, West was injured in a motorcycle crash while riding in protest of coronavirus lockdowns.
Maybe it’s time for a bomb-thrower to head the state party. Texas Republicans are often too complacent from years of victory in state and federal offices. All of the statewide offices are still held by Republicans but the state legislature is at risk. The likes of Beto O’Rourke and national Democrats are setting their sights on flipping the state legislature. They know that if Texas goes back to being a blue state, it will be impossible for a Republican to win the presidency. We’ll see how West does in holding them off.


hotair--2020-07-22--Biden: Trump is America's first racist president

There were at least , like , 40+ other racist presidents before him .
Oh , wait .
I see .
This is just a clever if cynical ploy to get people to concede that Trump is racist in weighing precisely how racist he is relative to his predecessors , isn ’ t it ?
Actually , I don ’ t buy the “ clever ploy ” theory because this soundbite is destined to be more trouble for Biden than it ’ s worth .
Not among the right but among the left , who ’ ll take offense at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t go around absolving people of racism , especially figures from less enlightened times .
They indict them for it .
And there are plenty of presidents who warrant that indictment : It is highly un-woke to wave off racism by America ’ s centuries-long string of white male leaders just to score a point on the current guy .
Why , certain progressives might tell you that even Barack Obama is racist .
I mean , he ’ s against cancel culture , isn ’ t he ?
What could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the full context of what Biden said today : Biden signaled that he shared the questioner ’ s concern that Trump frequently refers to the pandemic as the “ China virus , ” saying , “ the way he deals with people based on the color of their skin , their national origin , where they ’ re from , is absolutely sickening.
” “ No sitting president has ever done this , ” Biden said .
“ Never , never , never .
No Republican president has done this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had racists , and they ’ ve existed , they ’ ve tried to get elected president .
He ’ s the first one that has.
” … “ And the way he pits people against one another is all designed to divide the country , divide people , not pull them together , ” Biden continued .
“ Look what he ’ s doing now .
He ’ s blaming everything on China .
.
.
.
He ’ s using it as a wedge.
” Defending China ’ s honor might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular election .
It ’ s also why Pelosi ’ s sudden insistence on describing the coronavirus as the “ Trump virus ” to counterprogram the president calling it the “ China virus ” is a bad idea .
You don ’ t want American voters to feel they ’ re being forced to choose between Trump and China .
That ’ s an easy choice , even for conscientious anti-Trumpers .
Interestingly , WaPo notes that Biden once declined to call Trump a racist when invited to do so last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What ’ s changed since then ?
Did the references to the “ Kung flu ” finally persuade Biden , or are there more strategic reasons for the shift ?
Since we ’ re on the subject of the election , two quickie polls to share .
Here ’ s the latest from a swing state : That swing state is … Texas .
No one thinks the votes will be there for Biden in the end , but a competitive Texas means a not-so-competitive Rust Belt .
Today Trump-friendly Rasmussen found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll of Pennsylvania and by four in Ohio , which isn ’ t even supposed to be in play .
In fact , Trump ’ s margin four years ago over Clinton in Texas was only slightly bigger than his margin in the Buckeye state .
The other poll comes from Morning Consult .
Note the result among independents : The question asked in this case was which candidate voters trust more to handle the economy .
That ’ s been Trump ’ s bread and butter all year ; even as his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s on various other personal and policy metrics , he ’ s continued to lead on the economy in most polls .
If that begins to change , the situation for the GOP will begin to look hopeless .
Which is why it ’ s very important that the party not hand Democrats an easy political victory by cheaping out on the next round of coronavirus stimulus .
I ’ ll leave you with this teaser released by Team Biden today of him and Obama sittin ’ around , bitchin ’ about Trump @

An outrageous lie.
There were at least, like, 40+ other racist presidents before him.
Oh, wait. I see. This is just a clever if cynical ploy to get people to concede that Trump is racist in weighing precisely how racist he is relative to his predecessors, isn’t it?
Biden says Trump is America's first racist president: "We’ve had racists, and they’ve existed, they’ve tried to get elected president. He’s the first one that has.” pic.twitter.com/BbOG3GgXvq — The Recount (@therecount) July 22, 2020
Actually, I don’t buy the “clever ploy” theory because this soundbite is destined to be more trouble for Biden than it’s worth. Not among the right but among the left, who’ll take offense at his egregious historical myopia. Modern Democrats don’t go around absolving people of racism, especially figures from less enlightened times. They indict them for it. And there are plenty of presidents who warrant that indictment:
Twelve presidents enslaved black people. Many oversaw Jim Crow. Why say this? And I repeat: it isn’t about Trump “being a racist,” even the worst one ever. It is about what you’ll do, @JoeBiden, to fix or stop the racist policies that he has set in motion. https://t.co/0zwpnrtY9O — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) July 22, 2020
It is highly un-woke to wave off racism by America’s centuries-long string of white male leaders just to score a point on the current guy. Why, certain progressives might tell you that even Barack Obama is racist.
I mean, he’s against cancel culture, isn’t he? What could be more racist than that?
Here’s the full context of what Biden said today:
Biden signaled that he shared the questioner’s concern that Trump frequently refers to the pandemic as the “China virus,” saying, “the way he deals with people based on the color of their skin, their national origin, where they’re from, is absolutely sickening.” “No sitting president has ever done this,” Biden said. “Never, never, never. No Republican president has done this. No Democratic president. We’ve had racists, and they’ve existed, they’ve tried to get elected president. He’s the first one that has.”… “And the way he pits people against one another is all designed to divide the country, divide people, not pull them together,” Biden continued. “Look what he’s doing now. He’s blaming everything on China. . . . He’s using it as a wedge.”
Defending China’s honor might not be a genius play in this particular election. It’s also why Pelosi’s sudden insistence on describing the coronavirus as the “Trump virus” to counterprogram the president calling it the “China virus” is a bad idea. You don’t want American voters to feel they’re being forced to choose between Trump and China. That’s an easy choice, even for conscientious anti-Trumpers.
Interestingly, WaPo notes that Biden once declined to call Trump a racist when invited to do so last year, criticizing his “racist policies” instead. What’s changed since then? Did the references to the “Kung flu” finally persuade Biden, or are there more strategic reasons for the shift?
Since we’re on the subject of the election, two quickie polls to share. Here’s the latest from a swing state:
That swing state is … Texas. No one thinks the votes will be there for Biden in the end, but a competitive Texas means a not-so-competitive Rust Belt. Today Trump-friendly Rasmussen found Biden ahead by five in a new poll of Pennsylvania and by four in Ohio, which isn’t even supposed to be in play. In fact, Trump’s margin four years ago over Clinton in Texas was only slightly bigger than his margin in the Buckeye state.
The other poll comes from Morning Consult. Note the result among independents:
The question asked in this case was which candidate voters trust more to handle the economy. That’s been Trump’s bread and butter all year; even as his numbers have collapsed relative to Biden’s on various other personal and policy metrics, he’s continued to lead on the economy in most polls. If that begins to change, the situation for the GOP will begin to look hopeless. Which is why it’s very important that the party not hand Democrats an easy political victory by cheaping out on the next round of coronavirus stimulus.
I’ll leave you with this teaser released by Team Biden today of him and Obama sittin’ around, bitchin’ about Trump.


hotair--2020-07-22--Is Minneapolis now defunding the policing alternatives, too?

Minneapolis can live without a police force , the city council argues , because they can deploy alternatives to prevent crime in the first place .
They want to “ reimagine ” law enforcement in terms of social work , with interventions by community groups and their experts rather than armed officers of the law .
That will help de-escalate situations and lower the crime rate , the council argues as it pursues a change to the city charter to eliminate the police department .
However , those community groups have something in common with the police department .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay them either : Organizers of several Minneapolis crime-prevention groups have temporarily stopped doing street outreach because they say the city hasn ’ t paid them in weeks , even as gun violence continues to rise .
The groups — including We Push for Peace and a coalition of ministers and gang members organized by Rev .
Jerry McAfee that helped guard North Side businesses during the riots that followed George Floyd ’ s death — had been working with the city to combat crime , particularly in the Third and Fourth police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Violence Prevention , the groups started patrolling some of the most troubled neighborhoods , talking to gang members and trying to defuse tensions among rival crews before they erupt .
But Trey Pollard , founder and CEO of We Push for Peace , said that promised payments from the city have yet to materialize .
Pollard said the group has cut back its outreach , since most of its workers rely on a steady paycheck .
“ They can ’ t continuously keep putting their lives in jeopardy out there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clock at night to 3 o ’ clock in the morning , ” he said .
“ It ’ s been a month now , and we have yet to receive a payment — you can ’ t expect us to keep doing the work.
” This seems like a very bad time to get cheap .
Thanks to the city council ’ s efforts , the Minneapolis police department is draining manpower by the day .
Even the New York Times has taken notice of the phenomenon , reporting that the officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — a trend that almost guarantees that matters will get worse when acute situations arise : Nearly two months after four of its officers were charged with killing George Floyd , the Minneapolis Police Department is reeling , with police officers leaving the job in large numbers , crime surging and politicians planning a top-to-bottom overhaul of the force .
Veteran officers say that morale within the department is lower than they have ever experienced .
Some officers are scaling back their policing efforts , concerned that any contentious interactions on the street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many others are calling it quits altogether .
“ It ’ s almost like a nuclear bomb hit the city , and the people who didn ’ t perish are standing around , ” Officer Rich Walker Sr. , a 16-year Minneapolis police veteran and union official , said of the mood within the department .
“ I ’ m still surprised that we ’ ve got cops showing up to work , to be honest.
” … The prospect that a department of about 850 could lose about 20 percent of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major concern .
Already , about 65 officers have left the department this year , surpassing the typical attrition rate of 45 a year , Chief Medaria Arradondo told the City Council during a meeting last week .
Dozens of other officers have taken temporary leave since Mr. Floyd ’ s death , complicating the staffing picture .
Those numbers have almost certainly grown since then , which is bad enough .
That has a dynamic of its own , too , with more tentative responses , less enthusiasm for patrols that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on inexperience with communities when they do respond .
These are the issues that community-policing policies help solve by adding resources to police departments , along with reform policies to help smooth relations between police departments and the cities they serve .
The council wants instead to rely on groups like We Push for Peace .
How long will those groups respond without resources ?
And how long will they respond when they have no effective backup from an authorized police force to protect their volunteers ?
Probably not long — and no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

Minneapolis can live without a police force, the city council argues, because they can deploy alternatives to prevent crime in the first place. They want to “reimagine” law enforcement in terms of social work, with interventions by community groups and their experts rather than armed officers of the law. That will help de-escalate situations and lower the crime rate, the council argues as it pursues a change to the city charter to eliminate the police department.
However, those community groups have something in common with the police department. The city council doesn’t want to pay them either:
Organizers of several Minneapolis crime-prevention groups have temporarily stopped doing street outreach because they say the city hasn’t paid them in weeks, even as gun violence continues to rise. The groups — including We Push for Peace and a coalition of ministers and gang members organized by Rev. Jerry McAfee that helped guard North Side businesses during the riots that followed George Floyd’s death — had been working with the city to combat crime, particularly in the Third and Fourth police precincts. Under the direction of the Office of Violence Prevention, the groups started patrolling some of the most troubled neighborhoods, talking to gang members and trying to defuse tensions among rival crews before they erupt. But Trey Pollard, founder and CEO of We Push for Peace, said that promised payments from the city have yet to materialize. Pollard said the group has cut back its outreach, since most of its workers rely on a steady paycheck. “They can’t continuously keep putting their lives in jeopardy out there, and walking around from 9 o’clock at night to 3 o’clock in the morning,” he said. “It’s been a month now, and we have yet to receive a payment — you can’t expect us to keep doing the work.”
This seems like a very bad time to get cheap. Thanks to the city council’s efforts, the Minneapolis police department is draining manpower by the day. Even the New York Times has taken notice of the phenomenon, reporting that the officers remaining are retreating from interactions with residents — a trend that almost guarantees that matters will get worse when acute situations arise:
Nearly two months after four of its officers were charged with killing George Floyd, the Minneapolis Police Department is reeling, with police officers leaving the job in large numbers, crime surging and politicians planning a top-to-bottom overhaul of the force. Veteran officers say that morale within the department is lower than they have ever experienced. Some officers are scaling back their policing efforts, concerned that any contentious interactions on the street could land them in trouble. And many others are calling it quits altogether. “It’s almost like a nuclear bomb hit the city, and the people who didn’t perish are standing around,” Officer Rich Walker Sr., a 16-year Minneapolis police veteran and union official, said of the mood within the department. “I’m still surprised that we’ve got cops showing up to work, to be honest.” … The prospect that a department of about 850 could lose about 20 percent of its force in the coming months has prompted major concern. Already, about 65 officers have left the department this year, surpassing the typical attrition rate of 45 a year, Chief Medaria Arradondo told the City Council during a meeting last week. Dozens of other officers have taken temporary leave since Mr. Floyd’s death, complicating the staffing picture.
Those numbers have almost certainly grown since then, which is bad enough. That has a dynamic of its own, too, with more tentative responses, less enthusiasm for patrols that could tamp down crime, and overreactions based on inexperience with communities when they do respond. These are the issues that community-policing policies help solve by adding resources to police departments, along with reform policies to help smooth relations between police departments and the cities they serve.
The council wants instead to rely on groups like We Push for Peace. How long will those groups respond without resources? And how long will they respond when they have no effective backup from an authorized police force to protect their volunteers? Probably not long — and no one would blame them at all for it.


hotair--2020-07-22--Joe Rogan interview: Ben Shapiro embraces safe spaces

Okay , that headline is a bit of a play on words .
Shapiro did use the phrase “ safe space ” in a positive way but he didn ’ t mean the kind of thing that SJWs mean when they say it .
Shapiro was interviewed today by Joe Rogan and at one point the discussion turned to the topic of race , which is obviously a major topic at this moment in time .
“ I had the unfortunate experience of actually reading one of the bestselling books in America right now , Robin DiAngelo ’ s White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a greater pile of horsesh*t has never been produced by a bevy of horses , ” Shapiro said .
He continued , “ The basic definition of racism changes in this theory…You and I are sitting here discussing racism and the way I define racism is probably the same way you define racism : You believe in the superiority or inferiority of a group based on race [ or ] of an individual based on their membership in that group too.
” “ Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi redefine racism to mean any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequality is itself racist , ” Shapiro said .
“ Exactly !
The answer is kind of yes… ” Shapiro replied .
And then he added , “ It ’ s because it ’ s a meritocracy is the reason the NBA is not racist but Robin DiAngelo and Kendi both suggest that meritocracy is an aspect of whiteness .
They say that meritocracy and the individual are aspects of whiteness because these institutions , things like meritocracy and individualism and not seeing people ’ s color , these just reinforce hierarchies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so what they say is that in order to be anti-racist you have to be willing to tear down the entire system.
” This may sound like an exaggeration but as I pointed out last week , the NY Times spent some time with DiAngelo and other anti-racism trainers and reached the same conclusion , i.e .
underlying this new anti-racism is a rejection of capitalism , rationalism and excellence .
Here ’ s a sample about an antiracism trainer named Marcus Moore : In Hartford , Moore directed us to a page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of white values .
Along with “ ‘ The King ’ s English ’ rules , ” “ objective , rational , linear thinking ” and “ quantitative emphasis , ” there was “ work before play , ” “ plan for future ” and “ adherence to rigid time schedules.
” Moore expounded that white culture is obsessed with “ mechanical time ” — clock time — and punishes students for lateness .
This , he said , is but one example of how whiteness undercuts Black kids .
“ The problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being is the way to be.
” In school and on into the working world , he lectured , tremendous harm is done by the pervasive rule that Black children and adults must “ bend to whiteness , in substance , style and format.
” Getting back to the Rogan interview , Shapiro then gave a description of the 1619 Project and how its vision of America differs from the traditional one in seeing racism as the most fundamental aspect of American life .
Rogan made the argument that “ historically , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ If you go from the Civil Rights movement to 2020 we ’ re really not talking about that much time.
” Shapiro agreed that in the span of human history it wasn ’ t long and Rogan argued that there is “ some impact ” of racism and then Jim Crow laws .
Rogan suggested there must be a middle ground between the 1619 Project view of history and the traditional view .
Shapiro agreed but argued “ Yeah , but I don ’ t think it lies in the dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want it to.
” Shapiro then argued that the solution to a lot of our current problems involved “ people making better choices over time ” or , put another way , individual agency .
Rogan continued to push back with the idea that the experience of black Americans , who were brought here against their will as property , was unique and not directly comparable to the stories of other immigrant groups .
He suggested that telling people to make better choices was too simplistic when , in many cases , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good role models .
Shapiro ’ s retort was to return to the 1619 Project and argue , “ When you teach people that they are the victims or a society it makes it very difficult for them to succeed.
” There ’ s a lot more to the discussion from there but ultimately Rogan asked Shapiro what he would do to solve some of the problems black Americans face in places like Baltimore and Chicago if he were “ the king of the world.
” “ Here ’ s the unpopular view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Shapiro said .
He continued , “ The first thing you have to do is you have to load the place with police .
You ’ ve got to load the place with police because you ’ ve got to stop crime .
Once you stop crime , then businesses are happy to invest in those areas .
You ’ re not going to get businesses to invest in those areas and provide jobs unless crime is gone…You have to make sure that law-abiding people are protected , that law-abiding businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live there .
That people want to invest there.
” And a few sentences later he said it , “ You need to provide a safe space for business to work and for free speech to flourish and for education to be valued .
You need to go and you need to make clear to every kid [ that ] if you graduate high school then you will have a shot at college.
” Again , it ’ s not the kind of safe space SJWs have in mind , i.e .
a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t like .
His is a better ideal of a safe space .
It ’ s also the complete opposite of where many of our cities seem to be going with current plans to defund police .
So if you agree with the content of this discussion then you ’ d also have to say we ’ re headed in the wrong direction .
Here ’ s the portion of the interview on the topic of race .
If you want to see the full interview , it ’ s @ @

Okay, that headline is a bit of a play on words. Shapiro did use the phrase “safe space” in a positive way but he didn’t mean the kind of thing that SJWs mean when they say it. Shapiro was interviewed today by Joe Rogan and at one point the discussion turned to the topic of race, which is obviously a major topic at this moment in time.
“I had the unfortunate experience of actually reading one of the bestselling books in America right now, Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility and let me just tell you a greater pile of horsesh*t has never been produced by a bevy of horses,” Shapiro said. He continued, “The basic definition of racism changes in this theory…You and I are sitting here discussing racism and the way I define racism is probably the same way you define racism: You believe in the superiority or inferiority of a group based on race [or] of an individual based on their membership in that group too.”
“Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi redefine racism to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality is itself racist,” Shapiro said.
“Does that make the NBA racist?” Rogan asked?
“Exactly! The answer is kind of yes…” Shapiro replied. And then he added, “It’s because it’s a meritocracy is the reason the NBA is not racist but Robin DiAngelo and Kendi both suggest that meritocracy is an aspect of whiteness. They say that meritocracy and the individual are aspects of whiteness because these institutions, things like meritocracy and individualism and not seeing people’s color, these just reinforce hierarchies that end with disparate outcomes.
“And so what they say is that in order to be anti-racist you have to be willing to tear down the entire system.”
This may sound like an exaggeration but as I pointed out last week, the NY Times spent some time with DiAngelo and other anti-racism trainers and reached the same conclusion, i.e. underlying this new anti-racism is a rejection of capitalism, rationalism and excellence. Here’s a sample about an antiracism trainer named Marcus Moore:
In Hartford, Moore directed us to a page in our training booklets: a list of white values. Along with “ ‘The King’s English’ rules,” “objective, rational, linear thinking” and “quantitative emphasis,” there was “work before play,” “plan for future” and “adherence to rigid time schedules.” Moore expounded that white culture is obsessed with “mechanical time” — clock time — and punishes students for lateness. This, he said, is but one example of how whiteness undercuts Black kids. “The problems come when we say this way of being is the way to be.” In school and on into the working world, he lectured, tremendous harm is done by the pervasive rule that Black children and adults must “bend to whiteness, in substance, style and format.”
Getting back to the Rogan interview, Shapiro then gave a description of the 1619 Project and how its vision of America differs from the traditional one in seeing racism as the most fundamental aspect of American life.
Rogan made the argument that “historically, it’s fairly recent.” He said, “If you go from the Civil Rights movement to 2020 we’re really not talking about that much time.” Shapiro agreed that in the span of human history it wasn’t long and Rogan argued that there is “some impact” of racism and then Jim Crow laws. Rogan suggested there must be a middle ground between the 1619 Project view of history and the traditional view. Shapiro agreed but argued “Yeah, but I don’t think it lies in the dead center of that as much as people want it to.”
Shapiro then argued that the solution to a lot of our current problems involved “people making better choices over time” or, put another way, individual agency. Rogan continued to push back with the idea that the experience of black Americans, who were brought here against their will as property, was unique and not directly comparable to the stories of other immigrant groups. He suggested that telling people to make better choices was too simplistic when, in many cases, people in poor neighborhoods don’t have good role models. Shapiro’s retort was to return to the 1619 Project and argue, “When you teach people that they are the victims or a society it makes it very difficult for them to succeed.”
There’s a lot more to the discussion from there but ultimately Rogan asked Shapiro what he would do to solve some of the problems black Americans face in places like Baltimore and Chicago if he were “the king of the world.”
“Here’s the unpopular view but it happens to be empirically correct,” Shapiro said. He continued, “The first thing you have to do is you have to load the place with police. You’ve got to load the place with police because you’ve got to stop crime. Once you stop crime, then businesses are happy to invest in those areas. You’re not going to get businesses to invest in those areas and provide jobs unless crime is gone…You have to make sure that law-abiding people are protected, that law-abiding businesses are protected. That people want to live there. That people want to invest there.”
And a few sentences later he said it, “You need to provide a safe space for business to work and for free speech to flourish and for education to be valued. You need to go and you need to make clear to every kid [that] if you graduate high school then you will have a shot at college.”
Again, it’s not the kind of safe space SJWs have in mind, i.e. a place where they can escape hearing opinions they don’t like. His is a better ideal of a safe space. It’s also the complete opposite of where many of our cities seem to be going with current plans to defund police. So if you agree with the content of this discussion then you’d also have to say we’re headed in the wrong direction.
Here’s the portion of the interview on the topic of race. If you want to see the full interview, it’s here.


hotair--2020-07-22--Cruz and Cotton clash: Should the GOP go big on another coronavirus stimulus?

These tweets from Varad Mehta about Cruz wanting to limit the next stimulus made me laugh because they ’ re so painfully true — almost .
Ranting impotently in the Senate minority isn ’ t Cruz ’ s lifelong ambition , but it ’ s a fate he ’ ll happily accept if his actual lifelong ambition ends up unfulfilled .
Which it will .
Cruz isn ’ t alone in preferring to operate in the minority .
Look no further than Trump himself , who ’ d be having the time of his life right now on Twitter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID disaster every day if he had fallen a few votes short in 2016 .
Even now during interviews the president will occasionally lapse into rhetoric about , say , the unrest in cities like Portland that might lead one to believe Joe Biden was president instead of Trump himself .
The entire GOP project since he was sworn in , from the White House to the Senate to Paul Ryan ’ s House majority , has been a case of the dog that caught the car and didn ’ t know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were handed total control of government and did nothing meaningful legislatively except get a tax cut passed .
Even the one big project they got close on , repealing ObamaCare , proves the point : We ’ re 10 years removed from passage of that law , which they ’ ve been trying to get rid of for a decade , and they still don ’ t have a clear alternative to it .
But why should they ?
They can always go on Rush ’ s show to yell about it instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t become stars because they ’ re good at governing , they become stars because they ’ re good at cultivating and expressing grievance , and powerlessness is essential to feeling properly aggrieved .
Ranting about the country going to hell when you ’ re in charge is absurd .
Better to have Democrats in charge so that you can blame each new problem on them , feel unobliged to offer plausible solutions that might require unhappy compromises , and celebrate your own ideological virtue in sporadic “ Hannity ” appearances .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any meaningful sense .
It ’ s not designed to govern or implement a visionary agenda .
It ’ s a grievance shop that seeks mainly to try to undo anything the left wants to do .
Trump is actually superior to most Republican politicians in that sense : Whether you like his trade wars and the border wall or hate them , they were concrete things that he wanted to do as president which he thought would improve the country .
( Of course , most of the rest of his agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
He ’ s 90 percent ahead of every congressional Republican in that sense .
All of this is to set the stage for the Cruz/Cotton showdown over whether the GOP should keep the money tap on or start pretending again for political reasons that they care about fiscal responsibility : Sen. Ted Cruz ( Tex . )
warned GOP colleagues and White House emissaries during a private lunch on Tuesday that conservative voters could revolt in November if Republicans spend too much on the next phase of coronavirus relief efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new spending and revenue reductions to combat the contagion and its economic consequences , some lawmakers are saying they can not support a new package if its price tag exceeds $ 1 trillion .
Cruz asked Senate Republicans , “ What in the hell are we doing ?
” Meanwhile , Sen. Tom Cotton ( Ark . )
suggested at the lunch that the GOP needs to be willing to keep racking up debt to maintain power .
He argued that the full conference needs to focus on protecting their most vulnerable members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more money if they win the Senate majority in November and , therefore , it is cheaper in the long run to allow the size of the spending package to grow with more goodies to benefit incumbents who are up for reelection .
Mehta ’ s pissed off because Cruz ’ s position here is obviously — obviously — idiotic .
Conservative voters won ’ t revolt .
Rather the opposite : The surest way for the GOP to seal its electoral fate would be to cut funds for laid-off Americans as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and California , putting lives and businesses at risk .
It ’ d be gifting Democrats with the message , “ We ’ re the only party that cares about you and your children.
” Fiscal responsibility at a moment like this would at least be intellectually defensible ( although still politically suicidal ) if Cruz and the rest of the congressional GOP had spent the past three years riding herd on Trump and McConnell , howling for spending cuts in a push to reduce the country ’ s already catastrophic debt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were blessed with three years of roaring economic growth , a perfect moment at which to restore fiscal sanity , and they still managed to run trillion-dollar deficits because the thought of asking Trump to do something politically unpopular made them pee themselves in fear .
So now here ’ s Cruz recovering his brand as Mr. Fiscal Conservative at the worst possible moment .
A double agent for Biden couldn ’ t do better .
So why ’ s he doing it ?
Cruz is many things but “ idiotic ” isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows how voters would react if he got his wish .
Peter Spiliakos recognizes what he ’ s up to : Cruz understands as well as anyone ( better than most , frankly ) that the GOP has no real ideology or governing ambitions .
He also knows how to read a poll , and he knows what the polls say about who ’ s likely to win this fall .
So he ’ s making a bet : Biden will be president next year and right-wing voters will be left grasping for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Trumpism .
Cruz ’ s perfectly sensible bet is that they ’ ll land back on fiscal conservatism , not because they sincerely care about it but because the Democrats ’ agenda will involve big big big spending and the Republican agenda will , as usual , simply revert to “ we ’ re against whatever Democrats ’ are for.
” The Mr. Fiscal Conservative shtick is just an attempt to anticipate the dominant strain of the backlash that will greet Biden once he ’ s an office .
Will righties still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crusade against Big Tech when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are pushing new tax hikes on the Biden White House ?
Will they rally to Tom Cotton ’ s hyper-hawkishness when AOC ’ s trying to get the Green New Deal off the ground ?
Of course not .
They ’ ll be pretend tea partiers again .
Cruz is polishing his cred on that point now in hopes of wooing them in 2024 .
“ Remember when the RINOs wanted to keep spending when tens of millions of people were laid off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was like ‘ nah ’ ?
” But we can ’ t blame everything on Cruz .
The craziest element by far of the horribly timed “ return to our roots ” fiscal conservative push among Washington Republicans is Trump ’ s own White House wanting to cut money for testing and contact tracing , which is as close to forcing a “ pro-coronavirus ” position on vulnerable Senate Republicans as one can imagine .
I ’ ll leave you with this quote from Senator — and M.D .
— Bill Cassidy .
@

These tweets from Varad Mehta about Cruz wanting to limit the next stimulus made me laugh because they’re so painfully true — almost. Ranting impotently in the Senate minority isn’t Cruz’s lifelong ambition, but it’s a fate he’ll happily accept if his actual lifelong ambition ends up unfulfilled. Which it will.
Ted Cruz's lifelong ambition is to rage impotently about his principles as part of the minority in a 56-44 Democratic Senate. When you bear that in mind, everything he does makes perfect sense. H/t @CTIronman. https://t.co/t3h2qbPmSl — Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) July 22, 2020
The refusal of these idiots to adjust their thinking even an iota but instead cling to their dogmas even more fanatically is truly breathtaking. Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz, and the GOP establishment let it happen. And when you see Cruz in action, you completely understand why. — Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) July 22, 2020
Cruz isn’t alone in preferring to operate in the minority. Look no further than Trump himself, who’d be having the time of his life right now on Twitter and cable news armchair-quarterbacking President Hillary about the COVID disaster every day if he had fallen a few votes short in 2016. Even now during interviews the president will occasionally lapse into rhetoric about, say, the unrest in cities like Portland that might lead one to believe Joe Biden was president instead of Trump himself. The entire GOP project since he was sworn in, from the White House to the Senate to Paul Ryan’s House majority, has been a case of the dog that caught the car and didn’t know what to do next. In 2017 they were handed total control of government and did nothing meaningful legislatively except get a tax cut passed. Even the one big project they got close on, repealing ObamaCare, proves the point: We’re 10 years removed from passage of that law, which they’ve been trying to get rid of for a decade, and they still don’t have a clear alternative to it.
But why should they? They can always go on Rush’s show to yell about it instead. Modern Republican political stars don’t become stars because they’re good at governing, they become stars because they’re good at cultivating and expressing grievance, and powerlessness is essential to feeling properly aggrieved. Ranting about the country going to hell when you’re in charge is absurd. Better to have Democrats in charge so that you can blame each new problem on them, feel unobliged to offer plausible solutions that might require unhappy compromises, and celebrate your own ideological virtue in sporadic “Hannity” appearances.
It’s not a political party in any meaningful sense. It’s not designed to govern or implement a visionary agenda. It’s a grievance shop that seeks mainly to try to undo anything the left wants to do. Trump is actually superior to most Republican politicians in that sense: Whether you like his trade wars and the border wall or hate them, they were concrete things that he wanted to do as president which he thought would improve the country. (Of course, most of the rest of his agenda is just undoing stuff that Obama did.) He’s 90 percent ahead of every congressional Republican in that sense.
All of this is to set the stage for the Cruz/Cotton showdown over whether the GOP should keep the money tap on or start pretending again for political reasons that they care about fiscal responsibility:
Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) warned GOP colleagues and White House emissaries during a private lunch on Tuesday that conservative voters could revolt in November if Republicans spend too much on the next phase of coronavirus relief efforts. After voting for $3 trillion in new spending and revenue reductions to combat the contagion and its economic consequences, some lawmakers are saying they cannot support a new package if its price tag exceeds $1 trillion. Cruz asked Senate Republicans, “What in the hell are we doing?” Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) suggested at the lunch that the GOP needs to be willing to keep racking up debt to maintain power. He argued that the full conference needs to focus on protecting their most vulnerable members. Cotton postulated that Democrats would spend more money if they win the Senate majority in November and, therefore, it is cheaper in the long run to allow the size of the spending package to grow with more goodies to benefit incumbents who are up for reelection.
Mehta’s pissed off because Cruz’s position here is obviously — obviously — idiotic. Conservative voters won’t revolt. Rather the opposite: The surest way for the GOP to seal its electoral fate would be to cut funds for laid-off Americans as the pandemic continues to rage across the south and California, putting lives and businesses at risk. It’d be gifting Democrats with the message, “We’re the only party that cares about you and your children.” Fiscal responsibility at a moment like this would at least be intellectually defensible (although still politically suicidal) if Cruz and the rest of the congressional GOP had spent the past three years riding herd on Trump and McConnell, howling for spending cuts in a push to reduce the country’s already catastrophic debt. But they didn’t. They were blessed with three years of roaring economic growth, a perfect moment at which to restore fiscal sanity, and they still managed to run trillion-dollar deficits because the thought of asking Trump to do something politically unpopular made them pee themselves in fear.
So now here’s Cruz recovering his brand as Mr. Fiscal Conservative at the worst possible moment. A double agent for Biden couldn’t do better.
So why’s he doing it? Cruz is many things but “idiotic” isn’t one of them. He knows how voters would react if he got his wish. Peter Spiliakos recognizes what he’s up to:
Cruz posturing against the new rona relief/stimulus bill in order to get a head start on opposing spending during the forthcoming Biden administration, even if it hurts vulnerable GOP senators in 2020, helps explain why so many GOP officeholders preferred even Trump to Cruz. — Peter Spiliakos (@petespiliakos) July 22, 2020
Cruz understands as well as anyone (better than most, frankly) that the GOP has no real ideology or governing ambitions. He also knows how to read a poll, and he knows what the polls say about who’s likely to win this fall. So he’s making a bet: Biden will be president next year and right-wing voters will be left grasping for an ideology to fill the vacuum left by Trumpism. Cruz’s perfectly sensible bet is that they’ll land back on fiscal conservatism, not because they sincerely care about it but because the Democrats’ agenda will involve big big big spending and the Republican agenda will, as usual, simply revert to “we’re against whatever Democrats’ are for.” The Mr. Fiscal Conservative shtick is just an attempt to anticipate the dominant strain of the backlash that will greet Biden once he’s an office. Will righties still care much about Josh Hawley’s crusade against Big Tech when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are pushing new tax hikes on the Biden White House? Will they rally to Tom Cotton’s hyper-hawkishness when AOC’s trying to get the Green New Deal off the ground? Of course not. They’ll be pretend tea partiers again. Cruz is polishing his cred on that point now in hopes of wooing them in 2024. “Remember when the RINOs wanted to keep spending when tens of millions of people were laid off due to a deadly virus and I was like ‘nah’?”
But we can’t blame everything on Cruz. The craziest element by far of the horribly timed “return to our roots” fiscal conservative push among Washington Republicans is Trump’s own White House wanting to cut money for testing and contact tracing, which is as close to forcing a “pro-coronavirus” position on vulnerable Senate Republicans as one can imagine. I’ll leave you with this quote from Senator — and M.D. — Bill Cassidy.:


hotair--2020-07-22--Oregon AG seeks restraining order against federal officers in Portland

Judge Mosman appeared to be partly but not wholly convinced by the claim that federal officers were rounding people up without probable cause .
Mosman said the declaration of one man , who said in court papers that he was arrested by federal agents for no reason and later released , seemed meet the bar for Oregon ’ s motion for a temporary restraining order .
But in a back-and-forth with Oregon attorneys , Mosman focused on a Twitter video of another arrest that showed a person being placed in an unmarked van and seemed skeptical of the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was made without probable cause .
One thing not mentioned in the AP coverage of the hearing is any claim that the federal police are unmarked or “ secret.
” A significant number of elected Democrats have used that language in the past several days , likely after talking points were sent out : We ’ ll have to wait and see how the judge rules .
Meanwhile , the Department of Homeland Security held a press conference yesterday to specifically lay out their authority to protect a federal courthouse and even to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they witness committing crimes at the courthouse .
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said , “ The law is clear on what our authority entails .
Specifically , federal statute states that the Secretary of Homeland Security , and I ’ m quoting , ‘ shall protect building , grounds and property that are owned occupied and secured by the federal government.
’ “ The law goes on to state that the department can conduct investigations , again I ’ m quoting , ‘ on and off property in question on offenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned and occupied by the federal government or persons on that property.
’ In other words , we are expressly allowed to leave federal property to conduct investigations and arrest individuals who have damaged federal property.
” Richard Cline , Deputy Director of the Federal Protective Service said when protesters began focusing their attacks on the federal buildings in the area the regular force was “ overwhelmed ” and requested help from CBP and ICE .
Describing the nightly attacks on the building and the officers at the federal building Cline said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lasers that are being used out there.
” He continued , “ We have three officers who currently have eye injuries and they may not recover sight in those eyes from those laser attacks.
” He said officers have now been given anti-laser glasses to protect them .
Mark Morgan , the senior official currently performing the duties of the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner , spoke specifically about the claims that the federal agents are secret or unmarked .
“ I ’ ve been in law enforcement for almost three decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard procedure , standard practice among every local , state and federal law enforcement agency in this country , actually in the world.
” Morgan went on to say that the use of unmarked vehicles made sense because marked police vehicles have been targeted for vandalism and arson in cities around the country .
As for the uniforms , Morgan brought examples of two uniforms and showed that every federal officer ’ s uniform said police on the front and back and also included patches that identified the specif agency and units they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see , clearly marked , that they are part of the Customs and Border Protection .
The second line of marking is , it shows the component within CBP that they are associated with , in this instance the border patrol .
“ Clearly police .
It ’ s marked on the front and the back .
Clearly .
Every single agent .
In addition to that they have a unique identifier .
Deputy Director Cline said he doesn ’ t have his officers wear name tags because they are being doxed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As for why the agents were wearing camouflage , that ’ s because the CBP agents are wearing the same uniform they wear on the border .
They haven ’ t been given new uniforms just because they are temporarily operating in a city .

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed a request for a temporary restraining order against federal officers in Portland. Today U.S. District Court Judge Michael Mosman heard arguments in the case. Mosman works inside the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse which has been the focus of protesters for several weeks and which is also the building federal agents in Portland have been trying to protect.
The motion for a temporary restraining order asks the judge to immediately command agents from the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, the Federal Protective Service and the U.S. Marshals Service to immediately stop detaining protesters without probable cause, to identify themselves before arresting anyone and to explain why an arrest is taking place. During the hearing — held by videoconference because of the coronavirus pandemic — Rosenblum said she was asking the court to “declare it not acceptable for federal officers to use unconstitutional police state-type acts to detain citizens of Oregon without cause.”
Judge Mosman appeared to be partly but not wholly convinced by the claim that federal officers were rounding people up without probable cause.
Mosman said the declaration of one man, who said in court papers that he was arrested by federal agents for no reason and later released, seemed meet the bar for Oregon’s motion for a temporary restraining order. But in a back-and-forth with Oregon attorneys, Mosman focused on a Twitter video of another arrest that showed a person being placed in an unmarked van and seemed skeptical of the state’s argument that that arrest in particular was made without probable cause.
One thing not mentioned in the AP coverage of the hearing is any claim that the federal police are unmarked or “secret.” A significant number of elected Democrats have used that language in the past several days, likely after talking points were sent out:
We’ll have to wait and see how the judge rules. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security held a press conference yesterday to specifically lay out their authority to protect a federal courthouse and even to arrest people off the courthouse grounds who they witness committing crimes at the courthouse. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said, “The law is clear on what our authority entails. Specifically, federal statute states that the Secretary of Homeland Security, and I’m quoting, ‘shall protect building, grounds and property that are owned occupied and secured by the federal government.’
“The law goes on to state that the department can conduct investigations, again I’m quoting, ‘on and off property in question on offenses that may have been committed against property owned and occupied by the federal government or persons on that property.’ In other words, we are expressly allowed to leave federal property to conduct investigations and arrest individuals who have damaged federal property.”
Richard Cline, Deputy Director of the Federal Protective Service said when protesters began focusing their attacks on the federal buildings in the area the regular force was “overwhelmed” and requested help from CBP and ICE. Describing the nightly attacks on the building and the officers at the federal building Cline said, “You’ve seen the green lasers that are being used out there.” He continued, “We have three officers who currently have eye injuries and they may not recover sight in those eyes from those laser attacks.” He said officers have now been given anti-laser glasses to protect them.
Mark Morgan, the senior official currently performing the duties of the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, spoke specifically about the claims that the federal agents are secret or unmarked. “I’ve been in law enforcement for almost three decades. The use of unmarked vehicles is a standard procedure, standard practice among every local, state and federal law enforcement agency in this country, actually in the world.” Morgan went on to say that the use of unmarked vehicles made sense because marked police vehicles have been targeted for vandalism and arson in cities around the country.
As for the uniforms, Morgan brought examples of two uniforms and showed that every federal officer’s uniform said police on the front and back and also included patches that identified the specif agency and units they were from. “First and foremost you see, clearly marked, that they are part of the Customs and Border Protection. The second line of marking is, it shows the component within CBP that they are associated with, in this instance the border patrol.
“Clearly police. It’s marked on the front and the back. Clearly. Every single agent. In addition to that they have a unique identifier. Deputy Director Cline said he doesn’t have his officers wear name tags because they are being doxed. That’s exactly right.”
As for why the agents were wearing camouflage, that’s because the CBP agents are wearing the same uniform they wear on the border. They haven’t been given new uniforms just because they are temporarily operating in a city.
Here’s the full DHS press conference: