A dramatic good morning to all.
1. Let’s see which news media outlets report this. Because, you know, the President is the one encouraging violence…State senator Martin Sandoval, who represents Illinois’ 11th District, had a fundraising event last week that included a mock assassination of President Trump for the enjoyment and edification of Sandoval’s supporters. Photos posted by a woman at the event show someone pointing a fake machine gun at a man wearing a Trump mask. “Trump” is acting as if he has been shot, grabbing his chest and leaning back. In another photo, Sandoval can be seen standing next to the person holding the gun.
Thus busted, and under fire from officials of his own party, Sandoval released a statement over the weekend apologizing for the incident, which he called “unacceptable.” “I don’t condone violence toward the President or anyone else,” Sandoval said. “I apologize that something like this happened at my event.”
Oddly, he didn’t take any action indicating those sentiments at the event.
2. Now THIS is police misconduct! Wow. Portland police suspected Tyrone Lamont Allen of robbing four banks and credit unions. Yet none of the tellers noticed Allen’s facial tattoos, and he was not wearing a mask. To address that problem, the police photoshopped out the tattoos on Allen’s face before including his picture in a photo line up.
Then the witnesses identified Allen.
Police forensic criminologist Mark Weber testified that he merely “painted over the tattoos . . . like applying electronic makeup.’’ It was more than that. It was “like” altering the appearance of suspects to secure a criminal identification.
Laughably, Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Maloney defended the changes because “the whole idea was to make Mr. Allen blend in – so his photo wouldn’t stand out . . . These procedures were prudent. They were appropriate.’’ Maloney should be fired and disciplined by the bar. Writes Professor Turley, who found this story,
Give the persistent unreliability of witness identification, the actual removal of identifying features is an outrageous act…One study showed that roughly 75 percent of cases overturned by DNA evidence involved convictions based on eyewitness identification — often more than one such witness. Jurors are heavily influenced by such identifications in court and prosecutors know that such a witness can overcome other evidentiary shortcomings. To engineer an identification through photoshopping is therefore particularly egregious and far . . . far from “prudent.”
3. She’s an underdog, but don’t bet against her. That is, Senator Kamala Harris is still in there battling to be the #1 Democratic Party demagogue. Senator Warren has a big lead, but Harris and Warren both appeal to the Left’s totalitarians. Harris now says that if elected she will push for legislation authorizing federal courts to issue gun confiscation orders against people who express opinions that “may indicate” an intent to commit a hate crime. These “domestic terrorism prevention orders” would “temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness,” including “violent racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos.”
We know what Harris and her ideological clones regard as “racist” and “anti-immigrant” statements—whatever they those in power say they are. This is part of the “red flag” argument, holding that citizens should lose their constitutional rights because they say or think “unacceptable” things.
It’s funny: I was watching Season Two of “Mindhunter,” the Netflix drama about the development of the FBI’s Behavioral Studies Unit, which refined the art of profiling. Investigating the Atlanta child murder spree, during which Wayne Williams killed thirty black children, terrifying the city, the agents interview a poor, semi-literate Klan member and open racist. When they confront him with his various racist statements, he smirkingly points out that hate isn’t a crime, thoughts aren’t a crime, and expressing racist opinions aren’t a crime. “They are protected under the Constitution!’ he says, correctly.
And I thought: this vile idiot understands and respects the Constitution better than most Democrats. Scary.
4. On second thought, maybe Warren is too far ahead to catch. Yesterday the former Native American and minority faculty hire was speaking to real Native Americans, grovelling and offering all sorts of goodies–“full funding for housing, for health care, for education, for infrastructure”— for the tribes if they will just forgive and forget. Yes, this is called “buying votes.” It works.
She also apologized for claiming to be a Cherokee for her whole academic career. I love it when people who have profited from and built a career on cheating apologize long after all of the benefits have been enjoyed and are in the bank. Such apologies are cynical and cheap. I haven’t heard Warren apologize to the applicants for faculty positions that she leaped over by claiming minority status. If she had played it straight, maybe one of them would be running for President.
The Times piece about Warren’s appearance also exemplifies the distortion of her Indian problem that the news media has been spinning to her benefit. More than once, reporter Thomas Kaplan describes the President’s “Pocahontas”nickname for Warren as a “slur” referring to her “ancestry.” Fake news: that description is the exact opposite of what Trump’s gag name means. He is sarcastically pointing out her lack of the ancestry she falsely claimed. He isn’t mocking Native Americans; he’s mocking a woman who pretended to be a Native American. Sure, it’s juvenile, but its no racial slur. In college, I had a classmate who was always boasting about his supposedly wealthy family, but who was also the last one to pick up a check. Some of us called him “Rockefeller.” Was that a slur on the Rockefellers?
5. About that New York Times “1619” Project…Nah, no political agendas or historical distortions here! Some headings from the special New York Times Magazine issue on the project:
- “In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.”
- “How Slavery Built Wall Street”
- “Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care? The answer begins with policies enacted after the Civil War.”
- “American democracy has never shed an undemocratic assumption present at its founding: that some people are inherently entitled to more power than others.” (This one is from professional anti-white racist and race-baiter Jamelle Bouie.)
- “Slavery gave America a fear of black people and a taste for violent punishment. Both define our criminal justice system.”
and my personal favorite,
- “A vast wealth gap, driven by segregation, redlining, evictions, and exclusions, separate white and black America.” Just a few factors are left out of that calculation, I think.
My diagnosis is that “1619” is a thinly-veiled cognitive dissonance scale exercise, devoted to tying everything the progressive agenda wants in 2019 to overhaul or eliminate—like capitalism, the rule of law, and merit-based hiring—to slavery.