thetennesseestar--2020-07-06--COVID-19 Liability Reform Measure Flounders in Tennessee

NASHVILLE , Tennessee ( AP ) — Just a few weeks ago , Tennessee looked like a sure bet to become the latest state to protect businesses and other organizations from lawsuits by people impacted by the coronavirus in the push to reopen the economy .
Republican Gov .
Bill Lee had talked up the change and touted his advocacy on tort reform as a businessman , and he had GOP lawmakers in supermajorities lined up to seal the deal .
That was before negotiations among lawmakers broke down so badly in the hectic waning hours of legislative work that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused two House leaders of working with “ a cabal of Democrats and attorneys to defeat the legislation and place our entire economy in danger.
” The failure by Republicans in control of both the Legislature and the governor ’ s office to pass a law demonstrates how challenging it is to navigate the complex legal waters of reopening .
The debate was further complicated by the circumstances surrounding an outbreak at a middle Tennessee nursing home , with real-world implications for those already affected by the pandemic .
Infighting and finger-pointing among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stalemate , with hope dwindling that they could come to terms and meet for a special session vote before the Aug. 6 primary election — though Lee has promised the Legislature will eventually meet this summer while holding off on saying exactly when that will happen .
The business community , school systems and other groups that would have been protected have been left scratching their heads and pleading for a breakthrough .
“ I guess why this is very disappointing to a lot of people in the business community , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in D.C. , ” Bradley Jackson , president of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry , said in an interview .
“ We see it in other states .
We hear about it .
But we ’ ve never had it in Tennessee .
So we want to be proactive in working to make sure that we all get back on the same page and we all work together and get along.
” Meanwhile , education groups have reached out to the governor and legislative leaders , looking for help on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts should not have to weigh the costs of potential lawsuits as they eye reopening .
“ We know that school district budgets are facing severe challenges as they attempt to re-open in the next few weeks .
We desperately need this immunity legislation to protect our districts , schools , and educators from potential litigation costs and civil damages , ” wrote J.C .
Bowman , executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee , in a recent letter .
The main dividing line over the liability bill was whether to make its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate supported and the House opposed .
Key lawmakers not only questioned whether it would be upheld in court but also whether adding a retroactive clause would make it blatantly illegal .
That ’ s because Tennessee ’ s Constitution states “ no retrospective law , or law impairing the obligations of contracts , shall be made.
” However , several lawmakers have countered they feel confident a court would side with the Legislature because the proposal would be in the public ’ s interest .
Yet those legal questions have big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s district , where 25 residents of a Gallatin nursing home died in an outbreak .
A group of residents and former employees have sworn to sue the facility over its handling of the virus outbreak .
“ I have no idea whether those lawsuits would be meritorious or not .
That ’ s what the court system is for , ” Lamberth said in an interview .
“ But I just didn ’ t feel comfortable going against my constituents ’ wishes when they just want to have the same standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they decide to file a lawsuit that were in place at the time when their loved ones passed away.
” Critics of such legislation have countered that such actions only add another impossible barrier to employees seeking restitution from businesses that placed them at risk .
Democratic lawmakers in Tennessee unsuccessfully tried to persuade their colleagues that liability lawsuits were already one of the toughest cases to bring before a judge — adding additional restrictions would only punish those seeking justice .
Tennessee was one of the first states to begin reopening in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safer-at-home order that forced businesses to close .
Since then , case numbers have continued to rise in part due to more testing , but also because of an increase in community spread of the disease .
Yet the Volunteer State is hardly alone to consider providing COVID-19 liability protections for businesses , schools and other organizations .
Nearly 30 states have considered some sort of liability protection proposal since the pandemic first erupted across the country earlier this year , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures .
Only a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while some governors have decided to tackle the issue by issuing executive orders .
Meanwhile , business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are lobbying for national liability protections .
Jonathan Mattise and Kimberlee Kruesi are reporters at The Associated Press .

by Jonathan Mattise and Kimberlee Kruesi
NASHVILLE, Tennessee(AP) — Just a few weeks ago, Tennessee looked like a sure bet to become the latest state to protect businesses and other organizations from lawsuits by people impacted by the coronavirus in the push to reopen the economy. Republican Gov. Bill Lee had talked up the change and touted his advocacy on tort reform as a businessman, and he had GOP lawmakers in supermajorities lined up to seal the deal.
That was before negotiations among lawmakers broke down so badly in the hectic waning hours of legislative work that the generally mild-mannered Senate Speaker Randy McNally accused two House leaders of working with “a cabal of Democrats and attorneys to defeat the legislation and place our entire economy in danger.”
The failure by Republicans in control of both the Legislature and the governor’s office to pass a law demonstrates how challenging it is to navigate the complex legal waters of reopening. The debate was further complicated by the circumstances surrounding an outbreak at a middle Tennessee nursing home, with real-world implications for those already affected by the pandemic.
Infighting and finger-pointing among Tennessee Republicans have kept legislative talks at a stalemate, with hope dwindling that they could come to terms and meet for a special session vote before the Aug. 6 primary election — though Lee has promised the Legislature will eventually meet this summer while holding off on saying exactly when that will happen.
The business community, school systems and other groups that would have been protected have been left scratching their heads and pleading for a breakthrough.
“I guess why this is very disappointing to a lot of people in the business community, is we see this sort of behavior up in D.C.,” Bradley Jackson, president of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in an interview. “We see it in other states. We hear about it. But we’ve never had it in Tennessee. So we want to be proactive in working to make sure that we all get back on the same page and we all work together and get along.”
Meanwhile, education groups have reached out to the governor and legislative leaders, looking for help on a similar front. They argue that school districts should not have to weigh the costs of potential lawsuits as they eye reopening.
“We know that school district budgets are facing severe challenges as they attempt to re-open in the next few weeks. We desperately need this immunity legislation to protect our districts, schools, and educators from potential litigation costs and civil damages,” wrote J.C. Bowman, executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, in a recent letter.
The main dividing line over the liability bill was whether to make its protections retroactive to early March, which the Senate supported and the House opposed. Key lawmakers not only questioned whether it would be upheld in court but also whether adding a retroactive clause would make it blatantly illegal.
That’s because Tennessee’s Constitution states “no retrospective law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts, shall be made.” However, several lawmakers have countered they feel confident a court would side with the Legislature because the proposal would be in the public’s interest.
Yet those legal questions have big implications in House Majority Leader William Lamberth’s district, where 25 residents of a Gallatin nursing home died in an outbreak. A group of residents and former employees have sworn to sue the facility over its handling of the virus outbreak.
“I have no idea whether those lawsuits would be meritorious or not. That’s what the court system is for,” Lamberth said in an interview. “But I just didn’t feel comfortable going against my constituents’ wishes when they just want to have the same standard, the same rules in place if they decide to file a lawsuit that were in place at the time when their loved ones passed away.”
Critics of such legislation have countered that such actions only add another impossible barrier to employees seeking restitution from businesses that placed them at risk. Democratic lawmakers in Tennessee unsuccessfully tried to persuade their colleagues that liability lawsuits were already one of the toughest cases to bring before a judge — adding additional restrictions would only punish those seeking justice.
Tennessee was one of the first states to begin reopening in late April after Lee reluctantly issued a safer-at-home order that forced businesses to close. Since then, case numbers have continued to rise in part due to more testing, but also because of an increase in community spread of the disease.
Yet the Volunteer State is hardly alone to consider providing COVID-19 liability protections for businesses, schools and other organizations.
Nearly 30 states have considered some sort of liability protection proposal since the pandemic first erupted across the country earlier this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only a handful have failed to pass such legislation, while some governors have decided to tackle the issue by issuing executive orders. Meanwhile, business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are lobbying for national liability protections.
– – –
Jonathan Mattise and Kimberlee Kruesi are reporters at The Associated Press.


thetennesseestar--2020-07-06--Wall Street Rises Again, Joins Worldwide Upswell for Markets

NEW YORK , New York ( AP ) — Wall Street joined a worldwide upswell by markets on Monday , as stocks push higher on hopes that the economy can continue its dramatic turnaround despite all the challenges ahead .
The S & P 500 was 1.59 % higher in afternoon trading , following up on similar gains in Europe and Asia .
The headliner was China ’ s market , which leaped 5.7 % for its biggest gain since 2015 , when it was in the midst of a bubble bursting .
Treasury yields also climbed in a signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. and European economies .
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 459 points , or 1.78 % , at 26,287 .
The biggest companies once again led the way , and strength for Apple , Amazon and other tech-oriented titans helped push the Nasdaq composite up 2.21 % toward another record .
They ’ re the latest buoyant moves for markets , where investors are focusing more on recent improvements in the economy and all the stimulus that central banks and governments are supplying than on how much pain still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sidestep the mounting number of known coronavirus infections , at least for now .
“ The economic damage isn ’ t going to be as dire and severe as was initially predicted , ” said Peter Essele , head of portfolio management for Commonwealth Financial Network .
“ That helps explain the rebound.
” The worry is that if the pandemic keeps worsening , with hotspots stretching across the U.S. South and West , it could scare shoppers and businesses away from spending .
The worse-case scenario for markets is that governments resume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which led to the sudden recession that swept the world , and choke off the budding economic recovery .
Either way , many economists expect it to take years for the global economy to return to its pre-pandemic output .
All the huge spending efforts to resuscitate the economy could also lead to a reckoning in the future .
“ We have now mortgaged our entire future to try and withstand this downturn , ” said Essele .
At some point , the buildup in debt for the U.S. government could lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markets generally see that as a potential problem for another day .
For now , the trend is still upward .
Monday ’ s rally follows last week ’ s 4 % gain for the S & P 500 , which itself helped cap the best quarter for the U.S. stock market since 1998 .
The S & P 500 has rallied back to within 7 % of the record set in February .
It had been down nearly 34 % in late March , when recession worries were most severe .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services industries , which make up the bulk of the economy , snapped back to growth in June .
The results were much stronger than economists expected .
They also followed reports from last week that showed U.S. employers added more workers than they cut for the second straight month and that U.S. manufacturing returned to growth in June .
Miner Freeport-McMoRan jumped 8.7 % for the largest gain in the S & P 500 after it said sales of copper and gold were stronger in the latest quarter than it had earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their dominance on expectations that they can continue to grow almost regardless of how the economy ’ s doing .
Apple gained 2.6 % , Microsoft rose 2.1 % and Amazon climbed 4.5 % to top $ 3,000 per share .
The immense size of these companies also gives their stocks ’ movements much larger sway over market indexes .
The Russell 2000 index of smaller stocks was up a more modest 0.8 % .
Some dealmaking also helped to lift markets .
Berkshire Hathaway , led by famed bargain hunter Warren Buffett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s operations for moving and storing natural gas .
Berkshire Hathaway , which has a reputation for waiting until prices reach attractive lows before pouncing , will pay roughly $ 4 billion in cash under the deal , as well as assume $ 5.7 billion in debt .
Berkshire Hathaway ’ s Class B shares rose 2 % .
Dominion Energy fell 9.4 % .
While announcing the sale , it also said that it and Duke Energy were canceling a controversial $ 8 billion natural-gas pipeline project .
Uber rose 5.8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food-delivery business Postmates for $ 2.65 billion in stock .
The deal would fold Postmates in with Uber ’ s Uber Eats unit .
The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 0.69 % from 0.67 % late Thursday .
Markets were closed Friday for Independence Day .
The yield tends to move with investors ’ expectations for the economy and inflation .
In Europe , Germany ’ s DAX returned 1.6 % , and France ’ s CAC 40 rose 1.5 % .
The FTSE 100 in London added 2.1 % .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 countries that use the euro , while car sales in Britain picked up in June as lockdown measures were eased .
In Asia , Japan ’ s Nikkei 225 rose 1.8 % , South Korea ’ s Kospi gained 1.7 % and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong jumped 3.8 % .
Benchmark U.S. crude edged up 0.1 % to $ 40.68 per barrel .
Brent crude , the international standard , gained 0.9 % to $ 43.20 per barrel .
Stan Choe and Damian J. Troise are Business Writers for The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McDonald contributed to this report .

by Stan Choe and Damian J. Troise
NEW YORK, New York (AP) — Wall Street joined a worldwide upswell by markets on Monday, as stocks push higher on hopes that the economy can continue its dramatic turnaround despite all the challenges ahead.
The S&P 500 was 1.59% higher in afternoon trading, following up on similar gains in Europe and Asia. The headliner was China’s market, which leaped 5.7% for its biggest gain since 2015, when it was in the midst of a bubble bursting. Treasury yields also climbed in a signal of rising optimism after reports detailed improvements in the U.S. and European economies.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 459 points, or 1.78%, at 26,287. The biggest companies once again led the way, and strength for Apple, Amazon and other tech-oriented titans helped push the Nasdaq composite up 2.21% toward another record.
They’re the latest buoyant moves for markets, where investors are focusing more on recent improvements in the economy and all the stimulus that central banks and governments are supplying than on how much pain still remains. Investors are also continuing to sidestep the mounting number of known coronavirus infections, at least for now.
“The economic damage isn’t going to be as dire and severe as was initially predicted,” said Peter Essele, head of portfolio management for Commonwealth Financial Network. “That helps explain the rebound.”
The worry is that if the pandemic keeps worsening, with hotspots stretching across the U.S. South and West, it could scare shoppers and businesses away from spending. The worse-case scenario for markets is that governments resume the lockdowns implemented during the spring, which led to the sudden recession that swept the world, and choke off the budding economic recovery. Either way, many economists expect it to take years for the global economy to return to its pre-pandemic output.
All the huge spending efforts to resuscitate the economy could also lead to a reckoning in the future. “We have now mortgaged our entire future to try and withstand this downturn,” said Essele.
At some point, the buildup in debt for the U.S. government could lead to higher taxes and interest rates. But markets generally see that as a potential problem for another day.
For now, the trend is still upward. Monday’s rally follows last week’s 4% gain for the S&P 500, which itself helped cap the best quarter for the U.S. stock market since 1998. The S&P 500 has rallied back to within 7% of the record set in February. It had been down nearly 34% in late March, when recession worries were most severe.
A report released Monday morning showed that U.S. services industries, which make up the bulk of the economy, snapped back to growth in June. The results were much stronger than economists expected. They also followed reports from last week that showed U.S. employers added more workers than they cut for the second straight month and that U.S. manufacturing returned to growth in June.
Miner Freeport-McMoRan jumped 8.7% for the largest gain in the S&P 500 after it said sales of copper and gold were stronger in the latest quarter than it had earlier forecast.
Big tech-oriented companies also continued their dominance on expectations that they can continue to grow almost regardless of how the economy’s doing. Apple gained 2.6%, Microsoft rose 2.1% and Amazon climbed 4.5% to top $3,000 per share.
The immense size of these companies also gives their stocks’ movements much larger sway over market indexes. The Russell 2000 index of smaller stocks was up a more modest 0.8%.
Some dealmaking also helped to lift markets.
Berkshire Hathaway, led by famed bargain hunter Warren Buffett, has agreed to buy Dominion Energy’s operations for moving and storing natural gas. Berkshire Hathaway, which has a reputation for waiting until prices reach attractive lows before pouncing, will pay roughly $4 billion in cash under the deal, as well as assume $5.7 billion in debt.
Berkshire Hathaway’s Class B shares rose 2%. Dominion Energy fell 9.4%. While announcing the sale, it also said that it and Duke Energy were canceling a controversial $8 billion natural-gas pipeline project.
Duke dropped 2.7%.
Uber rose 5.8% after it said it will buy food-delivery business Postmates for $2.65 billion in stock. The deal would fold Postmates in with Uber’s Uber Eats unit.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 0.69% from 0.67% late Thursday. Markets were closed Friday for Independence Day. The yield tends to move with investors’ expectations for the economy and inflation.
In Europe, Germany’s DAX returned 1.6%, and France’s CAC 40 rose 1.5%. The FTSE 100 in London added 2.1%. Retail sales rebounded in May in the 19 countries that use the euro, while car sales in Britain picked up in June as lockdown measures were eased.
In Asia, Japan’s Nikkei 225 rose 1.8%, South Korea’s Kospi gained 1.7% and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong jumped 3.8%.
Benchmark U.S. crude edged up 0.1% to $40.68 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, gained 0.9% to $43.20 per barrel.
– – –
Stan Choe and Damian J. Troise are Business Writers for The Associated Press. AP Business Writer Joe McDonald contributed to this report.


thetennesseestar--2020-07-06--Justices Rule 9-0: States Can Bind Presidential Electors’ Votes

WASHINGTON , D.C. ( AP ) — In a decision flavored with references to “ Hamilton ” and “ Veep , ” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states ’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College .
The ruling , in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election , leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner , as electors almost always do anyway .
So-called faithless electors have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election , but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes .
It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency .
A state may instruct “ electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens , ” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture .
Such an order by a state “ accords with the Constitution – as well as with the trust of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People rule , ” Kagan wrote .
President Donald Trump has been both a critic and fan of the Electoral College .
In 2012 , he tweeted , “ The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
” But in November 2016 after he won he presidency despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton , he tweeted , “ The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states , including the smaller ones , into play.
” Monday ’ s ruling was not about the legitimacy of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively eliminate it by having states commit to support the national popular vote winner .
That proposal , sure to be challenged in the courts , wouldn ’ t take effect unless states constituting a majority of electoral votes endorsed it .
The court acted on another issue , whether electors are free agents regardless of what voters in their states decide .
The justices scheduled arguments for last spring so they could resolve the issue before this year ’ s presidential election rather than amid a potential political crisis after the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s original rules for presidential electors sowed confusion because there was no distinction between votes for president and vice president .
She noted that the results of the 1796 election gave President John Adams his political rival , Thomas Jefferson , as vice president , a situation Kagan called “ fodder for a new season of Veep.
” Things got worse four years later when Jefferson and Aaron Burr finished in an Electoral College tie , sending the election to the House of Representatives .
It took 36 ballots and the influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , Kagan wrote .
“ Alexander Hamilton secured his place on the Broadway stage – but possibly in the cemetery too – by lobbying Federalists in the House to tip the election to Jefferson , whom he loathed but viewed as less of an existential threat to the Republic , ” she said .
Those two elections led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment , which produced the Electoral College rules in use today , with separate ballots for president and vice president .
“ By then , everyone had had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original voting rules , ” Kagan wrote .
The closest Electoral College margin in recent years was in 2000 , when Republican George W. Bush received 271 votes to 266 for Democrat Al Gore .
One elector from Washington , D.C. , left her ballot blank .
When the court heard arguments by telephone in May because of the coronavirus outbreak , justices invoked fears of bribery and chaos if electors could cast their ballots regardless of the popular vote outcome in their states .
The issue arose in lawsuits filed by three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one in Colorado who refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states in 2016 .
In so doing , they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Trump to choose someone else and deny him the presidency .
The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please , rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular-vote winner .
In Washington , the state Supreme Court upheld $ 1,000 fines against the three electors and rejected their claims .
The Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling from Colorado .
In all , there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 , including a fourth in Washington , a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas .
In addition , Democratic electors who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota .
The closest Electoral College margin in recent years was in 2000 , when Republican George W. Bush received 271 votes to 266 for Democrat Al Gore .
One elector from Washington , D.C. , left her ballot blank .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that election , ending a recount in Florida , where Bush held a 537-vote margin out of 6 million ballots cast .
The justices scheduled separate arguments in the Washington and Colorado cases after Justice Sonia Sotomayor belatedly removed herself from the Colorado case because she knows one of the plaintiffs .
In asking the Supreme Court to rule that states can require electors to vote for the state winner , Colorado had urged the justices not to wait until “ the heat of a close presidential election.
” Colorado Attorney General Phil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case at the Supreme Court , called the outcome “ a win for orderly elections and our constitutional democracy.
” Reacting to the decision Monday , the lawyer for the electors who challenged the state rules said he ’ s glad the court acted now .
“ Obviously , we don ’ t believe the Court has interpreted the Constitution correctly .
But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective – this uncertainty has been removed .
That is progress , ” lawyer Lawrence Lessig said .
Mark Sherman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Headline Photo : A police officer walks outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington , Monday , July 6 , 2020 .
( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky )

by Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway.
So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
A state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion that walked through American political and constitutional history with an occasional nod to pop culture.
Such an order by a state “accords with the Constitution – as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,” Kagan wrote.
President Donald Trump has been both a critic and fan of the Electoral College.
In 2012, he tweeted, “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” But in November 2016 after he won he presidency despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, he tweeted, “The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play.”
Monday’s ruling was not about the legitimacy of the Electoral College or an ongoing effort to effectively eliminate it by having states commit to support the national popular vote winner. That proposal, sure to be challenged in the courts, wouldn’t take effect unless states constituting a majority of electoral votes endorsed it.
The court acted on another issue, whether electors are free agents regardless of what voters in their states decide. The justices scheduled arguments for last spring so they could resolve the issue before this year’s presidential election rather than amid a potential political crisis after the country votes.
Kagan recounted how the Constitution’s original rules for presidential electors sowed confusion because there was no distinction between votes for president and vice president. She noted that the results of the 1796 election gave President John Adams his political rival, Thomas Jefferson, as vice president, a situation Kagan called “fodder for a new season of Veep.”
Things got worse four years later when Jefferson and Aaron Burr finished in an Electoral College tie, sending the election to the House of Representatives. It took 36 ballots and the influence of Alexander Hamilton to elect Jefferson as president, Kagan wrote.
“Alexander Hamilton secured his place on the Broadway stage – but possibly in the cemetery too – by lobbying Federalists in the House to tip the election to Jefferson, whom he loathed but viewed as less of an existential threat to the Republic,” she said.
Those two elections led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, which produced the Electoral College rules in use today, with separate ballots for president and vice president. “By then, everyone had had enough of the Electoral College’s original voting rules,” Kagan wrote.
The closest Electoral College margin in recent years was in 2000, when Republican George W. Bush received 271 votes to 266 for Democrat Al Gore. One elector from Washington, D.C., left her ballot blank.
When the court heard arguments by telephone in May because of the coronavirus outbreak, justices invoked fears of bribery and chaos if electors could cast their ballots regardless of the popular vote outcome in their states.
The issue arose in lawsuits filed by three Hillary Clinton electors in Washington state and one in Colorado who refused to vote for her despite her popular vote win in both states in 2016. In so doing, they hoped to persuade enough electors in states won by Trump to choose someone else and deny him the presidency.
The federal appeals court in Denver ruled that electors can vote as they please, rejecting arguments that they must choose the popular-vote winner. In Washington, the state Supreme Court upheld $1,000 fines against the three electors and rejected their claims.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Washington decision and reversed the ruling from Colorado.
In all, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016, including a fourth in Washington, a Democratic elector in Hawaii and two Republican electors in Texas. In addition, Democratic electors who said they would not vote for Clinton were replaced in Maine and Minnesota.
The closest Electoral College margin in recent years was in 2000, when Republican George W. Bush received 271 votes to 266 for Democrat Al Gore. One elector from Washington, D.C., left her ballot blank.
The Supreme Court played a decisive role in that election, ending a recount in Florida, where Bush held a 537-vote margin out of 6 million ballots cast.
The justices scheduled separate arguments in the Washington and Colorado cases after Justice Sonia Sotomayor belatedly removed herself from the Colorado case because she knows one of the plaintiffs.
In asking the Supreme Court to rule that states can require electors to vote for the state winner, Colorado had urged the justices not to wait until “the heat of a close presidential election.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who argued his state’s case at the Supreme Court, called the outcome “a win for orderly elections and our constitutional democracy.”
Reacting to the decision Monday, the lawyer for the electors who challenged the state rules said he’s glad the court acted now. “Obviously, we don’t believe the Court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective – this uncertainty has been removed. That is progress,” lawyer Lawrence Lessig said.
– – –
Mark Sherman reports for The Associated Press.
About the Headline Photo: A police officer walks outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 6, 2020. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)


thetennesseestar--2020-07-06--Music Legend Charlie Daniels Has Died

Music Legend Charlie Daniels Has Died

NASHVILLE , Tennessee ( AP ) — Country music firebrand and fiddler Charlie Daniels , who had a hit with “ Devil Went Down to Georgia , ” has died at age 83 .
A statement from his publicist said the Country Music Hall of Famer died Monday at a hospital in Hermitage , Tennessee , after doctors said he had a stroke .
He had suffered what was described as a mild stroke in January 2010 and had a heart pacemaker implanted in 2013 but continued to perform .
Daniels , a singer , guitarist and fiddler , started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing on Bob Dylan ’ s “ Nashville Skyline ” sessions .
Beginning in the early 1970s , his five-piece band toured endlessly , sometimes doing 250 shows a year .
“ I can ask people where they are from , and if they say ` Waukegan , ′ I can say I ’ ve played there .
If they say ` Baton Rouge , ′ I can say I ’ ve played there .
There ’ s not a city we haven ’ t played in , ” Daniels said in 1998 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Super Bowl , throughout Europe and often for troops in the Middle East .
He played himself in the 1980 John Travolta movie “ Urban Cowboy ” and was closely identified with the rise of country music generated by that film .
“ I ’ ve kept people employed for over 20 years and never missed a payroll , ” Daniels said in 1998 .
That same year , he received the Pioneer Award from the Academy of Country Music .
In the 1990s Daniels softened some of his lyrics from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embroiled in controversy .
In “ The Devil Went Down to Georgia , ” a 1979 song about a fiddling duel between the devil and a whippersnapper named Johnny , Daniels originally called the devil a “ son of a bitch , ” but changed it to “ son of a gun.
” In his 1980 hit “ Long Haired Country Boy , ” he used to sing about being “ stoned in the morning ” and “ drunk in the afternoon.
” Daniels changed it to “ I get up in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afternoon.
” “ I guess I ’ ve mellowed in my old age , ” Daniels said in 1998 .
Otherwise , though , he rarely backed down from in-your-face lyrics .
His “ Simple Man ” in 1990 suggested lynching drug dealers and using child abusers as alligator bait .
His “ In America ” in 1980 told this country ’ s enemies to “ go straight to hell.
” Such tough talk earned him guest spots on “ Politically Incorrect , ” the G. Gordon Liddy radio show and on C-Span @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Devil Went Down to Georgia ” was No .
1 on the country charts in 1979 and No .
3 on the pop charts .
It was voted single of the year by the Country Music Association .
“ The devil bowed his head because he knew that he ’ d been beat .
“ He laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny ’ s feet .
“ Johnny said , ` Devil just come on back if you ever want to try again .
“ I told you once you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m the best that ’ s ever been.
” He hosted regular Volunteer Jam concerts in Nashville in which the performers usually were not announced in advance .
Entertainers at thes shows included Don Henley , Amy Grant , James Brown , Pat Boone , Bill Monroe , Willie Nelson , Vince Gill , the Lynyrd Skynyrd Band , Alabama , Billy Joel , Little Richard , B.B .
King , Stevie Ray Vaughan , Eugene Fodor and Woody Herman .
Daniels , a native of Wilmington , N.C. , played on several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ session guitarist in the late 1960s , including “ New Morning ” and “ Self-Portrait.
” Eventually , at the age of 71 , he was invited to join the epitome of Nashville ’ s music establishment , the Grand Ole Opry .
He was inducted in the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2016 .
He said in 1998 that he kept touring so much because “ I have never played those notes perfectly .
I ’ ve never sung every song perfectly .
I ’ m in competition to be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be better tomorrow than tonight.
” Daniels said his favorite place to play was “ anywhere with a good crowd and a good paycheck.
” Kristin M. Hall is a reporter at The Associated Press .

by Kristin M. Hall
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) — Country music firebrand and fiddler Charlie Daniels, who had a hit with “Devil Went Down to Georgia,” has died at age 83.
A statement from his publicist said the Country Music Hall of Famer died Monday at a hospital in Hermitage, Tennessee, after doctors said he had a stroke.
He had suffered what was described as a mild stroke in January 2010 and had a heart pacemaker implanted in 2013 but continued to perform.
Daniels, a singer, guitarist and fiddler, started out as a session musician, even playing on Bob Dylan’s “Nashville Skyline” sessions. Beginning in the early 1970s, his five-piece band toured endlessly, sometimes doing 250 shows a year.
“I can ask people where they are from, and if they say `Waukegan,′ I can say I’ve played there. If they say `Baton Rouge,′ I can say I’ve played there. There’s not a city we haven’t played in,” Daniels said in 1998.
Daniels performed at White House, at the Super Bowl, throughout Europe and often for troops in the Middle East.
He played himself in the 1980 John Travolta movie “Urban Cowboy” and was closely identified with the rise of country music generated by that film.
“I’ve kept people employed for over 20 years and never missed a payroll,” Daniels said in 1998. That same year, he received the Pioneer Award from the Academy of Country Music.
In the 1990s Daniels softened some of his lyrics from his earlier days when he often was embroiled in controversy.
In “The Devil Went Down to Georgia,” a 1979 song about a fiddling duel between the devil and a whippersnapper named Johnny, Daniels originally called the devil a “son of a bitch,” but changed it to “son of a gun.”
In his 1980 hit “Long Haired Country Boy,” he used to sing about being “stoned in the morning” and “drunk in the afternoon.” Daniels changed it to “I get up in the morning. I get down in the afternoon.”
“I guess I’ve mellowed in my old age,” Daniels said in 1998.
Otherwise, though, he rarely backed down from in-your-face lyrics.
His “Simple Man” in 1990 suggested lynching drug dealers and using child abusers as alligator bait.
His “In America” in 1980 told this country’s enemies to “go straight to hell.”
Such tough talk earned him guest spots on “Politically Incorrect,” the G. Gordon Liddy radio show and on C-Span taking comments from viewers.
“The Devil Went Down to Georgia” was No. 1 on the country charts in 1979 and No. 3 on the pop charts. It was voted single of the year by the Country Music Association.
In the climactic verse, Daniels sang:
“The devil bowed his head because he knew that he’d been beat.
“He laid that golden fiddle on the ground at Johnny’s feet.
“Johnny said, `Devil just come on back if you ever want to try again.
“I told you once you son of a gun, I’m the best that’s ever been.”
He hosted regular Volunteer Jam concerts in Nashville in which the performers usually were not announced in advance. Entertainers at thes shows included Don Henley, Amy Grant, James Brown, Pat Boone, Bill Monroe, Willie Nelson, Vince Gill, the Lynyrd Skynyrd Band, Alabama, Billy Joel, Little Richard, B.B. King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Eugene Fodor and Woody Herman.
Daniels, a native of Wilmington, N.C., played on several Bob Dylan albums as a Nashville recording session guitarist in the late 1960s, including “New Morning” and “Self-Portrait.”
Eventually, at the age of 71, he was invited to join the epitome of Nashville’s music establishment, the Grand Ole Opry. He was inducted in the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2016.
He said in 1998 that he kept touring so much because “I have never played those notes perfectly. I’ve never sung every song perfectly. I’m in competition to be better tonight than I was last night and to be better tomorrow than tonight.”
Daniels said his favorite place to play was “anywhere with a good crowd and a good paycheck.”
– – –
Kristin M. Hall is a reporter at The Associated Press.


thetennesseestar--2020-07-07--Marsha Blackburn Introduces Bill to End Birth Tourism and Fight Immigration Fraud

Sens .
Marsha Blackburn ( R-TN ) and Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) have introduced legislation that they say will combat illegal immigration fraud and eliminate loopholes in birthright citizenship that foreign nationals exploit .
This , according to a press release Blackburn published on her website Monday .
The Ban Birth Tourism Act will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and ban birth tourism as a permissible basis for obtaining a temporary visitor visa , according to the press release .
“ Over the last two decades , birth tourism has grown to be a sizable industry .
Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this immigration law loophole .
Our nation ’ s citizenship is not for sale to those who pay to come here and give birth , ” Blackburn said in the press release .
“ Citizenship is for those who love our great country and want to contribute to and preserve freedom – not those parachuting in to obtain a second citizenship so they may come back whenever they please.
” Loeffler , meanwhile , said that for decades America “ has felt the repercussions of a failed , outdated immigration system that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s compassion.
” “ The practice of foreign nationals traveling to the United States to secure automatic and permanent citizenship for their children by giving birth on American soil must end .
Through the Ban Birth Tourism Act , we are closing a glaring legal loophole , reducing an undue and unfair burden on our Southern border towns and protecting the integrity of our immigration system , ” Loeffler wrote .
The Ban Birth Tourism Act codifies the U.S. Department of State ’ s January 2020 rule change to prohibit the issuance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press release .
Blackburn and Loeffler said birth tourism is a multi-million dollar industry in which businesses aid pregnant foreigners in obtaining birthright citizenship for their newborn .
These firms often serve wealthy Russian and Chinese nationals and charge foreign clients thousands of dollars for advice on how to lie to immigration officers .
“ Over 20,000 birth tourists come to the U.S. annually .
From 2008 to 2012 , the number of birth tourists coming from China to the U.S. increased from 4,200 to 10,000 , ” the press release said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice charged 19 birth tourism operators and clients in California for immigration fraud , money laundering , and identity theft.
” Chris Butler is an investigative journalist at The Tennessee Star .
Follow Chris on Facebook .
Email tips to [ email protected ]

Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) have introduced legislation that they say will combat illegal immigration fraud and eliminate loopholes in birthright citizenship that foreign nationals exploit.
This, according to a press release Blackburn published on her website Monday.
The Ban Birth Tourism Act will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and ban birth tourism as a permissible basis for obtaining a temporary visitor visa, according to the press release.
“Over the last two decades, birth tourism has grown to be a sizable industry. Each year tens of thousands of people exploit this immigration law loophole. Our nation’s citizenship is not for sale to those who pay to come here and give birth,” Blackburn said in the press release.
“Citizenship is for those who love our great country and want to contribute to and preserve freedom – not those parachuting in to obtain a second citizenship so they may come back whenever they please.”
Loeffler, meanwhile, said that for decades America “has felt the repercussions of a failed, outdated immigration system that has rewarded those who abuse our nation’s compassion.”
“The practice of foreign nationals traveling to the United States to secure automatic and permanent citizenship for their children by giving birth on American soil must end. Through the Ban Birth Tourism Act, we are closing a glaring legal loophole, reducing an undue and unfair burden on our Southern border towns and protecting the integrity of our immigration system,” Loeffler wrote.
The Ban Birth Tourism Act codifies the U.S. Department of State’s January 2020 rule change to prohibit the issuance of visas for birth tourists, according to the press release.
Blackburn and Loeffler said birth tourism is a multi-million dollar industry in which businesses aid pregnant foreigners in obtaining birthright citizenship for their newborn. These firms often serve wealthy Russian and Chinese nationals and charge foreign clients thousands of dollars for advice on how to lie to immigration officers.
“Over 20,000 birth tourists come to the U.S. annually. From 2008 to 2012, the number of birth tourists coming from China to the U.S. increased from 4,200 to 10,000,” the press release said.
“In 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice charged 19 birth tourism operators and clients in California for immigration fraud, money laundering, and identity theft.”
– – –
Chris Butler is an investigative journalist at The Tennessee Star. Follow Chris on Facebook. Email tips to [email protected]


thetennesseestar--2020-07-07--Commentary: 2020 Will Be the Civil War Election

As the summer of our discontent drags on , the fall of 2020 will bring with it either the fall of America or its rise from the ashes .
This Independence Day , the battle lines were drawn unambiguously , and the fate of our nation truly does rest on the decision of the American voters in November .
It is now a commonplace that every election of our recent history is “ the most important ” election ever – and it may often seem there is no reason for this other than to drive up voter enthusiasm and campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the candidates go on the next cycle just four years later , “ No , this time it really is the most important election ever !
” Even accepting that given , any objective look at the parameters of the national discussion leading into this election makes it clear that 2020 is not only an important election , but indeed , a domestic existential crisis unlike any this country has seen since 1860 on the eve of the Civil War .
For the first time in modern history , the presidential election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that loves America , and a party that openly hates it .
President Donald Trump has given many significant speeches over the course of his first four years in office .
Until now , the general consensus has been that his greatest speech most likely was the one he gave in Warsaw almost exactly three years ago .
In that speech , using the language of a modern Pericles , he hailed the glorious achievements of Western Civilization , from its darkest moments to its greatest triumphs , and argued that ours is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemies , foreign and domestic , so long as we have the will to preserve our individual national identities .
If Trump ’ s Warsaw speech was a rallying cry to secure the future for the broader international community of free Western nations , then his speech at Mount Rushmore on Friday was its domestic equivalent .
In that speech , too , President Trump addressed a major existential crisis facing the flagship of Western Civilization , the United States of America .
Just as he did in Warsaw , he implored all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their heritage , cherish their history , and defend their country from an insidious force that is actively seeking to erase America ’ s true past from the history books .
The Mount Rushmore speech will go down in history not only as one of the greatest speeches of Trump ’ s presidency in terms of sheer quality but also in terms of the timeliness of the address .
Like his Independence Day speech in 2019 , he gave an extensive history lesson that should instill pride in all who hear it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the four men whose visages were carved into the towering mountain that stood above him .
From winning our independence against the largest empire in history , to saving our union and abolishing slavery , President Trump made it clear why these four men in particular were chosen to be memorialized in such an immortal way – and why they deserved it .
He spoke out unapologetically in defense of America ’ s unique heritage even as mobs of evil anarchists and violent Communists rabidly tear down monuments and statues to some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly called out the Left ’ s latest tactic of “ cancel culture , ” as hundreds of regular Americans are driven from their jobs , their schools , and even their homes for the simple act of committing wrongthink against the Left ’ s meaningless mantra of “ social justice.
” By directly naming the enemy and its tactics while simultaneously issuing an unwavering defense of the fabric of our nation , President Trump spoke the words that every American needed to hear .
He spoke to those who are currently living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them that not only do they have nothing to be ashamed of by being proud Americans but that they have a true champion in the White House .
And , following up his tough rhetoric with swift action , the president announced an action that essentially amounted to a great big slap in the face of all of the rioters and screeching anti-American mobs : An executive order to repair fallen monuments , as well as the creation of a brand new national monument , “ The National Garden of American Heroes.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more resolve than immediate rebuilding in the face of destruction .
Such a response is uniquely American .
In the Other Corner , Seething Self-Hatred President Trump ’ s 90-minute speech was by far the second-best method for defining his opposition going into the November election .
The only thing that served that purpose better was Joe Biden ’ s pathetic 90-second response .
From a visual standpoint alone , Biden ’ s July 4 address failed from the start .
Whereas President Trump gave a magnificent in-person address to thousands of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America ’ s greatest presidents , Joe Biden kept his address strictly digital , from the confines of his basement , in order to continue perpetuating the debunked notion that the Chinese coronavirus remains a mortal threat to all .
But on substance , he delivered President Trump a winning electoral message .
With this video , Biden has irreversibly thrown in his lot with the “ America is racist ” crowd .
He started off bashing Thomas Jefferson – who , not coincidentally , is one of the men depicted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the document for which we celebrate American Independence .
He then proceeded to declare that America is plagued by fundamental and “ systemic racism , ” and declared the political canonization of the new patron saint of race-baiters , the martyr George Floyd .
Rather than memorialize past presidents or true civil rights leaders , Biden saw fit to move our heroes to the back of the proverbial bus so that he could elevate Floyd above them in status .
In service of furthering the notion that Biden is taking the Chinese virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ diverse ” Americans staring directly into the camera , all with their faces covered by masks .
Although this trope of “ solemn diverse stares ” has been done to death in many left-wing political advertisements , the presence of the masks only creates a more dystopian and unsettling picture , especially in the wake of Biden ’ s pledge that he , as president , would support a federal mandate that every American be forced to wear a mask .
With this video , Biden tossed away any lingering suggestions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach .
In the event that the media was prepared to run defense for him and claim that President Trump ’ s speech was a mischaracterization of Biden ’ s intentions , Biden himself helped to make the case for the incumbent president by being very clear about his plans to fully accommodate the vile anti-American forces on the rise in our country .
Just as President Trump vowed to protect American history , Joe Biden seeks to rewrite it in a way that would put even Orwell to shame .
Although talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country is often breathless and exaggerated , it ’ s fitting in the context of the 2020 election .
Throughout most of our history , both parties have maintained that they love America , but simply have different ideas about how to improve it .
Now it is beyond clear , as articulated by both candidates , that only one party truly loves our country , while the other is ashamed of it .
One party is campaigning on building on the past to create an even more glorious future , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have already built so that we can start from scratch .
Not since the election of 1860 has there been such a complete polarization between the two rival factions in American politics .
This election , put simply , is the first election since the Civil War to be about one thing and one thing alone : the grateful versus the ungrateful .
There is no nuance anymore , nor is there any illusion of civility .
One side loves America , while the other side loathes it and wants to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is fitting that this dichotomy has been made crystal clear on our nation ’ s 244th birthday , for once again we have a national scenario in which patriots are facing off against redcoats .
It is now incumbent upon us to ensure that the spirit of 1776 truly is alive and well , so that this nation may not perish from the earth .
Eric Lendrum graduated from the University of California , Santa Barbara , where he was the Secretary of the College Republicans and the founding chairman of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom chapter .
He has interned for Young America ’ s Foundation , the Heritage Foundation , and the White House , and has worked for numerous campaigns including the 2018 re-election of Congressman Devin Nunes ( CA-22 ) .

by Eric Lendrum
As the summer of our discontent drags on, the fall of 2020 will bring with it either the fall of America or its rise from the ashes. This Independence Day, the battle lines were drawn unambiguously, and the fate of our nation truly does rest on the decision of the American voters in November.
It is now a commonplace that every election of our recent history is “the most important” election ever – and it may often seem there is no reason for this other than to drive up voter enthusiasm and campaign contributions. Of course, each time, the candidates go on the next cycle just four years later, “No, this time it really is the most important election ever!”
Even accepting that given, any objective look at the parameters of the national discussion leading into this election makes it clear that 2020 is not only an important election, but indeed, a domestic existential crisis unlike any this country has seen since 1860 on the eve of the Civil War. For the first time in modern history, the presidential election will be a choice between a party that loves America, and a party that openly hates it.
In One Corner, Unapologetic Patriotism
President Donald Trump has given many significant speeches over the course of his first four years in office. Until now, the general consensus has been that his greatest speech most likely was the one he gave in Warsaw almost exactly three years ago.
In that speech, using the language of a modern Pericles, he hailed the glorious achievements of Western Civilization, from its darkest moments to its greatest triumphs, and argued that ours is a civilization that can survive against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so long as we have the will to preserve our individual national identities.
If Trump’s Warsaw speech was a rallying cry to secure the future for the broader international community of free Western nations, then his speech at Mount Rushmore on Friday was its domestic equivalent.
In that speech, too, President Trump addressed a major existential crisis facing the flagship of Western Civilization, the United States of America. Just as he did in Warsaw, he implored all patriotic and God-fearing Americans to stand up for their heritage, cherish their history, and defend their country from an insidious force that is actively seeking to erase America’s true past from the history books.
The Mount Rushmore speech will go down in history not only as one of the greatest speeches of Trump’s presidency in terms of sheer quality but also in terms of the timeliness of the address.
Like his Independence Day speech in 2019, he gave an extensive history lesson that should instill pride in all who hear it. He recalled the greatest achievements of the four men whose visages were carved into the towering mountain that stood above him. From winning our independence against the largest empire in history, to saving our union and abolishing slavery, President Trump made it clear why these four men in particular were chosen to be memorialized in such an immortal way – and why they deserved it.
He spoke out unapologetically in defense of America’s unique heritage even as mobs of evil anarchists and violent Communists rabidly tear down monuments and statues to some of America’s greatest heroes. He explicitly called out the Left’s latest tactic of “cancel culture,” as hundreds of regular Americans are driven from their jobs, their schools, and even their homes for the simple act of committing wrongthink against the Left’s meaningless mantra of “social justice.”
By directly naming the enemy and its tactics while simultaneously issuing an unwavering defense of the fabric of our nation, President Trump spoke the words that every American needed to hear. He spoke to those who are currently living in fear of the mob, reassuring them that not only do they have nothing to be ashamed of by being proud Americans but that they have a true champion in the White House.
And, following up his tough rhetoric with swift action, the president announced an action that essentially amounted to a great big slap in the face of all of the rioters and screeching anti-American mobs: An executive order to repair fallen monuments, as well as the creation of a brand new national monument, “The National Garden of American Heroes.” Few actions are more decisive and show more resolve than immediate rebuilding in the face of destruction. Such a response is uniquely American.
In the Other Corner, Seething Self-Hatred
President Trump’s 90-minute speech was by far the second-best method for defining his opposition going into the November election. The only thing that served that purpose better was Joe Biden’s pathetic 90-second response.
From a visual standpoint alone, Biden’s July 4 address failed from the start. Whereas President Trump gave a magnificent in-person address to thousands of Americans, under the watchful eyes of four of America’s greatest presidents, Joe Biden kept his address strictly digital, from the confines of his basement, in order to continue perpetuating the debunked notion that the Chinese coronavirus remains a mortal threat to all.
But on substance, he delivered President Trump a winning electoral message.
With this video, Biden has irreversibly thrown in his lot with the “America is racist” crowd. He started off bashing Thomas Jefferson – who, not coincidentally, is one of the men depicted on Mount Rushmore and the principal author of the document for which we celebrate American Independence.
He then proceeded to declare that America is plagued by fundamental and “systemic racism,” and declared the political canonization of the new patron saint of race-baiters, the martyr George Floyd. Rather than memorialize past presidents or true civil rights leaders, Biden saw fit to move our heroes to the back of the proverbial bus so that he could elevate Floyd above them in status.
In service of furthering the notion that Biden is taking the Chinese virus seriously, his video then depicted numerous “diverse” Americans staring directly into the camera, all with their faces covered by masks. Although this trope of “solemn diverse stares” has been done to death in many left-wing political advertisements, the presence of the masks only creates a more dystopian and unsettling picture, especially in the wake of Biden’s pledge that he, as president, would support a federal mandate that every American be forced to wear a mask.
With this video, Biden tossed away any lingering suggestions that he might take a “moderate” approach. In the event that the media was prepared to run defense for him and claim that President Trump’s speech was a mischaracterization of Biden’s intentions, Biden himself helped to make the case for the incumbent president by being very clear about his plans to fully accommodate the vile anti-American forces on the rise in our country.
Just as President Trump vowed to protect American history, Joe Biden seeks to rewrite it in a way that would put even Orwell to shame.
The Cold Civil War
Although talk of a possible second civil war in our country is often breathless and exaggerated, it’s fitting in the context of the 2020 election. Throughout most of our history, both parties have maintained that they love America, but simply have different ideas about how to improve it.
Now it is beyond clear, as articulated by both candidates, that only one party truly loves our country, while the other is ashamed of it. One party is campaigning on building on the past to create an even more glorious future, while the other seeks to tear down what we have already built so that we can start from scratch. Not since the election of 1860 has there been such a complete polarization between the two rival factions in American politics.
This election, put simply, is the first election since the Civil War to be about one thing and one thing alone: the grateful versus the ungrateful. There is no nuance anymore, nor is there any illusion of civility. One side loves America, while the other side loathes it and wants to replace it with something unrecognizable to our heritage.
It is fitting that this dichotomy has been made crystal clear on our nation’s 244th birthday, for once again we have a national scenario in which patriots are facing off against redcoats. It is now incumbent upon us to ensure that the spirit of 1776 truly is alive and well, so that this nation may not perish from the earth.
– – –
Eric Lendrum graduated from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he was the Secretary of the College Republicans and the founding chairman of the school’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter. He has interned for Young America’s Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, and the White House, and has worked for numerous campaigns including the 2018 re-election of Congressman Devin Nunes (CA-22).


thetennesseestar--2020-07-07--Hosts Leahy and Kellett Discuss Mandated COVID-19 Face Masks

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville ’ s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed early edition co-host , Doug Kellett to the studio .
During the first hour , Leahy and Kellett discussed the lack of data to support the face mask mandate across the nation .
Leahy noted that the public health officials at healthaffairs.org had used analyses providing supporting evidence that face masks only reduced the spread of coronavirus by only two percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is an infectious disease specialist and is a professor at the School of Medicine in Boston .
She also has an appointment with the Tufts University Fletcher School of Diplomacy .
Kellett : Oh yes .
That was on my list .
Kellett : I did not get my invitation to that .
I ’ ve been waiting in the mail for that .
( Chuckles ) Leahy : Of course the School of Diplomacy , they want me desperately to talk to them about how to improve your diplomatic capabilities right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could do some work on that a little bit .
OK. By the way , they canceled the running of the bulls in Spain .
So we ’ re not going to be able to do as we had planned .
Leahy : I had a friend that did that once and I said , are you crazy ?
Kellett : That ’ s the first question you would ask .
Leahy : Yes .
And he said a little bit .
I want to go back to this statement if you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to you this study that I mentioned .
I ’ ll just read you the abstract .
You can read it more at your leisure .
Kellett : That would probably be that way , but yes .
Leahy : Here ’ s this thing .
Now , here in Tennessee Governor Lee has said well if your county executive outside of the main Metro areas where they apparently have the authority to do that independently .
We ’ ve got mask requirements if you go outside in Shelby County and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way .
Let me just add that .
He said if other county executives outside those counties want to put mask requirements on , go ahead .
Ok .
I have been talking about this for some time and I ’ ve been asking where is the medical evidence that actually wearing a mask either a cloth mask or a surgical mask , not an N95 which is a much more sophisticated mask , where is the evidence that it actually stops the spread of COVID-19 ?
There is no medical report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , and I ’ ll refer to these as the public health goons .
By that I mean , I ’ m talking about the entire public health infrastructure which in my view is designed to create some kind narrative that they can use to support infringements on personal liberty .
That ’ s my view Doug , not yours , but mine .
Kellett : It ’ s a money-making operation .
I don ’ t know about infringing liberty necessarily .
That doesn ’ t make them any money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So there is some profit motive going on here .
Leahy : There is a study that was published in public health professionals journal called Health Affairs-healthaffairs.org .
It was conducted by a professor at the University of Iowa School of Public Health and a research associate there at the University of Iowa in Iowa City .
My good friend Jim Larew who is a far-left guy but a good friend lives in Iowa City .
He ’ s been my guide to all the developments in Iowa politics .
Let me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll read the abstract so your eyes don ’ t glaze over .
( Kellett chuckles ) And you just kind of react in real-time here to this .
Community use of face masks and COVID-19 evidence from a natural experiment of state mandates in the US .
Ok , so what they did with this study is they provided evidence from the effects of state government mandates in the United States for face masks in public use by 15 states plus the District of Columbia between April 8 and May 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked at which states are requiring face masks in public and then they went and they looked at the data of the number of COVID-19 cases there .
Ok ?
So here ’ s what they found .
The research design is an event study examining changes in the daily COVID-19 growth rates between March 31 of this year and May 22 of this year .
Here is their big conclusion .
Mandating face mask use in public is associated they say , with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five days .
One point one percent from days six to 10 .
One point four percent from day 11 to 15 .
One point seven percent from day 16 to 20 .
And two percent from day 21 thereafter .
But their big conclusion , the findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public might help in mitigating COVID-19 spread .
Kellett : That ’ s interesting .
You know Mike I hear Sanjay Gupta , the doctor from Emory University he ’ s always pointing out and I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he talks about Hong Kong and he talks about Japan that they didn ’ t have as big a problem with the COVID-19 because they mandated masks right at the beginning there .
I think that ’ s part of the problem .
We get so many conflicting sorts of comments .
Who knows what to believe .
Leahy : I ’ ll go to that study in a second , but it ’ s a good point that you raise .
You try to look at the evidence here .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causality .
Right ?
The other problem with this study is they don ’ t show you the data .
I like to look at the data on these things .
I am highly suspect that this data and how they came up with this data .
But let ’ s just say for a moment that it ’ s true .
So you are saying that you are going to mandate face masks for everybody in your state because when states mandate that in public and out in the open we think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases by two percent after three weeks .
Really ?
That ’ s it ?
That ’ s the best you got ?
Kellett : That ’ s certainly not a lot .
I think the other thing too Mike , I guess and you mentioned that there was a difference in the type of masks that you wear that might make a difference .
But it would seem like in a common sense thing if I have somebody around me that ’ s breathing out COVID-19 and they got a mask on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount that gets in the air so it would help my chances of not getting it .
It seems like that would in a common-sense form help right ?
That ’ s why we wear them when we go out , right ?
Leahy : Here is the reality .
Dr. Simone Gold who studied this showed that if you are wearing a cloth mask the pores in that cloth mask are about 200 microns wide .
The COVID-19 virus is one-tenth of a micron wide .
We talked about this before .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me that the best way to do it is to have one of those paper like the kind I have that you would wear the cloth mask and the paper and that it does cut things down that the one mask doesn ’ t ?
Leahy : I didn ’ t tell you that .
Kellett : Ok. Somebody told me that .
Leahy : Again , there is a sort of logic and thought process .
That ’ s one thing .
But then there ’ s evidence .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you say you are trying to stop the COVID-19 virus which is one-tenth of a micron .
You are trying to stop it if you double mask , triple mask , or quadruple mask that it would perhaps slow the spread somewhat .
But again , we are into the issue of somewhat .
And the evidence that it is significant in reducing the spread of COVID-19 just seems to me not to be there whatsoever .
Kellett : I saw something the other day that these face shields might be better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem they are having is when you wear a mask is that if you have glasses on they just fog up .
Leahy : Yes .
My question is if you want to reduce the possibility of the case by just two percent , how do you mandate that ?
How do you mandate that if the best you can say is , well we think we reduce it by two percent .
Kellett : I don ’ t know .
Maybe I ’ m the two percent so therefore I want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know .
( Laughs ) Leahy : But I look at that and I say , it ’ s not making the case .
( Kellett chuckles ) Listen to the full first hour here : Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510 .
Listen online at iHeart Radio .

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed early edition co-host, Doug Kellett to the studio.
During the first hour, Leahy and Kellett discussed the lack of data to support the face mask mandate across the nation. Leahy noted that the public health officials at healthaffairs.org had used analyses providing supporting evidence that face masks only reduced the spread of coronavirus by only two percent.
(Dr. Nahid Bhadel clip plays)
Kellett: There’s a doctor.
Leahy: That is Dr. Nahid Bhadel who is an infectious disease specialist and is a professor at the School of Medicine in Boston. She also has an appointment with the Tufts University Fletcher School of Diplomacy.
Kellett: Oh yes. That was on my list.
Leahy: On your list.
Kellett: I did not get my invitation to that. I’ve been waiting in the mail for that. (Chuckles)
Leahy: Of course the School of Diplomacy, they want me desperately to talk to them about how to improve your diplomatic capabilities right? (Laughter)
Kellett: You could do some work on that a little bit. OK. By the way, they canceled the running of the bulls in Spain. So we’re not going to be able to do as we had planned.
Leahy: I had a friend that did that once and I said, are you crazy?
Kellett: That’s the first question you would ask.
Leahy: Yes. And he said a little bit. I want to go back to this statement if you don’t mind.
Kellett: Sure go ahead.
Leahy: I sent to you this study that I mentioned. I’ll just read you the abstract. You can read it more at your leisure.
Kellett: That would probably be that way, but yes.
Leahy: Here’s this thing. Now, here in Tennessee Governor Lee has said well if your county executive outside of the main Metro areas where they apparently have the authority to do that independently. We’ve got mask requirements if you go outside in Shelby County and in Davidson County without any medical evidence by the way. Let me just add that.
He said if other county executives outside those counties want to put mask requirements on, go ahead. Ok. I have been talking about this for some time and I’ve been asking where is the medical evidence that actually wearing a mask either a cloth mask or a surgical mask, not an N95 which is a much more sophisticated mask, where is the evidence that it actually stops the spread of COVID-19?
There is no medical report done that does it. There is, however, and I’ll refer to these as the public health goons. By that I mean, I’m talking about the entire public health infrastructure which in my view is designed to create some kind narrative that they can use to support infringements on personal liberty. That’s my view Doug, not yours, but mine.
Kellett: It’s a money-making operation. I don’t know about infringing liberty necessarily. That doesn’t make them any money. It’s a for-profit business. So there is some profit motive going on here.
Leahy: There is a study that was published in public health professionals journal called Health Affairs-healthaffairs.org. It was conducted by a professor at the University of Iowa School of Public Health and a research associate there at the University of Iowa in Iowa City.
My good friend Jim Larew who is a far-left guy but a good friend lives in Iowa City. He’s been my guide to all the developments in Iowa politics. Let me just read this to you. I’ll read the abstract so your eyes don’t glaze over. (Kellett chuckles)
And you just kind of react in real-time here to this. Community use of face masks and COVID-19 evidence from a natural experiment of state mandates in the US. Ok, so what they did with this study is they provided evidence from the effects of state government mandates in the United States for face masks in public use by 15 states plus the District of Columbia between April 8 and May 15.
So all they did was they looked at which states are requiring face masks in public and then they went and they looked at the data of the number of COVID-19 cases there. Ok? So here’s what they found. The research design is an event study examining changes in the daily COVID-19 growth rates between March 31 of this year and May 22 of this year. Here is their big conclusion.
Mandating face mask use in public is associated they say, with a decline in the daily COVID-19 growth rate by nine-tenths of one percent during the first five days. One point one percent from days six to 10. One point four percent from day 11 to 15. One point seven percent from day 16 to 20. And two percent from day 21 thereafter. But their big conclusion, the findings suggest that requiring face mask use in public might help in mitigating COVID-19 spread.
Kellett: That’s interesting. You know Mike I hear Sanjay Gupta, the doctor from Emory University he’s always pointing out and I don’t know any studies about this, but he talks about Hong Kong and he talks about Japan that they didn’t have as big a problem with the COVID-19 because they mandated masks right at the beginning there. I think that’s part of the problem. We get so many conflicting sorts of comments. Who knows what to believe.
Leahy: I’ll go to that study in a second, but it’s a good point that you raise. You try to look at the evidence here. To me, the question is one of causality. Right? The other problem with this study is they don’t show you the data. I like to look at the data on these things. I am highly suspect that this data and how they came up with this data.
But let’s just say for a moment that it’s true. So you are saying that you are going to mandate face masks for everybody in your state because when states mandate that in public and out in the open we think that it reduces the number of COVID-19 cases by two percent after three weeks. Really? That’s it? That’s the best you got?
Kellett: That’s certainly not a lot. I think the other thing too Mike, I guess and you mentioned that there was a difference in the type of masks that you wear that might make a difference. But it would seem like in a common sense thing if I have somebody around me that’s breathing out COVID-19 and they got a mask on that it would at least reduce the amount that gets in the air so it would help my chances of not getting it. It seems like that would in a common-sense form help right? That’s why we wear them when we go out, right?
Leahy: Here is the reality. Dr. Simone Gold who studied this showed that if you are wearing a cloth mask the pores in that cloth mask are about 200 microns wide. The COVID-19 virus is one-tenth of a micron wide. We talked about this before.
Kellett: Were you the one that told me that the best way to do it is to have one of those paper like the kind I have that you would wear the cloth mask and the paper and that it does cut things down that the one mask doesn’t?
Leahy: I didn’t tell you that.
Kellett: Ok. Somebody told me that.
Leahy: Again, there is a sort of logic and thought process. That’s one thing. But then there’s evidence. And so I can see the argument that if you say you are trying to stop the COVID-19 virus which is one-tenth of a micron. You are trying to stop it if you double mask, triple mask, or quadruple mask that it would perhaps slow the spread somewhat. But again, we are into the issue of somewhat. And the evidence that it is significant in reducing the spread of COVID-19 just seems to me not to be there whatsoever.
Kellett: I saw something the other day that these face shields might be better than masks and they are more comfortable. The problem they are having is when you wear a mask is that if you have glasses on they just fog up.
Leahy: Yes. My question is if you want to reduce the possibility of the case by just two percent, how do you mandate that? How do you mandate that if the best you can say is, well we think we reduce it by two percent.
Kellett: I don’t know. Maybe I’m the two percent so therefore I want you to wear one? I don’t know. (Laughs)
Leahy: But I look at that and I say, it’s not making the case. (Kellett chuckles)
Listen to the full first hour here:

– – –
Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.


thetennesseestar--2020-07-07--Abolitionist, Advisor to President Abraham Lincoln – Frederick Douglass Statue Vandalized in New Yor

Abolitionist, Advisor to President Abraham Lincoln – Frederick Douglass Statue Vandalized in New York Park

ROCHESTER , New York ( AP ) — Police in Rochester were trying to determine Monday who ripped a statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass from its base on the anniversary of one of his most famous speeches , delivered in the upstate New York city in 1852 .
The statue of Douglass was taken on Sunday from Maplewood Park , a site along the Underground Railroad where Douglass and Harriet Tubman helped shuttle slaves to freedom .
The statue was found at the brink of the Genesee River gorge about 50 feet from its pedestal , police said .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finger .
As President Donald Trump and others pointed at possible culprits , Rochester Police Chief La ’ Ron Singletary cautioned that investigators still don ’ t why the “ disheartening ” act of vandalism occurred .
“ Right now , for me to guess would be pure speculation , ” Singletary told reporters at a news conference .
In Rochester on July 5 , 1852 , Douglass gave the speech “ What to the Slave is the Fourth of July , ” in which he called the celebration of liberty a sham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Black citizens .
To a slave , Douglass said , Independence Day is “ a day that reveals to him , more than all other days in the year , the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.
” Carvin Eison , a leader of the project that brought the Douglass statue to the park , told the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle another statue will take its place because the damage is too significant .
“ Is this some type of retaliation because of the national fever over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s beyond disappointing , ” Eison told WROC .
Statues depicting Confederate leaders have been toppled or vandalized recently around the nation .
But the destruction of a statue honoring the famous abolitionist set off a round of public mourning and finger-pointing on social media .
Trump on Monday tweeted a link to an article about the vandalism and said , without providing evidence , that it “ shows these anarchists have no bounds !
” About the Headline Photo : A replica of a statue of Frederick Douglass sits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sculptor who worked on finishing three replicas , July 16 , 2018 in her Rochester , N.Y. studio .
A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass has been ripped from its base in Rochester on the anniversary of one of his most famous speeches .
Police say the statue of Douglass was taken from Maplewood Park and placed near the Genesee River gorge on Sunday , July 5 , 2020 .
( Tina MacIntyre-Yee/Democrat & Chronicle via AP )

ROCHESTER, New York (AP) — Police in Rochester were trying to determine Monday who ripped a statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass from its base on the anniversary of one of his most famous speeches, delivered in the upstate New York city in 1852.
The statue of Douglass was taken on Sunday from Maplewood Park, a site along the Underground Railroad where Douglass and Harriet Tubman helped shuttle slaves to freedom. The statue was found at the brink of the Genesee River gorge about 50 feet from its pedestal, police said. There was damage to the base and a finger.
As President Donald Trump and others pointed at possible culprits, Rochester Police Chief La’Ron Singletary cautioned that investigators still don’t why the “disheartening” act of vandalism occurred.
“Right now, for me to guess would be pure speculation,” Singletary told reporters at a news conference.
Singletary said investigators will review camera footage.
In Rochester on July 5, 1852, Douglass gave the speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” in which he called the celebration of liberty a sham in a nation that enslaves and oppresses its Black citizens.
To a slave, Douglass said, Independence Day is “a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.”
Carvin Eison, a leader of the project that brought the Douglass statue to the park, told the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle another statue will take its place because the damage is too significant.
“Is this some type of retaliation because of the national fever over confederate monuments right now? Very disappointing, it’s beyond disappointing,” Eison told WROC.
Statues depicting Confederate leaders have been toppled or vandalized recently around the nation. But the destruction of a statue honoring the famous abolitionist set off a round of public mourning and finger-pointing on social media.
Trump on Monday tweeted a link to an article about the vandalism and said, without providing evidence, that it “shows these anarchists have no bounds!”
– – –
About the Headline Photo: A replica of a statue of Frederick Douglass sits in the studio of Olivia Kim, a sculptor who worked on finishing three replicas, July 16, 2018 in her Rochester, N.Y. studio. A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass has been ripped from its base in Rochester on the anniversary of one of his most famous speeches. Police say the statue of Douglass was taken from Maplewood Park and placed near the Genesee River gorge on Sunday, July 5, 2020. (Tina MacIntyre-Yee/Democrat & Chronicle via AP)