11 thoughts on “News/Politics 9-9-20

  1. Democrats built this.

    “Rochester Police Chief And His Command Staff Resign In Wake Of Video Of Daniel Prude’s Death”


    “Today Rochester Police Chief La’Ron Singletary and his command staff resigned their positions citing fallout from the death of Daniel Prude.

    Rochester Police Chief La’Ron Singletary and his entire command staff announced their retirement Tuesday, stunning leadership in City Hall and giving new urgency to the calls for justice after the death of Daniel Prude in March.

    Mayor Warren announced the news to Rochester City Council during a scheduled briefing Tuesday.

    The city council was actually waiting for the police chief to log in to the call when the mayor came on and announced the resignations. According to mayor Warren, Chief Singletary was not asked to give his resignation but was leaving because he felt his integrity was being challenged unfairly. Video of the mayor’s announcement is posted below.”


    “Chief Singletary put out a press release about his resignation:

    Today, after 20 years of dedicated service to the Rochester Police Department and the Rochester Community, I announce my retirement from the Rochester Police Department. For the past two decades, I have served this community with honor, pride, and the highest integrity.

    As a man of integrity, I will not sit idly by while outside entities attempt to destroy my character. The events over the past week are an attempt to destroy my character and integrity. The members of the Rochester Police Department and the Greater Rochester Community know my reputation and know what I stand for. The mischaracterization and the politicization of the actions that I took after being informed of Mr. Prude’s death is not based on facts, and is not what I stand for.

    I would like to thank the men and women of the Rochester Police Department, as well as the Rochester Community for allowing me the honor of serving as your chief and fulfilling a lifelong dream. I look forward to continuing to serve our community in my next chapter.”


  2. Sure. It’s Trump we have to worry about not accepting the election results. 🙄


    “Something’s Happening Here: Democrats laying foundation for action with their post-Election Day doomsday warnings

    In Politico interview, Bernie leaves open the option of calling his supporters into the streets.

    Democrats are setting the stage for something, what it is isn’t yet exactly clear. They are moving in unison along with the mainstream media to predict that Biden will win the election based on mail-in ballots counted in the weeks after Election Day, Trump will refuse to leave office, and then … well, then what?

    None of this can be coincidence. The memo has gone out.

    We’ve covered various iterations of these warnings, including from Hillary Clinton, a Democrat data group, and a Democrat-NeverTrump wargame analysis, in two recent posts:

    “The Red Mirage” theory provides the justification for Democrat mischief post Election Day
    Democrats are telling us they will not accept a Donald Trump win. Are you listening?
    Having spent four years perfecting resistance litigation against Trump, there is little doubt that Democrats will try to find a judge somewhere somehow who will issue an injunction or other relief to enable this theft to take place. Such relief may not ultimately prevail, but it will further the chaos.

    Now we have Bernie Sanders, cheered on by Chuck Schumer, issuing similar warnings. Via Politico, Bernie warned, America must be prepared for when Trump refuses to leave office:

    Bernie Sanders fears President Donald Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses reelection and is calling on Congress and the media to take action to prepare for that scenario now, he said in an interview with POLITICO.”


    Besides Bernie and Dem’s people are already on the streets. They’re called Antifa.


    “Democrats Game Out What To Do If Trump Wins the Electoral College But Loses the Popular Vote”

    “I’ve been reading about the Democrats’ apparent goal of undermining, even attempting to steal, the presidency with growing alarm.

    Professor Jacobson has posted about Democrats laying the foundation for some sort of post-Election Day action:

    Something’s Happening Here: Democrats laying foundation for action with their post-Election Day doomsday warnings
    “The Red Mirage” theory provides the justification for Democrat mischief post Election Day
    Democrats are telling us they will not accept a Donald Trump win. Are you listening?
    I think he’s onto something, though like him, I don’t know what. Democrats are certainly trying to prepare the country for a Biden win . . . no matter what it takes for them to make it so.

    Therefore, it was with great interest that I clicked over to a Daily Beast article entitled, “The Left Secretly Preps for MAGA Violence After Election Day,” and buried in that hyperbolic drivel was an astounding nugget (archive link).

    Of course President Trump will leave office if he loses his re-election bid in November, there is no question about that. The goal is to gin up the idea, and the left’s base fear, that Trump will refuse to leave even if he loses fair and square.

    The left wants this idea to be drilled into the heads of as many people as possible so that they can claim this is what’s happening when / if the election is close, there are questionable things going on post-election with mail-in ballots, particularly in blue and /or battleground states, and even, this is the astounding part, if President Trump wins the election fair and square by securing the Electoral College.

    According to the Daily Beast, a vast array of left-leaning groups have joined forces to figure out what to do in order to boot Trump from office and what to do if he wins the Electoral College vote. In other words, they are gaming what to do if the president duly and lawfully wins the election.”


  3. Ya think?


    “One of the most disturbing and fascinating developments in contemporary public debate is the attempt to normalise looting.”

    “Since the outbreak of Black Lives Matter protests a few months ago, there have been various efforts to rehabilitate violence and looting as acceptable and even laudable forms of political protest. This trend was previously seen in 2011, during the urban riots in England, when the BBC referred to rioters and looters as ‘protesters’. Back then, the BBC was forced to acknowledge that it was wrong to portray looting as a form of protest. Nine years on, things have changed. The American media now wholeheartedly pursue the sanitisation of looting.

    Until recently, looting was seen as a symptom of community decay. It was condemned as sickening anti-social behaviour. In previous times, even those who were sympathetic to the cause and the outlook of people engaged in riots would stop short of supporting looting. Social scientists wrote studies explaining why people rioted and looted. Their aim was to understand why in some cases people adopt destructive forms of behaviour that injure their own communities. In some instances social scientists argued that rioting should be seen as the political expression of people without a voice. Today it is very different. Some in the cultural elites are no longer just interested in trying to explain why rioting and looting sometimes take place – they are actually justifying looting and extolling its virtues.

    For example, Matthew Clair, an assistant professor of sociology at Stanford University, seems to resent the fact that the word looting has a ‘negative tone’. He says this negative framing of looting is motivated by racism. Apparently, ‘the term is racialised and is often used to condemn political acts that threaten white supremacy and racial capitalism’. This idea that the negative view of looting is driven by racist motives is widely echoed in the views of those who want to normalise such anti-social behaviour. What this overlooks is that, historically, the negative framing of looting also prevailed in European societies where it was the destructive behaviour of white rioters that was seen as symptomatic of civilisational decay.

    One of the key tactics of today’s looting apologists is to rewrite American history in order to suggest that looting was an integral feature of the past. This can be seen in an essay in Time, which portrays an important episode in the American Revolution – the Boston Tea Party – as a precursor to the looting of businesses in riot-torn urban centres this year. The essay cites a political scientist, William F Hall, stating that: ‘Looting is as American as apple pie.’ Hall claimed that the Founding Fathers used looting as a supplement to protest.

    One does not need a PhD in history to understand the fundamental difference between the Boston Tea Party and rioters breaking into shops to steal consumer goods. Participants in the Boston Tea Party did not engage in theft or acts of random violence. Their aim was to make a statement against the imposition of unfair taxes by the British government. They boarded ships and threw chests of tea into the Boston Harbour. There was no looting; the individuals involved did not take bags of tea back to their homes. The casual manner in which this incident, which helped to unleash a chain of events leading to the American Revolution, is reinterpreted as a form of looting represents a grotesque distortion of history.

    In recent months, numerous media outlets in the US have been complicit in the rewriting of history. They regularly excuse riots and looting on the grounds that violence has always been a feature of the American way of life. Writing in the Atlantic, Kellie Carter Jackson says the current riots are comparable to the armed uprising that led to America’s War of Independence. ‘Since the beginning of this country, riots and violent rhetoric have been markers of patriotism’, she argues. Ignoring the fact that the objective of the American Revolution was to achieve sovereignty and independence, she says that ‘when our Founding Fathers fought for independence, violence was the clarion call’. According to this rewriting of history, the leaders of the American Revolution were defined by their desire to celebrate violence.

    The normalisation of violence through the rewriting of history is not just some disinterested academic pursuit. Rather, its objective is to legitimise rioting and looting in the here and now. Indeed, Carter Jackson describes the recent events as a ‘black rebellion’. She writes: ‘[T]he language used to refer to protesters has included looters, thugs, and even claims that they are un-American. The philosophy of force and violence to obtain freedom has long been employed by white people and explicitly denied to black Americans.’

    The implication of this statement is that it is now the turn of black people to use the ‘philosophy of force and violence’, which hitherto was employed against black people.

    The attempts to normalise violence draw on a narrative that depicts America’s past as being defined almost entirely by violence. As one commentator has asserted, ‘Today, as the deeply divided United States endeavours to find a way forward from its present perils, it is finally time to look back and reckon with this nation’s divisive, violent founding’. So if looting and rioting was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it is good enough for BLM protesters, too.”


  4. Sure. Go ahead. Mail your ballot. What could possibly go wrong….?


    “‘Huge pile’: Surveillance video captures rental truck dumping bags of mail in California parking lot”

    “Bags of mail were found discarded in a California parking lot, according to surveillance video.

    “It happened early in the morning, 5:40, and it was a Budget rental, big truck, that backed up to the parking lot. And they’re like, slowly, one by one, they’re dropping the packages,” said Lilia Serobian, who saw the mail being dumped near a spa she owns.

    Local outlet KTLA reported that piles of mail were discovered in two locations in Glendale last week, which included unopened letters and boxes.

    Surveillance video from near Serobian’s spa caught a rental truck dumping the mail, and she described what the perpetrators left as a “huge pile.” KTLA reported that all of the mail was from the United States Postal Service.

    Police reported that more mail was discovered in an alley less than a mile away from the spa.

    The report comes as some worry about mail-in ballots ahead of November’s election, as well as the Postal Service seeing mail delays in California.”


    Plus you know Dems love to vote early and often.


    “Georgia Secretary of State: 1000 People Double-Voted In Primary

    Tied to surge in absentee voting – just wait for November when mail-in balloting surges.”

    “Voter fraud is not real, we are told.

    Yet here is another example, on a large scale tied directly to the surge in absentee voting, via The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

    Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Tuesday that 1,000 Georgians voted twice in the state’s June 9 primary, a felony that he said will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law….

    These voters returned absentee ballots and then also showed up to vote on election day June 9, Raffensperger said….

    In all, about 150,000 people who requested absentee ballots showed up at polling places on election day, often because they never received their absentee ballots in the mail or decided to instead vote in person.

    Of those, 1,000 voters had returned their absentee ballots to county election offices, and poll workers also allowed them to vote in-person….”


  5. Here’s a novel idea….. stay out of it.



  6. The left never learns…… Even when Jonathan Turley explains it to them.

    Leave the kid alone. Or get sued too. 🙂


    “ACLU Staffer Attacks University For Admitting Nick Sandmann While Professor Denounces His “Anti-Intellectual” Views”

    “I have previously written, as a long supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about my concern over how the venerable group has changed under its current leadership, including a departure from its long robust defense of free speech. Recently, the ACLU has abandoned its famed neutrality and has not supported some on the right while supporting those on the left. Now, the ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw in Kentucky has targeted Transylvania University for admitting Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of Lincoln Memorial. (Crankshaw identifies as an ACLU staffer on social media) Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media have continued to attack him. Yet, it is far more alarming to see an ACLU official rallying people against a young man whose chief offense appears to be that he is publicly (and unapologetically) conservative and pro-life.

    Crankshaw went to Facebook to alert people that Sandmann would be attending the college and expressing veiled outrage that the school would admit someone with his opposing views. He warns that this kid is “more dangerous” than figures like Milo Yiannopolous. The “danger” is that a young freshman holds conservative views that are shared by roughly half of this country:

    Does anyone else think it’s a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandman? I’m sure it’s a “both sides” defense, but it’s pretty counter to their mission and another instance of there not actually being equal sides to an issue. I think TU should accept anyone willing to have an open mind and engage in debate, regardless of their views. That’s how we all learn. That’s Transy’s mission…

    Having experienced the incredibly high standards Transy requires for admission and then holds its students to, this seems like a slap in the face. I hope some time in a real classroom changes him, but his twitter and public persona suggest otherwise.

    The “both sides” defense used to be the position of the ACLU in fighting for all sides to be given equal opportunities and protections. Moreover Crankshaw labels Sandmann a “provocateur in training with no intention of learning.” Putting aside the provocateur label how would Crankshaw know that Sandmann has “no intention of learning”?

    While the statement is from someone who expressly identifies as an ACLU staffer on social media, it is not a statement from the ACLU itself. Yet, the sentiment reflects the growing concern over the new direction of the ACLU and the shift away from neutrality in the support of free speech rights.

    Later Crankshaw responded to the National Review and said “The views I expressed on my Facebook page are my personal views that I shared on my personal time. I have a First Amendment right to express them just as Nick Sandmann has a First Amendment right to express his.” Of course, none of us doubted that Sandmann has first amendment rights. The suggestion of his posting was that the university should have barred the admission of Sandmann due to his views. Indeed, he was expressing outrage that Sandmann was allowed to attend such an institution of higher education. While we have been discussing the intolerance for opposing views expressed at colleges, Crankshaw apparently does not even want to see people like Sandmann allowed into college.

    One person responding positively was Dr. Avery Tompkins, an Assistant Professor and Diversity Scholar at Transylvania University, acknowledged that the university supported diverse viewpoints but promised to closely monitor Sandmann while he is on campus: “If he were to cause problems by being disruptive, trolling, or engaging in unethical behavior of any kind, I would immediately document it (just like I would for any student doing the same thing)…and he would just be putting himself in a position for me to file a conduct report.”

    Doing the same thing? What thing? Free speech?

    Rather than say that there is no reason why this conservative student should be singled out in this way, Tompkins declares publicly “I get where you are coming from.” Where would that be? Cranksaw was coming from a place where a wrongly accused conservative teenager will be harassed or targeted for daring to take his views to a college.

    I appreciate Tompkins noting that students cannot be denied admission based on their political views, though that was once assumed. Yet, Tompkins labels this incoming freshman as part of an anti-intellectual movement and publicly assumes that Sandmann will reject core principles of learning. This is a freshman being publicly shredded by a professor at his school. Tompkins then expresses the same uncertainty why this student would pick a university dedicated to higher education and “the antithesis of what he belies and promotes.”

    Despite Tompkins later apology, Cranksaw responded that her stated hostility and bias toward this student is precisely what wants to see in higher education and “why [Transylvania University] is a great place to learn.”

    Cranksaw was describing the exercise of free speech by someone with opposing views as unacceptable. Tompkins responds that she will be closely watching him. Both single out this one students for such added scrutiny and Cranksaw thanks Tompkins for the assurance of close monitoring. I have repeatedly defended the views of liberal academics attacking police, Trump, and a wide array of conservative causes. These are statements made outside of the school. Here, however, Tompkins is speaking as an academic, acting a specific students, and promising to monitor his conduct. That is deeply problematic.”


  7. Update to the first story.


    “Mayor ‘Gutted’ Dept. ‘In The Name Of Politics’: Officers, Community Speak Out After Entire Rochester Command Staff Resign”

    “The city of Rochester shocked the national news media when seven Rochester Police Department (RPD) leaders, including Chief of Police La’Ron Singletary, resigned on Tuesday.

    Though some nationally have chalked up the mass resignations as a win for the left-wing activists protesting the Daniel Prude case, local reporting and reactions from officers and residents on the ground indicate a loss in confidence in Democrat Mayor Lovely Warren, who thoroughly blamed the alleged mishandling of the Daniel Prude case on Mr. Singletary.”


    “The Rochester Police Locust Club issued a statement slamming the mayor’s lack of leadership.

    “The events that have unfolded today have taken us completely by surprise, as they have everyone else. What is clear is that the problems of leadership go directly to the Mayor’s office,” the statement said, according to Rochester First. “Our priority now is on the dedicated men and [women], who despite unprecedented challenges, continue to do a very difficult job. Our members remain focused and committed to serving the citizens of this city, despite the lack of support and leadership that we are witnessing coming from our elected officials in City Hall.”

    Local radio host and journalist Bob Lonsberry linked the resignations to the department’s loss of confidence in the mayor and city council.

    “This is how a police department takes a no-confidence vote in a mayor and City Council,” Mr. Lonsberry said. “The clown circus is on its own now. You better double up on the elders tonight.” (City elders have tried to calm tensions during the at-times violent protesting in the city.)

    Lonsberry was even more explicit in an op-ed he wrote Tuesday at WHAM 1180. “This wasn’t about the protests – this was a protest,” he argued. “Of a lying mayor, and a dumb-a** City Council. Of a City Hall driven by stupidity and self-interest.”

    The radio host contended it was Mayor Warren’s “dishonesty that brought this about. As she and her administration portrayed the chief as a liar, as their narrative falsely blamed him for concealing the officer-involved death of Daniel Prude, she violated the values and besmirched the integrity of the chief and everyone who wears a patch like his.”

    The official Twitter account for the RPD Major Crimes Unit essentially echoed the same, though Warren’s name was only implied.

    “Chief Singletary is not the person we have lost confidence in,” the account posted online.”


  8. They’ll never say thank you, but you’re welcome. 🙂

    Feds are doing the jobs locals won’t because the politicians won’t allow them to.


    “Chicago murder rate cut ‘roughly in half’ since before Operation Legend: AG Barr
    ‘The results of those actions speak for themselves,’ US Attorney General Barr said”

    “The federal government through Operation Legend has “reversed” Chicago’s surge in violence, making more than 500 arrests and charging 124 people with federal criminal charges since it started, officials announced.

    U.S. Attorney General William Barr said during a Wednesday morning press conference in the Windy City that the federal program had helped decrease Chicago’s murder rate to the lowest it’s been “at any time” since April, cutting the rate “roughly in half since before the operation.”

    “The results of those actions speak for themselves: over the first five weeks of Operation Legend in Chicago, murders dropped by 50% over the previous five weeks. August ultimately saw a 45% decrease in murders compared to July, and a 35% decrease compared to June,” he said.

    At least 400 federal agents have been assigned to the Illinois city as part of Operation Legend – roughly 200 of whom were already working there but whose roles were repurposed, and the remainder being deployed from elsewhere – and over one-thousand in total have been dispatched nationwide.

    Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a Democrat, and Chicago Police Superintendent David O. Brown were not in attendance for Wednesday’s press conference, though they were invited, Barr said.

    Barr added that the decrease in Chicago’s murder rate cannot only be attributed to Operation Legend but noted: “I believe that it is an important part of that drop.””


  9. I don’t know if this is what Zuckerberg was referring to or not, but Gene Veith writes:

    “Even if everything goes right and is above board, a delay in the election results is almost certain. The election is scheduled for November 3. But a number of states require only that mail-in ballots be postmarked by November 3, meaning that they will be received and counted. And some states have a deadline for receiving mail-in votes that is long after election day.

    In the battleground state of North Carolina, mail-in ballots will be accepted through November 6. In Minnesota, another battleground state, the cut-off date is November 10. In California, the biggest electoral college prize of all, the cut-off date is November 20!”


    Liked by 1 person

  10. Police are the real snowflakes. Rochester police mgmt face public criticism so they resign. They work for the public they should expect criticism. Teachers, nurses, etc are sworn at, have stuff thrown at them and face countless lawsuits yet remain on the job. Retail workers have a stronger backbone than these police. Just watch some videos where people yell, scream and spit at retail workers just because they asked them to wear a mask or asked them to wait for their burger and fries. Police have to “man up” and perhaps listen to the public.

    Your article on left fears of post election chaos is a bit off. Most leftist are afraid Trump will try to claim a quick victory in some toss up states before the absentee ballots and all urban ballots. Rural votes are usually counted quickly and results are sent in earlier than urban votes. One specific scenario is Pennsylvania where Trump should jump to an early lead based on rural votes reporting first and as the night drags he will declared victory here even though the uncounted ballots are greater than the margin between him and Biden. He will then question the validity of the absentee ballots. This is the type of scenario the Biden campaign is game-playing.

    If you focus only on the Tea Party, its hard to see an analogy between the rioters and “patriots” however if you look at incidents throughout the revolutionary war, the analogy has some validity. Revolutionary forces — patriots — robbed, destroyed and burned down loyalists property forcing them to leave the US for Canada. Rioting was present at the foundation of the US. In fact they even tore down statutes of King George.

    To claim success after only five weeks is ludicrous. To have an statistical validity the sample size must be larger and the time period must be compatible — for example compare previous years at the same time, account for increase violence due to lock down and protests, weather, etc.

    Finally Arizona and Pennsylvania are back in the Democratic likely column. 290 to 124. The polls are looking good for Biden except in Florida (and no one really knows what happens there)


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.