hotair--2020-11-27--SCOTUS swats Cuomo: You can't shut down churches while keeping businesses open

Finally .
As Justice Neil Gorsuch writes in a scathing concurrence , “ It is time—past time—to make plain ” that the Constitution applies at all times , even in pandemics .
In a 5-4 vote late on Wednesday evening , the Supreme Court issued an injunction against Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s order that allowed businesses to operate at the capacity of their choosing but limited religious services to either 10 or 25 people at a time .
Cuomo ’ s not the only target of this injunction , however : A divided Supreme Court blocked New York from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services to combat Covid-19 , with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett casting the pivotal vote to depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures .
In orders issued late Wednesday , the court , in a 5-4 vote , set aside attendance limits that Democratic Gov .
Andrew Cuomo imposed on houses of worship in areas most severely affected by the coronavirus : 10 people in red zones and 25 in orange zones .
New York classifies places where coronavirus infections are of increasing severity as yellow , orange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it troubling that businesses that the state considered essential weren ’ t subject to the same occupancy limits .
Those included “ things such as acupuncture facilities , campgrounds , garages , as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential , such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities , ” the court said .
“ Members of this Court are not public health experts , and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But New York ’ s restrictions “ strike at the very heart of the First Amendment ’ s guarantee of religious liberty.
” “ Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience ?
” Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence about the lack of similar restrictions on the aforementioned businesses in the Wall Street Journal ’ s quote .
But Gorsuch had more on his mind than just New York ’ s latest — or semi-latest — attempts to arbitrarily impose disparate limits on religious worship .
Gorsuch also pointedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pusillanimity on similar cases , especially in Nevada : In recent months , certain other Governors have issued similar edicts .
At the flick of a pen , they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants , marijuana dispensaries , and casinos over churches , mosques , and temples .
See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak , 591 U. S. ___ , ___ ( 2020 ) ( GORSUCH , J. , dissenting ) .
In far too many places , for far too long , our first freedom has fallen on deaf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Court ’ s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic ?
In the end , I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis .
But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances , we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack .
Things never go well when we do .
This comes down to the issue of scrutiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a constitutional right , especially an explicit right enumerated in the Constitution , it requires a strict-scrutiny review .
That means New York has to identify a compelling state interest , for which public health and pandemic control certainly qualify , but also demonstrate that the intrusion is narrowly tailored and rationally based .
The state has no evidence that worship services when following proper social-distancing protocols and disinfecting regimes present any more risk than the businesses that the state allows to operate with lesser or no restrictions .
That means it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as unconstitutional .
Amazingly , Chief Justice John Roberts doesn ’ t disagree — and yet still didn ’ t join the majority .
He voted against injunctive relief while generally tilting toward the majority ’ s read on Cuomo ’ s restrictions at the time the suit was filed .
Roberts argued that the issue was not ripe for injunctive relief because Cuomo had relaxed the restrictions , which Roberts admitted “ do seem unduly restrictive ” and might well “ violate the Free Exercise clause.
” At this point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances .
There is simply no need to do so .
After the Diocese and Agudath Israel filed their applications , the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas .
None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions .
At these locations , the applicants can hold services with up to 50 % of capacity , which is at least as favorable as the relief they currently seek .
Numerical capacity limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the applicable zone , do seem unduly restrictive .
And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause .
It is not necessary , however , for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time .
The Governor might reinstate the restrictions .
But he also might not .
And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic .
If the Governor does reinstate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Court , and we could act quickly on their renewed applications .
As things now stand , however , the applicants have not demonstrated their entitlement to “ the extraordinary remedy of injunction.
” Nken v. Holder , 556 U. S. 418 , 428 ( 2009 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) .
An order telling the Governor not to do what he ’ s not doing fails to meet that stringent standard .
As noted , the challenged restrictions raise serious concerns under the Constitution , and I agree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those we considered in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , 590 U. S. ___ ( 2020 ) , and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak , 591 U. S. ___ ( 2020 ) .
See ante , at 1 , 3–4 ( concurring opinion ) .
I take a different approach than the other dissenting Justices in this respect .
The problem with this argument , Gorsuch argued in his concurrence , is that Cuomo appears to be acting even more arbitrarily in changing the restrictions around as this case worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebutted Roberts in a slightly different manner .
The problem with relying on the momentary status quo is that the underlying order remains in place , Kavanaugh wrote .
If Cuomo never changes it , then an injunction will do no harm — but will signal clearly the boundaries to Cuomo and other governors : For those reasons , I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that New York ’ s “ [ n ] umerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people .
.
.
seem unduly restrictive ” and that “ it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Free Exercise Clause.
” Post , at 1 .
I part ways with THE CHIEF JUSTICE on a narrow procedural point regarding the timing of the injunctions .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE would not issue injunctions at this time .
As he notes , the State made a change in designations a few days ago , and now none of the churches and synagogues who are applicants in these cases are located in red or orange zones .
As I understand it , THE CHIEF JUSTICE would not issue an injunction unless and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an injunction and is still in a red or orange zone on the day that the injunction is finally issued .
But the State has not withdrawn or amended the relevant Executive Order .
And the State does not suggest that the applicants lack standing to challenge the red-zone and orange-zone caps imposed by the Executive Order , or that these cases are moot or not ripe .
In other words , the State does not deny that the applicants face an imminent injury today .
In particular , the State does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the applicants here , are located in areas that likely will be classified as red or orange zones in the very near future .
I therefore see no jurisdictional or prudential barriers to issuing the injunctions now .
There also is no good reason to delay issuance of the injunctions , as I see it .
If no houses of worship end up in red or orange zones , then the Court ’ s injunctions today will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of worship end up in red or orange zones , as is likely , then today ’ s injunctions will ensure that religious organizations are not subjected to the unconstitutional 10-person and 25-person caps .
Moreover , issuing the injunctions now rather than a few days from now not only will ensure that the applicants ’ constitutional rights are protected , but also will provide some needed clarity for the State and religious organizations .
Precisely .
The Supreme Court should have set this boundary in the ridiculously easy case of Calvary Chapel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in July on a 5-4 vote .
Nevada had imposed onerous restrictions on worship services while allowing casinos and other businesses to operate at 50 % capacity .
The court refused to intervene , leading Gorsuch and Samuel Alito to write stinging dissents : “ That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise , but this Court ’ s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing , ” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas and Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend the Constitution , and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility , ” Alito said .
“ The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion .
It says nothing about freedom to play craps or blackjack , to feed tokens into a slot machine or to engage in any other game of chance.
” Kavanaugh also wrote his own dissent , as did Justice Neil Gorsuch , who said today ’ s world “ with a pandemic upon us , poses unusual challenges.
” “ But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel , ” Gorsuch wrote .
The court ’ s refusal to deal with such an obvious case of First Amendment violations emboldened governors to continue to act arbitrarily to violate those civil rights .
Had Roberts acted when he should have in Calvary Chapel , there would have likely have been no need to intervene now .
Roberts learned nothing from that failure , even though he admits that Cuomo was using his power abusively in this instance .
It ’ s amazing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6-3 after Calvary Chapel … and that it wasn ’ t 9-0 even apart from that .
And by amazing , I mean shameful .

Finally. As Justice Neil Gorsuch writes in a scathing concurrence, “It is time—past time—to make plain” that the Constitution applies at all times, even in pandemics. In a 5-4 vote late on Wednesday evening, the Supreme Court issued an injunction against Governor Andrew Cuomo’s order that allowed businesses to operate at the capacity of their choosing but limited religious services to either 10 or 25 people at a time.
Cuomo’s not the only target of this injunction, however:
A divided Supreme Court blocked New York from imposing strict limits on attendance at religious services to combat Covid-19, with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett casting the pivotal vote to depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures. In orders issued late Wednesday, the court, in a 5-4 vote, set aside attendance limits that Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo imposed on houses of worship in areas most severely affected by the coronavirus: 10 people in red zones and 25 in orange zones. New York classifies places where coronavirus infections are of increasing severity as yellow, orange or red. … The court found it troubling that businesses that the state considered essential weren’t subject to the same occupancy limits. Those included “things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities,” the court said. “Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area,” the opinion said. But New York’s restrictions “strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”
“Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?” Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence about the lack of similar restrictions on the aforementioned businesses in the Wall Street Journal’s quote. But Gorsuch had more on his mind than just New York’s latest — or semi-latest — attempts to arbitrarily impose disparate limits on religious worship. Gorsuch also pointedly called out the court for its earlier pusillanimity on similar cases, especially in Nevada:
In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears. … Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic? In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis. But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well when we do.
This comes down to the issue of scrutiny. When government actions proscribe or interfere with a constitutional right, especially an explicit right enumerated in the Constitution, it requires a strict-scrutiny review. That means New York has to identify a compelling state interest, for which public health and pandemic control certainly qualify, but also demonstrate that the intrusion is narrowly tailored and rationally based. The state has no evidence that worship services when following proper social-distancing protocols and disinfecting regimes present any more risk than the businesses that the state allows to operate with lesser or no restrictions. That means it’s plainly discriminatory and arbitrary as well as unconstitutional.
Amazingly, Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t disagree — and yet still didn’t join the majority. He voted against injunctive relief while generally tilting toward the majority’s read on Cuomo’s restrictions at the time the suit was filed. Roberts argued that the issue was not ripe for injunctive relief because Cuomo had relaxed the restrictions, which Roberts admitted “do seem unduly restrictive” and might well “violate the Free Exercise clause.” At this point, the issue looks moot-ish, Roberts argued:
I would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances. There is simply no need to do so. After the Diocese and Agudath Israel filed their applications, the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas. None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions. At these locations, the applicants can hold services with up to 50% of capacity, which is at least as favorable as the relief they currently seek. Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. If the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the applicants can return to this Court, and we could act quickly on their renewed applications. As things now stand, however, the applicants have not demonstrated their entitlement to “the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). An order telling the Governor not to do what he’s not doing fails to meet that stringent standard. As noted, the challenged restrictions raise serious concerns under the Constitution, and I agree with JUSTICE KAVANAUGH that they are distinguishable from those we considered in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020), and Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020). See ante, at 1, 3–4 (concurring opinion). I take a different approach than the other dissenting Justices in this respect.
The problem with this argument, Gorsuch argued in his concurrence, is that Cuomo appears to be acting even more arbitrarily in changing the restrictions around as this case worked through the courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh rebutted Roberts in a slightly different manner. The problem with relying on the momentary status quo is that the underlying order remains in place, Kavanaugh wrote. If Cuomo never changes it, then an injunction will do no harm — but will signal clearly the boundaries to Cuomo and other governors:
For those reasons, I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that New York’s “[n]umerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people . . . seem unduly restrictive” and that “it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause.” Post, at 1. I part ways with THE CHIEF JUSTICE on a narrow procedural point regarding the timing of the injunctions. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would not issue injunctions at this time. As he notes, the State made a change in designations a few days ago, and now none of the churches and synagogues who are applicants in these cases are located in red or orange zones. As I understand it, THE CHIEF JUSTICE would not issue an injunction unless and until a house of worship applies for an injunction and is still in a red or orange zone on the day that the injunction is finally issued. But the State has not withdrawn or amended the relevant Executive Order. And the State does not suggest that the applicants lack standing to challenge the red-zone and orange-zone caps imposed by the Executive Order, or that these cases are moot or not ripe. In other words, the State does not deny that the applicants face an imminent injury today. In particular, the State does not deny that some houses of worship, including the applicants here, are located in areas that likely will be classified as red or orange zones in the very near future. I therefore see no jurisdictional or prudential barriers to issuing the injunctions now. There also is no good reason to delay issuance of the injunctions, as I see it. If no houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, then the Court’s injunctions today will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19. And if houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, as is likely, then today’s injunctions will ensure that religious organizations are not subjected to the unconstitutional 10-person and 25-person caps. Moreover, issuing the injunctions now rather than a few days from now not only will ensure that the applicants’ constitutional rights are protected, but also will provide some needed clarity for the State and religious organizations.
Precisely. The Supreme Court should have set this boundary in the ridiculously easy case of Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, decided wrongly in July on a 5-4 vote. Nevada had imposed onerous restrictions on worship services while allowing casinos and other businesses to operate at 50% capacity. The court refused to intervene, leading Gorsuch and Samuel Alito to write stinging dissents:
“That Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise, but this Court’s willingness to allow such discrimination is disappointing,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. “We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility,” Alito said. “The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about freedom to play craps or blackjack, to feed tokens into a slot machine or to engage in any other game of chance.” Kavanaugh also wrote his own dissent, as did Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said today’s world “with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges.” “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” Gorsuch wrote.
The court’s refusal to deal with such an obvious case of First Amendment violations emboldened governors to continue to act arbitrarily to violate those civil rights. Had Roberts acted when he should have in Calvary Chapel, there would have likely have been no need to intervene now. Roberts learned nothing from that failure, even though he admits that Cuomo was using his power abusively in this instance. It’s amazing that this decision didn’t go 6-3 after Calvary Chapel … and that it wasn’t 9-0 even apart from that. And by amazing, I mean shameful.


hotair--2020-11-27--Trump: I'm going to Georgia to rally voters for the runoffs; <span class='red'>Update: Trump shoots

Trump: I'm going to Georgia to rally voters for the runoffs; Update: Trump shoots down boycott calls

Republicans got two pieces of good news from Donald Trump yesterday .
With the election mostly behind everyone except Trump himself , the GOP needs to focus on the last question still to be settled — control of the Senate .
Two runoffs in Georgia on January 5th will determine whether Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer control the Senate floor , and Republicans worried that Trump might turn off his most dedicated followers with his repeated claims of election fraud in the Peach State .
Yesterday , Trump told reporters that he will hold at least one get-out-the-vote rally for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as tomorrow : President Trump said Thursday he will visit Georgia to campaign for incumbent GOP Sens .
Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue , likely this weekend ahead of their Jan. 5 run-offs .
The commander in chief announced his plans while speaking to reporters following a Thanksgiving video conference with military members stationed abroad , saying he would head out “ probably Saturday.
” “ Speaking of Georgia , we ’ re going there .
I spoke with the two great senators today .
I ’ ll probably be going on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he planned to hold some type of campaign rally .
He went on to argue that people in the Peach State felt “ very disappointed we were robbed , ” appearing to allude to his losing Georgia to President-elect Joe Biden .
The big risk in Georgia is that Republican voters get discouraged about voting in a state where Trump claims Republican leaders like Gov .
Brian Kemp allowed massive fraud to steal the election from him .
That is no way to gin up enthusiasm for a second round of turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverse that buzzkill is to have Trump hit the stump to call his supporters to the polls .
Perdue and Loeffler need to get full MAGA backing to contend with what ’ s expected to be a better-than-usual turnout effort by Democrats on January 5th ; absentee ballot requests have already reached a record : That looks like leftover momentum from the 2020 general election , which points up one potential risk for putting Trump on the campaign trail — his ability to catalyze Democrat turnout , too .
The story of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a cooped-up electorate eager to engage , with Republicans winning almost everything but the presidency .
Democrats will only get limited mileage out of Trump without him actually being on the ballot , however , and even some of this early absentee enthusiasm might melt away .
If Trump can rekindle the enthusiasm in MAGA-land , it should work out as a net gain for the GOP .
The second piece of good news ?
Trump confirmed that he ’ ll abide by the Electoral College vote , eliminating a Democrat and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times assumed that Trump ’ s focus might shift to “ badly undermining ” his successor instead : President Trump said on Thursday that he would leave the White House if the Electoral College formalized Joseph R. Biden Jr. ’ s election as president , even as he reiterated baseless claims of fraud that he said would make it “ very hard ” to concede .
Taking questions from reporters for the first time since Election Day , Mr. Trump also threw himself into the battle for Senate control , saying he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates in two runoff elections scheduled there on Jan. 5 .
When asked whether he would leave office in January after the Electoral College cast its votes for Mr. Biden on Dec. 14 as expected , Mr. Trump replied : “ Certainly I will .
Certainly I will.
” … If Mr. Trump sees the end of his presidency as inevitable , he clearly still believes he can bolster his legacy — and badly undermine Mr. Biden , the man who is ending it — by helping to preserve a Republican Senate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Democratic agenda .
Ahem .
Perhaps Trump sees value in keeping Biden ’ s radical allies in check , and he ’ s hardly alone in that .
A 56/44 majority of registered voters nationwide want the Senate in Republican hands , and it ’ s pretty clear that 56 % of registered voters don ’ t want to “ badly undermine Mr. Biden.
” That includes 16 % of Democrats and 66 % of independents in the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll , taken two weeks after Election Day .
It also includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of women , majorities in every age group , and 44 % of urban voters .
There are plenty of reasons to worry about a lack of an effective check on a Biden/Harris administration , and the Senate is the last opportunity to have one in place .
Thankfully , Trump ’ s at least giving some attention to what still can be won at this stage of the cycle , even if he ’ s still trying to tilt at windmills simultaneously .
Update : Make that three pieces of good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published , Trump pushed back against calls to boycott the runoffs : Will that be enough to shut down the boycott efforts , as marginal as those might be ?

Republicans got two pieces of good news from Donald Trump yesterday. With the election mostly behind everyone except Trump himself, the GOP needs to focus on the last question still to be settled — control of the Senate. Two runoffs in Georgia on January 5th will determine whether Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer control the Senate floor, and Republicans worried that Trump might turn off his most dedicated followers with his repeated claims of election fraud in the Peach State.
Yesterday, Trump told reporters that he will hold at least one get-out-the-vote rally for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, as soon as tomorrow:
President Trump said Thursday he will visit Georgia to campaign for incumbent GOP Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, likely this weekend ahead of their Jan. 5 run-offs. The commander in chief announced his plans while speaking to reporters following a Thanksgiving video conference with military members stationed abroad, saying he would head out “probably Saturday.” “Speaking of Georgia, we’re going there. I spoke with the two great senators today. I’ll probably be going on Saturday,” Trump said, adding that he planned to hold some type of campaign rally. He went on to argue that people in the Peach State felt “very disappointed we were robbed,” appearing to allude to his losing Georgia to President-elect Joe Biden.
The big risk in Georgia is that Republican voters get discouraged about voting in a state where Trump claims Republican leaders like Gov. Brian Kemp allowed massive fraud to steal the election from him. That is no way to gin up enthusiasm for a second round of turnout, and about the only prescription to reverse that buzzkill is to have Trump hit the stump to call his supporters to the polls. Perdue and Loeffler need to get full MAGA backing to contend with what’s expected to be a better-than-usual turnout effort by Democrats on January 5th; absentee ballot requests have already reached a record:
News: As of today 762k absentee ballots have been requested for the Jan. 5th #gasen runoff. That’s 3X as many requests as all of 2018, per Georgia SOS office #gapol @wsbtv — Nicole Carr (@NicoleFCarr) November 23, 2020
That looks like leftover momentum from the 2020 general election, which points up one potential risk for putting Trump on the campaign trail — his ability to catalyze Democrat turnout, too. The story of the 2020 election appears to be high turnout by a cooped-up electorate eager to engage, with Republicans winning almost everything but the presidency. Democrats will only get limited mileage out of Trump without him actually being on the ballot, however, and even some of this early absentee enthusiasm might melt away. If Trump can rekindle the enthusiasm in MAGA-land, it should work out as a net gain for the GOP.
The second piece of good news? Trump confirmed that he’ll abide by the Electoral College vote, eliminating a Democrat and media talking point. The New York Times assumed that Trump’s focus might shift to “badly undermining” his successor instead:
President Trump said on Thursday that he would leave the White House if the Electoral College formalized Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election as president, even as he reiterated baseless claims of fraud that he said would make it “very hard” to concede. Taking questions from reporters for the first time since Election Day, Mr. Trump also threw himself into the battle for Senate control, saying he would soon travel to Georgia to support Republican candidates in two runoff elections scheduled there on Jan. 5. When asked whether he would leave office in January after the Electoral College cast its votes for Mr. Biden on Dec. 14 as expected, Mr. Trump replied: “Certainly I will. Certainly I will.” … If Mr. Trump sees the end of his presidency as inevitable, he clearly still believes he can bolster his legacy — and badly undermine Mr. Biden, the man who is ending it — by helping to preserve a Republican Senate that could serve as a wall against the new Democratic agenda.
Ahem. Perhaps Trump sees value in keeping Biden’s radical allies in check, and he’s hardly alone in that. A 56/44 majority of registered voters nationwide want the Senate in Republican hands, and it’s pretty clear that 56% of registered voters don’t want to “badly undermine Mr. Biden.” That includes 16% of Democrats and 66% of independents in the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, taken two weeks after Election Day. It also includes 30% of black voters, 54% of women, majorities in every age group, and 44% of urban voters. There are plenty of reasons to worry about a lack of an effective check on a Biden/Harris administration, and the Senate is the last opportunity to have one in place.
Thankfully, Trump’s at least giving some attention to what still can be won at this stage of the cycle, even if he’s still trying to tilt at windmills simultaneously.
Update: Make that three pieces of good news. Just as this was getting published, Trump pushed back against calls to boycott the runoffs:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1332337895584264197
Will that be enough to shut down the boycott efforts, as marginal as those might be?


hotair--2020-11-27--CDC issues warning on travel to Mexico - don't do it

The Center for Disease Control ( CDC ) issued a new travel warning this week – a Level 4 warning .
If you are considering a holiday vacation trip to Mexico , the CDC strongly advises against it .
There is a “ very high level of Covid-19 in Mexico.
” The agency has warned about travel , in general , this year and as the holidays approach the warnings are not stopping .
Air travel surged this week to levels not seen since the coronavirus pandemic began this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday .
Travelers are being warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-enter the United States upon return without a 14-day quarantine , even traveling to our southern neighbor , Mexico .
The CDC wants people to stay home to avoid exposure to COVID-19 .
Travel may increase your chance of getting and spreading COVID-19 .
Staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others from COVID-19 .
Airports , bus stations , train stations , and rest stops are all places travelers can be exposed to the virus .
These are also places where it can be hard to social distance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , during , and after travel to keep yourself and others from getting COVID-19 .
Delay travel if you are waiting for test results , test positive , are sick , or if you have been around someone with COVID-19 in the past 14 days .
If you are going to go to Mexico during the holiday season , a key component to travel preparation is testing .
The CDC recommends testing prior to leaving for Mexico and also prior to coming back home .
It is important to use a viral test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a viral test 1–3 days before your trip .
Do not travel if you are waiting for test results , test positive , or are sick .
Follow all entry requirements for your destination and provide any required or requested health information .
During travel , wear a mask , stay at least 6 feet from people who are not traveling with you , wash your hands often or use hand sanitizer , and watch your health for signs of illness .
Before traveling back to the United States , get tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel .
Follow all destination and airline recommendations or requirements .
Then , after your trip is over and you are home , get tested again in 3-5 days .
Stay home for 7 days after travel , increasing that time to 14 days at home if you don ’ t get tested .
If you know you were exposed to the virus during your trip , delay travel and quarantine from other people for 14 days .
Currently , Mexico has a confirmed case tally of just over 1 million and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very likely that both of these totals are significant undercounts due to the low rate of testing in Mexico .
The CDC guidelines are not Mexico ’ s requirements , though .
There is no requirement to show proof of a negative test result in order to enter Mexico and there is no quarantine mandate .
Tourism is almost 10 % of Mexico ’ s GDP .
Since the pandemic , the tourist industry has suffered greatly .
Businesses are struggling to remain open due to state-mandated occupancy rates and restrictions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the insurance company Allianz published last week found that Cancún , Quintana Roo , Los Cabos , Baja California Sur and Puerto Vallarta , Jalisco , are , in that order , the top three international destinations for U.S. Thanksgiving tourists .
The risk of coronavirus infection in Quintana Roo and Baja California Sur is currently yellow light “ medium , ” according to the federal government ’ s stoplight system , while it is orange light “ high ” in Jalisco .
There is undoubtedly a risk of coronavirus infection in Cancún @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all three destinations have recorded thousands of confirmed cases – for United States tourists but the risk that Americans will bring the virus with them would appear to be greater given the recent explosion in case numbers in the U.S .
When the pandemic first began , Mexico announced it may close its border with the United States but never did do that .
It ’ s important to remember that if you test positive for COVID-19 while outside of the United States , you may not be allowed back into the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days after your last known exposure .
You ’ ll have to make your own judgment if a few days of fun in the sun is worth that risk .

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) issued a new travel warning this week – a Level 4 warning. If you are considering a holiday vacation trip to Mexico, the CDC strongly advises against it. There is a “very high level of Covid-19 in Mexico.”
The agency has warned about travel, in general, this year and as the holidays approach the warnings are not stopping. Air travel surged this week to levels not seen since the coronavirus pandemic began this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
Travelers are being warned that they may not be allowed to re-enter the United States upon return without a 14-day quarantine, even traveling to our southern neighbor, Mexico. The CDC wants people to stay home to avoid exposure to COVID-19.
Travel may increase your chance of getting and spreading COVID-19. Staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others from COVID-19. Airports, bus stations, train stations, and rest stops are all places travelers can be exposed to the virus. These are also places where it can be hard to social distance. If you travel, take steps before, during, and after travel to keep yourself and others from getting COVID-19. Delay travel if you are waiting for test results, test positive, are sick, or if you have been around someone with COVID-19 in the past 14 days.
If you are going to go to Mexico during the holiday season, a key component to travel preparation is testing. The CDC recommends testing prior to leaving for Mexico and also prior to coming back home. It is important to use a viral test.
Before you travel, get tested with a viral test 1–3 days before your trip. Do not travel if you are waiting for test results, test positive, or are sick. Follow all entry requirements for your destination and provide any required or requested health information. During travel, wear a mask, stay at least 6 feet from people who are not traveling with you, wash your hands often or use hand sanitizer, and watch your health for signs of illness. Before traveling back to the United States, get tested with a viral test 1–3 days before travel. Follow all destination and airline recommendations or requirements.
Then, after your trip is over and you are home, get tested again in 3-5 days. Stay home for 7 days after travel, increasing that time to 14 days at home if you don’t get tested. If you know you were exposed to the virus during your trip, delay travel and quarantine from other people for 14 days.
Currently, Mexico has a confirmed case tally of just over 1 million and the official death toll is 102,739. It is very likely that both of these totals are significant undercounts due to the low rate of testing in Mexico. The CDC guidelines are not Mexico’s requirements, though. There is no requirement to show proof of a negative test result in order to enter Mexico and there is no quarantine mandate. Tourism is almost 10% of Mexico’s GDP. Since the pandemic, the tourist industry has suffered greatly. Businesses are struggling to remain open due to state-mandated occupancy rates and restrictions to ensure social distancing.
An analysis by the insurance company Allianz published last week found that Cancún, Quintana Roo, Los Cabos, Baja California Sur and Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, are, in that order, the top three international destinations for U.S. Thanksgiving tourists. The risk of coronavirus infection in Quintana Roo and Baja California Sur is currently yellow light “medium,” according to the federal government’s stoplight system, while it is orange light “high” in Jalisco. There is undoubtedly a risk of coronavirus infection in Cancún, Los Cabos and Puerto Vallarta – all three destinations have recorded thousands of confirmed cases – for United States tourists but the risk that Americans will bring the virus with them would appear to be greater given the recent explosion in case numbers in the U.S.
When the pandemic first began, Mexico announced it may close its border with the United States but never did do that.
It’s important to remember that if you test positive for COVID-19 while outside of the United States, you may not be allowed back into the country until you’ve quarantined for 14 days after your last known exposure. You’ll have to make your own judgment if a few days of fun in the sun is worth that risk.


hotair--2020-11-28--Breaking: PA supreme court tosses challenge to mail-in ballots

Thus endeth the end run around Pennsylvania ’ s election .
The Pennsylvania supreme court has dismissed with prejudice a challenge to its mail-in ballot system , ruling that the challenge came far too late for any remedy that involved invalidating ballots in the 2020 general election .
On that point , the court was unanimous , although two justices on the seven-member panel would like a lower court to look at the challenge to Act 77 ’ s constitutionality for future elections .
In the per curiam order , the court ruled that the plaintiffs should have challenged the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and allowing millions of voters to rely on it : The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable .
Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77 .
At the time this action was filed on November 21 , 2020 , millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nevertheless , Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth .
Thus , it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim .
Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners ’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme , as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.4 In case you missed this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this morning about the doctrine of laches .
Even in constitutional challenges , plaintiffs have to act in a timely manner to challenge processes and laws .
By not acting in a timely manner — Act 77 was signed into law on Halloween 2019 and was used in the June primary without any challenge — the plaintiffs forfeited any right to a remedy in the election they just completed .
This was a much more obvious laches problem than Perry et al v Virginia Elections Board , in which the 4th Circuit denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access law because their lawsuit came too close before the primary .
Justice Wecht points out that three of the plaintiffs participated in the system prior to the general election without complaint : Respondents ’ recitations lay bare Petitioners ’ want of diligence in this case .
Petitioners could have brought this action at any time between October 31 , 2019 , when Governor Wolf signed Act 77 into law , and April 28 , 2020 , when this Court still retained exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to it .
See Act 77 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 ) .
The claims then could have been adjudicated finally before the June primary , when no-excuse mail-in voting first took effect under Act 77—and certainly well before the General Election , when millions of Pennsylvania voters requested , received , and returned mail-in ballots for the first time .
Petitioners certainly knew all facts relevant to their present claims during that entire period .
Indeed , “ the procedures used to enact [ Act 77 ] were published in the Legislative Journal and available to the public ” since at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A.2d at 294 .
Likewise , “ [ t ] he provisions of the Constitution that the [ General Assembly ] purportedly violated were also readily available.
” See id .
And yet , Petitioners did nothing.3 Petitioner Wanda Logan ran and lost in a special election in February after Act 77 took effect .
And not only she , but U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell also participated in the 2020 primary elections under Act 77 , as modified by Act 12,4 in June of this year.5 But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constitutionality of Act 77 before then , or indeed before participating in and contemplating the results of the 2020 General Election .
Besides , Wecht writes , the plaintiffs might have an argument on constitutionality , but otherwise they have no evidence that the ballots themselves were fraudulent or otherwise in error : Petitioners can not carry their enormous burden .
They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted .
Notably , these Petitioners sought to intervene in a federal lawsuit in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneficiary of Petitioners ’ efforts to disenfranchise more than onethird of the Commonwealth ’ s electorate—explicitly disclaimed any allegation of fraud in the conduct of Pennsylvania ’ s General Election .
See Donald J. Trump for President , Inc. v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , No .
20-3371 ( 3d Cir .
Nov. 27 , 2020 ) , slip op .
at 2 ( “ [ A ] s [ Trump Presidential Campaign ] lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed , the Campaign ‘ doesn ’ t plead fraud .
.
.
.
[ T @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” ( quoting Mot .
To Dismiss Hr ’ g Tr .
118:19-20 , 137:18 ) ) .
The absence of fraud allegations from this matter—not to mention actual evidence of fraud—alone is fatal to Petitioners ’ claims .
… Having delayed this suit until two elections were conducted under Act 77 ’ s new , no-excuse mail-in voting system , Petitioners—several of whom participated in primary elections under this system without complaint—play a dangerous game at the expense of every Pennsylvania voter .
Petitioners waived their opportunity to challenge Act 77 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ lay by and gamble upon receiving a favorable decision of the electorate.
” Toney v. White , 488 F.2d 310 , 314 ( 5th Cir .
1973 ) ( en banc ) .
Unsatisfied with the results of that wager , they would now flip over the table , scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians .
It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters.12 Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedies .
What about the core complaint of Act 77 ’ s unconstitutionality ?
Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy also agree that the court isn ’ t about to overturn an already completed election .
They would have preferred a remand to the commonwealth court ( Pennsylvania ’ s appellate bench ) for a review of the complaint without the remedies sought by the plaintiffs .
That is , if the plaintiffs still had any interest in the constitutional issues : That said , there is a component of Appellees ’ original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment .
Additionally , I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme… To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course , upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further , I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand .
In this regard , relative to the declaratory component of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not invoke the doctrine of laches , since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized .
If the interest is truly in constitutional order — and that seems like a stretch here — a new set of plaintiffs could file suit to overturn Act 77 .
Saylor and Mundy are correct in noting that there does seem to be a serious question about its standing , and it is a question that should be heard by the court at some point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to disenfranchise nearly seven million voters with a complaint long after the implementation and two full exercises of that system simply because one side doesn ’ t like the outcome .
Update : It ’ s perhaps possible that the plaintiffs will try appealing this to federal courts , but there doesn ’ t appear to be any federal issue in play here .
The lawsuit cited issues in the state constitution with Act 77 , not the US constitution .
There doesn ’ t seem to be any reason for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially after the Third Circuit just shredded Rudy Giuliani ’ s case earlier in the week .

Thus endeth the end run around Pennsylvania’s election. The Pennsylvania supreme court has dismissed with prejudice a challenge to its mail-in ballot system, ruling that the challenge came far too late for any remedy that involved invalidating ballots in the 2020 general election. On that point, the court was unanimous, although two justices on the seven-member panel would like a lower court to look at the challenge to Act 77’s constitutionality for future elections.
In the per curiam order, the court ruled that the plaintiffs should have challenged the law at some point before participating in it, and allowing millions of voters to rely on it:
The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.4
In case you missed this point earlier, read what I wrote this morning about the doctrine of laches. Even in constitutional challenges, plaintiffs have to act in a timely manner to challenge processes and laws. By not acting in a timely manner — Act 77 was signed into law on Halloween 2019 and was used in the June primary without any challenge — the plaintiffs forfeited any right to a remedy in the election they just completed. This was a much more obvious laches problem than Perry et al v Virginia Elections Board, in which the 4th Circuit denied Republican candidates’ challenge to a ballot access law because their lawsuit came too close before the primary.
Justice Wecht points out that three of the plaintiffs participated in the system prior to the general election without complaint:
Respondents’ recitations lay bare Petitioners’ want of diligence in this case. Petitioners could have brought this action at any time between October 31, 2019, when Governor Wolf signed Act 77 into law, and April 28, 2020, when this Court still retained exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to it. See Act 77 § 13(2)-(3). The claims then could have been adjudicated finally before the June primary, when no-excuse mail-in voting first took effect under Act 77—and certainly well before the General Election, when millions of Pennsylvania voters requested, received, and returned mail-in ballots for the first time. Petitioners certainly knew all facts relevant to their present claims during that entire period. Indeed, “the procedures used to enact [Act 77] were published in the Legislative Journal and available to the public” since at least October 2019. See Stilp, 718 A.2d at 294. Likewise, “[t]he provisions of the Constitution that the [General Assembly] purportedly violated were also readily available.” See id. And yet, Petitioners did nothing.3 Petitioner Wanda Logan ran and lost in a special election in February after Act 77 took effect. And not only she, but U.S. Representative Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell also participated in the 2020 primary elections under Act 77, as modified by Act 12,4 in June of this year.5 But it occurred to none of them to challenge the constitutionality of Act 77 before then, or indeed before participating in and contemplating the results of the 2020 General Election.
Besides, Wecht writes, the plaintiffs might have an argument on constitutionality, but otherwise they have no evidence that the ballots themselves were fraudulent or otherwise in error:
Petitioners cannot carry their enormous burden. They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted. Notably, these Petitioners sought to intervene in a federal lawsuit in which the campaign of President Donald J. Trump—an ostensible beneficiary of Petitioners’ efforts to disenfranchise more than onethird of the Commonwealth’s electorate—explicitly disclaimed any allegation of fraud in the conduct of Pennsylvania’s General Election. See Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 20-3371 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2020), slip op. at 2 (“[A]s [Trump Presidential Campaign] lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign ‘doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is not a fraud case.’” (quoting Mot. To Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19-20, 137:18)). The absence of fraud allegations from this matter—not to mention actual evidence of fraud—alone is fatal to Petitioners’ claims. … Having delayed this suit until two elections were conducted under Act 77’s new, no-excuse mail-in voting system, Petitioners—several of whom participated in primary elections under this system without complaint—play a dangerous game at the expense of every Pennsylvania voter. Petitioners waived their opportunity to challenge Act 77 before the election, choosing instead to “lay by and gamble upon receiving a favorable decision of the electorate.” Toney v. White, 488 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1973) (en banc). Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians. It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters.12 Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.
That dispenses with the remedies. What about the core complaint of Act 77’s unconstitutionality? Chief Justice Saylor and Justice Mundy also agree that the court isn’t about to overturn an already completed election. They would have preferred a remand to the commonwealth court (Pennsylvania’s appellate bench) for a review of the complaint without the remedies sought by the plaintiffs. That is, if the plaintiffs still had any interest in the constitutional issues:
That said, there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme… To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course, upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further, I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand. In this regard, relative to the declaratory component of the request for relief, I also would not invoke the doctrine of laches, since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized.
If the interest is truly in constitutional order — and that seems like a stretch here — a new set of plaintiffs could file suit to overturn Act 77. Saylor and Mundy are correct in noting that there does seem to be a serious question about its standing, and it is a question that should be heard by the court at some point. It is not, however, a reason to disenfranchise nearly seven million voters with a complaint long after the implementation and two full exercises of that system simply because one side doesn’t like the outcome.
Update: It’s perhaps possible that the plaintiffs will try appealing this to federal courts, but there doesn’t appear to be any federal issue in play here. The lawsuit cited issues in the state constitution with Act 77, not the US constitution. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for a federal court to accept such a case, especially after the Third Circuit just shredded Rudy Giuliani’s case earlier in the week.


hotair--2020-11-28--Eric Clapton joins Van Morrison in lockdown song, Outrage from the left ensues

Van Morrison is trying to save live music during the coronavirus pandemic .
Lockdowns mandated by the U.K. government have inspired him to write three songs to express his opposition to them .
Proceeds from the songs will go to benefit his campaign to open music venues to full capacity .
The three songs were released in two-week intervals this fall .
The goal is to save both the venues and the livelihoods of musicians .
Morrison ’ s first three anti-lockdown songs are titled “ Born to Be Free ” , “ As I Walked Out ” , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another song in the collection now .
Morrison wrote the lyrics to “ Stand and Deliver , ” which will be performed by Eric Clapton .
Proceeds from the new single , set to be released on December 4 , will go to Morrison ’ s Lockdown Financial Hardship Fund to benefit musicians .
It ’ s all good , right ?
Nope .
Liberals ruin everything and that includes a musical collaboration between two legendary artists .
Neither men are in support of national lockdowns to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of personal freedom over government control with the song .
Clapton wants to support Morrison ’ s work toward bringing back live music in the U.K. Morrison received a lot of pushback from angry liberals who are unable to understand an individual ’ s objection to government policies that pick winners and losers .
Now Eric Clapton is receiving the same treatment from the perpetually outraged leftists on social media .
Yesterday , when the announcement of the December 4 song release was announced , old remarks from as far back as 1976 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clapton .
No doubt many who now rage against Clapton were not even born when he made the remarks .
The remarks were exposed on Twitter by singer-songwriter Deren Ney who posted some of them .
Ney is a white BLM activist according to his Twitter bio .
He said all the remarks couldn ’ t fit into just one screenshot .
Clearly , the sentiments are racist and ugly .
No artist would be allowed these expressions in today ’ s world .
Not to put too fine of a point on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who say there is no room for white people in today ’ s world .
Clapton ’ s remarks were made in 1976 .
The world has changed a lot since then .
According to an apology , he issued years later , his problems with addiction were likely in play .
The three-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has apologized for the remarks .
No good deed goes unpunished .
Morrison and Clapton are trying to give back to an industry that provided well for them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for individual rights and common sense ways to handle the virus .
Instead of trying to cancel two 75-year-old artists , those who are ok with how the shutdowns are going can just not support the song with a purchase .

Van Morrison is trying to save live music during the coronavirus pandemic. Lockdowns mandated by the U.K. government have inspired him to write three songs to express his opposition to them. Proceeds from the songs will go to benefit his campaign to open music venues to full capacity. The three songs were released in two-week intervals this fall. The goal is to save both the venues and the livelihoods of musicians.
Morrison’s first three anti-lockdown songs are titled “Born to Be Free”, “As I Walked Out”, and “No More Lockdown”. There is another song in the collection now. Morrison wrote the lyrics to “Stand and Deliver,” which will be performed by Eric Clapton. Proceeds from the new single, set to be released on December 4, will go to Morrison’s Lockdown Financial Hardship Fund to benefit musicians. It’s all good, right? Nope. Liberals ruin everything and that includes a musical collaboration between two legendary artists.
Neither men are in support of national lockdowns to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic. Both are making a statement in favor of personal freedom over government control with the song. Clapton wants to support Morrison’s work toward bringing back live music in the U.K.
“There are many of us who support Van and his endeavors to save live music; he is an inspiration,” Clapton said in a statement Friday. “We must stand up and be counted because we need to find a way out of this mess. The alternative is not worth thinking about. Live music might never recover.”
Morrison received a lot of pushback from angry liberals who are unable to understand an individual’s objection to government policies that pick winners and losers. Now Eric Clapton is receiving the same treatment from the perpetually outraged leftists on social media. Yesterday, when the announcement of the December 4 song release was announced, old remarks from as far back as 1976 surfaced in order to try and cancel Clapton. No doubt many who now rage against Clapton were not even born when he made the remarks. The remarks were exposed on Twitter by singer-songwriter Deren Ney who posted some of them. Ney is a white BLM activist according to his Twitter bio. He said all the remarks couldn’t fit into just one screenshot.
“Stop Britain from becoming a Black colony. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white,” Clapton, now-75, said at the time. “The Black wogs and coons and Arabs and f—king Jamaicans don’t belong here, we don’t want them here.”
All the racism wouldn’t fit in one screenshot pic.twitter.com/8xu2hZkt6S — Deren Ney (@DerenNey) November 27, 2020
Clearly, the sentiments are racist and ugly. No artist would be allowed these expressions in today’s world. Not to put too fine of a point on it but today it is some black people who say there is no room for white people in today’s world. Clapton’s remarks were made in 1976. The world has changed a lot since then. According to an apology, he issued years later, his problems with addiction were likely in play. The three-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has apologized for the remarks.
In 2018, the musician expressed regret for his “chauvinistic” comments at a Q&A following a London screening of Lili Zanuck’s bio-doc Eric Clapton: Life in 12 Bars. Said a “disgusted” Clapton, “I was so ashamed of who I was, a kind of semi-racist, which didn’t make sense. Half of my friends were black, I dated a black woman, and I championed black music.” The singer blamed his past comments on addiction and a deep self-loathing. Said Clapton, “I sabotaged everything I got involved with.”
No good deed goes unpunished. Morrison and Clapton are trying to give back to an industry that provided well for them. Along the way, they are standing up for individual rights and common sense ways to handle the virus. Instead of trying to cancel two 75-year-old artists, those who are ok with how the shutdowns are going can just not support the song with a purchase.


hotair--2020-11-28--Joe Biden is talking about civility but his left flank isn't interested

In a speech earlier this month , Joe Biden talked about civility and lowering the temperature of the national discourse .
“ It ’ s time to put away the harsh rhetoric , to lower the temperature , to see each other again , to listen to each other again , to make progress , we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy , ” he said .
He added , “ We are not enemies .
We are Americans.
” Some Democrats seem surprised that Republicans aren ’ t convinced he means it but it ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you look around there are plenty of Biden voters who are already urging him to drop the civility and fight .
About a week ago the Guardian published this piece by a Princeton professor named Jan-Werner Mueller .
It ’ s titled “ End the odes to political ‘ civility ’ .
Do you really think Republicans will reciprocate ?
” After acknowledging Biden ’ s statements about civility Mueller then quickly shifts to suggesting the problem isn ’ t partisanship but disrespect : Fierce partisanship is not in itself a symptom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : we would not need democracy if we did not have deep disagreements and divisions – which are inevitable , as long as we live in a free society .
The problem arises when disagreement translates into disrespect .
Disrespect doesn ’ t mean just being impolite ; it means denying the standing of particular citizens – and , as a logical next step , actively trying to disenfranchise people .
Republicans have been working towards a situation in which a combination of voter suppression and what the philosopher Kate Manne has called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private political intimidation tacitly endorsed by Trump – shrinks the political power and relevance of many Americans in a way favorable to the interests of the Republican party .
We had the highest turnout ever this year .
Disenfranchisement clearly didn ’ t determine the outcome .
If you follow that second link you ’ ll see it ’ s a piece from 2016 which is largely about abortion politics .
Specifically , the piece argues that pro-life politics are really just a form of misogyny .
A way to punish women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Mueller ’ s argument is really an argument against civility .
If being pro-life counts as disrespect , as beyond the pale , then clearly we must all be pro-choice in order to have any hope of getting along .
And the unspoken corollary of this idea is that if some people refuse to be pro-choice then they are refusing to get along and don ’ t deserve any respect in turn .
In fact , that ’ s the point of an opinion piece published today by NBC News .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racism taught me to stop being nice and embrace my rage.
” In the piece , the author describes how a silent protest against abortion caused her to fly into a rage and scream at a nun : One Tuesday last month , as I ran up the main drag of my small suburb of Cincinnati , I passed a scene that lit hot fury in me : Several hundred small white crosses sat in the yard of the big Catholic church on the corner with a sign saying they represented abortions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , these crosses appear the first Sunday in October for what U.S. Catholics call “ Respect Life Week , ” and every year , I am appalled by the display… “ Sister !
” I shouted at the nun who happened to be crossing the street as I ran by… “ This is shameful !
” I threw my hands toward the crosses .
“ Where are the crosses for the 220,000 dead from the coronavirus , while Trump — who I know this church supports — does nothing ?
” I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Black people lynched by police ?
For the children who died at the border and for the parents and kids separated ?
” You get the idea .
If the church and everyone else would just agree with progressives about every hot-button issues , the left wouldn ’ t find it necessary to scream at strangers .
This is , ironically , the excuse of the abusive husband who blames his wife for his own violent and abusive behavior : Do you see what you made me do ?
!
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while , the author eventually calms down and during a chance meeting later she apologizes .
Nevertheless , the point of the piece is clearly that it ’ s right to embrace that rage and to try to direct it more often at the people who deserve it .
Rage is good when people refuse to agree with you .
When they offend you with their differing opinions .
Tying this back to the Guardian piece , rage is good when people show disrespect .
What ’ s striking is that the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is a tremendous amount of disrespect constantly emanating from the left .
Recently the mayor of Longmont , Colorado suggested that hospitals in his city should consider refusing to take patients from a neighboring county that had voted to refuse to act on the Governor ’ s shut down orders .
In essence , he was suggesting that if some businesses refused to shutter , anyone who got sick should be allowed to go without treatment and possibly die for their sin of disobeying the government .
That ’ s disrespect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying he had succeeded in bringing light to the issue .
But a liberal citizen wrote to a local paper warning about the danger of the mayor ’ s smug attitude : Clouds of smug , like the one emanating from Longmont ’ s mayor , pose as great a threat to our well-being as the coronavirus and global warming , because they keep us from actually talking to each other in a civil way .
Liberal though I am , I well understand the anger of so many of my red-voting neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to by the progressive elites .
I sincerely hope that Mayor Bagley is not speaking for most of the citizens of his city and county when he expressed such disdain for his Weld County neighbors .
In a column published today , Ben Shapiro pointed out how the left seems eager to return to an era of smug superiority where the left and the media work hand in hand : The media suggested we needed to return to the old “ normal ” — by which they meant a system in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie to the American public about the content of policy ( “ If you like your doctor , you will be able to keep your doctor !
” — former President Barack Obama ) ; in which conventional wisdom was treated as gospel truth , no matter how wrong it was ( “ There will be no advanced and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process ” — John Kerry on Israel ) ; and in which cozy relationships between corporations and government were considered de rigueur .
They meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions were put off for another day ; in which scandals were brushed off without a second thought ; in which even anti-journalistic efforts by Democrats were dismissed as out of hand .
It was a system in which constitutional boundaries were routinely overridden in the name of left-wing policy priorities ; in which nasty rhetoric by Democrats was written off as a natural byproduct of the right ’ s innate evil ; in which alternative news sources were treated as conspiracy outlets .
That ’ s the “ normal ” the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on the left counseling Biden and Democrats to be less civil seem to think their lack of civility is well justified .
It never seems to occur to them that people on the right feel the same way and with good reason .
Instead , many of them reduce the right to a bunch of cartoon villains whose main problem is that they fail to show the left enough respect .
I guess that ’ s easier than dealing with the genuine differences of opinion on issues like abortion , defunding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , how to deal with COVID-19 without destroying the economy .
These aren ’ t settled issues and the left ’ s smug condescension toward the right won ’ t make them any more settled in the next four years .

In a speech earlier this month, Joe Biden talked about civility and lowering the temperature of the national discourse. “It’s time to put away the harsh rhetoric, to lower the temperature, to see each other again, to listen to each other again, to make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy,” he said. He added, “We are not enemies. We are Americans.”
Some Democrats seem surprised that Republicans aren’t convinced he means it but it’s really not hard to imagine why. If you look around there are plenty of Biden voters who are already urging him to drop the civility and fight. About a week ago the Guardian published this piece by a Princeton professor named Jan-Werner Mueller. It’s titled “End the odes to political ‘civility’. Do you really think Republicans will reciprocate?” After acknowledging Biden’s statements about civility Mueller then quickly shifts to suggesting the problem isn’t partisanship but disrespect:
Fierce partisanship is not in itself a symptom of politics gone wrong. On the contrary: we would not need democracy if we did not have deep disagreements and divisions – which are inevitable, as long as we live in a free society. The problem arises when disagreement translates into disrespect. Disrespect doesn’t mean just being impolite; it means denying the standing of particular citizens – and, as a logical next step, actively trying to disenfranchise people. Republicans have been working towards a situation in which a combination of voter suppression and what the philosopher Kate Manne has called “trickle-down aggression” – acts of private political intimidation tacitly endorsed by Trump – shrinks the political power and relevance of many Americans in a way favorable to the interests of the Republican party.
We had the highest turnout ever this year. Disenfranchisement clearly didn’t determine the outcome. If you follow that second link you’ll see it’s a piece from 2016 which is largely about abortion politics. Specifically, the piece argues that pro-life politics are really just a form of misogyny. A way to punish women. And already I think you can see why Mueller’s argument is really an argument against civility.
If being pro-life counts as disrespect, as beyond the pale, then clearly we must all be pro-choice in order to have any hope of getting along. And the unspoken corollary of this idea is that if some people refuse to be pro-choice then they are refusing to get along and don’t deserve any respect in turn. In fact, that’s the point of an opinion piece published today by NBC News. It’s titled “Trump, Covid-19 and racism taught me to stop being nice and embrace my rage.” In the piece, the author describes how a silent protest against abortion caused her to fly into a rage and scream at a nun:
One Tuesday last month, as I ran up the main drag of my small suburb of Cincinnati, I passed a scene that lit hot fury in me: Several hundred small white crosses sat in the yard of the big Catholic church on the corner with a sign saying they represented abortions performed in the United States. Every year, these crosses appear the first Sunday in October for what U.S. Catholics call “Respect Life Week,” and every year, I am appalled by the display… “Sister!” I shouted at the nun who happened to be crossing the street as I ran by… “This is shameful!” I threw my hands toward the crosses. “Where are the crosses for the 220,000 dead from the coronavirus, while Trump — who I know this church supports — does nothing?” I continued. “Where are the crosses for Black people lynched by police? For the children who died at the border and for the parents and kids separated?”
You get the idea. If the church and everyone else would just agree with progressives about every hot-button issues, the left wouldn’t find it necessary to scream at strangers. This is, ironically, the excuse of the abusive husband who blames his wife for his own violent and abusive behavior: Do you see what you made me do?!
So, after shouting at the nun for a while, the author eventually calms down and during a chance meeting later she apologizes. Nevertheless, the point of the piece is clearly that it’s right to embrace that rage and to try to direct it more often at the people who deserve it. Rage is good when people refuse to agree with you. When they offend you with their differing opinions. Tying this back to the Guardian piece, rage is good when people show disrespect.
What’s striking is that the people making these arguments never seem to realize that there is a tremendous amount of disrespect constantly emanating from the left. Recently the mayor of Longmont, Colorado suggested that hospitals in his city should consider refusing to take patients from a neighboring county that had voted to refuse to act on the Governor’s shut down orders. In essence, he was suggesting that if some businesses refused to shutter, anyone who got sick should be allowed to go without treatment and possibly die for their sin of disobeying the government. That’s disrespect.
The mayor eventually walked that back saying he had succeeded in bringing light to the issue. But a liberal citizen wrote to a local paper warning about the danger of the mayor’s smug attitude:
Clouds of smug, like the one emanating from Longmont’s mayor, pose as great a threat to our well-being as the coronavirus and global warming, because they keep us from actually talking to each other in a civil way. Liberal though I am, I well understand the anger of so many of my red-voting neighbors. They have felt discounted and condescended to by the progressive elites. I sincerely hope that Mayor Bagley is not speaking for most of the citizens of his city and county when he expressed such disdain for his Weld County neighbors.
In a column published today, Ben Shapiro pointed out how the left seems eager to return to an era of smug superiority where the left and the media work hand in hand:
The media suggested we needed to return to the old “normal” — by which they meant a system in which the media and Democrats worked hand-in-glove together to lie to the American public about the content of policy (“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor!” — former President Barack Obama); in which conventional wisdom was treated as gospel truth, no matter how wrong it was (“There will be no advanced and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process” — John Kerry on Israel); and in which cozy relationships between corporations and government were considered de rigueur. They meant a system in which all difficult political questions were put off for another day; in which scandals were brushed off without a second thought; in which even anti-journalistic efforts by Democrats were dismissed as out of hand. It was a system in which constitutional boundaries were routinely overridden in the name of left-wing policy priorities; in which nasty rhetoric by Democrats was written off as a natural byproduct of the right’s innate evil; in which alternative news sources were treated as conspiracy outlets. That’s the “normal” the media and Democrats wanted.
Again, the people on the left counseling Biden and Democrats to be less civil seem to think their lack of civility is well justified. It never seems to occur to them that people on the right feel the same way and with good reason. Instead, many of them reduce the right to a bunch of cartoon villains whose main problem is that they fail to show the left enough respect. I guess that’s easier than dealing with the genuine differences of opinion on issues like abortion, defunding the police, immigration policy and, yes, how to deal with COVID-19 without destroying the economy. These aren’t settled issues and the left’s smug condescension toward the right won’t make them any more settled in the next four years.


hotair--2020-11-28--TIME's Person of the Year nominations are out - Here is who should win

TIME magazine ’ s 2020 Person of the Year nominations are out and the public voting period has begun .
The usual suspects are on the list and it is heavy with liberals , Democrats , political figures , and celebrities .
This year , thanks to the coronavirus pandemic , medical workers and first responders are up for the honor .
There is someone for everyone on the list of nominees .
The voting period is underway now .
The general public can vote for their selection online by visiting TIME ’ s website and selecting “ yes ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominees .
A winner will be declared on Dec. 10 .
The pandemic and the presidential election both played a large part in the nominees .
Both President Trump and Joe Biden were nominated , as was Kamala Harris .
Dr. Fauci is on the list .
Fauci and essential workers were tied for the highest percentage of yes votes with 81 % , with Kamala receiving 68 % , Biden at 64 % , Black Lives Matter activists at 61 % , and Stacy Abrams at 59 % as of Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong start .
Governors Cuomo and Whitmer are nominated .
Whitmer is the governor of Michigan who has unleashed her inner authoritarian during the pandemic .
Cuomo killed thousands of elderly people in nursing homes with his COVID-19 policies .
Yet , liberals would like to see them rewarded for their performances in office .
Stacy Abrams , the self-appointed governor of Georgia , is credited for registering and organizing a record number of black voters in Georgia and increasing voter participation for the Democrats .
Black Lives Matter is nominated for protesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests and riots that continue today .
Mitch McConnell also made the list .
Other politicians include AOC , Senator Elizabeth Warren , and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern .
If I was planning to vote , and I ’ m not , I would choose President Trump as the 2020 Person of the Year .
The winners have mostly been from the political world in recent years , rather directly or indirectly , and Trump won the title in 2016 .
That year the title went to him for pulling off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential election .
He is the first non-political person to win the presidency since Eisenhower .
Since then the winners have been The Silence Breakers in 2017 who spoke out against sexual abuse and harassment , The Guardians in 2018 who are journalists who faced persecution , arrest or murder for their reporting , and last year , in 2019 , it was Greta Thunberg , the precocious teenage climate change scold .
The winner is supposed to be recognized for an accomplishment or accomplishments .
With the pandemic being the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think Trump is a likely candidate for the title this year .
We can argue over his handling of the pandemic in his communication to Americans or his overly-optimistic attitude of a quick recovery from the virus , but what can not be denied is his focus on getting a vaccine and therapeutics to treat the coronavirus .
He deserves recognition for Operation Warp Speed .
Trump isn ’ t a politician so he thinks outside the box .
Unlike the previous administration , he didn ’ t just give up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s pick for his chief of staff , was in charge of dealing with two pandemics during the Obama-Biden administration .
He failed and admits it .
The Obama administration just got lucky that Ebola didn ’ t come here from Africa in the numbers that were feared at the time , and the N1H1 virus died out as a seasonal virus , like the flu , and it wasn ’ t as deadly as it was originally thought to be .
Over the course of a year , the H1N1 flu infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12,469 lives , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Trump put Vice-President Pence in charge of the White House coronavirus task force .
Trump convinced manufacturers and businesses to produce PPE and created Operation Warp Speed , a public-private partnership to develop a vaccine .
A lot of things are called historic but this accomplishment truly is historic .
Not one but several vaccines are in the final stages of development .
By the end of the year , vaccines will be administered to millions of Americans .
Eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a vaccination as they become available .
A second accomplishment for which Trump should be recognized is the Abraham Accord .
This is a joint statement between Israel , the United Arab Emirates and the United States reached in August .
Since then other countries in the Middle East have drawn up their own agreements .
It is the first normalization of relations between an Arab country and Israel since that of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 .
Bahrain and Israel signed an agreement on September 11 , 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ formally agreed to normalize ties with Israel .
Oman will likely be the next country to normalize relations with Israel .
All of this will be especially important to Israel during the Biden-Harris administration , given Biden ’ s history of appeasing Iran .
For those two reasons , Trump deserves the Person of the Year award .
Every year there are plenty of deserving individuals and groups .
This year if I was to guess , I ’ d guess that either Fauci or medical workers and first responders will likely be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too divided and angry to award the honor to Trump , which is a shame .

TIME magazine’s 2020 Person of the Year nominations are out and the public voting period has begun. The usual suspects are on the list and it is heavy with liberals, Democrats, political figures, and celebrities. This year, thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, medical workers and first responders are up for the honor.
There is someone for everyone on the list of nominees. The voting period is underway now. The general public can vote for their selection online by visiting TIME’s website and selecting “yes” or “no” for each of the nominees. A winner will be declared on Dec. 10. The pandemic and the presidential election both played a large part in the nominees. Both President Trump and Joe Biden were nominated, as was Kamala Harris. Dr. Fauci is on the list. Fauci and essential workers were tied for the highest percentage of yes votes with 81%, with Kamala receiving 68%, Biden at 64%, Black Lives Matter activists at 61%, and Stacy Abrams at 59% as of Wednesday, so liberals are off to a strong start.
Governors Cuomo and Whitmer are nominated. Whitmer is the governor of Michigan who has unleashed her inner authoritarian during the pandemic. Cuomo killed thousands of elderly people in nursing homes with his COVID-19 policies. Yet, liberals would like to see them rewarded for their performances in office. Stacy Abrams, the self-appointed governor of Georgia, is credited for registering and organizing a record number of black voters in Georgia and increasing voter participation for the Democrats. Black Lives Matter is nominated for protesting the death of George Floyd and the protests and riots that continue today. Mitch McConnell also made the list.
Other politicians include AOC, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.
Additional nominees include WNBA basketball star Sue Bird, NASCAR’s Bubba Wallace, singer Ariana Grande, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, South Korean pop group BTS and NBA superstar LeBron James. The list of 80 nominees also includes some surprise candidates, including Meghan Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, according to The Express. Other groups and people include: Soccer player Marcus Ashford — who launched a free school meals campaign — the World Health Organization and frontline health care workers, the report said.
If I was planning to vote, and I’m not, I would choose President Trump as the 2020 Person of the Year. The winners have mostly been from the political world in recent years, rather directly or indirectly, and Trump won the title in 2016. That year the title went to him for pulling off a historical win against Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. He is the first non-political person to win the presidency since Eisenhower. Since then the winners have been The Silence Breakers in 2017 who spoke out against sexual abuse and harassment, The Guardians in 2018 who are journalists who faced persecution, arrest or murder for their reporting, and last year, in 2019, it was Greta Thunberg, the precocious teenage climate change scold.
The winner is supposed to be recognized for an accomplishment or accomplishments. With the pandemic being the most significant factor in our lives in 2020, I think Trump is a likely candidate for the title this year. We can argue over his handling of the pandemic in his communication to Americans or his overly-optimistic attitude of a quick recovery from the virus, but what cannot be denied is his focus on getting a vaccine and therapeutics to treat the coronavirus. He deserves recognition for Operation Warp Speed. Trump isn’t a politician so he thinks outside the box. Unlike the previous administration, he didn’t just give up. Ron Klain, Joe Biden’s pick for his chief of staff, was in charge of dealing with two pandemics during the Obama-Biden administration. He failed and admits it. The Obama administration just got lucky that Ebola didn’t come here from Africa in the numbers that were feared at the time, and the N1H1 virus died out as a seasonal virus, like the flu, and it wasn’t as deadly as it was originally thought to be. Over the course of a year, the H1N1 flu infected 60 million Americans, but claimed only 12,469 lives, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Trump put Vice-President Pence in charge of the White House coronavirus task force. Trump convinced manufacturers and businesses to produce PPE and created Operation Warp Speed, a public-private partnership to develop a vaccine. A lot of things are called historic but this accomplishment truly is historic. Not one but several vaccines are in the final stages of development. By the end of the year, vaccines will be administered to millions of Americans. Eventually, every American will be encouraged to get a vaccination as they become available.
A second accomplishment for which Trump should be recognized is the Abraham Accord. This is a joint statement between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States reached in August. Since then other countries in the Middle East have drawn up their own agreements. It is the first normalization of relations between an Arab country and Israel since that of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. Bahrain and Israel signed an agreement on September 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, Sudan formally agreed to normalize ties with Israel. Oman will likely be the next country to normalize relations with Israel. All of this will be especially important to Israel during the Biden-Harris administration, given Biden’s history of appeasing Iran.
For those two reasons, Trump deserves the Person of the Year award.
Every year there are plenty of deserving individuals and groups. This year if I was to guess, I’d guess that either Fauci or medical workers and first responders will likely be given the recognition. The U.S. is too divided and angry to award the honor to Trump, which is a shame.