Author: admin

By Bradley Thomas of Mises.org,

A tweet by the widely followed “Existential Comics” account recently made the rounds. It might be easy to dismiss, but with more than 345,000 followers, the account apparently appeals to a lot of like-minded people.

The tweet caught my eye in large part because of how many people liked what amounts to a very economically ignorant and naïve “pop quiz.”

The point of the sarcasm, of course, was to demonize any greedy people who believe in private ownership of housing. How coldhearted you must be to support landlord ownership of housing! Don’t you know greedy landlords will just rent to the richest and leave the poor homeless? That’s what the profit motive does!

The only acceptable answer for any decent person, of course, would be for the housing to be “distributed” in a more equitable manner. Apparently, we are not supposed to think about the great inequality between the rulers granted the power to distribute such important resources like housing and those reliant on the whims of the rulers for their housing.

Nevertheless, the profit motive is clearly the villain in this story, under the belief that a more equitable means of distribution is desirable.

Below are three main points demonstrating the fallacies contained in this tweet.

It Begins at the Ending

The most obvious problem with this “pop quiz” is that the starting point is one in which 100 houses already exist. But houses don’t just exist in a state of nature. They need to be produced, using scarce resources like labor, land, lumber, sheetrock, and many others.

The houses must be produced before they can be “distributed.” The pop quiz ignores this, instead just assuming the houses exist with no recognition of how they got there in the first place.

Moreover, isn’t it convenient that the “quiz”  also assumes a hundred houses on an island of a hundred people?

Why did the builders choose to build a hundred houses? The easy answer is that there are a hundred people on the island.

But so what?

Not everybody wants to live in a house by themselves. Suppose that the hundred people on the island consist of twenty families of four. In that case, twenty houses would have been sufficient, and the other seventy-five would be sitting empty.

There must be some coordination process involved in communicating to the builders how many houses the island’s inhabitants desire. This process is also just assumed away in the pop quiz.

The Coordination and Economic Calculation Problems

This leads us to the next major issues of the “pop quiz,” namely its ignorance of the coordination and economic calculation problems.

As stated above, why would builders choose to build one hundred houses? What if instead twenty-five or fifty would be more in line with consumer preferences? Without a profit motive incentivizing the efficient use of scarce resources with alternative uses, combined with a price system based on private ownership of property, there is no way for producers to coordinate their plans to align with the preferences of consumers.

Prices will communicate to producers where scarce resources are most urgently demanded by consumers, while the profit motive encourages the most efficient uses of resources to meet that demand. If too many houses are being built, prices will fall and incentivize producers to invest in other lines of production. If too few houses are being built, prices will be bid up and encourage more home building. That’s the profit motive at work.

Without this process of coordination, how are the preferences of consumers to be determined? This is among the questions Existential Comics (EC) doesn’t want you to ask.

Even if the problem of coordinating the right number of houses to be built can be overcome, what about how to build those houses? Technologically, houses can be built with any number of materials. But without markets in the means of production, how can the home builders economize on their construction?

In other words, they can choose from bricks, lumber, aluminum or vinyl siding, any number of metals or PVC for plumbing, etc. Without prices in the means of production, builders might, say, choose titanium or platinum for the plumbing in the homes. This would divert those scarce materials away from more highly valued uses such as life-saving medical devices.

Society would be deprived of a far more valued use of these materials, because they would be used up in the construction of the housing, when cheaper and more abundant  steel or iron would have been sufficient.

It’s the very efficiency in the pursuit of profit that EC demonizes that helps minimize opportunity costs and therefore ensures that society is not being deprived of goods it more urgently needs.

Which System of Distribution?

All economic goods are by definition scarce and must be distributed according to some system.

From his “pop quiz,” we can reasonably infer that EC proposes empowering a dictator or other ruling body to evenly distribute resources. He somehow feels this is more fair and just than a system based upon private property, exchange, and the profit motive.

But how is that fair? Those with relationships closest to the rulers would leverage those crony relations, while others would bribe the decision-maker to get preferential treatment. One hopes that EC is not so naïve as to think that granting individuals such broad powers would not corrupt them. After all, if he thinks capitalist landlords are greedy and cannot be trusted, what makes him think that planning bureau chiefs will not also game the system for personal gain?

Furthermore, as Hayek taught us, such positions of power would be sought out by the very people who desire that kind of power over others. Whether it’s corrupt people seeking those positions of power or people being corrupted by them, it surely won’t be long before such power would be abused.

Society and the economy are not so simple that there is always a perfect match between available resources and consumer needs, as in EC’s overly simplistic pop quiz. The planning boards would have to make decisions distributing scarce resources that favor some and leave others out. This is the perfect recipe for corruption, and not more just in any sense of the word than a system of production and exchange based on private property.

Conclusion

The profit motive is a popular target of progressives and socialists. But the criticisms are often based on misunderstandings of how a market economy based on private property works. One cannot just decree an even “distribution” of scarce resources like housing without considering how those houses were produced in the first place.

Moreover, market economies based on production and exchange of private property have proven to be the best creator of wealth and the greatest enemy of poverty the world has ever known. Efficiencies driven by the profit motive are what is responsible for the massive eradication of poverty and astonishing improvements in our standard of living and quality of life.

People like Existential Comics do us a grave disservice by taking it for granted.

A month after an explosion centered on a derelict ammonium nitrate stockpile wiped out entire Beirut neighborhoods, killing 191 people and injuring many thousands, the Lebanese Army announced it has uncovered 4.35 more tons of the same highly explosive substance in four containers near the port’s entrance. 

The prior massive detonation, which produced a seismic shock so powerful as to be felt for miles away, involved 3,000 tons of the volatile stuff, which is manufactured for explosives as well as fertilizer. The one month anniversary of the Aug.4 tragedy comes Friday. 

Lebanese military officials didn’t give many details of the new discovery, other than to say that Army engineers are “dealing with it”, according to state news agency NNA.

Recall too that after days following the explosion an international team inspected the site, French and Italian experts found a further more than 20 containers with what were dubbed “dangerous chemicals” in them. 

The new find of more than four tons of ammonium nitrate is being investigated, and there’s yet to be any details of who it belongs to or how it came to be stored there. 

The fact that it took 30 days to find this can only be read as another incredible, astounding failure by the country’s authorities.

Army now says they are “working to deal with it,” now.

— Timour Azhari (@timourazhari) September 3, 2020

It was revealed last month that the initial stockpile which detonated after a fire by wielding work on the warehouse where it was stored had languished there for seven years, with everyone seeming to pass responsibility. 

The new find is adding to anger in the streets which had led to the prime minister and many top government officials stepping down the wake of the tragedy.

Authored by Richard Hanania via RealClearDefense.com,

It’s our own national security bureaucracy…

This month, U.S. intelligence reported that Russia wants Donald Trump to win reelection, while China and Iran seek to help Joe Biden.

Both sides of the political aisle have cited the report, claiming that one adversary or another would be happy if the other party takes power in January.

It shouldn’t surprise us that foreign countries have preferences about American electoral outcomes. Why wouldn’t they, given U.S. influence in the world? According to political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke, during the Cold War, the United States engaged in 64 attempts at covert regime change. More recently, we have overthrown and ultimately helped kill leaders in Iraq and Libya, while aiming to replace governments in Syria and Venezuela. Hillary Clinton believes that Vladimir Putin’s grudge against her goes back to comments she made about the 2011 parliamentary elections in Russia, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently urged the Chinese people to overthrow their government.

Given the American propensity for regime change overseas, it makes sense that other nations would seek, in turn, to interfere in American politics—for reasons of self-defense, if nothing else. What’s less understandable is the moral indignation that American leaders express about what are relatively minor incursions, compared with U.S. violations of some of the most fundamental rules of international law.

Nearly two decades ago, Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Communists warned the United States against invading Iraq. Those who opposed the war at home were criticized as unpatriotic and apologists for Saddam Hussein. Therefore, was the Iraq War a good idea because Saddam, the Chinese, and the Russians were all against it?

As the Iraq War should remind us, the world is usually not zero-sum. China, Iran, and Russia do not want conflict with the U.S. For self-interested reasons alone, they would prefer a world with less war, a lower likelihood of major pandemics like Covid-19, and a stronger global economy. To spite our rivals, should we, therefore, be in favor of disease, war, and depression?

Of course, it’s possible that China or Russia wants a certain side to win in November because it sees an opportunity to take advantage of Americans or engage in foreign aggression. Nonetheless, simply knowing which candidate Xi or Putin favors tells us nothing about which way Americans should vote.

Right now, Americans are extremely pessimistic about their institutions and the direction of the country. Yet, as liberal journalist Ezra Klein argues in his recent Why We’re Polarized, the system may be broken from the perspective of what’s good for the country, but it still works fairly well from the perspective of those in power. Government contractors still get paid, lobbyists make major profits, and top government officials can still leverage their time in power into lucrative private-sector work. Coming from the other side of the political spectrum, Charles Murray’s Coming Apart documented how the Washington, D.C. metro area has become home to the nation’s wealthiest counties in recent decades.

It’s from this perspective that we should understand stories about election interference. While it is the job of intelligence agencies to counter foreign intrusion, knowing whom Iran or Russia wants to win in November provides no valuable information to American voters. Such reports actually increase hostility toward foreign countries and make it easier to sell policies that will ultimately benefit those who produce intelligence reports and leak national security stories. Hostility to foreign governments has generally translated into more money and power going to the national security bureaucracy and the corporations that benefit from it. Once in office, a president may find it difficult to calm relations with the foreign country that “wanted him to win.”

If American leaders were really interested in protecting our democracy, they would forgo regime change overseas and remove incentives for election interference at home. As long as American presidential elections’ outcomes carry such high stakes internationally, foreign governments will do whatever they can to put their thumbs on the scale. To believe that the intelligence community will catch all election interference cases is to place confidence in it that it does not deserve.

Looking back from a perspective of nearly two decades, most people understand that those who criticized antiwar activists in the run-up to Iraq were wrong and that their methods of attacking dissidents were shameful. Yet fewer recognize that the same tactics used to push for confrontation back then are still being employed today. America, and American democracy, will be better off if we think less about what foreign countries want to happen in November and more about the agendas of those drumming up concern about it. 

After slamming President Trump for acting “like a king”, NY Gov Andrew Cuomo has mercifully allowed more businesses in the Empire State to finally reopen, even though COVID-19 cases haven’t seen anything approaching the kind of resurgences that officials have warned about.

Unlike pretty much every other state at this point (even neighboring New Jersey finally caved), New York hasn’t allowed the return of indoor dining. The issue is prompting an outpouring of rage directed at Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, who have allowed protesters to gather night after night, while crushing the city’s small businesses. Adding insult to injury, de Blasio caved to the teachers union and spared more than 20,000 city employees who had been set for layoffs.

Gyms finally reopened in NYC Wednesday after city officials forced businesses to get cleared by the health department. Gyms around the state were allowed to reopen Aug. 24, but the delay until Sept. 2 was unique to New York City.

Source: NYT

The map above is lightly misleading: Most of NY state allows limited indoor dining. NYC is the only city in the state that hasn’t authorized any form of indoor dining, despite the fact that it has consistently reported positivity rates below 1% for weeks.

On Thursday, with the country focused on vaccine news, Cuomo announced that the state would allow casinos and malls to reopen on a limited capacity on Sept. 9. But restaurants in NYC would remain closed for the foreseeable future.

While de Blasio pushes for Cuomo and him to cooperatively develop a timeline for the return of indoor dining in NYC, Cuomo responded with a thinly veiled taunt, again reminding NYC leaders that “they have no legal authority to make that decision” on fully reopening restaurants. While he suggested that he’s “amenable” to reopening restaurants, he insisted that the city needs to have a well-thought-out plan that must be approved by the governor.

After all, Cuomo is the one who has the final say.

” … We have major problems in New York City with the compliance on the bars. I have beseeched New York City to do a better job on compliance and enforcement,” Cuomo said during a telephonic briefing with reporters. “We put together a task force to do the enforcement on Long Island and New York City … We have taken state police resources from many places to do that enforcement.”

“My opinion is restaurants should open. The question is how?” Cuomo said Thursday.

He then went on to promise that a “timetable” for reopening would be hashed out by the end of the month, though the answer might be “good news or bad news.”

“I think it’s our responsibility to give them as clear an answer in the month of September as possible, of where we are going,” the mayor said Wednesday. “If there can be a timeline, if there can be a set of standards for reopening, we need to decide that in the next few weeks and announce it, whether it is good news or bad news.”

But restaurant owners, facing the destruction of their livelihood, are refusing to wait. A frustrated group of restaurant owners slapped Cuomo with a class action lawsuit urging a judge to over rule the governor and allow NYC restaurants to start reopening their dining rooms.

The suit is seeking $2 billion in damages and alleges that the state is violating the constitutional rights of the owners of more than 150,000 New York City restaurants, many of which have already closed permanently. One study published Thursday claims that 60% of NYC restaurants will likely be forced to close if indoor dining doesn’t return soon. More than 350 city restaurants have signed on.

One restaurant, Il Bacco in Queens, joined the suit to argue that customers can simply walk a few blocks away into Nassau County if they want to eat indoors.

NY State has reported nearly 470k cases, roughly half of those were confirmed in NYC.

We imagine the state’s liberal judges will side with the government. But as time goes on, more people are starting to doubt that the indoor dining ban is a safety issue. Instead, might this be another attempt by Cuomo to politically hamstring his most hated Democratic rival, de Blasio?

Submitted by Adam Andrzejewski, originally published in Forbes,

The San Francisco Bay Area is home to wonders of the modern world like the Golden Gate Bridge and Silicon Valley — as well as powerful progressive politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Governor Gavin Newsom, and U.S. Senator (and vice-presidential hopeful) Kamala Harris.

But the city is in trouble. Whenever we open the books, San Francisco consistently ranks among the worst tax-and-spend offenders.

In fact, the city’s $1.5 billion budget deficit isn’t stopping 18,759 highly compensated employees from each bringing home pay packages worth $150,000 (or more) annually.

We found truck drivers loaded up with $262,898; city painters making $270,190; firefighters earning $316,306; and plumbing supervisors cleaning up $348,291 every year. One deputy sheriff earned $574,595 last year – including $315,896 in overtime.

On average, the city’s 44,526 employees received pay and perks costing taxpayers $131,335 apiece. Four out of ten – 18,749 city workers – received a compensation package exceeding $150,000 per year.

The pay package includes retirement, health, overtime, pension, and other benefits on top of base salary.

Mayor’s Office – San Francisco Mayor London Breed cost taxpayers $452,421 – the highest paid mayor in the country. Breed enjoys a $342,974 salary and an additional $109,447 in benefit perks. Incredibly, there are another thirty-one staffers in her office with total comp exceeding $200,000 annually.

Police and Sheriff departments– The combined 4,418 employees of the city’s law enforcement agencies cost taxpayers $831 million in compensation last year for an average cost of over $188,000 per person. The police are called “peace officers.”

Because San Francisco is both a city and a county, it has both a sheriff and police department. Sheriff deputies run the jails, enforce civil judgements, and provide security for court cases, while the police patrol the city.

Police Chief William Scott earned $434,613 ($338,482 salary and $96,131 benefits). Four assistant chiefs (police and management) received between $346,528 and $445,539. Then, there were 195 employees with pay and perks exceeding $300,000 each.

Matt Dorsey, the director of strategic communications, responded to our comment request by saying that successful implementation of recent reforms was costly.

Sheriff Paul Miyamoto made $357,570 in total compensation. Overall, the sheriff paid out $100,000+ in overtime pay to fifty employees including $315,896 in overtime to a senior deputy sheriff with total comp of $574,595.

The sheriff responded to our request for comment through Nancy Hayden Crowley, director of communications: “My department continues to work on creative solutions to meet our staffing minimums and the public safety challenges that we all face on a reduced budget.”

Overall, the two departments employed 3,775 people – or roughly 8.5 out of every ten employees – with comp packages that exceeded $100,000.

Fire Department – The Fire Department had two chiefs last year. Outgoing Chief Joanne Hayes-White retired on a $311,560 annual pension and Chief Jeanine Nicholson replaced her in May 2019.

Last year, Hayes-White received $386,727 and Nicholson received $442,722 in total compensation. However, cash compensation alone is not the full story. The department maintains a $2 million four-bedroom landmark home as the chief’s residence.

A fire prevention lieutenant made $415,111 – more than double their $184,791 base salary with a whopping $230,320 in overtime. Fifteen employees received over $100,000 in overtime pay alone.

Only 389 of the 1,559 Fire employees didn’t bring home a six-figure comp package last year.

Public Works – Cases of human waste on San Francisco streets spiked to 31,000 in 2019 – an all-time high. The agency in charge of cleaning up the mess has a quarter-billion-dollar budget ($224 million) earmarked for personnel costs alone.

Public works employs a staff of 1,790, including truck drivers ($218,495), arborists ($206,107), and general laborers ($188,975). Team members on the self-styled “poop patrol” cost taxpayers up to $184,000 each.

San Francisco’s self-titled “Mr. Clean,” Mohammed Nuru, Public Works Director, is best known for failed efforts to keep feces and hypodermic needles out of the public way.

In 2019, Nuru earned $380,120 in total compensation and his base salary alone spiked $65,000 over eight years. It wasn’t enough, apparently. In February 2020, the FBI arrested Nuru in an alleged porta-potty scandal.

Homeless Services & Supportive Housing – In 2016, the city added a new agency to serve its homeless residents. By 2019, the department had 148 employees, and 53 of them made more than $100,000.

The director, Jeff Kosinsky, brought home up to $238,182 annually, but each year the city’s homeless population continued to grow. The population rose to 8,000 this year (up 17-percent), and complaints of human waste on city streets spiked from 18,246 (2016) to 31,000 (2019).

Incredibly, the department can still claim a “good” job in comparison to other California cities: in Oakland, the homeless population nearly doubled during the same period.

Department on the Status of Women (DOSW) – The DOSW strives to “make San Francisco the best place for women and gender expansive persons to live, work, and learn in the United States.” 

The agency tackles projects such as how many public spaces are named after women. Total compensation for DOSW’s six full-time paid staff was $1 million in 2019.

Our auditors also found, however, that DOSW saves money on its mostly-female cadre of ‘policy fellows.’ These interns are paid $20/hour while other San Fran government internships in civil engineering, surveying, and similar roles pay $29.50/hour.

War Memorial Opera House – This opera house employs twenty-five staffers (out of 120) with six-figure salaries, including a patrol officer bringing in $164,399 in total compensation. While the summer and fall performance seasons cancelled or moved online, our auditors could find no reports of layoffs or even pay reductions.

Asian Art Museum – This museum cost city taxpayers $7.8 million in employee compensation last year and is not open to visitors this year.

In 2019 Director Jay Xu made $302,145 in total compensation including a salary ($220,563) and benefits ($81,582). Other high-earners included the deputy director ($248,463), a maintenance superintendent ($200,802), a curator ($200,046), and a librarian ($174,355).

San Francisco’s long-term financial situation looks bleak.

The city has guaranteed $8.1 billion in pension and retiree healthcare that hasn’t been funded. Each city resident owes $9,000 just to cover the unfunded liability, according to data provided by fiscal accountability organization Truth In Accounting (2018).

While the city struggles to balance its books in light of remarkable economic and social upheaval, the unions are not cooperating. Representing San Francisco’s 44,525 city employees, organized labor aggressively hit back against a recent proposal to pause pay hikes.

San Francisco is a progressive utopia, so well-meaning fiscal hawks are going to have to cry a lot louder – or they won’t even have a voice at the table.

In 2017, the Gateway Pundit‘s Cassandra Fairbanks published a claim from an anonymous former Secret Service agent who said that they had to protect female agents from Joe Biden due to “Weinstein level stuff,” referring to notable rapist and Democrat, Harvey Weinstein.

“We had to cancel the VP Christmas get together at the Vice President’s house because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses,” said the former agent, adding “He would mess with every single woman or teen. It was horrible.”

The agent also claimed Biden would walk around naked in the VP residence.

“I mean, Stark naked… Weinstein level stuff.”

“According to the source, a Secret Service agent once got suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him. The situation got so heated, the source told Cassandra Fairbanks, that others had to step in to prevent the agent from hitting the then-Vice President.”

Here’s why you’re reading this now…

While the MSM simply ignored the alleged breast-grabbing incident, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request...

…and were told the file was destroyed.

In other words, something happened, and the Secret Service just confirmed it.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, made on May 12, 2020, sought:

All records related to a reported incident in 2009 in which a United States Secret Service Agent reportedly was involved in an altercation with, or attempted to strike, then Vice President Joe Biden during a photo opportunity.

The records sought shall include, but not be limited to, witness statements, the Agent’s statement, victim’s statement, alleged perpetrator’s statement, incident reports, investigative reports, communications among USSS personnel regarding the incident, and disciplinary records related to the incident for the Agent in question.

In a July 13, 2020 response to Judicial Watch’s request, the Secret Service appeared to confirm that a file on the alleged incident existed at some point, asserting, “[T]here are no responsive records or documents pertaining to your request in our files,” because “the above mentioned file(s) has been destroyed” due to “retention standards.”  The Secret Service added that, “[n]o additional information is available.”  It did not deny the incident had occurred.  In its lawsuit, Judicial Watch intends to test the Secret Service’s assertion that it destroyed all records about the incident.

“We had not been able to confirm whether the report about the alleged altercation might be true until the Secret Service itself suggested it destroyed records about the incident,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

*  *  *

Senior editor, Ash Bennington, hosts Dave Floyd, founder of Aspen Trading, to discuss the levels he’s looking at after U.S. equity markets cratered today. Dave considers whether there are structural changes occurring in the markets and provides his insight into the frothiness by drawing comparisons between now and markets in the early 2000s. He also breaks down his tactical approach and how he makes his picks. Ash is also joined by Real Vision’s Roger Hirst, sharing his thoughts on how rising implied volatility was signaling a potential drawdown in the past few weeks. Roger explains how he analyzes the VIX and the volatility curve to understand this rare market signal and expands on Ed Harrison’s points about derivatives playing into rising volatility and what bond yields converging to zero means for real yields. Roger also provides his response to James Altucher’s segment from yesterday’s Daily Briefing.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The Washington Post has published an article asserting that the election result will “spark violence” unless it’s a Biden landslide, prompting some observers to view the prediction as a threat.

“The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis. In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically,” tweeted the newspaper.

This prompted numerous commentators to question the logic behind such a forecast.

Perspective: The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis.

In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically. https://t.co/E3tugZBuBj

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 3, 2020

“Sounds an awful lot like a threat,” remarked Ian Miles Cheong.

Sounds an awful lot like a threat. https://t.co/jVz7AojNcj

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 3, 2020

“WaPo is using threats of violence to interfere in an election,” tweeted Mike Cernovich, adding, “This is how the mob talks.”

WaPo is using threats of violence to interfer in an election. https://t.co/HwDgY4CZ8K

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) September 3, 2020

“The media is telling us the election will be decided after election day and if Biden does not win there will be violence,” commented Jack Posobiec. “Tony Soprano was more subtle than this.”

The media is telling us the election will be decided after election day and if Biden does not win there will be violence

Tony Soprano was more subtle than this

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) September 3, 2020

On Monday, Biden himself suggested that the violence plaguing American streets will continue unless voters elect him, tweeting, “Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected?”

As we highlighted on Tuesday, a polling firm with direct ties to the Biden campaign and the DNC says that it’s likely President Trump will appear to have won in a landslide on election night but may lose after mail in ballots are counted, which “will take days if not weeks to tally.”

With Hillary Clinton urging Joe Biden not to concede and Facebook revealing that it refuse to call the election result ‘prematurely’, many Trump supporters now fear that the political class will try to filibuster the election outcome in yet another attempt to subvert the Trump presidency.

*  *  *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

Joe Biden was allowed out of his basement (again) today, for a quick visit to Kenosha and camera opp with Jacob Blake Sr. – the father of Jacob Blake, shot and paralyzed by Kenosha police.

Everything was going great until the former veep got the opportunity to actually speak to members of the public… then this happened…

The 77-year-old politician told a group of voters that if he took the time to lay out his taxation policy in more detail, “they’ll shoot me.”

Joe Biden is Kenosha says that he can’t lay out all his plans in more detail because if he goes on any longer “they’ll shoot me.” pic.twitter.com/N33k3wyuJl

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 3, 2020

Probably a poor choice of words, Joey!

Awkward!

 

Hours after Gov Cuomo demanded “answers” and called for the state AG’s investigation into the killing of Daniel Prude to wrap up as quickly as possible, Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren, has suspended seven officers involved in the deadly confrontation.

“You can not stand around and allow these types of things to happen, you have a duty,” according to the AP.

The AG’s office took over the investigation back in April, long before the Prude family went public with their claims during a Wednesday press conference, which also involved releasing never-before-seen bodycamera footage of the incident that led to Prude’s death seven days later.

Prude, 41, died March on 30 while still in the hospital one week after police put a “spit hood” over his head and pressed his face into the pavement for two minutes, cutting off his ability to breath and leading to brain damage. He was the loving father of five adult children, and was known to have some mental health issues, though he was generally regarded as harmless. These hoods have been blamed for the deaths of several prisoners in recent years.

“Rell”, as he was known to family, had just arrived on Rochester for a visit with family. His brother called the police after Rell started acting erratically one night. The man took off his clothes and was running around naked in the street.

Activists have demanded that the officers involved be suspended, fired and/or charged for murder.

The local medical examiner has concluded that Prude’s death was a “homicide caused by complications of asphyxia in the setting of physical restraint.” The report lists ‘excited delirium and acute intoxication’ by PCP as a contributing factor.