30 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-27-20

  1. Lock ’em up.



    “Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had “scores of indictments” filed against people who committed violence during a wave of protests across the country.

    During Thursday’s episode of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s podcast, Verdict, which is co-hosted by conservative commentator Michael Knowles, Barr said his agency was using 35 joint terrorist task forces across the country to investigate criminal activity, which has taken place since the Memorial Day death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man.

    “When the real violence started around May 25, 26, and so forth, we started using our joint terrorist task forces around the country. And there are 35 of them around the country,” Barr said.

    “And now they are starting to go full bore, cranking out investigations, indictments against the people who are involved in this violence. So we’ve had scores of indictments already for such things as arson, destruction of federal property, things like that. And we have, right now, about 500 investigations underway,” he added.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Trump predicted this.


    “Trump Was Right In 2017 When He Said Statue Destroyers Wouldn’t Stop With Confederate Figures

    What media figures assured the public was absurd when President Trump said it in 2017 is now coming to fruition in cities across the country.”

    “President Trump was roundly mocked and derided for worrying in August 2017 that statue destroyers would move on from statues of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee to statues of former presidents and founding fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Major media accused Trump of making inappropriate and even ridiculous comments.

    Fewer than three years later, precisely as President Trump predicted, iconoclastic mobs have moved on from toppling Confederate statues to deface, damage, and destroy statues of and memorials to Admiral David Farragut, abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, American Revolutionary War Gen. Philip Schuyler, a Texas ranger, Commanding Gen. of the Union Army Ulysses S. Grant, Frances Scott Key, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. A statue of former President Theodore Roosevelt is facing imminent removal in New York City.

    “So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?” President Trump asked on August 15, 2017.

    Removing Confederate memorials doesn’t mean Washington and Jefferson are next, assured Jamelle Bouie of Slate at the time. “Trump’s comparison there is dumb. It doesn’t really even make any sense. And the notion that there’s some slippery slope is dumb,” he said.

    HBO’s John Oliver vehemently agreed (language warning):”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Like I said yesterday…..


    “Feehery: The more radicals try to remove history, the more the president looks to repeat it”


    “We have seen revolutionary moments before in history. 1968 comes immediately to mind, as does 1918 and 1848. We are in an era of explosive change, where things for the vast majority of the globe are actually getting materially much, much better. Capitalism has actually done a remarkable job of eradicating poverty over the last two decades.

    But revolutions don’t happen when things are bad. They happen when expectations don’t match results. And they happen when a small group of elites who have too much time on their hands and not enough to do decide they want to cause trouble and bring down the system.

    In 1968, Richard Nixon was able to win the presidency by inspiring a majority of Americans to vote with him to counter the revolutionaries. He had the press against him, the intelligentsia against him and the protesters against him. But he had the shopkeepers, the construction workers and a class of voters that the elite largely hold in contempt, the vast middle-class.

    Will Trump be able to repeat history? The more the radicals try to erase it, the better things look for the president to repeat it.”


    The silent majority will speak in Nov., when it matters most.


  4. Ignorance is not pretty. Neither is revisionist history.


    “Wisconsin Students Call For Abraham Lincoln Statue To Come Down: He Was ‘Anti-Black’”

    “Some students at the University of Wisconsin are demanding a statue on campus of former President Abraham Lincoln be taken down.

    Nalah McWhorter, the president of the Wisconsin Black Student Union said that just because Lincoln opposed slavery, doesn’t mean he supported equal rights for African Americans.

    “He was very publicly anti-Black,” she said, according to Channel 3000. “Just because he was anti-slavery doesn’t mean he was pro-Black. He said a lot in his presidential campaigns. His fourth presidential campaign speech, he said that he believes there should be an inferior and superior, and he believes white people should be the superior race.”

    University Chancellor Becky Blank said she believes the statue of Lincoln should remain on campus.

    “The university continues to support the Abraham Lincoln statue on our campus. Like those of all presidents, Lincoln’s legacy is complex and contains actions which, 150 years later, appear flawed,” Blank said in a statement. “However, when the totality of his tenure is considered, Lincoln is widely acknowledged as one of our greatest presidents, having issued the Emancipation Proclamation, persuaded Congress to adopt the 13th Amendment ending slavery and perserved the Union during the Civil War.”


  5. Only the hottest of hot takes from the rag formerly known as the WaPo.

    “Washington Post ‘Perspective’: Emancipation Memorial Paid For by Former Slaves Is…White Supremacy”


    “I mean for those who thought this was just about Confederate statues, I don’t know what to tell you. It was never about that—anyone could see this from miles away. The Left will bait the wider public with a carrot, like slamming Confederates because it’s not like they’re attacking the Founding Fathers, and then take a hard turn to…tearing down statues to the Founding Fathers. Right now, the lefty mob, which has marched unopposed for days, vowed to tear down the Emancipation Memorial in Lincoln Park because it’s racist. It’s a statue of Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president, with a freed slave. It was commissioned by former slaves. How is this racist? I’m not kidding. We have one Ph.D. student wrote in The Washington Post that the monument of the president who spearheaded the 13th Amendment, which forever abolished slavery, is white supremacy: ”

    “In the District of Columbia, there is no shortage of commemoration for Lincoln. There is perhaps no person (with the exception of George Washington) in the United States who has more memorials, buildings, roads, towns and counties named in his or her honor.

    Of the major commemorative markers to Lincoln in D.C., the most troubling is the Emancipation Memorial (also known as the Freedmen’s Memorial Monument to Abraham Lincoln), which sits in Lincoln Park, steps away from the U.S. Capitol. The statue features a standing Abraham Lincoln with the Emancipation Proclamation in his hand over a kneeling newly freed African American man. But this monument has been the subject of some controversy since its unveiling in 1876 because of who originated the idea of the monument, who paid for it and who ultimately designed what it would look like.

    The monument was paid for almost exclusively by formerly enslaved people, who from 1865 onward raised more than $16,000 for the building of the statue. According to the story told and retold in newspapers at the time, on the day after Lincoln’s assassination, Charlotte Scott, a formerly enslaved black woman living in Marietta, Ohio, gave her first earnings as a free woman to build a monument to Lincoln. From there, more donations grew and then became a national movement when the Western Sanitary Commission, the wartime relief agency, took control and publicized the idea of for a monument from the freedmen in honor of Lincoln. A New Orleans Tribune article from Aug. 10, 1865, proclaimed: “On the spot where Freedom’s ‘best defender fell,’ let his name and the cause for which he died be most highly honored.”

    The men and women who raised the money, however, did not choose the design of the monument.


    On the day of the dedication, Frederick Douglass, the African American civil rights advocate, gave a speech where he spoke of his ambivalence of a statue that solely praised Lincoln, and in an offhand remark said that the statue “showed the Negro on his knee when a more manly attitude would have been indicative of freedom.”

    The statue fed a narrative that men like Lincoln led emancipation, rather than showing how the struggle for freedom was driven by the millions of African Americans who fought for their liberation from the institution of slavery.


    While this doesn’t mean that we need to tear down the Emancipation Memorial, it does require that we recontextualize it to ensure that it gives voice to those who have been left out and acknowledges the very people who paid for it in the beginning.

    Okay, well, at least there’s no call for it to be destroyed or so it seems. Former slaves paid for it, Frederick Douglass was there to dedicate it, and somehow, it’s white supremacy because it’s too focused on, I don’t know, the man who was president during our nation’s more dire and destructive crisis. Nuance cannot be afforded. It has to be what the woke crowd deems suitable now and retroactively applied…to late 19th Century America. That’s not how this works, but that’s also the point. It’s erasure. The Left hates this country and its history and in order to destroy the American cultural identity, it needs to be torn down, burned, and rewritten within the of this hyper-left-wing revisionist prism. To destroy one’s enemy, strip them of their cultural identity. That’s the long war the Left is waging. Luckily, authorities put barricades to protect the monument. “


  6. The truth hurts….



  7. Own it Mayor, this is on you clowns.



  8. The WaPo tries to run interference on the truth, fails miserably.



  9. Well this can’t be right. We were assured this would only happen at Trump rallies. The protesters are righteous, so this could never happen to them. 🙄



  10. Like I said…….

    There will be a price for Democrats.



  11. ———-


  12. I see in a FoxNews survey that the “approval” ration for Biden is 45%, For Trump it is 44%.
    That is extremely bad news for Biden, only one point ahead of an incumbent is losing territory.
    I can understand why Biden doesn’t want to leave the basement.


  13. Chas, but ….

    Trump trailing Biden in 6 key battleground states: polls


    New polls released Thursday in six crucial general election battleground states that will help decide the winner of the presidential election indicate that as of right now, Democratic challenger Joe Biden is topping President Trump in each of them.

    Democrats carried all three so-called “Rust Belt” states in presidential elections dating back a quarter-century until Trump narrowly flipped them from blue to red in 2016, helping him upset Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win the White House.

    The polls also show Biden with a 47-41 percent advantage over the president in Florida, the largest of the battleground states. And they indicate the former vice president topping Trump 48-41 percent in Arizona and 49-40 percent in North Carolina, two other states considered in play this election cycle. Then-GOP presidential nominee Trump won Florida by 1 percentage point and carried Arizona and North Carolina each by 4 points in his 2016 Electoral College rout of Clinton, who edged out Trump to take the national popular vote. …

    … most of the polls released on Thursday are pretty much in line with results from other recent surveys in the six key battleground states. An average of the latest polls in these states compiled by RealClearPolitcs shows Biden with an 8.6 point margin in Michigan, 8 points in Wisconsin, 6.3 points in Pennsylvania, 6.2 points in Florida, 4 points in Arizona and 1.4 points in North Carolina.


    The new surveys suggest that the president’s once significant lead among white voters – which was crucial to his 2016 election victory – has diminished. And the polls indicate that only 42 percent of voters in the six swing states approve of how Trump’s handling his duties in the White House, with 54 percent disapproving.



  14. It’s still somewhat early in campaign terms, anything can happen (and the last time I wrote that here, the pandemic erupted shortly afterward, as I recall).

    So surprises will come that could help or hurt either “side.” The anger on both ends is volatile and, as Hanson noted, will drive much of this election, sadly.

    The polls will start to solidify more by the end of summer. To be continued.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Still to come: Biden’s VP pick, the conventions (in whatever form those will take this year with the pandemic), possible debates (again, in whatever form those will take amid the pandemic).

    Will the virus surge for a repeat visit in October as some expect, prompting more economic downturns and uncertainty?

    Will the protests grow more violent or begin to recede?

    Will Biden stumble and make more gaffs? If so, will the VP pick elicit enough confidence that can tap into more centrist Democrats that all is not lost? Will Biden actually remain at the head of the Dem ticket (probably, but ..? again, anything can happen, especially in a year like this one)

    Will Trump be able to find, at last, his inner grownup? Will he be able to exercise more personal and public control on Twitter and stop indulging in his personal grievances to no one’s benefit?

    Stay tuned.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. And there’s even some speculation Trump could withdraw, announce he’s not running for a second term as Lyndon Johnson did.

    Far fetched, but this entire year has been bizarre and wildly unpredictable.


  17. Barr is wasting the DOJ and FBI’s time. Arson, vandalism etc are the purvey of the local or state police. Unless he can show a conspiracy crossing state lines he’s out of his jurisdiction. And antifa types are far too decentralized to show a conspiracy. Meanwhile over 6 young men were found hanging from a tree in a public area in at least two different states. All were ruled a suicide — African American young men have the lowest rate of suicide and even if they would commit suicide; hanging themselves in a tree in a public place would not be the method.

    Trump’s campaign is definitely hoping they can run a Nixon 68 campaign. However, I’m not sure the base “silent majority” is still there. Even though the US is less urban than most western nations, urbanization is creeping past the 50% mark. The silent majority idea relies on a population that is small town, rural, etc. This may have been true in 1968 but is no longer the case.

    The Trump admin is now highlighting urban crime to scare the non-urban vote into the voting booth to check the Republicans candidate. The problem for Republicans is crime rates are actually far lower than in 1968. The additional problem for Republicans and Trump is almost all cities, high or low crime, are Democratic run. And most urban areas will not only vote Democratic locally they will nationally.

    Over a decade ago, I noticed the US had the lowest rate of urbanization in the western world and for the most part this enabled the Republicans to be competitive (rural votes also have more weight). However, I also knew the Republican party would be the minority if they didn’t adapt to urbanization. They have instead doubled down with their current message and instead are intent on using gerrymandering and voter suppression to stay in power.

    As DJ notes, current polling number are dismal for Trump even in Texas. The Republicans should still win Texas but they will need to spend money and manpower there to do it and this will diminish their presence in Florida, North Carolina and Penn. Plus it appears they will lose Arizona. Florida likes Biden — seniors relate to him better than Trump, esp since the Trump admin is trying to repeal the ACA in the middle of a pandemic.

    Trump spent over 10 minutes at his rally explain why he difficulty walking down a ramp and why he held a glass of water with both hands…..its funny and if you are at the rally you will chuckle but at the end of the day he looks self centered. On Hannity he couldn’t articulate why he wanted a second term. His stream of consciousness speeches and answers make Biden look articulate — all Biden needs to do is stay in the basement


  18. The Democrats will point to Republican governor’s opening too soon and a spike in cases two-three weeks since Memorial Day weekend. Republicans will point to BLM protests and a spike two-three weeks later. I think the latter is a little early to judge. Here are the top 5 states in new cases yesterday — Texas, California, Florida, Arizona, Georgia. All except 1 feature Republicans governors who opened the state earlier than public health officials advised. In a week we should see if BLM has a larger effect than the stupidity of Republican governors. Right now this doesn’t look good for Republican governors and party.


  19. HRW – Crime may be way down, but the 24-hour news and internet make us more aware of what is going on, so it seems as if crime is more rampant.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. HRW,

    “Barr is wasting the DOJ and FBI’s time. Arson, vandalism etc are the purvey of the local or state police. ”


    Wrong. Destroy, deface, or vandalize a federal monument, it’s the federal govts purvey.


    “18 U.S. Code § 1369.Destruction of veterans’ memorials”

    “(a)Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy, any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”


  21. Don’t want to defund the police?

    Better have private security. At taxpayer expense, which ironically seems more expensive than police coverage would be.


    “The City of Minneapolis is spending $4,500 a day for private security for three council members who have received threats following the police killing of George Floyd, FOX 9 has learned.

    A city spokesperson said the private security details have cost taxpayers $63,000 over the past three weeks.

    The three council members who have the security detail – Andrea Jenkins (Ward 8), and Phillipe Cunningham (Ward 4), and Alondra Cano (Ward 9)– have been outspoken proponents of defunding the Minneapolis Police Department.”


    Threatening the lives of public officials who disagree with your stupid idea is not gonna win many to your side.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. AJ — unless I read it wrong, the councilors who are proponents of defund the police received death threats therefore its logical to infer those issuing the death threats are against defunding the police. I agree threatening public officials because you don’t like their idea does nothing to further your support of the police as its currently run.

    It is amusing but defund the police doesn’t mean disband the police it just means drastically reducing their budget. And as you have noted death threats have been issued to those who favor defunding the police. You may dislike their ideas but they are entitled to the same level of protection currently offered to others. Not that I think its a good idea but someone will rat this cop out for posting on social media while on duty and on police matters. I’m sure both are against department policy.

    Personal anecdote; At a recent defund the police/remove police from high schools protest in my neighbourhood, the roughly 200 high school kids were supervised by approximately 15 police, a ratio of 20:1.5 or slightly more than 13:1, in our high schools the teacher:student ratio is 25:1, I think the police just made the high school kids argument — there’s too many cops and we can drastically cut their budget. I noticed one cop drinking coffee not paying attention to traffic problems behind him and another blocking a parking garage while on his personal cell phone. I was going to point out the absurdity of their over the top presence but police are notoriously thin skinned so I just left.

    Correct, federal monuments fall under federal jurisdiction but not anything else in his letter and verbal statements is — destruction of private and public property, assaulting a police officer, vandalism etc. He’s interfering in local and state jurisdiction for political grandstanding and it will reduce effectiveness and weaken the prosecution.


  23. Looks like you’re correct, and I misread it.

    But that’s even worse. So the rubes can’t have police to protect them, but those looking to defund police can have private, taxpayer paid, security?

    That’s about as elitist as it gets.


    As for the threats…..

    When you don’t document or report it, it’s usually because it didn’t happen.

    “Asked why Minneapolis Police are not providing security services to the three council members, a city spokesperson said MPD resources are needed in the community. The hourly cost of private security is similar to the cost for a police officer, the spokesperson added.

    A spokesperson for Minneapolis Police told FOX 9 the department does not have any recent police reports of threats against city council members. It is possible a report could have been filed confidentially.

    Jenkins said she has not reported the threats to Minneapolis Police because she has been preoccupied with the dual crisis of the “global pandemic and global uprising” over the killing of George Floyd.

    Jenkins said the threats have attacked her ethnicity, gender identity, and sexuality. “


  24. Shameless indeed……


    “Jenkins blamed it on “white nationalists” (natch), but it’s veeeeeerrrrry interesting that none of the three have filed police reports about these death threats. If not, why not? And for that matter, why does this require security details at all? Surely the city council can task social workers to de-escalate the issue with people making death threats. That is, after all, their plan for everyone else in Minneapolis.

    We’re back to security for we, bupkis for thee. That is precisely how this will play out in the community, too, if the city council actually succeeds in this plan. The wealthier enclaves will pay for private armed security out of their own pockets, and powerful politicians out of everyone else’s, that they control while leaving the rest of the city to the social workers and the violent actors that will fill the power vacuum. The rich and powerful will get the policing they like, while the middle- and working classes will get left to the violent extremists and the armed “neighborhood watch” bands that arise to combat them. Don’t expect the middle- and working classes to stick around for long after that. Hopefully this lesson in hypocrisy will prompt those voters to reject this nonsense proposal — and get rid of a few city councillors along the way, too.”


  25. “… defund the police doesn’t mean disband the police it just means drastically reducing their budget.”

    Right, and tearing down statues of Confederate leaders doesn’t lead to tearing down statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.

    The fact is, drastically reducing police budgets means greatly reducing their numbers on the streets.


  26. To have police protect you from persons who support the police is a conflict of interest. Private security doesn’t have the conflict. Not surprised there’s not been an official complaint lodged with the police — what’s the point.

    Most of the commentators you cite seem to think chaos will rule if we don’t maintain a police force which is better outfitted than the army or national guard. The thin blue line between civilization and chaos might be fiction (fake news). In 2014 and 2019, “blue flu” or work to rule in NYC did not lead to chaos instead the crime rate either stayed the same or lowered. Charges that originate from police interaction — public nuisance, loitering, resisting, obstruction — were substantially lower while other crimes remained the same.

    The dystopia of gated communities and chaos outside does not have to be true. I’ve lived in well to do middle class communities — you rarely saw any police and crime was extremely low. There was a lot of underage drinking and marijuana smoking but no one was ever charged. The lone policeman usually just saw to it that kids made it home safely. I now live in a poor inner city neighborhood. I see the police everyday and apparently underage drinking and drug use is a serious problem in addition to crimes such as loitering, panhandling, public nuisance etc. In reality, the two communities are just as safe. My daughter even thought the boys in the inner city were better behaved around girls compared to “hockey boys” at bush parties. Along with a racial bias, there’s a serious class bias in police. I was always treated with courtesy by police until I moved downtown. In the last few years, I’ve been yelled at, interrogated, and generally harassed but never when I\m wearing my work clothes (dress pants, shirt and shoes). In reality, a decline in police presence in my current neighborhood is long overdue and would be welcomed. They don’t make us any safer, just annoy us.


  27. “The fact is, drastically reducing police budgets means greatly reducing their numbers on the streets.”

    Correct Tychicus.

    Even the NY Times had to admit that.


    “NY Times: The Only Way To Defund The NYPD Is To Reduce The Number Of Officers And Staff”

    “With “Defund Police” becoming one of the main slogans of the Black Lives Matter protests around the country, many progressive news outlets rushed to explain that the slogan didn’t mean what it sounded like. In fact, defunding the police really just meant cutting their budget so the money can be spent on other priorities.

    But a NY Times’ review of the city’s spending on the NYPD, the nation’s largest police force, shows that the police operating budget is a fairly small portion of the city’s overall budget, just 6 percent. In addition, nearly all of that money goes to salaries for officers and other personnel. Therefore the only way to cut the budget by any significant amount is to reduce the number of officers.

    “In its 2019 fiscal year, the Police Department spent nearly $6 billion, which amounted to about 6 percent of the city’s $95 billion total spending.

    Nearly 90 percent of the department’s spending went toward paying personnel, including salaries, overtime and other benefits like shift differentials for more than 36,000 uniformed and 15,000 civilian positions. The average base pay for officers was nearly $69,000, but with overtime and additional pay, they could take home more than $90,000. For some higher ranks, total pay reached more than $200,000…

    If a proposal is approved that cuts the department’s budget substantially, then regardless of where such cuts appear, they will almost certainly require significantly reducing the number of officers and staff on payroll.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.