hotair--2020-02-22--Clint Eastwood's pick for president may surprise you

Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood was interviewed by the executive editor of Stanford University ’ s Hoover Institution .
On Friday the piece was published as The Weekend Interview in the Wall Street Journal .
The interview took a newsworthy twist when the topic of politics came up .
Eastwood is supporting Michael Bloomberg .
Say it ain ’ t so , Clint .
It seems Mr. Eastwood is joining the ranks of other Hollywood movers and shakers in support of Bloomberg .
Bloomberg began courting voters in California back in December , focusing on smaller cities and their mayors instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps Bloomberg appeals to Eastwood as a former mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea .
He handily won that election 2,166 votes to 799 and only served one two-year term .
He didn ’ t seek re-election because “ You can ’ t have the same old people in office all the time.
” I might suggest that he was ready to get back to his regular day job after a two-year break but maybe that ’ s just me .
Eastwood is one of those rare Republicans in Hollywood and he doesn ’ t shy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s actually more libertarian but he votes Republican .
Remember his famous appearance at the 2012 RNC convention where he did a bit where he talked to an empty chair on stage ?
He strongly opposed everything about Barack Obama and his administration .
He also refused to support Hillary Clinton though the majority of Hollywood did .
In 2016 he supported Donald Trump because , he said , Hillary promised to be Obama ’ s third term .
So , it is logical to assume that Eastwood would support Trump in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turns out .
Eastwood even justifies his turn away from Trump as many Never-Trump Republicans do – he criticizes Trump ’ s demeanor and personality , not his policies .
Trump ’ s a meanie or something .
As for the domestic political scene , Mr. Eastwood seems disheartened .
“ The politics has gotten so ornery , ” he says , hunching his shoulders in resignation .
He approves of “ certain things that Trump ’ s done ” but wishes the president would act “ in a more genteel way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would personally like for him to not bring himself to that level.
” As he drives me back to my hotel , he expresses an affinity for another former mayor : “ The best thing we could do is just get Mike Bloomberg in there.
” As an exercise in whataboutism , we need only to take a quick scan of Bloomberg ’ s Twitter feed to see that his tweets are no better than Trump ’ s when it comes to tone and name-calling .
Just yesterday a tweet was posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patriot .
It describes Trump as a Russian asset , which at this point , is just lame .
Trump has been harder on the Russians by way of sanctions than any of his predecessors .
And , we can ’ t forget a favorite jab at Trump by Team Bloomberg – he calls him “ a carnival barking clown.
” How ’ s that for genteel ?
Eastwood calls himself more libertarian than Republican but how does that square with his support of Bloomberg ?
Eastwood says California is “ like Regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered on his promise to undo many of the regulations that the Obama administration leveled on American businesses and in government policies .
Bloomberg is the guy who micro-managed New Yorkers to the point of taking away their sugary drinks and Big Gulps .
He ’ s ready to usher in climate change regulations that will cripple the energy industry and the economy .
And Bloomberg is a gun-grabber .
He funds Everytown for Gun Safety .
How does an anti-Second Amendment candidate square with Eastwood ?
Mr. Eastwood describes himself as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other people ’ s ideas and is willing to learn constantly.
” He is , he says , always in “ a state of evolution , ” and he comes across in conversation as much more nuanced than the hypermasculine roles he ’ s played in films from “ Dirty Harry ” ( 1971 ) to “ Gran Torino ” ( 2008 ) .
Yet his voice is the same—that unmistakable tenor that lends itself as easily on screen to flirtation as to husky menace .
He talks avidly about some of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which he produced and directed .
His character , Walt Kowalski , is a cantankerous Korean War veteran who hates his Hmong neighbors in a rundown inner Detroit suburb .
He agrees that the film has a certain relevance in Mr. Trump ’ s America , where everyone is “ pairing off for adversity.
” I just don ’ t get how any libertarian could support Bloomberg .
Yet , here we are .
In a totally predictable move , however , another Hollywood legend is announcing his endorsement .
Dick Van @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dyke is now 94 years old and doesn ’ t understand why more old folks aren ’ t jumping on the Bernie bandwagon .
He wants them to do so .
Just a guess , Mr. Van Dyke , but I would assume more of the old people in your generation aren ’ t supporting Bernie because they understand and remember the failures of socialism .
The greatest generation is no doubt aghast at even the thought of ushering in socialism and destroying the very freedoms they fought for so heroically in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her role as his wife on the Dick Van Dyke Show , “ Oh , Rob .
”

Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood was interviewed by the executive editor of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. On Friday the piece was published as The Weekend Interview in the Wall Street Journal. The interview took a newsworthy twist when the topic of politics came up. Eastwood is supporting Michael Bloomberg.
Say it ain’t so, Clint.
It seems Mr. Eastwood is joining the ranks of other Hollywood movers and shakers in support of Bloomberg. Bloomberg began courting voters in California back in December, focusing on smaller cities and their mayors instead of large cities like Los Angeles. Perhaps Bloomberg appeals to Eastwood as a former mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea. He handily won that election 2,166 votes to 799 and only served one two-year term. He didn’t seek re-election because “You can’t have the same old people in office all the time.” I might suggest that he was ready to get back to his regular day job after a two-year break but maybe that’s just me.
Eastwood is one of those rare Republicans in Hollywood and he doesn’t shy away from saying so. He’s actually more libertarian but he votes Republican. Remember his famous appearance at the 2012 RNC convention where he did a bit where he talked to an empty chair on stage? He strongly opposed everything about Barack Obama and his administration. He also refused to support Hillary Clinton though the majority of Hollywood did. In 2016 he supported Donald Trump because, he said, Hillary promised to be Obama’s third term.
During a speech in August 2016, he appeared to express his plans to vote for Trump, saying, “I’d have to go for Trump… you know, ’cause [Hillary’s] declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps.”
So, it is logical to assume that Eastwood would support Trump in 2020, right? Wrong, as it turns out. Eastwood even justifies his turn away from Trump as many Never-Trump Republicans do – he criticizes Trump’s demeanor and personality, not his policies. Trump’s a meanie or something.
As for the domestic political scene, Mr. Eastwood seems disheartened. “The politics has gotten so ornery,” he says, hunching his shoulders in resignation. He approves of “certain things that Trump’s done” but wishes the president would act “in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names. I would personally like for him to not bring himself to that level.” As he drives me back to my hotel, he expresses an affinity for another former mayor: “The best thing we could do is just get Mike Bloomberg in there.”
As an exercise in whataboutism, we need only to take a quick scan of Bloomberg’s Twitter feed to see that his tweets are no better than Trump’s when it comes to tone and name-calling. Just yesterday a tweet was posted that awards Trump as an outstanding Russian patriot. It describes Trump as a Russian asset, which at this point, is just lame. Trump has been harder on the Russians by way of sanctions than any of his predecessors.
And, we can’t forget a favorite jab at Trump by Team Bloomberg – he calls him “a carnival barking clown.” How’s that for genteel?
Eastwood calls himself more libertarian than Republican but how does that square with his support of Bloomberg? Eastwood says California is “like Regulation City right now”. Trump has delivered on his promise to undo many of the regulations that the Obama administration leveled on American businesses and in government policies. Bloomberg is the guy who micro-managed New Yorkers to the point of taking away their sugary drinks and Big Gulps. He’s ready to usher in climate change regulations that will cripple the energy industry and the economy. And Bloomberg is a gun-grabber. He funds Everytown for Gun Safety. How does an anti-Second Amendment candidate square with Eastwood?
Mr. Eastwood describes himself as a libertarian—“somebody who has respect for other people’s ideas and is willing to learn constantly.” He is, he says, always in “a state of evolution,” and he comes across in conversation as much more nuanced than the hypermasculine roles he’s played in films from “Dirty Harry” (1971) to “Gran Torino” (2008). Yet his voice is the same—that unmistakable tenor that lends itself as easily on screen to flirtation as to husky menace. He talks avidly about some of his films, including “Gran Torino,” which he produced and directed. His character, Walt Kowalski, is a cantankerous Korean War veteran who hates his Hmong neighbors in a rundown inner Detroit suburb. He agrees that the film has a certain relevance in Mr. Trump’s America, where everyone is “pairing off for adversity.”
I just don’t get how any libertarian could support Bloomberg. Yet, here we are.
In a totally predictable move, however, another Hollywood legend is announcing his endorsement. Dick Van Dyke is endorsing Bernie Sanders. Van Dyke is now 94 years old and doesn’t understand why more old folks aren’t jumping on the Bernie bandwagon. He wants them to do so.
“He never has changed his attack because of pressure from the outside or when he felt the wind was blowing another way. He stuck with who he is and what he believes." –Dick Van Dyke pic.twitter.com/j8bKHBlCkT — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 22, 2020
Just a guess, Mr. Van Dyke, but I would assume more of the old people in your generation aren’t supporting Bernie because they understand and remember the failures of socialism. The greatest generation is no doubt aghast at even the thought of ushering in socialism and destroying the very freedoms they fought for so heroically in their day.
To quote Mary Tyler Moore from her role as his wife on the Dick Van Dyke Show, “Oh, Rob.”


hotair--2020-02-22--"Shock wave": LA Times troubled by Trump's "flipping" of the 9th Circuit

If it ’ s not “ the economy , stupid , ” as James Carville famously exhorted , then it ’ s the judiciary , smarty-pants .
Those two issues turn out Republicans and conservatives more than any others in presidential elections , and it ’ s a sure bet the latter is why reluctant conservatives rallied to Donald Trump in 2016 — well , most of them , anyway .
And Trump has delivered in both areas , but especially on judicial appointments .
His biggest triumph — shared by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — could well be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the famously far-left appellate panel .
The Los Angeles Times calls Trump ’ s ten appointments to the Ninth Circuit a “ shock wave ” that has flipped the court : In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit , which covers California and eight other states .
Because of Trump ’ s success in filling vacancies , the San Francisco-based circuit , long dominated by Democratic appointees , has suddenly shifted to the right , with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years .
“ Trump has effectively flipped the circuit , ” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. , an appointee of President George W. Bush .
To assess the early impact of these appointments , The Times interviewed several judges on the 9th Circuit .
Some either declined to discuss their colleagues or inner deliberations or refused to be quoted by name , saying they were not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the scenes .
To be sure , some of the new appointees to the 9th Circuit have quickly won the respect of their colleagues .
But the rapid influx of so many judges — most without judicial experience — has put strains upon the court and stirred criticism among judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents .
The term “ flipped ” seems pretty overblown , at least for now .
Readers find out a little further in that Democratic appointees still outnumber Republican appointees 16-13 on the panel .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Ed Whelan notes , as a few of the Republicans are considered moderate-to-liberal , including the one that claims the court has been “ flipped ” : If there ’ s any “ shock wave ” involved , Hugh Hewitt writes , it ’ s that the Ninth Circuit is finally back in the mainstream of appellate courts : Oddly enough , the Los Angeles Times never mentions the original shock wave that made all this possible .
Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate tradition in his 2013 “ nuclear option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change rules to bar filibusters on judicial confirmations .
That gave Barack Obama carte blanche to stack the DC Circuit , but it also placed a powerful tool in the hands of subsequent Senate majorities of the same party as the president .
Voila !
Trump now has 51 appellate appointments under his belt , and if he wins a second term on the basis of protecting the judiciary , undoubtedly will get dozens more confirmed as well .
The complaints in the article over Trump ’ s ten appointments are , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divisive !
They don ’ t follow the rules !
They didn ’ t have judicial experience !
Closer to the end , however , other voices remind readers that both Obama and Clinton appointed non-judges to the Ninth Circuit and that everyone has a learning curve when taking an appellate post .
This “ shock wave ” is just a nonsense comment , an attempt to paint these appointments as some sort of unprecedented makeover just seven years after Reid and Obama did the same damned thing on the other coast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyperbole over the Ninth Circuit ’ s rate of reversals .
It does serve one purpose , however — to remind conservatives and moderates about the consequences of the next election .
Who do they want to see appointing the next two Supreme Court justices and dozens of appellate judges — Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump ?
It ’ s still going to be the judiciary , smartypants .

If it’s not “the economy, stupid,” as James Carville famously exhorted, then it’s the judiciary, smarty-pants. Those two issues turn out Republicans and conservatives more than any others in presidential elections, and it’s a sure bet the latter is why reluctant conservatives rallied to Donald Trump in 2016 — well, most of them, anyway. And Trump has delivered in both areas, but especially on judicial appointments.
His biggest triumph — shared by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — could well be the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the famously far-left appellate panel. The Los Angeles Times calls Trump’s ten appointments to the Ninth Circuit a “shock wave” that has flipped the court:
In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead. Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years. “Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush. To assess the early impact of these appointments, The Times interviewed several judges on the 9th Circuit. Some either declined to discuss their colleagues or inner deliberations or refused to be quoted by name, saying they were not authorized to speak about what goes on behind the scenes. To be sure, some of the new appointees to the 9th Circuit have quickly won the respect of their colleagues. But the rapid influx of so many judges — most without judicial experience — has put strains upon the court and stirred criticism among judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
The term “flipped” seems pretty overblown, at least for now. Readers find out a little further in that Democratic appointees still outnumber Republican appointees 16-13 on the panel. Even that’s a little misleading, as Ed Whelan notes, as a few of the Republicans are considered moderate-to-liberal, including the one that claims the court has been “flipped”:
And same claim in article by Judge Milan Smith is particularly odd, as Smith, though appointed by GWB, is widely regarded as a moderate liberal. — Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) February 22, 2020
If there’s any “shock wave” involved, Hugh Hewitt writes, it’s that the Ninth Circuit is finally back in the mainstream of appellate courts:
The court hasn’t flipped, its “reverting to the norm” of every other circuit from its outlier status. — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) February 22, 2020
Oddly enough, the Los Angeles Times never mentions the original shock wave that made all this possible. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed Senate tradition in his 2013 “nuclear option” by using a simple majority to change rules to bar filibusters on judicial confirmations. That gave Barack Obama carte blanche to stack the DC Circuit, but it also placed a powerful tool in the hands of subsequent Senate majorities of the same party as the president. Voila! Trump now has 51 appellate appointments under his belt, and if he wins a second term on the basis of protecting the judiciary, undoubtedly will get dozens more confirmed as well.
The complaints in the article over Trump’s ten appointments are, by contrast, overblown. They’re divisive! They don’t follow the rules! They didn’t have judicial experience! Closer to the end, however, other voices remind readers that both Obama and Clinton appointed non-judges to the Ninth Circuit and that everyone has a learning curve when taking an appellate post.
This “shock wave” is just a nonsense comment, an attempt to paint these appointments as some sort of unprecedented makeover just seven years after Reid and Obama did the same damned thing on the other coast. It’s as overblown as the hyperbole over the Ninth Circuit’s rate of reversals.
It does serve one purpose, however — to remind conservatives and moderates about the consequences of the next election. Who do they want to see appointing the next two Supreme Court justices and dozens of appellate judges — Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump? It’s still going to be the judiciary, smartypants.


hotair--2020-02-22--Connecticut students arrested for saying things

There was a time when I couldn ’ t even picture writing about a story like this because it was frankly unthinkable that it could even happen .
But we ’ re in the 21st century now so it seems that all bets are off .
Back in October at the University of Connecticut , two white students were caught on video slinging racial epithets while walking across a student parking lot .
When the clip was posted to social media , understandable outrage ensued .
But that ’ s where the story took a decidedly troubling turn .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime .
If you can ’ t see why this would be disturbing , refill your coffee , sit back and get ready for a wild ride .
( NBC News ) Free speech concerns that were raised following the arrests of two University of Connecticut students accused of saying a racial slur have led state legislators to consider repealing a century-old law that bans ridicule based on race , religion or nationality .
The episode on campus involving two white students in October was recorded on video and sparked protests against racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but civil liberties groups condemned them as an affront to First Amendment rights .
Police said the students , Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj , uttered the racial slur several times while walking through the parking lot of a campus apartment complex and were recorded by a black student .
It seems that Connecticut has a law on the books that ’ s been in place since 1917 making it illegal for anyone who “ ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons , on account of the creed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationality or race of such person or class of persons.
” And even though it ’ s a misdemeanor , the penalty can include a fine and up to thirty days in jail .
Here ’ s the kicker .
Unlike some other dusty old laws that most people have forgotten about , the Connecticut law has actually been used in modern times .
According to NBC News , 40 people have been charged under this law just since 2012 .
Ten were convicted and one of them was actually sent to jail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re thinking .
This law is flatly unconstitutional so the men who did this should be able to challenge it and have their convictions tossed , along with getting the law off the books , right ?
I mean , even the ACLU is arguing against this law on free speech grounds .
And the state legislature is already conducting a review to see if it should be repealed .
But will it be ?
And would the law really fail a constitutional challenge ?
Up until the past couple of years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was definitely the case .
But now stop and consider the case of the Worst Girlfriend Ever .
( There are actually two of those cases now . )
As you may recall , she was charged with manslaughter for endlessly texting and calling her boyfriend , urging him to take his own life , which he eventually did .
But her entire involvement in his suicide consisted of calls and texts .
She was sent to prison for nearly a year for saying things .
And the Supreme Court refused to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an era where Americans can be locked up for talking .
And if that precedent is set in stone , why can ’ t the states claim that people are “ causing harm ” by saying hateful things ?
Don ’ t get me wrong .
The students in question are idiots at a minimum and fully deserving of the scorn they ’ ve received .
They claim they were just “ playing a game ” that involved saying offensive things , but if your idea of a game involves hurling the N-word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if scorn is all you receive .
And yet it ’ s still just speech , hateful though it may be .
This is the era of wokeness where college students constantly say they feel “ unsafe ” if people say things that make them uncomfortable .
If the courts can be convinced that such speech constitutes an actual “ harm ” to them , the floodgates will be wide open .
Free speech is gutted and that ’ s the game , set and match .

There was a time when I couldn’t even picture writing about a story like this because it was frankly unthinkable that it could even happen. But we’re in the 21st century now so it seems that all bets are off. Back in October at the University of Connecticut, two white students were caught on video slinging racial epithets while walking across a student parking lot. When the clip was posted to social media, understandable outrage ensued. But that’s where the story took a decidedly troubling turn. The students were arrested and charged with a crime. If you can’t see why this would be disturbing, refill your coffee, sit back and get ready for a wild ride. (NBC News)
Free speech concerns that were raised following the arrests of two University of Connecticut students accused of saying a racial slur have led state legislators to consider repealing a century-old law that bans ridicule based on race, religion or nationality. The episode on campus involving two white students in October was recorded on video and sparked protests against racism. Many people applauded their arrests, but civil liberties groups condemned them as an affront to First Amendment rights. Police said the students, Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj, uttered the racial slur several times while walking through the parking lot of a campus apartment complex and were recorded by a black student.
It seems that Connecticut has a law on the books that’s been in place since 1917 making it illegal for anyone who “ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons.” And even though it’s a misdemeanor, the penalty can include a fine and up to thirty days in jail.
Here’s the kicker. Unlike some other dusty old laws that most people have forgotten about, the Connecticut law has actually been used in modern times. According to NBC News, 40 people have been charged under this law just since 2012. Ten were convicted and one of them was actually sent to jail.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. This law is flatly unconstitutional so the men who did this should be able to challenge it and have their convictions tossed, along with getting the law off the books, right? I mean, even the ACLU is arguing against this law on free speech grounds. And the state legislature is already conducting a review to see if it should be repealed.
But will it be? And would the law really fail a constitutional challenge? Up until the past couple of years, I’d have said that was definitely the case. But now stop and consider the case of the Worst Girlfriend Ever. (There are actually two of those cases now.) As you may recall, she was charged with manslaughter for endlessly texting and calling her boyfriend, urging him to take his own life, which he eventually did. But her entire involvement in his suicide consisted of calls and texts. She was sent to prison for nearly a year for saying things. And the Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal.
So we live in an era where Americans can be locked up for talking. And if that precedent is set in stone, why can’t the states claim that people are “causing harm” by saying hateful things? Don’t get me wrong. The students in question are idiots at a minimum and fully deserving of the scorn they’ve received. They claim they were just “playing a game” that involved saying offensive things, but if your idea of a game involves hurling the N-word around, you’ll be lucky if scorn is all you receive. And yet it’s still just speech, hateful though it may be.
This is the era of wokeness where college students constantly say they feel “unsafe” if people say things that make them uncomfortable. If the courts can be convinced that such speech constitutes an actual “harm” to them, the floodgates will be wide open. Free speech is gutted and that’s the game, set and match.


hotair--2020-02-22--Greyhound bans immigration checks on buses

Wow .
I just can ’ t wait to see how this plays out once this report shows up in the Oval Office .
Greyhound , one of the oldest passenger bus lines in the country , has announced that it will no longer allow Border Patrol agents to board its buses to check the immigration and citizenship status of passengers .
Stickers will be placed on all of their buses informing law enforcement that they won ’ t be allowed on the bus unless they have a warrant to search for a specific suspect .
I ’ ve got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Avenue isn ’ t going to be a fan of this policy change .
( Associated Press ) Greyhound , the nation ’ s largest bus company , said Friday it will stop allowing Border Patrol agents without a warrant to board its buses to conduct routine immigration checks .
The company ’ s announcement came one week after The Associated Press reported on a leaked Border Patrol memo confirming that agents can ’ t board private buses without the consent of the bus company .
Greyhound had previously insisted that even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks , it had no choice under federal law but to allow them .
In an emailed statement , the company said it would notify the Department of Homeland Security that it does not consent to unwarranted searches on its buses or in areas of terminals that are not open to the public — such as company offices or any areas a person needs a ticket to access .
Perhaps this news isn ’ t quite as bad as it could be , which isn ’ t saying much .
The memo that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would apply “ at non-checkpoint locations.
” That ’ s important because the first thought that crossed my mind was to wonder if we couldn ’ t even check passengers at border crossings .
That ’ s just an invitation to illegal immigrants that would cost no more than a bus ticket .
Still , it ’ s not good .
But what can the White House do about it , right ?
I mean , after all , Greyhound is a private company and they set their own policies .
Well… not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump in action before on these types of disputes .
Both state governments and private companies frequently rely on the good graces of the federal government to get things done .
And as it turns out , in order for Greyhound to legally operate their business with any bus routes that cross state lines , there are a few legal hoops to jump through .
Primarily , they need a Motor Carrier Number ( MCN ) issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration .
In order to qualify for an MCN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to show , among other things , that they are properly ensuring the safety of their passengers .
But are you really doing that if you won ’ t allow law enforcement to make sure there are no potentially criminal illegal aliens in their midst ?
Seems to me that President Trump could pick up the phone and call the head of the FMCSA and direct them to look into the matter .
Say… nice Motor Carrier Number you ’ ve got there .
Be a real shame if anything were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s MCN and they ’ re out of business the same day , except for local routes that don ’ t cross state lines .
And each state also has its own Motor Carrier Safety Administration to cover companies running local routes .
Any of the red states with governors more sympathetic to Trump ’ s agenda could probably consider a similar phone call .
Would that be dirty pool ?
Well , at a minimum it would certainly be an example of playing hardball .
But would Trump actually do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York who can no longer get into the Trusted Traveler programs .

Wow. I just can’t wait to see how this plays out once this report shows up in the Oval Office.
Greyhound, one of the oldest passenger bus lines in the country, has announced that it will no longer allow Border Patrol agents to board its buses to check the immigration and citizenship status of passengers. Stickers will be placed on all of their buses informing law enforcement that they won’t be allowed on the bus unless they have a warrant to search for a specific suspect. I’ve got a feeling that somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn’t going to be a fan of this policy change. (Associated Press)
Greyhound, the nation’s largest bus company, said Friday it will stop allowing Border Patrol agents without a warrant to board its buses to conduct routine immigration checks. The company’s announcement came one week after The Associated Press reported on a leaked Border Patrol memo confirming that agents can’t board private buses without the consent of the bus company. Greyhound had previously insisted that even though it didn’t like the immigration checks, it had no choice under federal law but to allow them. In an emailed statement, the company said it would notify the Department of Homeland Security that it does not consent to unwarranted searches on its buses or in areas of terminals that are not open to the public — such as company offices or any areas a person needs a ticket to access.
Perhaps this news isn’t quite as bad as it could be, which isn’t saying much. The memo that the AP obtained specifies that this policy would apply “at non-checkpoint locations.” That’s important because the first thought that crossed my mind was to wonder if we couldn’t even check passengers at border crossings. That’s just an invitation to illegal immigrants that would cost no more than a bus ticket.
Still, it’s not good. But what can the White House do about it, right? I mean, after all, Greyhound is a private company and they set their own policies. Well… not so fast.
We’ve seen President Trump in action before on these types of disputes. Both state governments and private companies frequently rely on the good graces of the federal government to get things done. And as it turns out, in order for Greyhound to legally operate their business with any bus routes that cross state lines, there are a few legal hoops to jump through. Primarily, they need a Motor Carrier Number (MCN) issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
In order to qualify for an MCN from the FMCSA, the company is required to show, among other things, that they are properly ensuring the safety of their passengers. But are you really doing that if you won’t allow law enforcement to make sure there are no potentially criminal illegal aliens in their midst? Seems to me that President Trump could pick up the phone and call the head of the FMCSA and direct them to look into the matter.
Say… nice Motor Carrier Number you’ve got there. Be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Suspend the company’s MCN and they’re out of business the same day, except for local routes that don’t cross state lines. And each state also has its own Motor Carrier Safety Administration to cover companies running local routes. Any of the red states with governors more sympathetic to Trump’s agenda could probably consider a similar phone call.
Would that be dirty pool? Well, at a minimum it would certainly be an example of playing hardball. But would Trump actually do it? Just ask all the people in New York who can no longer get into the Trusted Traveler programs.


hotair--2020-02-22--Several arrests following Extinction Rebellion vandalism at Trinity College

Monday a group of Extinction Rebellion vandals gathered at Trinity College and dug up a portion of the lawn to protest the school ’ s potential sale of farm land for development .
That stunt did generate headlines but not all of them were sympathetic .
“ It has been polarising , ” said an XR spokesperson of the last 36 hours of scrutiny and debate .
“ Sometimes the public come up to thank us , others say we ’ ve gone too far and see it as vandalism but Trinity College didn ’ t want the sale of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news so it was always going to be controversial .
It highlights issues of land equality as well as climate change.
” The following day the group held another protest outside a research building connected to oil production .
Protesters spray painted the outside of the building and at least one glued her hand to a police vehicle .
Here ’ s a brief video that will give you a feel for the second protest : The result of these two protests was several arrests : A man and two women have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists dug up a lawn outside a Cambridge University college .
Three others have been charged with criminal damage over a protest that took place the following day outside a research building run by the oilfield service provider Schlumberger .
Despite the arrests , the protesters returned to the scene of the crime at Trinity College Friday saying they had no intention of apologizing : Extinction Rebellion ( XR ) returned to the front lawn of Trinity College this afternoon , handing out assorted wildflower seeds in order to “ re-wild the planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist told The Tab Cambridge : “ We ’ re not back here to apologise , and the statements we made with regards to Trinity lawn still stand .
We ’ re here to move forwards and to progress , we ’ re here distributing wildflower seeds… He concluded by saying that “ we ’ re not vandals , we ’ re not thugs , we don ’ t do this kind of stuff for no reason ” .
Sorry , but people who vandalize other people ’ s property are vandals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t the only UK extremists looking to change the world .
Several socialist groups that considers Extinction Rebellion ’ s vandalism stunts too tame have taken over a former police building : Rallying to a slogan of ‘ F*** the Banks , F*** the City ’ , this menacing rabble — a coalition of anti-capitalist and environmental extremists who regard Extinction Rebellion as too limited in aim and insufficiently radical — will do whatever it takes to cause mayhem in the financial district around the Bank of England .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hardline agitators have commandeered what was once Britain ’ s most secure police station , and are not only ‘ occupying ’ this former bastion of law and order , but using it as a base from which to wage war on the very society it was built to protect .
The squatters belong to groups singled out for attention in a police anti-terrorism document recently uncovered by the Guardian newspaper .
They include Anarchist Federation , the Industrial Workers of the World and Reclaim Power .
These groups will be holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday the 28th , so expect to see more vandalism , possible violence , and hopefully many more arrests .
Here ’ s the group ’ s description of the planned event : We are living through the willful destruction of Earth ’ s ecosystems and the billions of people who depend on them to survive .
We know what is causing this destruction – the capitalist system we live in and the people who get disgustingly rich while knowing that they are only able to do so by destroying the future for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the global south while stealing resources to pad their pockets all the same ; it ’ s about time we said no more .
No more exploitation .
No more capitalism .
No more climate change !
This is basically AOC ’ s world view .
I wonder if she ’ ll tweet support for these groups .

Monday a group of Extinction Rebellion vandals gathered at Trinity College and dug up a portion of the lawn to protest the school’s potential sale of farm land for development. That stunt did generate headlines but not all of them were sympathetic.
“It has been polarising,” said an XR spokesperson of the last 36 hours of scrutiny and debate. “Sometimes the public come up to thank us, others say we’ve gone too far and see it as vandalism but Trinity College didn’t want the sale of Innocence Farm to be on the national news so it was always going to be controversial. It highlights issues of land equality as well as climate change.”
The following day the group held another protest outside a research building connected to oil production. Protesters spray painted the outside of the building and at least one glued her hand to a police vehicle.
Yesterday rebels from XR Cambridge headed to Schlumberger, a leading fossil fuel and oil research facility. Activists glued onto police vans to stand up for climate justice and demand divestment.#rebelforjustice #climatejustice #ExtinctionRebellion #Cambridge pic.twitter.com/DHIa3oJ63C — XR Youth Cambridge (@xryouthcambs) February 19, 2020
Here’s a brief video that will give you a feel for the second protest:
The result of these two protests was several arrests:
A man and two women have been charged with criminal damage after Extinction Rebellion activists dug up a lawn outside a Cambridge University college. Three others have been charged with criminal damage over a protest that took place the following day outside a research building run by the oilfield service provider Schlumberger.
Despite the arrests, the protesters returned to the scene of the crime at Trinity College Friday saying they had no intention of apologizing:
Extinction Rebellion (XR) returned to the front lawn of Trinity College this afternoon, handing out assorted wildflower seeds in order to “re-wild the planet and grow something new”… One activist told The Tab Cambridge: “We’re not back here to apologise, and the statements we made with regards to Trinity lawn still stand. We’re here to move forwards and to progress, we’re here distributing wildflower seeds… He concluded by saying that “we’re not vandals, we’re not thugs, we don’t do this kind of stuff for no reason”.
Sorry, but people who vandalize other people’s property are vandals. But the Daily Mail reported yesterday they aren’t the only UK extremists looking to change the world. Several socialist groups that considers Extinction Rebellion’s vandalism stunts too tame have taken over a former police building:
Rallying to a slogan of ‘F*** the Banks, F*** the City’, this menacing rabble — a coalition of anti-capitalist and environmental extremists who regard Extinction Rebellion as too limited in aim and insufficiently radical — will do whatever it takes to cause mayhem in the financial district around the Bank of England. Yes, you read that correctly. A bunch of hardline agitators have commandeered what was once Britain’s most secure police station, and are not only ‘occupying’ this former bastion of law and order, but using it as a base from which to wage war on the very society it was built to protect. The squatters belong to groups singled out for attention in a police anti-terrorism document recently uncovered by the Guardian newspaper. They include Anarchist Federation, the Industrial Workers of the World and Reclaim Power.
These groups will be holding a “Rally Against Capital” next Friday the 28th, so expect to see more vandalism, possible violence, and hopefully many more arrests. Here’s the group’s description of the planned event:
We are living through the willful destruction of Earth’s ecosystems and the billions of people who depend on them to survive. We know what is causing this destruction – the capitalist system we live in and the people who get disgustingly rich while knowing that they are only able to do so by destroying the future for everybody. Currently they ignore the plight of the global south while stealing resources to pad their pockets all the same; it’s about time we said no more. No more exploitation. No more capitalism. No more climate change!
This is basically AOC’s world view. I wonder if she’ll tweet support for these groups.


hotair--2020-02-23--Now Buttigieg says irregularities in Nevada counts

The chaos of last night ’ s Nevada caucus continues to ripple into Sunday .
Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg wants the Democratic Party to do a recount because of so-called irregularities and anomalies at multiple precincts , specifically involving early votes .
Via Las Vegas Review-Journal : “ Currently our data shows that this is a razor thin margin for second place in Nevada , and due to irregularities and a number of unresolved questions we have raised with the Nevada Democratic Party , it ’ s unclear what the final results will be , ” said Hari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager .
The Buttigieg campaign asked that the alleged errors be corrected before any final release of results .
Nevada State Democratic Party spokesperson Molly Forgey is defending the process to CNN : We laid out our early vote and Caucus Day processes step by step and we communicated these processes to all campaigns .
We are continuing to verify and to report results .
We never indicated we would release a separate breakdown of early vote and in-person attendees by precinct and will not change our reporting process now .
As laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a formal method for requesting a challenge of results .
Buttigieg is looking to reduce the impact of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s second-place finish and increase his delegate count .
Biden was able to score two delegates yesterday versus Buttigieg ’ s one .
It appears Buttigieg believes a brokered convention is possible meaning every delegate will count in Milwaukie .
Sanders could end up with a majority of the delegates but a big enough coalition of other Democrats forms to pick another candidate .
Buttigieg could benefit as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up as the vice-president nominee in some sort of alliance .
The chaos of the Democratic primary is a double-edged sword .
It ’ s certainly amusing to watch from a dumpster fire perspective .
How in the blue cow is this the other major party in America ?
Yet the counter-argument is the fact it ’ s fomenting more and more discord within party ranks and could usher in an even greater populist insurgency .
Imagine a populist candidate with a better personality and zero skeletons .
The ensuing drama might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century France .
All these moves by Buttigieg could be rendered moot if Mike Bloomberg ’ s Super Tuesday strategy pays off .
Bloomberg , past debate performance aside , sees March 3rd as the key date for procuring enough delegates to secure the nomination or a way to become kingmaker at the convention .
A dangerous proposition given his proclivity for ruling via executive fiat .
The big question for both parties to consider is whether the caucus system is worth the headache .
Colorado got rid of its caucus system due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One person told KDVR that 2016 was absolute chaos while party leaders said the state had outgrown the caucus system .
The result is Colorado doing a primary election this year instead of caucusing .
The benefits of the primary system are obvious : direct results and less of a circus .
The detriment is the fact a primary system ends up forcing the state to foot the bill although it could probably be set up to require financial participation from the state parties .
Another option is just admitting Iowa and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except for allowing the states to go , “ We were first !
” The nominee isn ’ t necessarily figured out until Super Tuesday , and it is likely history will repeat itself March 3rd .
Despite the obvious fractures in the Democratic Party .

The chaos of last night’s Nevada caucus continues to ripple into Sunday. Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg wants the Democratic Party to do a recount because of so-called irregularities and anomalies at multiple precincts, specifically involving early votes. Via Las Vegas Review-Journal:
“Currently our data shows that this is a razor thin margin for second place in Nevada, and due to irregularities and a number of unresolved questions we have raised with the Nevada Democratic Party, it’s unclear what the final results will be,” said Hari Sevugan, Buttigieg’s deputy campaign manager. The Buttigieg campaign asked that the alleged errors be corrected before any final release of results.
Nevada State Democratic Party spokesperson Molly Forgey is defending the process to CNN:
We laid out our early vote and Caucus Day processes step by step and we communicated these processes to all campaigns. We are continuing to verify and to report results. We never indicated we would release a separate breakdown of early vote and in-person attendees by precinct and will not change our reporting process now. As laid out in our recount guidance, there is a formal method for requesting a challenge of results.
Buttigieg is looking to reduce the impact of former Vice President Joe Biden’s second-place finish and increase his delegate count. Biden was able to score two delegates yesterday versus Buttigieg’s one. It appears Buttigieg believes a brokered convention is possible meaning every delegate will count in Milwaukie. Sanders could end up with a majority of the delegates but a big enough coalition of other Democrats forms to pick another candidate. Buttigieg could benefit as the consensus non-populist presidential candidate or end up as the vice-president nominee in some sort of alliance.
The chaos of the Democratic primary is a double-edged sword. It’s certainly amusing to watch from a dumpster fire perspective. How in the blue cow is this the other major party in America?
Yet the counter-argument is the fact it’s fomenting more and more discord within party ranks and could usher in an even greater populist insurgency. Imagine a populist candidate with a better personality and zero skeletons. The ensuing drama might be something from a novel or early 19th century France.
All these moves by Buttigieg could be rendered moot if Mike Bloomberg’s Super Tuesday strategy pays off. Bloomberg, past debate performance aside, sees March 3rd as the key date for procuring enough delegates to secure the nomination or a way to become kingmaker at the convention. A dangerous proposition given his proclivity for ruling via executive fiat.
The big question for both parties to consider is whether the caucus system is worth the headache. Colorado got rid of its caucus system due to anger from Republican and Democratic voters. One person told KDVR that 2016 was absolute chaos while party leaders said the state had outgrown the caucus system. The result is Colorado doing a primary election this year instead of caucusing.
The benefits of the primary system are obvious: direct results and less of a circus. The detriment is the fact a primary system ends up forcing the state to foot the bill although it could probably be set up to require financial participation from the state parties.
Another option is just admitting Iowa and Nevada do nothing to pick presidential nominees except for allowing the states to go, “We were first!” The nominee isn’t necessarily figured out until Super Tuesday, and it is likely history will repeat itself March 3rd. Despite the obvious fractures in the Democratic Party.


hotair--2020-02-23--Greta Thunberg's mother has some things to say about her daughter

Greta Thunberg ’ s mother , Malena Ernman is promoting her family ’ s new book , “ Our House is on Fire : Scenes of a Family and a Planet in Crisis.
” She is using her daughter ’ s story as a tool for publicity .
If the phrase “ our house is on fire ” is familiar it is because Greta frequently uses it when speaking in public about climate change .
Malena Ernman gave an interview to The Guardian in which she described how Greta became an activist .
Frankly , there really wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I ’ ve read .
That ’ s the problem with the Thunberg story if the family is now trying to cash in with book sales – Greta Thunberg hasn ’ t suffered from a lack of publicity .
The child is only 17 years old , after all .
Her years of experience are just beginning .
The parents of Greta work in the entertainment industry so they crave the stage .
Ernman is a well-known opera singer in Europe and Svante Thunberg , Greta ’ s father , is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but given up their own careers in order to pursue Greta ’ s activism in promoting climate change propaganda .
Climate change alarmism , you might say , is the new family business .
Just as Greta preaches , her parents have given up traveling by air and now drive to occasional professional engagements .
Their first memoir about the family ’ s support of Greta was Scenes From the Heart .
In the new book , Ernman describes Greta ’ s troubles with an eating disorder after being exposed to climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traumatized that she became a mute – refusing to speak .
Greta lost over 20 pounds in the span of two months and was hospitalized for treatment .
When she returned to school , having been diagnosed with a high-functioning form of Autism , Asperger ’ s , she was bullied and her parents claim the school blamed them for Greta ’ s inability to behave as other students .
Ernman said Thunberg , who is now 17 , became interested in climate issues at school when her teacher showed a film about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , other students discussed a teacher ’ s trip to New York and other travel plans , while Thunberg struggled to move on from learning about the pollution .
“ Greta can ’ t reconcile any of this with any of what she has just seen , ” her mother wrote .
“ She saw what the rest of us did not want to see .
It was as if she could see our CO2 emissions with her naked eye.
” As we all know now , her parents credit the climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desperate state of mind .
Perhaps it was Autism , a neurological disorder , that caused her focus on the issue like a laser beam .
Her story is certainly further proof that school lessons provide a far-left view of the world and its problems , not only in the United States but in Europe , too .
By the age of eleven , Greta wasn ’ t eating anything but small spoonfuls of rice , avocado , and gnocchi , as the story goes , and was almost mute .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , Greta ’ s parents allowed her to be thrust upon the world stage in her zeal for protesting .
Instead of correcting the course of their daughter ’ s life , they leaned in and let her go headlong into it .
At the age of 15 , she was leading protests in Sweden .
Her father “ tried to persuade her to go home ” , her mother says , but then let her continue .
In other words , the child became the boss of the family .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ she would be allowed to behave .
A 15-year-old was leading the family ’ s decisions .
In the summer of 2018 , Thunberg began her first school strike , taking a homemade placard to stand outside the Swedish prime minister ’ s office .
When she was joined by other activists , her father tried to persuade her to go home , aware of the emotional toll it was taking on her .
But she refused and the time with other people had an unexpected effect on her .
On the third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some vegan Thai noodles .
“ She takes a little bite .
And another .
No one reacts to what ’ s happening .
Why would they ?
… Greta keeps eating .
Not just a few bites but almost the whole serving.
” Greta Thunberg has been rewarded for her precocious behavior and her rude treatment of adults .
She is TIME ’ s Person of the Year and she has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize .
She was nominated in 2019 , too , but lost .
Depending on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its coffers , the Nobel Peace Prize can deliver a handsome monetary award to its winners .
Barack Obama , for example , was awarded $ 1.4 million the year he won .
If you remember , he was given the award solely because he won the presidential election , thus shedding a light on how diluted the significance of the prize has become .
Thunberg is expected to be in the U.K. this week .
She is scheduled to participate in a climate change protest in Bristol .
The exploitation of @ @ @ @

Greta Thunberg’s mother, Malena Ernman is promoting her family’s new book, “Our House is on Fire: Scenes of a Family and a Planet in Crisis.” She is using her daughter’s story as a tool for publicity. If the phrase “our house is on fire” is familiar it is because Greta frequently uses it when speaking in public about climate change.
Malena Ernman gave an interview to The Guardian in which she described how Greta became an activist. Frankly, there really wasn’t any new information that surfaced, from what I’ve read. That’s the problem with the Thunberg story if the family is now trying to cash in with book sales – Greta Thunberg hasn’t suffered from a lack of publicity. The child is only 17 years old, after all. Her years of experience are just beginning.
The parents of Greta work in the entertainment industry so they crave the stage. Ernman is a well-known opera singer in Europe and Svante Thunberg, Greta’s father, is an actor. Both parents have essentially all but given up their own careers in order to pursue Greta’s activism in promoting climate change propaganda. Climate change alarmism, you might say, is the new family business. Just as Greta preaches, her parents have given up traveling by air and now drive to occasional professional engagements. Their first memoir about the family’s support of Greta was Scenes From the Heart.
In the new book, Ernman describes Greta’s troubles with an eating disorder after being exposed to climate change alarmism in school. She was so traumatized that she became a mute – refusing to speak. Greta lost over 20 pounds in the span of two months and was hospitalized for treatment. When she returned to school, having been diagnosed with a high-functioning form of Autism, Asperger’s, she was bullied and her parents claim the school blamed them for Greta’s inability to behave as other students.
Ernman said Thunberg, who is now 17, became interested in climate issues at school when her teacher showed a film about plastic waste in oceans. After class, other students discussed a teacher’s trip to New York and other travel plans, while Thunberg struggled to move on from learning about the pollution. “Greta can’t reconcile any of this with any of what she has just seen,” her mother wrote. “She saw what the rest of us did not want to see. It was as if she could see our CO2 emissions with her naked eye.”
As we all know now, her parents credit the climate change movement with bringing Greta out of her desperate state of mind. Perhaps it was Autism, a neurological disorder, that caused her focus on the issue like a laser beam. Her story is certainly further proof that school lessons provide a far-left view of the world and its problems, not only in the United States but in Europe, too. By the age of eleven, Greta wasn’t eating anything but small spoonfuls of rice, avocado, and gnocchi, as the story goes, and was almost mute. That would have freaked out any parent but in this case, Greta’s parents allowed her to be thrust upon the world stage in her zeal for protesting. Instead of correcting the course of their daughter’s life, they leaned in and let her go headlong into it.
At the age of 15, she was leading protests in Sweden. Her father “tried to persuade her to go home”, her mother says, but then let her continue. In other words, the child became the boss of the family. She was the final word on how she would be allowed to behave. A 15-year-old was leading the family’s decisions.
In the summer of 2018, Thunberg began her first school strike, taking a homemade placard to stand outside the Swedish prime minister’s office. When she was joined by other activists, her father tried to persuade her to go home, aware of the emotional toll it was taking on her. But she refused and the time with other people had an unexpected effect on her. On the third day, a Greenpeace activist offered Greta some vegan Thai noodles. “She takes a little bite. And another. No one reacts to what’s happening. Why would they? … Greta keeps eating. Not just a few bites but almost the whole serving.”
Greta Thunberg has been rewarded for her precocious behavior and her rude treatment of adults. She is TIME’s Person of the Year and she has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. She was nominated in 2019, too, but lost.
Two lawmakers in Sweden have nominated Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize. Jens Holm and Hakan Svenneling, who are both members of Sweden’s Left Party, said Monday that Greta “has worked hard to make politicians open their eyes to the climate crisis” and “action for reducing our emissions and complying with the Paris agreement is therefore also an act of making peace.”
Depending on how much money the Nobel Foundation has in its coffers, the Nobel Peace Prize can deliver a handsome monetary award to its winners. Barack Obama, for example, was awarded $1.4 million the year he won. If you remember, he was given the award solely because he won the presidential election, thus shedding a light on how diluted the significance of the prize has become.
Thunberg is expected to be in the U.K. this week. She is scheduled to participate in a climate change protest in Bristol. The exploitation of Greta Thunberg continues.
Bristol was awarded the title of European Green Capital in 2015. In 2018, the city became the first UK authority to declare a “climate emergency”, with the council unanimously backing a commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030. By contrast, the government has committed to net zero carbon emissions in the UK by 2050. Last month, Bristol declared an ecological emergency because of the local decline of many birds, insects and some mammals.


hotair--2020-02-23--George Zimmerman sues Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg

Well , here ’ s a name that doesn ’ t pop up in the news all that often these days .
The last time we heard from George Zimmerman ( of Trayvon Martin shooting fame ) , he was suing Martin ’ s family for 100 million dollars .
But his attorneys must have some extra time on their hands because two more lawsuits were just announced .
And they ’ re being brought against Democratic primary hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg .
If that sounds rather strange to you it ’ s probably because , well… it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming defamation and the source of his accusation is , of course , something from Twitter .
( Because it ’ s 2020 and everything begins , ends and swirls around the drain of social media . )
Here are some of the details from CBS Miami .
Acquitted in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in 2012 , George Zimmerman is seeking $ 265 million in a defamation lawsuit against two Democratic presidential candidates .
The lawsuit , which was filed in Polk County , names US Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The suit claims both candidates defamed Zimmerman on Twitter .
It happened on February 5 , on what would have been Martin ’ s 25th birthday .
Zimmerman ’ s suit claims that both candidates “ maligned him for political gain in misguided and malicious attempts to bolster their standings amongst African-American voters.
” That might be rather tough to prove , considering that neither of them actually mentioned Zimmerman by name .
Let ’ s take a look at those tweets .
Were the two candidates pandering in an attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as Zimmerman ’ s suit claims ?
Of course they were .
Buttigieg and Warren are currently drawing about as much minority support in the primary as they would if they started showing up for rallies wearing hats with swastikas on them .
And they ’ re hardly the only ones .
But do those tweets rise to the level of defamation as it ’ s understood by legal scholars ?
That ’ s a tough row to hoe .
As we ’ ve discussed here when considering previous defamation suits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the crime in order to convince the courts of this charge .
Zimmerman would need to show that the accused politicians said something that is provably false and defamatory about him and made that statement to third parties when they knew ( or at least should have known ) that the statement was false .
He would also have to show that the statement ( s ) resulted in some form of damages .
Right out of the gate , both Warren ’ s and Buttigieg ’ s tweets not only fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they are rather generic in nature .
All Warren says is that Trayvon Martin “ should still be with us today.
” She then goes on to make generic gun violence and racism complaints .
Buttigieg ’ s tweet is similarly vanilla in nature , marking Martin ’ s birthday and then asking how many other people never made it to their 25th birthday because they fell to gun violence and/or racism .
Sure , it ’ s easy to draw an implication from those statements that they believe Zimmerman killed Trayvon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animus .
And the one thing that Zimmerman has going for him is the fact that he was acquitted in the case .
Since he was technically not guilty , then the statements could be argued to be false and ( at least potentially ) defamatory .
But the belief that the court got it wrong is hardly unique to those two candidates .
It ’ s almost gospel among liberals .
And what damages could Zimmerman show even if the court accepted that the tweets were directed at him and the speakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are some career opportunities awaiting Zimmerman that he fears he may lose out on now , it ’ s unlikely in the extreme that his potential benefactor is unaware of the Trayvon Martin shooting .
I mean , aside from his immediate circle of family and friends , that ’ s the only reason anyone has ever heard of him .
I ’ m not going to relitigate the shooting here yet again since we ’ ve been through it too many times already .
Suffice to say that Trayvon Martin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they lost .
George Zimmerman ’ s story was the one held to be true and he cleared his name .
And those of us who were not there in that courtyard on that fateful day have nothing more solid than opinions to offer .
But this defamation suit seems ill-considered if you ask me .
He could run up some hefty legal fees attempting to prosecute it and come away with nothing to show for his efforts .
Defamation is tough to prove under the best of circumstances and these claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Well, here’s a name that doesn’t pop up in the news all that often these days. The last time we heard from George Zimmerman (of Trayvon Martin shooting fame), he was suing Martin’s family for 100 million dollars. But his attorneys must have some extra time on their hands because two more lawsuits were just announced. And they’re being brought against Democratic primary hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.
If that sounds rather strange to you it’s probably because, well… it is kind of strange. Zimmerman is claiming defamation and the source of his accusation is, of course, something from Twitter. (Because it’s 2020 and everything begins, ends and swirls around the drain of social media.) Here are some of the details from CBS Miami.
Acquitted in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in 2012, George Zimmerman is seeking $265 million in a defamation lawsuit against two Democratic presidential candidates. The lawsuit, which was filed in Polk County, names US Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor of South Bend Pete Buttigieg as defendants. The suit claims both candidates defamed Zimmerman on Twitter. It happened on February 5, on what would have been Martin’s 25th birthday.
Zimmerman’s suit claims that both candidates “maligned him for political gain in misguided and malicious attempts to bolster their standings amongst African-American voters.” That might be rather tough to prove, considering that neither of them actually mentioned Zimmerman by name. Let’s take a look at those tweets.
My heart goes out to @SybrinaFulton and Trayvon's family and friends. He should still be with us today. We need to end gun violence and racism. And we need to build a world where all of our children—especially young Black boys—can grow up safe and free. https://t.co/9lXXlRnvzL — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 6, 2020
Trayvon Martin would have been 25 today. How many 25th birthdays have been stolen from us by white supremacy, gun violence, prejudice, and fear?#BlackLivesMatter — Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) February 5, 2020
Were the two candidates pandering in an attempt to “bolster their standings amongst African-American voters” as Zimmerman’s suit claims? Of course they were. Buttigieg and Warren are currently drawing about as much minority support in the primary as they would if they started showing up for rallies wearing hats with swastikas on them. And they’re hardly the only ones.
But do those tweets rise to the level of defamation as it’s understood by legal scholars? That’s a tough row to hoe. As we’ve discussed here when considering previous defamation suits, the plaintiff needs to prove several elements of the crime in order to convince the courts of this charge. Zimmerman would need to show that the accused politicians said something that is provably false and defamatory about him and made that statement to third parties when they knew (or at least should have known) that the statement was false. He would also have to show that the statement(s) resulted in some form of damages.
Right out of the gate, both Warren’s and Buttigieg’s tweets not only fail to mention George Zimmerman by name, but they are rather generic in nature. All Warren says is that Trayvon Martin “should still be with us today.” She then goes on to make generic gun violence and racism complaints. Buttigieg’s tweet is similarly vanilla in nature, marking Martin’s birthday and then asking how many other people never made it to their 25th birthday because they fell to gun violence and/or racism.
Sure, it’s easy to draw an implication from those statements that they believe Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he was driven by racial animus. And the one thing that Zimmerman has going for him is the fact that he was acquitted in the case. Since he was technically not guilty, then the statements could be argued to be false and (at least potentially) defamatory. But the belief that the court got it wrong is hardly unique to those two candidates. It’s almost gospel among liberals.
And what damages could Zimmerman show even if the court accepted that the tweets were directed at him and the speakers knew the statements were false? If there are some career opportunities awaiting Zimmerman that he fears he may lose out on now, it’s unlikely in the extreme that his potential benefactor is unaware of the Trayvon Martin shooting. I mean, aside from his immediate circle of family and friends, that’s the only reason anyone has ever heard of him.
I’m not going to relitigate the shooting here yet again since we’ve been through it too many times already. Suffice to say that Trayvon Martin’s family had their day in court and they lost. George Zimmerman’s story was the one held to be true and he cleared his name. And those of us who were not there in that courtyard on that fateful day have nothing more solid than opinions to offer. But this defamation suit seems ill-considered if you ask me. He could run up some hefty legal fees attempting to prosecute it and come away with nothing to show for his efforts. Defamation is tough to prove under the best of circumstances and these claims seem particularly weak from a legal standpoint.


hotair--2020-02-23--Did O'Brien lie in claiming that Russia wants Bernie to become president?

Pay attention to his phrasing at the start , then read on .
He says there are “ reports ” circulating that the Russians want President Bernie .
That ’ s half-true : There are reports that Russia is trying to help his campaign but they stop short of claiming that they want him to go all the way to the White House .
WaPo ’ s bombshell on Friday afternoon opened this way : “ U.S .
officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people familiar with the matter.
” They prefer Bernie as the nominee , it seems , but do they prefer him to Trump ?
The Times wondered : Not a crazy theory , particularly since a lot of Trump ’ s own fans share the view that Bernie would be a weak opponent for him .
There ’ s even been chatter in the early primary states about pro-Trump independents staging an “ Operation Chaos ” effort to cross over and vote for Sanders in the Democratic contest in order to make things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maybe Russia ’ s interference on Bernie ’ s behalf is towards the same end .
“ Operation Chaos ” Kremlin-style .
Or maybe they do want him elected .
A socialist America is a weaker America , especially militarily .
Sanders might be less likely to intervene in Russia ’ s spheres of interest than Trump would .
And a Bernie-fied government that ’ s struggling for ways to pay for Medicare for All and limitless student-loan forgiveness will necessarily have much less money available for the Pentagon .
There are good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
But there are reasons for him to prefer Trump too .
Trump ’ s always been keen on rapprochement with Russia ; it ’ s an open question how much more aggressively he might pursue that in a second term , once he no longer has to worry about facing voters .
Did he give military aid to Ukraine , a country he loathes , because he supports their independence effort — or because he knew it ’ d weaken the Democrats ’ Russia-related attacks on him this fall ?
Has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s grudgingly come around to seeing the virtues of a European alliance — or because he thought voters would hold it against him in November if he withdrew ?
The calculus might change after Election Day .
You can argue it both ways , but it is arguable .
A guy who ’ d stand next to Putin in Helsinki and echo Russia ’ s talking points about campaign interference over the disagreement of the entire U.S. intel community isn ’ t a guy who ’ s obviously worse as president for Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But I digress .
If O ’ Brien has reason to believe that the Russians really do prefer Sanders in the White House , why didn ’ t he make that clearer this morning in the Stephanopoulos interview ?
For that matter , why did he rely on what “ reports ” say about this instead of saying what he knows about it firsthand from the intelligence ?
It ’ s weaselly — and maybe deliberately so : “ There is no preference right now.
” If that ’ s what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it and lied this morning .
Also , it sounds like the source here is the same official who told Tapper on Friday about that recent briefing to Schiff ’ s committee in which a deputy in the DNI ’ s office claimed Russia was trying to get Trump reelected .
Not true , the official told Tapper ; Russia isn ’ t opposed to a second term for him but they haven ’ t committed to helping him .
That scoop pleased the president enough that he made a point of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The point is , we can ’ t assume that Tapper ’ s source is challenging O ’ Brien on this due to some bias against Trump .
If he were biased , presumably he wouldn ’ t have tried to correct the record about Russia ’ s alleged preference for Trump on Friday .
Anyway , why is O ’ Brien distorting the reports about Bernie and Russian help ?
Presumably , he ’ s a political hack : He doesn ’ t try to hide it in the Stephanopoulos clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Bernie ’ s Russian honeymoon and Trump rebuilding the military .
Between this and the reports that O ’ Brien is remaking the National Security Council to limit its ability to inform the president ( “ he sometimes opens [ meetings ] by distributing printouts of Mr. Trump ’ s latest tweets on the subject at hand ” ) , you ’ re left to wonder what quality of information is making its way up to Trump and what quality of information is making its way down to the public .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its duty to do the public ’ s business with its mission of getting POTUS reelected ?
This bit from a story about the administration ’ s response to coronavirus caught my eye this morning too : Although the United States has so far effectively contained the virus , some senior administration officials said there have been tensions within the administration over what information the president should receive , his posture toward China and what message to send to the American public .
And several officials said there has been too much focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little on what to do if the epidemic spreads within the United States , given the continued growth of the virus… The markets fell as the outbreak grew .
On Jan. 31 , the same day several airlines suspended flights and the United States announced its escalated response , the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 600 points , or 2 percent .
Trump grew concerned that any stronger action by his administration would hurt the economy , and he has told advisers that he does not want the administration to do or say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He remains worried that any large-scale outbreak could hurt his reelection bid .
The idea that certain unhappy but important subjects shouldn ’ t be broached with the president isn ’ t new .
Last year there were stories about Kirstjen Nielsen , then the head of DHS , worrying about the very thing that O ’ Brien was asked about today , potential Russian interference in the 2020 election .
Nielsen wanted a cabinet meeting to coordinate strategy to counter it but was warned that the president wouldn ’ t like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House chief of staff , made it clear that Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory .
According to one senior administration official , Mr. Mulvaney said it ‘ wasn ’ t a great subject and should be kept below his level . '
” She eventually gave up on the meeting .
Now here we are .
But it ’ s pointless to complain about this in an era defined by garbage intelligence with far more momentous consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Steele dossier .
We have a chronic problem with bad information making its way up to presidents and out into the public .
The wrinkle this time is that that problem will play out within an administration that ’ s placed a new emphasis among hires on personal loyalty to Trump , which logically means fewer people who are willing to tell him what he doesn ’ t want — but needs — to hear and possibly more people willing to tell the public things that aren ’ t quite true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s what O ’ Brien ’ s shtick today sounds like .

Pay attention to his phrasing at the start, then read on.
"I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien tells @GStephanopoulos amid reports that intel officials told lawmakers Russia is meddling in 2020, with a preference for Trump. https://t.co/kHUIBjiIBB pic.twitter.com/AxdWI6mqEr — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) February 23, 2020
He says there are “reports” circulating that the Russians want President Bernie. That’s half-true: There are reports that Russia is trying to help his campaign but they stop short of claiming that they want him to go all the way to the White House. WaPo’s bombshell on Friday afternoon opened this way: “U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.” They prefer Bernie as the nominee, it seems, but do they prefer him to Trump? The Times wondered:
But some current and former officials expressed doubt that Russian officials think that Mr. Sanders has a hidden affinity for Moscow. Instead, they said that a Russian campaign to support Mr. Sanders might ultimately be aimed at aiding Mr. Trump. Moscow could potentially consider Mr. Sanders a weaker general election opponent for the president than a more moderate Democratic nominee, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Not a crazy theory, particularly since a lot of Trump’s own fans share the view that Bernie would be a weak opponent for him. There’s even been chatter in the early primary states about pro-Trump independents staging an “Operation Chaos” effort to cross over and vote for Sanders in the Democratic contest in order to make things easier for the president this fall. Maybe Russia’s interference on Bernie’s behalf is towards the same end. “Operation Chaos” Kremlin-style.
Or maybe they do want him elected. A socialist America is a weaker America, especially militarily. Sanders might be less likely to intervene in Russia’s spheres of interest than Trump would. And a Bernie-fied government that’s struggling for ways to pay for Medicare for All and limitless student-loan forgiveness will necessarily have much less money available for the Pentagon. There are good reasons for Putin to prefer Sanders to Trump. But there are reasons for him to prefer Trump too. Trump’s always been keen on rapprochement with Russia; it’s an open question how much more aggressively he might pursue that in a second term, once he no longer has to worry about facing voters. Did he give military aid to Ukraine, a country he loathes, because he supports their independence effort — or because he knew it’d weaken the Democrats’ Russia-related attacks on him this fall? Has he stuck with NATO because he’s grudgingly come around to seeing the virtues of a European alliance — or because he thought voters would hold it against him in November if he withdrew? The calculus might change after Election Day.
You can argue it both ways, but it is arguable. A guy who’d stand next to Putin in Helsinki and echo Russia’s talking points about campaign interference over the disagreement of the entire U.S. intel community isn’t a guy who’s obviously worse as president for Russia than even a useful idiot like Bernie.
But I digress. If O’Brien has reason to believe that the Russians really do prefer Sanders in the White House, why didn’t he make that clearer this morning in the Stephanopoulos interview? For that matter, why did he rely on what “reports” say about this instead of saying what he knows about it firsthand from the intelligence? It’s weaselly — and maybe deliberately so:
2/ “There are these reports that they want Bernie Sanders to get elected president," O'Brien said. "That's no surprise. He honeymooned in Moscow." That’s not what the intel says, the official told me, also taking issue with the political nature of the comments. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 23, 2020
4/ In other words, this is part of a campaign of sowing discord and as of now is focused entirely on the primaries. That senior national security contradicts O'Brien: “The intelligence is that there is no preference right now," the official said. "Not Bernie, not Trump." — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 23, 2020
“There is no preference right now.” If that’s what the intel says, O’Brien must know it and lied this morning. Also, it sounds like the source here is the same official who told Tapper on Friday about that recent briefing to Schiff’s committee in which a deputy in the DNI’s office claimed Russia was trying to get Trump reelected. Not true, the official told Tapper; Russia isn’t opposed to a second term for him but they haven’t committed to helping him. That scoop pleased the president enough that he made a point of highlighting it at a campaign rally afterward. The point is, we can’t assume that Tapper’s source is challenging O’Brien on this due to some bias against Trump. If he were biased, presumably he wouldn’t have tried to correct the record about Russia’s alleged preference for Trump on Friday.
Anyway, why is O’Brien distorting the reports about Bernie and Russian help? Presumably, he’s a political hack:
5/ So why did O’Brien say what he said? “Perhaps his first instincts are more political than that of a national security professional,” said the official, noting that in Las Vegas on Friday, President Trump said ”Wouldn’t (Putin) rather have Bernie, who honeymooned in Moscow?” — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 23, 2020
7/ "By saying that, O'Brien injected himself into the campaign by commenting on a potential rival. If he's willing to say that as national security adviser, what does that mean for the next nine months? And what is he doing when the camera's not on him?" — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 23, 2020
He doesn’t try to hide it in the Stephanopoulos clip, sliding easily into campaign talking points about Bernie’s Russian honeymoon and Trump rebuilding the military. Between this and the reports that O’Brien is remaking the National Security Council to limit its ability to inform the president (“he sometimes opens [meetings] by distributing printouts of Mr. Trump’s latest tweets on the subject at hand”), you’re left to wonder what quality of information is making its way up to Trump and what quality of information is making its way down to the public. How does the emerging team of loyalists balance its duty to do the public’s business with its mission of getting POTUS reelected? This bit from a story about the administration’s response to coronavirus caught my eye this morning too:
Although the United States has so far effectively contained the virus, some senior administration officials said there have been tensions within the administration over what information the president should receive, his posture toward China and what message to send to the American public. And several officials said there has been too much focus on evacuating Americans overseas — and too little on what to do if the epidemic spreads within the United States, given the continued growth of the virus… The markets fell as the outbreak grew. On Jan. 31, the same day several airlines suspended flights and the United States announced its escalated response, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 600 points, or 2 percent. Trump grew concerned that any stronger action by his administration would hurt the economy, and he has told advisers that he does not want the administration to do or say anything that would further spook the markets. He remains worried that any large-scale outbreak could hurt his reelection bid.
The idea that certain unhappy but important subjects shouldn’t be broached with the president isn’t new. Last year there were stories about Kirstjen Nielsen, then the head of DHS, worrying about the very thing that O’Brien was asked about today, potential Russian interference in the 2020 election. Nielsen wanted a cabinet meeting to coordinate strategy to counter it but was warned that the president wouldn’t like it: “Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff, made it clear that Mr. Trump still equated any public discussion of malign Russian election activity with questions about the legitimacy of his victory. According to one senior administration official, Mr. Mulvaney said it ‘wasn’t a great subject and should be kept below his level.'” She eventually gave up on the meeting. Now here we are.
But it’s pointless to complain about this in an era defined by garbage intelligence with far more momentous consequences than this, from WMDs in Iraq to the Steele dossier. We have a chronic problem with bad information making its way up to presidents and out into the public. The wrinkle this time is that that problem will play out within an administration that’s placed a new emphasis among hires on personal loyalty to Trump, which logically means fewer people who are willing to tell him what he doesn’t want — but needs — to hear and possibly more people willing to tell the public things that aren’t quite true in the interest of helping him win. That’s what O’Brien’s shtick today sounds like.


hotair--2020-02-23--Guess who is speaking at Kent State's 50th Commemoration of shooting?

May 4 , 2020 , marks the 50th anniversary of the Kent State shootings .
Over a four day period , from May 1 through May 4 , special events are scheduled , with each day having a different focus on the events of that day .
The campus will hold a candlelight vigil , among other special events , in remembrance of the four students who were killed by the Ohio National Guard during a violent student protest .
Those of us of a certain age remember this terrible day .
I was young but this was back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-war protests that were regular stories on the evening news .
In the pre-cable news days , the three alphabet networks provided news broadcasts at dinner time .
Baby boomers grew up seeing reports of the war each evening , often with video , and always with death counts .
Those stories included anti-war protests , often led by college students .
To say it was a polarizing time is to understate the national mood .
The Kent State University anti-war protest on May 4 , 1970 , was organized to protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 30 about the Cambodia Campaign .
A joint effort between the United States and South Vietnam , thirteen major operations were carried out in eastern Cambodia .
The campus protest was very large and the Ohio National Guard was called in .
Student protesters turned violent and four students were killed by the National Guardsmen .
Nine students were injured , some permanently paralyzed .
The response to the actions of the National Guard was as divided as opinions on the war .
Some people thought the guardsmen overreacted while others thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ items , like rocks and bottles that were being thrown at them .
Universities , colleges , and high schools across the country closed down due to student strikes .
President Nixon campaigned on ending the war when he was elected in 1968 and protesters felt that the operations in Cambodia were an escalation of the war .
So , when the announcement by Kent State was made on February 10 that anti-Vietnam War activist Jane Fonda is to be a key speaker featured during the 50th commemoration events , the reaction by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was predictable .
Today ’ s college students think of Fonda as a comrade in the fight against climate change .
There ’ s no doubt in my mind that she will draw a large crowd of supporters .
The irony of the school ’ s choice of Fonda , though , is not lost on baby boomers .
She was known as an anti-war protester and made headlines with her arrests during protests .
While America ’ s sons and daughters were being killed by the North Vietnamese , Fonda traveled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visit , besides making radio announcements over the Voice of Vietnam radio asking U.S. pilots to stop bombings , she posed on top of an anti-aircraft gun .
Simply put , her actions provided aid and comfort to the enemy .
Jane Fonda is scheduled to speak on Sunday , May 3rd at the university ’ s Memorial Athletic and Convocation Center .
Fonda will discuss her life in social activism while reflecting on the history and legacy of that day on campus .
Ironically , President Todd Diacon hopes the events of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for civil dialogue and the dangers of polarization.
” Fonda is being paid to speak and her perks are worthy of celebrity status .
David Crosby and Joe Walsh ( who attended Kent State ) are donating their time to perform at benefit concerts but the red carpet is being rolled out for Ms. Fonda .
She just a woman of the people .
Some parents or grandparents of students must be aghast that the university is paying for her to be there .
Her contract says she will “ participate in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to moderated questions , and take part in a private reception.
” Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose , a decorated U.S. Army veteran , objects to the choice of speaker .
He calls for her invitation to be canceled .
Like many of us , he thinks she “ betrayed our service members.
” The school ’ s advisory committee disagrees .
Proceeds from benefit concerts will “ support the newly created May 4 Legacy Scholarships , which will carry the names of the four students killed when the Ohio National Guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 1970.
” Some Vietnam veterans think that Fonda was just young and naive about her visit with the North Vietnamese .
There is no doubt she was leading a life of comfort and privilege , even at that time .
She wasn ’ t just acting as a protester , though , she actively supported the North Vietnamese by spreading their anti-American propaganda overseas .
She took her actions to another level .
Now she is honored for her traitorous acts .
She is being held up as a person of wisdom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Someone who can speak of lessons learned .
Shame on the leadership of Kent State University .
Hanoi Jane should not be a person to be honored during this commemoration .

May 4, 2020, marks the 50th anniversary of the Kent State shootings. Over a four day period, from May 1 through May 4, special events are scheduled, with each day having a different focus on the events of that day. The campus will hold a candlelight vigil, among other special events, in remembrance of the four students who were killed by the Ohio National Guard during a violent student protest.
Those of us of a certain age remember this terrible day. I was young but this was back in the days of the Vietnam War and the anti-war protests that were regular stories on the evening news. In the pre-cable news days, the three alphabet networks provided news broadcasts at dinner time. Baby boomers grew up seeing reports of the war each evening, often with video, and always with death counts. Those stories included anti-war protests, often led by college students. To say it was a polarizing time is to understate the national mood.
The Kent State University anti-war protest on May 4, 1970, was organized to protest President Nixon’s announcement made on April 30 about the Cambodia Campaign. A joint effort between the United States and South Vietnam, thirteen major operations were carried out in eastern Cambodia. The campus protest was very large and the Ohio National Guard was called in. Student protesters turned violent and four students were killed by the National Guardsmen. Nine students were injured, some permanently paralyzed. The response to the actions of the National Guard was as divided as opinions on the war. Some people thought the guardsmen overreacted while others thought the guardsmen were protecting themselves from the items, like rocks and bottles that were being thrown at them. Universities, colleges, and high schools across the country closed down due to student strikes. President Nixon campaigned on ending the war when he was elected in 1968 and protesters felt that the operations in Cambodia were an escalation of the war.
So, when the announcement by Kent State was made on February 10 that anti-Vietnam War activist Jane Fonda is to be a key speaker featured during the 50th commemoration events, the reaction by people old enough to remember those days was predictable. Today’s college students think of Fonda as a comrade in the fight against climate change. There’s no doubt in my mind that she will draw a large crowd of supporters. The irony of the school’s choice of Fonda, though, is not lost on baby boomers. She was known as an anti-war protester and made headlines with her arrests during protests. While America’s sons and daughters were being killed by the North Vietnamese, Fonda traveled to Hanoi in July 1972. During that visit, besides making radio announcements over the Voice of Vietnam radio asking U.S. pilots to stop bombings, she posed on top of an anti-aircraft gun. Simply put, her actions provided aid and comfort to the enemy.
Jane Fonda is scheduled to speak on Sunday, May 3rd at the university’s Memorial Athletic and Convocation Center. Fonda will discuss her life in social activism while reflecting on the history and legacy of that day on campus. Ironically, President Todd Diacon hopes the events of the commemoration will show “the need for civil dialogue and the dangers of polarization.”
“It is our great responsibility and honor to welcome the nation and world to our campus,” said Kent State President Todd Diacon in a statement. “Together we will remember Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder, and honor Kent State and community members who have kept their memories alive for 50 years. We will listen to, and learn from, noted speakers, experts and performers, all while we absorb the lessons of the importance of free speech, the need for civil dialogue and the dangers of polarization.”
Fonda is being paid to speak and her perks are worthy of celebrity status. David Crosby and Joe Walsh (who attended Kent State) are donating their time to perform at benefit concerts but the red carpet is being rolled out for Ms. Fonda. She just a woman of the people. Some parents or grandparents of students must be aghast that the university is paying for her to be there. Her contract says she will “participate in an interview with Kent State media, respond to moderated questions, and take part in a private reception.”
The university also provided a contract that states the $83,000 being paid to Jane Fonda to speak during the commemoration covers her airfare. But the school also will provide Fonda with a one-bedroom suite and one single room at a first-class hotel for two nights as well as meals and a “dark-colored town car” during her stay.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a decorated U.S. Army veteran, objects to the choice of speaker. He calls for her invitation to be canceled. Like many of us, he thinks she “betrayed our service members.” The school’s advisory committee disagrees.
Kent State’s 18-member May Commemoration Advisory Committee, made up of students, faculty, university leaders, May witnesses and survivors, have said previously that Fonda is a “fitting voice of activism that spans many generations young and old and aligns with the pillars and vision of the 50th commemoration.”
Proceeds from benefit concerts will “support the newly created May 4 Legacy Scholarships, which will carry the names of the four students killed when the Ohio National Guard fired on Vietnam War protestors May 4, 1970.”
Some Vietnam veterans think that Fonda was just young and naive about her visit with the North Vietnamese. There is no doubt she was leading a life of comfort and privilege, even at that time. She wasn’t just acting as a protester, though, she actively supported the North Vietnamese by spreading their anti-American propaganda overseas. She took her actions to another level. Now she is honored for her traitorous acts. She is being held up as a person of wisdom, for heaven’s sake. Someone who can speak of lessons learned.
Shame on the leadership of Kent State University. Hanoi Jane should not be a person to be honored during this commemoration.