Democrats are more divided than they appear according to numbers released by the Democratic National Committee following their nominating convention last week.
Fox News reports that of the 5,000 delegates that voted on the party’s platform, widely recognized as the most progressive Democratic Party platform in years, more than a thousand delegates — around 25% of all attendees — voted against the decision to approve the party’s official policies.
The situation reveals a breakdown in the party that could cost the Democrats in the coming years and indicates a vast difference between the “moderate” Democratic party, which fought to nominate former Vice President Joe Biden as its 2020 contender, and the growing progressive wing, which backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
“The DNC revealed over the weekend that 3,562 delegates voted to approve the platform, while a total of 1,069 voted no, and 87 abstained,” Fox reported. “The number of convention delegates who voted no is roughly the same as the number of delegates pledged to progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The populist lawmaker and ‘Medicare-for-all’ champion was the last remaining rival to Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the primaries before suspending his White House bid and endorsing the former vice president in April.”
The number could give Biden’s team pause; although Sanders himself has pledged to back the former Veep, recent reports indicate growing unrest within the progressive caucus, and fear that once elected, Biden will not be as willing to embrace far-left policy as they expect.
Biden has already turned down a “Medicare-for-All” health care plan, refuses to endorse the “defund the police” movement and, as The Daily Wire reported Sunday, encouraged Democratic platform committees to marginalize the official Black Lives Matter organization, even though Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, made racial justice a central theme of the convention.
At least one Sanders convention delegate acknowledged acrimony.
“We were upset. There was pushback. There were emails and phone calls,” a Sanders supporter told Fox.
Only two Democratic legislators voted against the platform — Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) — both because the platform failed to include a fully single-payer health care plan.
Although the numbers are shocking, the discord is not necessarily unexpected — and Republicans, who raised eyebrows Sunday by refusing to issue an official platform for their own convention, may have decided to avoid a similar display of major, internal party fracture by avoiding policy altogether.
Instead of an official platform, the Republicans are pledging to “enthusiastically support” their nominee, according to Fox News. Instead of voting on changes, the RNC will leave the party’s 2016 platform intact.
“The RNC has unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement,” the RNC said in a statement Sunday.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
The Democratic Party hosted its virtual convention last week, an underwhelming event that sought to portray the party as a "big tent" movement that would welcome former Trump supporters. That tent just got a little bit bigger.
Richard Spencer, a prominent racist and Duke University alumnus, declared his support for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and announced his intention to vote a "straight Democratic ticket" in the 2020 election.
"I plan to vote for Joe Biden and a straight democratic ticket," the racist wrote on Twitter over the weekend. "It’s not based on ‘accelerationism’ or anything like that; the liberals are clearly more competent people."
Spencer, who has appeared on CNN to discuss President Donald Trump’s "racist tweets," also created his own Joe Biden campaign avatar and posted a photo of it on social media.
Biden, who has refused to apologize for praising segregationist colleagues in the Senate, was accused of supporting racist policies by his own running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), during the Democratic primary.
The mainstream media reacted to Spencer’s announcement with predictable (and deafening) silence.
Courier Newsroom, a "news" site bankrolled by a major Democratic fundraising network, has undertaken a seven-figure ad campaign to push flattering pieces about vulnerable House Democrats, garnering at least a million impressions on social media.
The eye-popping number is evidence of a new frontier in political advertising as political organizations operating under the guise of news outlets push content to impressionable swing-state voters.
The candidates Courier boosts on Facebook overlap substantially with the candidates backed by top Democratic donors Laurene Powell Jobs—the billionaire widow of Apple pioneer Steve Jobs—and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman. The so-called newsroom, by pushing pieces that mirror the candidates’ own press releases, provides a complementary outlet for Democrats to pursue their political goals.
Courier Newsroom is funded by the left-wing nonprofit ACRONYM, which counts Jobs and Hoffman among its high-profile donors. While Jobs has denied funding Courier Newsroom, her parallel donations make clear that Courier shares the same political goals as ACRONYM’s billionaire donors.
Jobs, worth an estimated $26.8 billion, has emerged as a top Democratic donor and media titan, investing in news outlets from the Atlantic to Axios and Mother Jones. As a donor to ACRONYM, she has effectively blurred the lines between the two.
This election cycle, Courier has boosted nearly a dozen vulnerable Democratic candidates on Facebook, where its posts have reached millions of users, according to Facebook analytics. Those candidates include Democratic Reps. Lauren Underwood (Ill.), Xochitl Torres Small (N.M.), Andy Kim (N.J.), Abigail Spanberger (Va.), Antonio Delgado (N.Y.), Max Rose (N.Y.), and Jared Golden (Maine). Jobs and Hoffman have maxed out to all of those campaigns.
Courier has come under scrutiny in recent months as Facebook seeks to differentiate news outlets from "political persuasion" operations, Courier chief among them. But while a new Facebook policy will exclude Courier articles from Facebook’s newsfeed and require a disclaimer on the ads noting they are paid for by Courier, the group is not required to disclose that it is a Democratic political operation.
Anna Massoglia, a dark money researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics who has written extensively on "fake news" outlets including Courier, said Facebook’s disclosure remains confusing for precisely the voters Courier is targeting.
"There is little to alert the average user that these state-focused outlets are connected to a dark money operation with a political agenda that may color articles they publish," Massoglia told the WashingtonFree Beacon. "Readers may be unaware they aren’t actually homegrown state or local news outlets but are actually part of a bigger network tied to a dark money operation funded by anonymous donors."
Several Democratic political operatives have moved between ACRONYM, Facebook, and Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, including Chris Cox, a onetime ACRONYM adviser who now serves as Facebook’s chief product officer; David Plouffe, a senior adviser to both ACRONYM and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s philanthropy; and Jeff Zients, a former Facebook board member and current Biden adviser.
Nearly all of the politicians aided by Courier are locked into competitive races, and the outlet operates by pushing its articles in front of persuadable voters on Facebook. The ads are targeted at voters in each politician’s district, making it an attractive avenue for donors looking to sway voters.
The operation is beginning to attract the attention of local reporters, too. Maine’s Sun Journalreported earlier this month on Courier’s efforts to boost Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, writing, "A fake online newspaper that aims to elect Democrats to Congress has spent at least $50,000 this year on social media advertising that promoted its stories touting U.S. Rep. Jared Golden, a Lewiston Democrat who is seeking reelection in a district he narrowly won two years ago."
ACRONYM made national headlines during the Democrats’ Iowa caucus: It was the primary investor in the firm that produced a flawed vote-tallying application that made it impossible for the party to determine a winner. ACRONYM president Tara McGowan initially attempted to distance ACRONYM from the firm and Plouffe, in an MSNBC appearance, denied any knowledge of the connection between the two groups.
McGowan lashed out at Facebook after it announced it would remove Courier’s stories from its news feed. "Facebook classifies right-wing misinformation farms including Daily Caller + Breitbart News as verified news publishers + verified FACT CHECKERS on their platform yet wrote a policy to restrict progressive Courier Newsroom from spreading truth. The double standard is unapologetic," she wrote on Twitter.
The Daily Caller and Breitbart, however, are not linked to political organizations. ACRONYM’s sister group, PACRONYM, is a Democratic super PAC funded by the billionaire George Soros, among others. PACRONYM pushes millions to another affiliated organization, Lockwood Strategy, a private digital firm owned by ACRONYM.
Courier has rolled out digital outlets with local reporters in swing states including Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
A week after Republicans with personal axes to grind voiced their support for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, a black Democrat from Georgia will make the case that President Donald Trump’s leadership is necessary for the good of the nation. Last week, Republicans such as former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who sought the 2016 Republican…
Two Democrat Super PACs created a $7.5 million advertising campaign on Monday to encourage voters to vote-by-mail in several states crucial to flipping the White House and the Senate to Democrat control.
The campaign by Priorities USA Action and the Senate Majority PAC is the first major advertising push by these big-money groups to encourage registered Democrats to cast their mail-in-ballots before Election Day, CNN reported.
Tens of millions of Americans will cast a vote by mail for the first time this year as states rush to offer voting options given the current coronavirus pandemic.
Thirty-five states will allow every voter to request a mail-in-ballot, and nine states and Washington, DC, will automatically send a ballot to every registered voter.
Democrats such as former first lady Michelle Obama implored voters during last week’s Democratic National Convention to cast their ballots early and plan on voting absentee.
President Donald Trump, on the other hand, has said that vote-by-mail is a source for fraud.
His 2020 re-election campaign recently sued the state of New Jersey for letting residents decide whether they want to vote by mail or vote in person. Trump has, however, defended absentee voting as he has used the method to vote in Florida.
Trump has also warned activists could double-count ballots, print off their own ballots and sign them, or take ballots out of mailboxes.
Democrats such as Obama claim vote-by-mail for the November election is necessary to protect people from the coronavirus. But Breitbart News reported recent data had not shown a compelling public health justification for vote-by-mail.
Wisconsin is one of the only U.S. states that held its primary election with in-person voting after the nation’s coronavirus lockdowns began.
Only a few dozen people at maximum were confirmed to have contracted the virus after participating either as voters or poll workers, and none of those cases were fatal. Out of the 413,000 participants, that equals an infection rate below two-hundredths of one percent.
Just days later, South Korea held national elections, which did not result in any new coronavirus cases.
VENTURA, CA – California Pastor Rob McCoy of Godspeak Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks appeared before Judge Vincent O’Neill in Superior Court of Ventura County on Friday, August 21 and was held in contempt of court. Godspeak Calvary Chapel was fined $500 per three services, for two Sundays, or a total of $3,000.
Pastor McCoy received an order from a Ventura state judge on Friday, August 7, banning the church’s in-person services. Superior Court Judge Matthew Guasco issued a temporary restraining order to Pastor Rob McCoy, the Church, and Does 1-1000, along with anyone “acting in concert with them” who might attend worship in the future. Governor Gavin Newsom ordered no singing or chanting, and then ordered no worship, even in private homes with anyone who does not live in the home.
Storied minds have argued that a failure to critically examine our beliefs makes us culpable for adverse outcomes. Beliefs lead to actions, which impact other people.
As Voltaire wrote during the Enlightenment – when society still had time away from the screen to reflect on philosophy, morality, and fundamental truth – “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
This has never been more true than in the age of social media, when information and opinions constantly bombard us from all sides, isolating us from our own thoughts and values. We have a moral duty to critically examine our beliefs — especially our belief in “lockdown,” the most oppressive and universally destructive public policy implemented in our lifetimes.
Is it the least-restrictive means available to minimize casualties in this pandemic?
Our belief in it was formed when we felt legitimate fear — this can lead to irrationality — so we really cannot answer this question in good conscience unless and until we take the time to conduct a proper, honest examination with the benefit of hindsight.
Any number of atrocities can occur when human beings act on unfounded, unexamined beliefs.
Consider the example of the shipowner in William Kingdon Clifford’s 1876 essay, “The Ethics of Belief.” Troubled by the condition of his aging ship, which others have suggested is not well-built and is in need of repairs, he eventually pacifies himself with these comforting thoughts:
The shipowner develops a sincere conviction that she will not sink, and acts on his belief.
“He watched [the ship’s] departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.
What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in nowise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts.”
The shipowner’s belief was built on sand — he knew he had questions to answer, but instead he took the comfortable path, and other people had to pay with their lives for it.
While it may appear that he personally got off easy, his reputation, confidence and conscience surely suffered.
People who harbor false beliefs and ignore warning signs routinely end up grievously harmed: consider the investors in Elizabeth Holmes’ Theranos scam, or Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, or the parents of Larry Nassar’s little-girl gymnasts. These examples prove just how easily the trust and credulity of very intelligent people is easily exploited. It happens like magic, in broad daylight — millions are lost or gained, irreparable actions are taken — with the victim all the while believing he or she is choosing to participate in a beneficial relationship or situation.
The passengers trusted the shipowner. The investors trusted the entrepreneurs. The parents trusted the doctor. Should WE be trusting the government?
Perhaps, instead of taking the easy path of blind faith, we should challenge our government’s assertions about COVID-19 and how to deal with it. After all, governments have already admitted to manipulating us in writing:
Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group . . . The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.
I respectfully submit to you: anyone willing to adopt this shady tactic is not worthy of your blind trust. Governments know that emotional people are easy to manipulate. As Robert Greene wrote in the authoritative tome on human nature, “You like to imagine yourself in control of your fate, consciously planning the course of your life…[b]ut you are largely unaware of how deeply your emotions dominate you. They make you veer toward ideas that soothe your ego. They make you look for evidence that confirms what you already want to believe…”
Logically, terrified people want to believe in the existence of a sturdy lifeline. They like that lifeline even more if grasping onto it makes them “good people,” and turns those who prefer to swim with the tide into “killers.” Knowing what it knows about human nature, we can be certain our government knew that proposing lockdown to us at this particular moment was pretty much guaranteed to succeed.
It would be wise to take the government to task now that we’ve calmed down.
What have they asked us to believe, why have they asked us to believe it, and what are the grounds for doubt?
Belief #1: “Lockdown saves lives.”
Blind faith in lockdown rapidly took hold in March 2020 like a fire in a haystack. The spark that ignited it was terror, lit by the media’s sensationalist reporting of the “disaster” in Northern Italy, shortly followed by the doomsday predictions from fancy-sounding (“Imperial College! London!”) modelers. Those same modelers offered a lifeline: — lockdown, the long awaited real-life opportunity to test a pet theory. Too bad we never stopped to question their credibility (“they sound so fancy!”) and motives (“we’ve been waiting for this moment!”) before taking any action — particularly drastic, life-altering action.
“Every man who has accepted the statement from somebody else, without himself testing and verifying it, is out of court; his word is worth nothing at all. Two serious questions must be asked in regard to him who first made it: was he mistaken in thinking that he knew about this matter, or was he lying?”
~ William Kingdon Clifford
A second, even bigger credibility issue is found when we consider the first lesson we ever learned about “lockdown.” That lesson came from China. None of us — or even our parents — had ever heard of a population-wide quarantine until the Chinese government planted the idea with a highly-publicized “lockdown” of its own.
This normalized the concept, preparing our minds to accept it as a scientifically-supported measure to manage infectious diseases. Then, after bombarding us with images of its citizens’ sacrifices, China predictably declared, “It worked! We defeated the virus! Disease is gone!”
The lifeline. The island of escape. Thank you, China — because of you, we will not die.
From the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention:
“It is hard to imagine that measures like those within the category of social distancing would not have some positive impact by reducing transmission of a human respiratory infection spreading from human to human via droplets and indirect contact. However, the evidence base supporting each individual measure is often weak.”
“[M]athematical models that explored potential source mitigation strategies that make use of . . . infection control and social distancing measures for use in an influenza outbreak identified critical time thresholds for success. . . the effectiveness of pandemic mitigation strategies will erode rapidly as the cumulative illness rate prior to implementation climbs above 1 percent of the population in an affected area.”
“This is just mind-boggling: This is the mother of all quarantines. I could never have imagined it.”
~ Howard Markel, University of Michigan medical historian
“The truth is those kinds of lockdowns are very rare and never effective . . . They’re doing it because people who are in political leadership always think that if you do something dramatic and visible that you’ll gain popular support. They couldn’t have any sound public health advice.”
~ Lawrence O. Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University
In short, many of the weakest citizens in Sweden sadly died a few months early. While all lost time is regrettable, it is unlikely that any dying 86-year-old, in order to extend his own life by 5–9 months (the average remaining life expectancy of 70% of Swedish COVID deaths), would propose that a 30-year-old father be sentenced to lose his business and hang himself.
Yet that’s exactly what happened in countries that did lock down. The elderly we were supposed to be “saving” didn’t get to speak on the matter— instead, they got COVID secretly sent straight into their places of residence, like a fox to the henhouse. According to the government officials who issued these orders and their ideologically-aligned media, Sweden is the bad guy. We accept this perverse, overtly-biased claim and resulting atrocity only because we firmly believe in the effectiveness of lockdowns. Otherwise, we would be rioting in the streets, recognizing that the same people who created the problem sold us the remedy. Their remedy.
“We all suffer severely from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide.”
The alternative we have chosen — an epidemic identical in size, but longer in duration, with people at statistically zero risk hiding inside their homes getting more stressed, fatter, and sicker — is utter madness. The most tragic part is Imperial explained this to us on March 16, and posted it online for everyone to see:
While Imperial designed lockdown as an ICU-capacity management strategy, it apparently did not foresee the difficulty in persuading people terrified by lockdown to go right back out and live two weeks later. “All clear! We have thousands of ICU beds staffed and ready for you! Good luck!”
Good luck indeed.
Thankfully, now we know that COVID is much less deadly than Imperial, WHO, and mainstream media led us to believe. Most of us know no one who has died — only .05% of the population has, after all. We do indeed have the all-clear, and we should feel perfectly fine conducting ourselves exactly like a Swede — and thanking others for doing just that, instead of bullying them with life-defeating, authoritarian mandates.
Belief #3: If she doesn’t wear a mask, I won’t be safe.
Belief #4: If I was wrong about lockdown, that makes me gullible and unintelligent.
No, it makes you human. To err is human. Admitting this is noble and altruistic, while persisting on course despite red flags is pathological and damaging. We should all aspire to be like Socrates, who understood his human fallibilities:
“I know that I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing.”
There is no shame in falling for such a sophisticated propaganda scheme. Most people did. A few shining stars have since emerged to admit their mistake, quietly adopting the Swedish approach. You would be wise to join them, avoiding the fate of Don Quixote:
“As long as he fought imaginary giants, Don Quixote was just play-acting. However once he actually kills someone, he will cling to his fantasies for all he is worth, because only they give meaning to his tragic misdeed. Paradoxically, the more sacrifices we make for an imaginary story, the more tenaciously we hold on to it, because we desperately want to give meaning to those sacrifices and to the suffering we have caused.”
~ Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Deus: A History of Tomorrow
Belief #5: COVID-19 is much more dangerous than the flu.
Why did it happen? Because the media chose to depict this virus as Black Plague — and we believed it. Now that we know that the media can do this, we can understand why the U.K. Prime Minister — and others in his position — was afraid of its powers. He reportedly imposed lockdown because he was threatened as follows:
(1) convince us that politicians have the power to stop death,
(2) put the politicians in the position of needing to do what the media suggests will “save our lives,”
(3) watch as we drive ourselves over a cliff.
The media cannot do this without our participation. We can stop them immediately by refusing to believe their superstitious, pseudo-scientific proposition that this is the only disease in history that needed a politician-imposed lockdown to abate. They cannot trick us into burning down our own houses once we simply stop believing that politicians have the power to stop death. Standing firmly on this foundation of scientific truth, we will finally be at peace, realizing that COVID-19, like every disease in history, will infect a certain number of people, kill a minute percentage of them, and then move along, lockdown or no lockdown.
We really must stop believing otherwise. Our credulity is destroying us. So long as we do believe the myth, we are avoiding the responsibility to manage this virus the way intelligent societies always have, by permitting medical professionals to treat sick people as individuals, one ailment at a time. One cannot merely unleash a total state on the whole of society–even on nearly the entire planet–in a futile effort to scare the virus into going away.
That’s completely mystical thinking that unleashes the very catastrophe that smallpox eradicator Donald A. Henderson predicted in his 2006 plea never to lock down.
“The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.”
The records contain no further details and do not list an attorney for Blake.
Another article from 2015 describes a Jason Blake, aged 24, who had to be subdued by a police dog after he resisted arrest following an armed altercation in a bar.
Jacob Blake, 24, of Racine, was charged Monday in Racine County Circuit Court with one felony count of resisting arrest causing a soft tissue injury to a police officer and one misdemeanor count each of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, endangering safety-use of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct. If convicted, he will face up to 8-1/2 years in prison and/or up to $50,000 in fines.
According to the criminal complaint, Blake and two women were at the Brass Monkey tavern, 1436 Junction Avenue, Saturday when Blake got into an argument with another patron and pulled a black handgun. Blake pointed the gun at the other man, and the magazine fell to the floor. The bartender told Blake to leave, and he did but then pointed the gun through the window at patrons inside the bar before walking south on Junction Avenue.
Police say they encountered a woman walking on Junction who was in the bar with Blake, but she said she didn’t know what happened and that her friends left without her in a silver SUV. A few moments later, officers were advised that a silver SUV was traveling north on Junction with a male subject driving who matched the description of Blake, and they initiated a traffic stop in the 1200 block of Racine Avenue.
Believing the driver was armed, police conducted a high risk traffic stop, the complaint reads, and ordered Blake to put his hands out the window of the vehicle. Instead, Blake exited the SUV and started walking toward officers and ignored commands to get down on the ground. Officers forced Blake to the ground and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. When Blake refused to comply, K9 Dozer was deployed to force the defendant into compliance.
Breitbart News attempted to confirm that the same individual was involved in both altercations. The telephone line of the Racine police department was busy.
Blake was shot several times on Sunday evening after walking away from police officers, who had reportedly attempted to subdue him with a Taser, and reaching inside a vehicle.
Riots, looting, and arson erupted in the aftermath. The National Guard were deployed to Racine on Monday and an 8 p.m. curfew has been imposed on part of Kenosha County.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His new book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Violent riots broke out in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Sunday night after police shot a black man earlier in the day while responding to a call about a domestic incident.
Journalist Drew Hernandez posted video footage on Twitter of the riots, which he said were being led by Black Lives Matter activists. The videos show businesses being looted and set on fire.
BLM rioters have completely torched this local small business building in Wisconsin pic.twitter.com/bPIcjXbi0G
Wisconsin Democratic Governor Tony Evers released a statement shortly after the incident happened that criticized law enforcement officials while stating at the same time “we do not have all of the details yet.”
“Tonight, Jacob Blake was shot in the back multiple times, in broad daylight, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Kathy and I join his family, friends, and neighbors in hoping earnestly that he will not succumb to his injuries,” Evers said in a statement. “While we do not have all of the details yet, what we know for certain is that he is not the first Black man or person to have been shot or injured or mercilessly killed at the hands of individuals in law enforcement in our state or our country.”
“And we stand against excessive use of force and immediate escalation when engaging with Black Wisconsinites,” Evers continued. “I have said all along that although we must offer our empathy, equally important is our action. In the coming days, we will demand just that of elected officials in our state who have failed to recognize the racism in our state and our country for far too long.”
Video of the incident appeared to show that something happened while law enforcement engaged with Blake as several officers all drew their weapons at the same time and pointed them at Blake as he walked away from them and attempted to enter a vehicle, at which point he was shot.
The fact-finding website Heavy.com reported that authorities had a warrant out for Blake’s arrest:
According to Wisconsin Circuit Court Access online records, a Jacob S. Blake, same age and with an address in the same exact block where the shooting occurred, had a warrant issued for him on July 7 on pending accusations of misdemeanor criminal trespass to a dwelling with domestic abuse as a modifier; felony third-degree sexual assault with domestic abuse as a modifier; and misdemeanor disorderly conduct with domestic abuse as a modifier. A support action was dismissed, and the only other case that comes up is for not having a driver’s license.
A 2015 story in Racine Eye described how “Racine police say K9 Dozer had to help officers take a man into custody when the man refused to go quietly into custody after he pulled a gun at a local bar.” The man was described as Jacob Blake, 24, of Racine, which makes him the same age as the man shot by police on August 23. The Racine Eye story says he was charged with “one felony count of resisting arrest causing a soft tissue injury to a police officer and one misdemeanor count each of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a firearm while intoxicated, endangering safety-use of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct.” Those charges don’t show up on the circuit court website though.
“The Kenosha Police Department released a statement following the shooting that said that officers were called to the 2800 block of 40th Street, which appears to be the same street that was listed on the arrest warrant that had been issued, to respond to a domestic incident,” The Daily Wire reported. “The Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) is investigating the incident.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
Monday, the GOP formally nominated President Donald Trump for reelection. As Trump delivered remarks following his nomination, “CNN Newsroom” cut away from the speech and criticized him for his “misleading” statements and “outright lies.”
After cutting the interview, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper noted Trump went “negative” at the convention after promising to be “positive.” He added the president “falsely” attacked mail-in voting and “falsely” accused Democrats of wanting to shut down the country to hurt the economy and thus hurt him at the ballot box.
“After vowing to have a positive convention, the president goes negative in its first moments. He started off falsely attacking mail-in voting. He’s continuing attack mail-in voting and, as the postmaster general testifies that the attacks are ‘unhelpful.’ That’s his own postmaster general,” Cooper emphasized. “He also criticized the media for airing the postmaster’s hearing instead of his roll call. He falsely accused Democrats of wanting to shut down the country to hurt the economy and somehow help them at the ballot box. Unclear how angering the entire country by shutting down would help them in the ballot box. He attacked North Carolina’s governor for putting limits on crowds during a convention.”
CNN’s John King said Trump’s remarks underscore the “challenge” for those in the news business. He advised undecided voters to watch this week’s RNC to see that Trump is misleading the people and providing “outright lies.”
“This is a sad thing to say, but a lot of what you just heard from the President of the United States is wrong, misleading, and outright lies,” he stated. “Wrong, misleading and outright lies.”
Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) 
