90 Miles From Tyranny

Thursday, March 12, 2020

NY Times Journo Humiliated Over Bad Bloomberg Math Cries Racism

Time to play the victim card.

The New York Times journalist who was humiliated for erroneously claiming Mike Bloomberg’s $500 million ad buy could have been used to give every American $1 million dollars has re-emerged to complain that her embarrassment was the fault of a “racist Twitter mob.”

Mara Gay responded to Bloomberg dropping out of the presidential race last week by claiming that the money he spent on campaign commercials could have made every American a millionaire with lots of spare change.

“Actually with the money he spent he could have given every American a million dollars,” Gay told MSNBC’s Brian Williams, who immediately agreed.

This clip is just incredible. When he said “if you’re ahead of us on the math,” I thought he was about to correct the terrible math, but NO. pic.twitter.com/kAH3GDuPNl
— Jessica Fletcher (@heckyessica) March 6, 2020

With math obviously not being Gay’s strong point, it was immediately pointed out that Bloomberg’s $500 billion doled out to all 327 million Americans would mean they get just $1.53 each.

After being left red-faced, Gay re-emerged today with a New York Times opinion piece whining about racism.

“A racist Twitter mob came for me over a trivial math mistake. I’m not going anywhere,” she tweeted.

A racist Twitter mob came for me over a trivial math mistake. I'm not going anywhere.

In the article, Gay complains about receiving a “deluge of hate.”

“Unfortunately, quite a few Americans can tell you what it’s like to be the target of a Twitter mob over a gaffe,” she writes. “My great sin was trivial, harmless, silly. What’s it like when people are trying to cancel you for...

The Supreme Court delivered a win for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, blocking a federal court injunction that would have limited a program that requires asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico.

The nation’s highest court on Wednesday ruled that the White House’s “Remain in Mexico” program, also known as Migrant Protection Protocols, can remain effective for the entire southern border while a legal challenge continues on. The decision allows the administration to continue fully implementing an initiative that, it contends, has monumentally helped control the border crisis.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in March declared that it would block the Migrant Protection Protocols in Arizona and California—two states within its jurisdiction—on March 12 unless the Supreme Court weighed in.

The Supreme Court justices did intervene with just one day left, granting the administration’s application for a stay.

The White House immediately celebrated the ruling.

“We are gratified that the Supreme Court granted a stay, which prevents a district court injunction from impairing the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system,” a Department of Justice spokesperson said Wednesday.

“The Migrant Protection Protocols, implemented pursuant to express authority granted by Congress decades ago, have been critical to restoring the government’s ability to manage the Southwest border and to work cooperatively with the Mexican government to address illegal immigration,” the spokesperson continued.

Remain in Mexico, which was launched in January 2019, has become President Donald Trump’s most effective tool at controlling the U.S immigration crisis. The program requires most non-Mexican nationals who claim asylum at the U.S. southern border to wait in Mexico for the entirety of their court proceedings.

Since its inception, Migrant Protection Protocols has sent around 60,000 asylum-seekers across the border to wait in Mexico, mostly eliminating the possibility for them to be released into the interior of the U.S.

The decision on Wednesday marks the latest back-and-forth between the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—which has proven hostile to Trump’s immigration agenda—blocked the Remain in Mexico program for the entire southern border in February. However, the court immediately suspended that order after the Trump administration filed an emergency motion requesting a stay.

The appeals court then declared this month it would block it in Arizona and California, but the nation’s highest court—once again—put a stop to that order Wednesday.

However, the legality of the program itself has not been ruled on by the Supreme Court. The order on Wednesday simply allows it to remain in place as the legal challenge against it runs through the...