hotair--2020-09-11--Breaking: Trump to announce Bahrain joining agreement to normalize relation

Breaking: Trump to announce Bahrain joining agreement to normalize relations with Israel? Update: Axios confirms

Set the table for three on Tuesday , at least according to the Jerusalem Post .
The White House will host a signing ceremony for normalizing relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday , but it now appears that Bahrain will also sign an agreement recognizing Israel .
Reportedly , Trump will announce this at some time today : US President Donald Trump is expected to announce a historic normalization agreement between Israel and Bahrain on Friday , The Jerusalem Post has learned .
A source in the know confirmed that Bahrain Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a White House ceremony on Tuesday where Israel and the United Arab Emirates will formally establish ties .
“ You ’ ll be hearing other countries coming in over a relatively short period of time .
And you could have peace in the Middle East , ” Trump told a White House news conference on Thursday .
Trump said it was possible another country could soon join the diplomatic accord between Israel and the United Arab Emirates .
However , he did not disclose the name of the country that might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Saudi Arabia would eventually do so .
That makes three Israeli media outlets to report this development .
Raphael Ahren of the Times of Israel also reported on Twitter that Trump would announce the deal with Bahrain today , as did Amichai Stein , the diplomatic beat reporter for Kan. Ahren reported that the announcement would come today at 1 pm ET : US President Donald Trump is expected to announce on Friday that Bahrain is joining the United Arab Emirates in normalizing ties with Israel , two officials familiar with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the officials , Trump will make the announcement at the White House at 1 p.m. Eastern time .
It was not immediately clear whether Bahrain will join the formal signing of the so-called UAE-Israel Abraham Accord at the White House on September 15 , or simply issue a statement about its intention to establish relations with Israel .
Stein and the Jerusalem Post sound pretty convinced that Bahrain will take part in Tuesday ’ s signing ceremony .
That would make sense , especially since neither country has exactly made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to the nonsense surrounding Israel ’ s existence in the region .
The Arab League rebuke of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians this week certainly made that clear enough ; the Sunni Arab nations have run out of patience .
Jared Kushner said the same thing Wednesday .
“ We ’ ll see what happens and for how long , you know , they want to do it , ” Kushner said about the hesitancy to join the UAE in recognizing Israel .
“ But I will say that a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership.
” If Bahrain intends on joining the table on Tuesday , it ’ s now only a matter of time before the Saudis do the same .
Bahrain has a close relationship with the Saudis , and it had been expected that they would not act unless Riyadh approved it .
This seems like the Saudis are tacitly approving these moves , almost certainly as a result of the Trump administration ’ s decision to rally them together against Iran .
The Saudis might hold out to force Abbas to come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now in a powerful position to exert that kind of leverage , and they might even decide to demand that the Palestinians stop engaging with Iran altogether as their own prerequisite to hold off on recognizing Israel .
That would put Hamas in a tight squeeze between Egypt , the Saudis , Israel , and the US , along with the Fatah faction that runs the West Bank .
Partnering with Iran turned out to be the biggest strategic mistake the Palestinians made since 1948 — and that ’ s really saying something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been for decades .
When they finally take it , Abbas and the PA will have to explain decades of hardship they created in promising maximalist results while eventually taking a deal they could have had twenty , thirty , or forty years ago .
Good luck with that one , Abu Mazen .
Update : Axios appears to be the first US outlet to independently confirm the story , or at least the first to publish a confirmation : The White House will announce later today that Bahrain is joining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel , senior Israeli and Arab officials tell Axios , and a Trump administration official confirmed .
Driving the news : Israeli officials say that in the last two weeks , the White House has been pressing Bahrain to follow the UAE , which announced last month that it would open full diplomatic relations with Israel .
President Trump ’ s senior adviser Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Manama recently and asked the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain to normalize relations with Israel , sources tell Axios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign off on this .
Watch Riyadh carefully the next few days , and don ’ t be surprised if Abbas makes a flight there sometime soon .

Set the table for three on Tuesday, at least according to the Jerusalem Post. The White House will host a signing ceremony for normalizing relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday, but it now appears that Bahrain will also sign an agreement recognizing Israel. Reportedly, Trump will announce this at some time today:
US President Donald Trump is expected to announce a historic normalization agreement between Israel and Bahrain on Friday, The Jerusalem Post has learned. A source in the know confirmed that Bahrain Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa would be in Washington ahead of a White House ceremony on Tuesday where Israel and the United Arab Emirates will formally establish ties. “You’ll be hearing other countries coming in over a relatively short period of time. And you could have peace in the Middle East,” Trump told a White House news conference on Thursday. Trump said it was possible another country could soon join the diplomatic accord between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. However, he did not disclose the name of the country that might be the next to join, but predicted that Saudi Arabia would eventually do so.
That makes three Israeli media outlets to report this development. Raphael Ahren of the Times of Israel also reported on Twitter that Trump would announce the deal with Bahrain today, as did Amichai Stein, the diplomatic beat reporter for Kan. Ahren reported that the announcement would come today at 1 pm ET:
US President Donald Trump is expected to announce on Friday that Bahrain is joining the United Arab Emirates in normalizing ties with Israel, two officials familiar with the matter told The Times of Israel. According to the officials, Trump will make the announcement at the White House at 1 p.m. Eastern time. It was not immediately clear whether Bahrain will join the formal signing of the so-called UAE-Israel Abraham Accord at the White House on September 15, or simply issue a statement about its intention to establish relations with Israel.
Stein and the Jerusalem Post sound pretty convinced that Bahrain will take part in Tuesday’s signing ceremony. That would make sense, especially since neither country has exactly made a secret of their desire to put an end to the nonsense surrounding Israel’s existence in the region. The Arab League rebuke of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians this week certainly made that clear enough; the Sunni Arab nations have run out of patience.
Jared Kushner said the same thing Wednesday. “We’ll see what happens and for how long, you know, they want to do it,” Kushner said about the hesitancy to join the UAE in recognizing Israel. “But I will say that a lot of people are losing patience with the Palestinian leadership.”
If Bahrain intends on joining the table on Tuesday, it’s now only a matter of time before the Saudis do the same. Bahrain has a close relationship with the Saudis, and it had been expected that they would not act unless Riyadh approved it. This seems like the Saudis are tacitly approving these moves, almost certainly as a result of the Trump administration’s decision to rally them together against Iran.
The Saudis might hold out to force Abbas to come to the table himself. They’re now in a powerful position to exert that kind of leverage, and they might even decide to demand that the Palestinians stop engaging with Iran altogether as their own prerequisite to hold off on recognizing Israel. That would put Hamas in a tight squeeze between Egypt, the Saudis, Israel, and the US, along with the Fatah faction that runs the West Bank. Partnering with Iran turned out to be the biggest strategic mistake the Palestinians made since 1948 — and that’s really saying something.
The solution is obvious … and has been for decades. When they finally take it, Abbas and the PA will have to explain decades of hardship they created in promising maximalist results while eventually taking a deal they could have had twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Good luck with that one, Abu Mazen.
Update: Axios appears to be the first US outlet to independently confirm the story, or at least the first to publish a confirmation:
The White House will announce later today that Bahrain is joining the United Arab Emirates in normalizing ties with Israel, senior Israeli and Arab officials tell Axios, and a Trump administration official confirmed. Driving the news: Israeli officials say that in the last two weeks, the White House has been pressing Bahrain to follow the UAE, which announced last month that it would open full diplomatic relations with Israel. President Trump’s senior adviser Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Manama recently and asked the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain to normalize relations with Israel, sources tell Axios.
The Saudis still likely had to sign off on this. Watch Riyadh carefully the next few days, and don’t be surprised if Abbas makes a flight there sometime soon.


hotair--2020-09-11--Kansas City fans boo during moment of silence for racial equality before NFL opener

They allowed 17,000 masked-up fans into the game , which seemed defensible until the crowd shots revealed that many of those fans were congregated together in the stands .
What was the point of limiting capacity to enable social distancing if fans weren ’ t actually going to distance themselves ?
This was the scene when the Houston Texans joined the Chiefs on the field for a moment of silent solidarity in support of racial equality before the game .
This is the NFL ’ s official clip of that moment ; you ’ ll need to boost your audio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more evident during the live broadcast .
Whether the league deliberately tried to conceal the crowd response by fiddling with the sound for this clip or whether it just ended up that way , I leave for your consideration .
Some of the players definitely heard it : “ The moment of unity I personally thought was good .
The booing was unfortunate in that moment , ” Texans defensive end J.J. Watt said after the Chiefs emerged with a 34-20 victory .
“ I don ’ t fully understand that .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing involved with that besides two teams coming together to show unity.
” … “ I didn ’ t really hear the booing .
I didn ’ t notice that , ” Texans coach Bill O ’ Brien said .
“ I just I thought that that was a nice thing to do .
So I ’ m not sure why they would do that .
Maybe they were just booing us because we had just come on the field as the visiting team .
But yeah , I thought that that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one theory , that the booing was aimed not at the moment of silence but at the Texans , who remained in the locker room during the national anthem and then came out on the field to join the Chiefs for the moment of silence .
But that ’ s hard to believe .
Surely the razzing of the visiting team would have stopped when the announcer asked for quiet during an expression of unity .
Another theory is that the fans weren ’ t booing the players ’ demonstration , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the stands .
The audio in this clip is much better than the NFL ’ s and lends a bit of credence to that .
The booing doesn ’ t start until 28 seconds in and only then after the shouting begins .
It tails off reasonably quickly too , replaced by sporadic clapping and then more claps after the announcer says “ thank you.
” If the idea was to express disapproval of the moment of silence , one would think that the booing would have been consistent all the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out what was being shouted but a few people claim it was something like “ Trump 2020 ” or “ Donald Trump.
” Maybe they really *were* booing the players .
Maybe fans have simply had enough of woke pageantry at sporting events !
Could be , but this new WaPo poll suggests otherwise .
Despite cries for athletes to “ stick to sports , ” particularly from conservative pundits and politicians , a 62 percent majority of Americans say professional athletes should use their platforms to express their views on national issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans and 7 in 10 adults under age 50 .
Opinions are similar among football fans , with 59 percent saying kneeling during the national anthem is an appropriate way to protest racial inequality and 64 percent saying athletes should express views on national issues in general… According to the Post poll , the majority of Republicans and people over the age of 50 call kneeling during the national anthem “ not appropriate.
” The feelings are particularly divided along partisan lines .
Majorities of Democrats ( 73 percent ) and independents ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to kneel during the anthem in protest , while 36 percent of Republicans say it is appropriate .
The moment of silence wasn ’ t an anthem protest , but then not everyone who objects to kneeling during the anthem is objecting to the alleged disrespect shown to the anthem .
Some are objecting to using sports as a platform for activism , others are objecting to the underlying cause .
Even if only a third of fans in attendance last night jeered the moment of silence , they could have made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the crowd kept quiet .
It should also go without saying that how the average NFL fan feels about protests isn ’ t necessarily representative of how the average NFL fan *with the wherewithal to get tickets to the game* feels about them .
Republicans may have been overrepresented in the crowd last night .
Righties are more likely than lefties to take chances with being infected by COVID , i.e .
Democrats routinely poll higher when asked if they always wear a mask when leaving the house .
It stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had more takers among right-wing fans than left-wing ones when they announced they ’ d be hosting a ( limited-capacity ) mass gathering to watch the first game of the season .
Maybe they had a Trumpier crowd than usual in the house .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s an interesting team video by the Miami Dolphins vowing that , like the Texans last night , they ’ ll stay in the locker room for the playing of the national anthem and “ Lift Every Voice and Sing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both were played before yesterday ’ s game and will be played before every NFL game this weekend .
The Dolphins aren ’ t boycotting because they think the spectacle is too political ; as I understand them , they ’ re boycotting because it ’ s not political enough .
It ’ s a gimmick , an empty woke gesture substituting for more meaningful activism by the league .

They allowed 17,000 masked-up fans into the game, which seemed defensible until the crowd shots revealed that many of those fans were congregated together in the stands. What was the point of limiting capacity to enable social distancing if fans weren’t actually going to distance themselves?
Anyway.
This was the scene when the Houston Texans joined the Chiefs on the field for a moment of silent solidarity in support of racial equality before the game. This is the NFL’s official clip of that moment; you’ll need to boost your audio to hear the booing, which was more evident during the live broadcast. Whether the league deliberately tried to conceal the crowd response by fiddling with the sound for this clip or whether it just ended up that way, I leave for your consideration.
A moment of silence dedicated to the ongoing fight for equality in our country. #ItTakesAllOfUs pic.twitter.com/srC0SlnWdh — NFL (@NFL) September 11, 2020
Some of the players definitely heard it:
“The moment of unity I personally thought was good. The booing was unfortunate in that moment,” Texans defensive end J.J. Watt said after the Chiefs emerged with a 34-20 victory. “I don’t fully understand that. There was no flag involved, there was nothing involved with that besides two teams coming together to show unity.”… “I didn’t really hear the booing. I didn’t notice that,” Texans coach Bill O’Brien said. “I just I thought that that was a nice thing to do. So I’m not sure why they would do that. Maybe they were just booing us because we had just come on the field as the visiting team. But yeah, I thought that that was a very nice gesture.”
That’s one theory, that the booing was aimed not at the moment of silence but at the Texans, who remained in the locker room during the national anthem and then came out on the field to join the Chiefs for the moment of silence. But that’s hard to believe. Surely the razzing of the visiting team would have stopped when the announcer asked for quiet during an expression of unity.
Another theory is that the fans weren’t booing the players’ demonstration, they were being something that was being shouted from the stands. The audio in this clip is much better than the NFL’s and lends a bit of credence to that. The booing doesn’t start until 28 seconds in and only then after the shouting begins. It tails off reasonably quickly too, replaced by sporadic clapping and then more claps after the announcer says “thank you.” If the idea was to express disapproval of the moment of silence, one would think that the booing would have been consistent all the way through.
Real video says more just saying pic.twitter.com/KMozJh4yjt — Josh Stockman (@darkkightinMO) September 11, 2020
I can’t make out what was being shouted but a few people claim it was something like “Trump 2020” or “Donald Trump.”
Maybe they really *were* booing the players. Maybe fans have simply had enough of woke pageantry at sporting events! Could be, but this new WaPo poll suggests otherwise.
Despite cries for athletes to “stick to sports,” particularly from conservative pundits and politicians, a 62 percent majority of Americans say professional athletes should use their platforms to express their views on national issues, including over 8 in 10 Black Americans and 7 in 10 adults under age 50. Opinions are similar among football fans, with 59 percent saying kneeling during the national anthem is an appropriate way to protest racial inequality and 64 percent saying athletes should express views on national issues in general… According to the Post poll, the majority of Republicans and people over the age of 50 call kneeling during the national anthem “not appropriate.” The feelings are particularly divided along partisan lines. Majorities of Democrats (73 percent) and independents (54 percent) say it is appropriate to kneel during the anthem in protest, while 36 percent of Republicans say it is appropriate.
The moment of silence wasn’t an anthem protest, but then not everyone who objects to kneeling during the anthem is objecting to the alleged disrespect shown to the anthem. Some are objecting to using sports as a platform for activism, others are objecting to the underlying cause. Even if only a third of fans in attendance last night jeered the moment of silence, they could have made a lot of noise by booing while the rest of the crowd kept quiet. It should also go without saying that how the average NFL fan feels about protests isn’t necessarily representative of how the average NFL fan *with the wherewithal to get tickets to the game* feels about them. Republicans may have been overrepresented in the crowd last night.
Andrew Egger made an interesting point too:
I don't know who at the NFL decided it was the right call to put several symbolic gestures about racial unity–including a moment of silence!–in front of a crowd self-selected by their willingness to go to a public sporting event during a pandemic! Lots of booing! — Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) September 11, 2020
Righties are more likely than lefties to take chances with being infected by COVID, i.e. Democrats routinely poll higher when asked if they always wear a mask when leaving the house. It stands to reason that the Chiefs would have had more takers among right-wing fans than left-wing ones when they announced they’d be hosting a (limited-capacity) mass gathering to watch the first game of the season. Maybe they had a Trumpier crowd than usual in the house.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s an interesting team video by the Miami Dolphins vowing that, like the Texans last night, they’ll stay in the locker room for the playing of the national anthem and “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” the so-called black national anthem. Both were played before yesterday’s game and will be played before every NFL game this weekend. The Dolphins aren’t boycotting because they think the spectacle is too political; as I understand them, they’re boycotting because it’s not political enough. It’s a gimmick, an empty woke gesture substituting for more meaningful activism by the league.


hotair--2020-09-11--Biden to Tapper: Our 2008-2012 voters responded to racist dogwhistles in 2016, or something

Well , that ’ s certainly one way to woo back the voters in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin — by accusing them of being closet racists .
Not only is this hilarious in terms of tactical fumbling , it ignores what actually happened .
Hillary Clinton failed to turn out Barack Obama ’ s voters , losing 285,000 votes from Obama ’ s 2012 tally while Trump only added 153,000 — and only won by 11,000 votes .
But yeah , sure , Michigan ’ s racist , Biden suggests to Jake Tapper : TAPPER : Let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and specifically the fact that we ’ re in Macomb County , Michigan , right now .
This is a county that President Obama and you carried twice , and then President Trump carried by 12 percentage points in 2016 .
You ’ re a son of Scranton .
You ’ re somebody who likes to talk about working class , the middle class .
Why do you think so many of these folks turned against the Democratic Party in 2016 ?
JOE BIDEN ( D ) , PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a lot of it was taken for granted .
When we were in , I spent a lot of in Macomb County , a lot of time in Detroit .
I was given the responsibility of getting it out of its bankruptcy and getting it on its feet .
I was the guy that was asked , in the Recovery Act , to make sure we made sure we were in a situation where we saved General Motors and Chrysler .
I come from Claymont .
You know Claymont .
You ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a working-class neighborhood .
It used to be — have 6,000 steelworkers in Claymont .
It shut down , Worth Steel .
But the point is that I think it was the feeling that they were taken for granted .
I don ’ t know that for a fact .
And I think that he used that dog whistle on race .
Now it ’ s a bullhorn .
Biden ’ s falling into the same trap that Hillary Clinton did — accusing the voters of being “ deplorables.
” No doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in terms of Trump ’ s racism before doing the interview with Tapper , but Biden ’ s even less skilled with that than Hillary was .
One can lament Trump ’ s alleged racism without accusing voters of responding to it .
Biden , however , isn ’ t the “ one.
” That wasn ’ t Biden ’ s only fumble , either .
Biden allows that some Michigan voters might have felt “ left behind , ” which brings up Trump ’ s track record on trade .
Tapper asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Biden supported , and the USMCA , which Trump negotiated to replace it .
Biden gamely tries to hand credit for it to Nancy Pelosi , but Tapper reminds him that Obama and Biden promised to renegotiate NAFTA and spent eight years never following through on it : TAPPER : So , you asked , and what did he do after he got elected ?
And you brought up the tax bill .
Something else he did is , he renegotiated NAFTA .
TAPPER : He renegotiated NAFTA .
Now , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barack Obama ran for president , you both said you would renegotiate NAFTA .
You didn ’ t .
He did .
Nancy Pelosi said that the USMCA , which President Trump signed into law , is a — quote — “ victory for America ’ s workers.
” Does he deserve credit for that ?
BIDEN : No , I think — remember , he didn ’ t — he wasn ’ t the one that pushed that particular one that passed .
The House amended the bill , amended the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : No , that was a big deal , though .
Here ’ s what he — they amended .
He was giving pharma a way out , giving them a gigantic break , just like he ’ s doing now with pharma .
If you — they are building plants overseas and getting tax breaks for it .
That ’ s what it was about with him .
BIDEN : And they said , no , no , we ’ re not going to do that .
We ’ re not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you didn ’ t , is the point .
I mean… BIDEN : Because we had a Republican Congress that wouldn ’ t go along with us renegotiating it .
TAPPER : But doesn ’ t he deserve some credit for that ?
It ’ s better .
The USMCA is better than NAFTA .
BIDEN : It is better than NAFTA , but look what the overall trade policy has done , even with NAFTA .
We now have this gigantic deficit in trade with Mexico , not because NAFTA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his overall trade policy and how he deals with it made everything worse .
TAPPER : I guess my only point is , I ’ m a blue-collar guy sitting in Macomb County , Michigan , if I were that person .
TAPPER : And I ’ m sitting here listening to your pitch , and I ’ m thinking , I like what he has to say , but he ’ s part of the establishment that ’ s been selling my jobs down the river .
He supported NAFTA .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Trump did renegotiate NAFTA , and Obama and Biden didn ’ t .
Give Tapper credit for pushing Biden hard on this point .
Biden doesn ’ t have an answer for it , either .
Trump followed through on his promises , while Biden and Obama didn ’ t .
Biden tries to blame the 2008 economic collapse for their failure , but they spent the last six years in office bragging about their unremarkable recovery .
Biden didn ’ t turn incoherent in this interview , which is perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden also demonstrated why his first two presidential bids went nowhere , and why Democrats have been keeping him in cold storage over the last few months .
Biden ’ s political instincts and media skills have always been poor , and it ’ s very clear he ’ s not getting any better with age .

Well, that’s certainly one way to woo back the voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — by accusing them of being closet racists. Not only is this hilarious in terms of tactical fumbling, it ignores what actually happened. Hillary Clinton failed to turn out Barack Obama’s voters, losing 285,000 votes from Obama’s 2012 tally while Trump only added 153,000 — and only won by 11,000 votes.
But yeah, sure, Michigan’s racist, Biden suggests to Jake Tapper:
WATCH: Joe Biden says Democrats in Michigan who voted for him and Obama twice and then voted for Donald Trump are racists. pic.twitter.com/UAcjXyEW0H — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 11, 2020
TAPPER: Let’s turn to the 2020 race, and specifically the fact that we’re in Macomb County, Michigan, right now. This is a county that President Obama and you carried twice, and then President Trump carried by 12 percentage points in 2016. You’re a son of Scranton. You’re somebody who likes to talk about working class, the middle class. Why do you think so many of these folks turned against the Democratic Party in 2016? JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Well, look, I think, number one, a lot of it was taken for granted. When we were in, I spent a lot of in Macomb County, a lot of time in Detroit. I was given the responsibility of getting it out of its bankruptcy and getting it on its feet. I was the guy that was asked, in the Recovery Act, to make sure we made sure we were in a situation where we saved General Motors and Chrysler. I come from Claymont. You know Claymont. You’re a Philly guy. Claymont’s a working-class neighborhood. It used to be — have 6,000 steelworkers in Claymont. It shut down, Worth Steel. But the point is that I think it was the feeling that they were taken for granted. I don’t know that for a fact. And I think that he used that dog whistle on race. Now it’s a bullhorn.
Biden’s falling into the same trap that Hillary Clinton did — accusing the voters of being “deplorables.” No doubt his handlers told Biden to put everything in terms of Trump’s racism before doing the interview with Tapper, but Biden’s even less skilled with that than Hillary was. One can lament Trump’s alleged racism without accusing voters of responding to it. Biden, however, isn’t the “one.”
That wasn’t Biden’s only fumble, either. Biden allows that some Michigan voters might have felt “left behind,” which brings up Trump’s track record on trade. Tapper asked him a tough question about NAFTA, which Biden supported, and the USMCA, which Trump negotiated to replace it. Biden gamely tries to hand credit for it to Nancy Pelosi, but Tapper reminds him that Obama and Biden promised to renegotiate NAFTA and spent eight years never following through on it:
Okay, @jaketapper’s pause right at the end of this clip has me in tears. pic.twitter.com/KKb7V6BuzK — John Cooper (@thejcoop) September 10, 2020
TAPPER: So, you asked, and what did he do after he got elected? And you brought up the tax bill. Something else he did is, he renegotiated NAFTA. BIDEN: He did. TAPPER: He renegotiated NAFTA. Now, when you ran for president, and when Barack Obama ran for president, you both said you would renegotiate NAFTA. You didn’t. He did. Nancy Pelosi said that the USMCA, which President Trump signed into law, is a — quote — “victory for America’s workers.” Does he deserve credit for that? BIDEN: No, I think — remember, he didn’t — he wasn’t the one that pushed that particular one that passed. The House amended the bill, amended the bill, so he couldn’t… TAPPER: He signed it. BIDEN: No, that was a big deal, though. Here’s what he — they amended. He was giving pharma a way out, giving them a gigantic break, just like he’s doing now with pharma. If you — they are building plants overseas and getting tax breaks for it. That’s what it was about with him. TAPPER: All right. BIDEN: And they said, no, no, we’re not going to do that. We’re not going to… TAPPER: But he renegotiated NAFTA, and you didn’t, is the point. I mean… BIDEN: Because we had a Republican Congress that wouldn’t go along with us renegotiating it. TAPPER: But doesn’t he deserve some credit for that? It’s better. The USMCA is better than NAFTA. BIDEN: It is better than NAFTA, but look what the overall trade policy has done, even with NAFTA. We now have this gigantic deficit in trade with Mexico, not because NAFTA wasn’t made better, because his overall trade policy and how he deals with it made everything worse. TAPPER: I guess my only point is, I’m a blue-collar guy sitting in Macomb County, Michigan, if I were that person. BIDEN: Yes. TAPPER: And I’m sitting here listening to your pitch, and I’m thinking, I like what he has to say, but he’s part of the establishment that’s been selling my jobs down the river. He supported NAFTA. He supported most favored nation status for China. And Trump did renegotiate NAFTA, and Obama and Biden didn’t.
Give Tapper credit for pushing Biden hard on this point. Biden doesn’t have an answer for it, either. Trump followed through on his promises, while Biden and Obama didn’t. Biden tries to blame the 2008 economic collapse for their failure, but they spent the last six years in office bragging about their unremarkable recovery.
Biden didn’t turn incoherent in this interview, which is perhaps a win against expectations. However, Biden also demonstrated why his first two presidential bids went nowhere, and why Democrats have been keeping him in cold storage over the last few months. Biden’s political instincts and media skills have always been poor, and it’s very clear he’s not getting any better with age.


hotair--2020-09-11--9/11, 19 years later: Will we see a trial by the twentieth anniversary?

It might end up closer to the twenty-third anniversary .
Nineteen years after radical Islamic terrorists killed more than 3,000 Americans in New York City , Washington DC , and Shanksville , Pennsylvania , the al-Qaeda masterminds behind the attacks still have not been tried for their crimes .
Almost two decades of congressional fumbling and judicial interventions have left the families of the victims in despair that they will ever see their day in court .
The Washington Examiner reports that , if anything , the effort is going backwards — again — thanks to COVID-19 : The case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complete halt amid the pandemic due to travel and quarantine restrictions on the Caribbean island .
The war court permits the five alleged 9/11 plotters to meet with their lawyers only face to face and not by phone or video conference .
No hearings have been held since late February , and the trial , which had been slated to begin Jan. 11 , 2021 , has been postponed for a few months , if not longer , raising questions of whether jury selection will even begin before the 20th anniversary .
Khalid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and described as “ the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks ” in the 9/11 Commission Report , was a close ally of Osama bin Laden and will be on trial alongside his nephew , Ammar al Baluchi , alleged hijacking trainer Walid bin Attash , facilitator Ramzi bin al Shibh , and al Qaeda money man Mustafa al Hawsawi .
Air Force Col. Shane Cohen , who had sent the January 2021 trial date , added to delays when he announced in March that he was retiring from the military and was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for less than a year .
Cohen had taken over for Air Force Col. Vance Spath , whose undisclosed conflicts of interest led an appeals court to toss out many of his rulings .
“ Our client , this nation , deserves a reckoning , ” prosecutor Edward Ryan told the court last July in pushing for a trial , but the reckoning is yet delayed .
This should have been handled by a military commission after the capture of the unlawful combatants .
Instead , both Congress and the courts have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with such detainees , creating a legal muddle that all but made it impossible to capture al-Qaeda terrorists and get actionable intelligence from them .
Not surprisingly , the American strategy became simply to kill them , or to hope that our allies might get to them first in order to deal with them .
( When we attempted to facilitate that through the “ extraordinary rendition ” process , courts shut that down , too , and not for entirely bad reasons , given the techniques used by some of those allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacle of holding these terrorists for nearly two decades and having no good process to deal with them .
It ’ s an insult to the families of their victims , as well as a self-inflicted embarrassment by an American legal and political system that has tried to shoehorn foreign terror into a domestic law-enforcement paradigm rather than treat it as the war it is .
Fortunately , an appeals court might have begun to right that wrong done to the US .
In a unanimous ruling last week , the DC Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no constitutional rights other than habeas corpus , which might put an end to much of the nonsense that has hobbled the process : A federal appeals court panel has ruled for the first time that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay , Cuba , are not entitled to due process , adopting a George W. Bush-era view of detainee rights that could affect the eventual trial of the men charged in the Sept. 11 , 2001 , attacks .
The 3-to-0 decision issued on Friday by Judge Neomi Rao at the U.S. Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit upheld the indefinite detention of Abdulsalam Al Hela , 52 , who argued for release by saying that the evidence against him relied on anonymous hearsay and that he never joined or supported Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group .
… “ The Due Process Clause may not be invoked by alien without property or presence in the sovereign territory of the United States , ” Judge Rao wrote , a position also taken by Judge A. Raymond Randolph .
This might make it much easier for prosecutors previously stuck in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built in some statutory protections for the prisoners when it created the war court in response to the Sept. 11 attacks .
For example , it forbids the use of self-incriminating confessions gained through cruel and inhuman punishment , such as torture .
But it does permit prosecutors to use what another prisoner said against a defendant gained through coercion — an exception defense lawyers have challenged as violating the constitutional right to due process .
Defense lawyers have argued for years that the military judges should also apply other constitutional protections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers before the prisoners were charged .
The appeals court decision means the Guantánamo judges may not see themselves as obliged to consider those rights through a constitutional lens .
Will that expedite the trials at Gitmo ?
Read all of the Examiner report from Jerry Dunleavy , but that doesn ’ t seem likely .
If anything , it might prompt further motions to delay the proceedings while defense attorneys attempt to appeal this decision and to restructure their defenses around it .
There is already another motion to postpone for thirty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a change of counsel for al-Shibh — and that clock would only start after the pandemic protocols get lifted .
It ’ s far past time for this circus to come to an end .
This should have been handled by military commissions in the first place .
It ’ s not too late to get Congress to act to return this process back to sanity , and to finally finish the process of dealing justice to the worst monsters of al-Qaeda .

It might end up closer to the twenty-third anniversary. Nineteen years after radical Islamic terrorists killed more than 3,000 Americans in New York City, Washington DC, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the al-Qaeda masterminds behind the attacks still have not been tried for their crimes. Almost two decades of congressional fumbling and judicial interventions have left the families of the victims in despair that they will ever see their day in court.
The Washington Examiner reports that, if anything, the effort is going backwards — again — thanks to COVID-19:
The case’s progress came to almost a complete halt amid the pandemic due to travel and quarantine restrictions on the Caribbean island. The war court permits the five alleged 9/11 plotters to meet with their lawyers only face to face and not by phone or video conference. No hearings have been held since late February, and the trial, which had been slated to begin Jan. 11, 2021, has been postponed for a few months, if not longer, raising questions of whether jury selection will even begin before the 20th anniversary. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, dubbed “KSM” and described as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks” in the 9/11 Commission Report, was a close ally of Osama bin Laden and will be on trial alongside his nephew, Ammar al Baluchi, alleged hijacking trainer Walid bin Attash, facilitator Ramzi bin al Shibh, and al Qaeda money man Mustafa al Hawsawi. Air Force Col. Shane Cohen, who had sent the January 2021 trial date, added to delays when he announced in March that he was retiring from the military and was thus leaving the case after presiding over it for less than a year. Cohen had taken over for Air Force Col. Vance Spath, whose undisclosed conflicts of interest led an appeals court to toss out many of his rulings. “Our client, this nation, deserves a reckoning,” prosecutor Edward Ryan told the court last July in pushing for a trial, but the reckoning is yet delayed.
This should have been handled by a military commission after the capture of the unlawful combatants. Instead, both Congress and the courts have interfered with a long-standing process in dealing with such detainees, creating a legal muddle that all but made it impossible to capture al-Qaeda terrorists and get actionable intelligence from them. Not surprisingly, the American strategy became simply to kill them, or to hope that our allies might get to them first in order to deal with them. (When we attempted to facilitate that through the “extraordinary rendition” process, courts shut that down, too, and not for entirely bad reasons, given the techniques used by some of those allies.)
Now we have the ridiculous spectacle of holding these terrorists for nearly two decades and having no good process to deal with them. It’s an insult to the families of their victims, as well as a self-inflicted embarrassment by an American legal and political system that has tried to shoehorn foreign terror into a domestic law-enforcement paradigm rather than treat it as the war it is.
Fortunately, an appeals court might have begun to right that wrong done to the US. In a unanimous ruling last week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Gitmo detainees have no constitutional rights other than habeas corpus, which might put an end to much of the nonsense that has hobbled the process:
A federal appeals court panel has ruled for the first time that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are not entitled to due process, adopting a George W. Bush-era view of detainee rights that could affect the eventual trial of the men charged in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The 3-to-0 decision issued on Friday by Judge Neomi Rao at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the indefinite detention of Abdulsalam Al Hela, 52, who argued for release by saying that the evidence against him relied on anonymous hearsay and that he never joined or supported Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. … “The Due Process Clause may not be invoked by alien without property or presence in the sovereign territory of the United States,” Judge Rao wrote, a position also taken by Judge A. Raymond Randolph.
This might make it much easier for prosecutors previously stuck in the civil-court rules on evidence:
Congress built in some statutory protections for the prisoners when it created the war court in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. For example, it forbids the use of self-incriminating confessions gained through cruel and inhuman punishment, such as torture. But it does permit prosecutors to use what another prisoner said against a defendant gained through coercion — an exception defense lawyers have challenged as violating the constitutional right to due process. Defense lawyers have argued for years that the military judges should also apply other constitutional protections, such as Miranda rights and access to lawyers before the prisoners were charged. The appeals court decision means the Guantánamo judges may not see themselves as obliged to consider those rights through a constitutional lens.
Will that expedite the trials at Gitmo? Read all of the Examiner report from Jerry Dunleavy, but that doesn’t seem likely. If anything, it might prompt further motions to delay the proceedings while defense attorneys attempt to appeal this decision and to restructure their defenses around it. There is already another motion to postpone for thirty months on the table, thanks to a change of counsel for al-Shibh — and that clock would only start after the pandemic protocols get lifted.
It’s far past time for this circus to come to an end. This should have been handled by military commissions in the first place. It’s not too late to get Congress to act to return this process back to sanity, and to finally finish the process of dealing justice to the worst monsters of al-Qaeda.


hotair--2020-09-11--Super bust: New Gallup poll shows sports industry as popular as ... big pharma and the feds

Is this outcome from Gallup ’ s latest longitudinal poll fair ?
After all , big pharma and the feds might be having a better season than the sports industry .
Nonetheless , those are the only three industries that find themselves in negative territory , with sports taking the biggest dive : The biggest slide , however , has been for the sports industry , with its positive score falling 15 points — from 45 % to 30 % .
The sports industry now has a negative image , on balance , among Americans as a whole , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % negatively , for a -10 net-positive score .
This contrasts with the +20 net positive image it enjoyed in 2019 , when 45 % viewed it positively and 25 % negatively .
… While it ’ s not clear how much the various challenges and controversies swirling around the industry are each responsible for its slide in popularity , it is notable that sports has lost more support from Republicans and independents than from Democrats .
In fact , Democrats ’ view of the sports industry has not changed significantly in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slipped from a +11 net-positive score in 2019 to a net -35 today , and independents ’ from +26 to -10 .
The sports industry ’ s image has also deteriorated more among women than men , and among older adults than those younger than 35 .
Sports has also lost more support from non-White than White Americans , but given the extraordinarily high ratings from non-White adults a year ago , this group continues to view the sports industry positively on balance today .
That is not the case with White adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more negatively than positively , and by a 22-point margin .
That description of the demographic differences distracts from one clear point — the decline is as broad as it gets .
The sports industry ’ s positive rating fell in every demo , and by double digits in all except Democrats ( -5 ) .
The rating among non-white Americans might be higher than among white Americans , but it also fell farther among non-white Americans ( -35 , as opposed to -26 among whites ) .
The collapse is almost total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the few demos that remain positive , enthusiasm has almost entirely evaporated .
For instance , Gallup makes much of the fact that Democrats ( +11 ) and non-white Americans ( +16 ) still remain positive about sports .
Those ratings would put sports at the same level as the overall ratings for the oil industry ( +11 ) and well below the banking industry ( +24 ) .
Does that still sound like good news for sports ?
What makes this even worse is that it bucks a clear trend toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that Americans largely have sunnier views of almost all industries this year , probably an outcome of COVID-19 and the “ we ’ re all in this together ” attitude .
Topping the list of big gainers this year are the essential businesses on which we have focused during the shutdowns — agriculture ( +58 ) , grocery ( +51 ) , and restaurants ( +46 ) .
Heck , even the legal industry has a positive rating this year , albeit an anemic one at +6 , and big pharma improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When lawyers get a better rating than your industry , then maybe it ’ s time to rethink things — especially if you ’ re in entertainment .
Speaking of which , lawyers edge out the movie industry ( +4 ) , too .
You ’ ve been warned , Hollywood .

Is this outcome from Gallup’s latest longitudinal poll fair? After all, big pharma and the feds might be having a better season than the sports industry. Nonetheless, those are the only three industries that find themselves in negative territory, with sports taking the biggest dive:
The biggest slide, however, has been for the sports industry, with its positive score falling 15 points — from 45% to 30%. The sports industry now has a negative image, on balance, among Americans as a whole, with 30% viewing it positively and 40% negatively, for a -10 net-positive score. This contrasts with the +20 net positive image it enjoyed in 2019, when 45% viewed it positively and 25% negatively. … While it’s not clear how much the various challenges and controversies swirling around the industry are each responsible for its slide in popularity, it is notable that sports has lost more support from Republicans and independents than from Democrats. In fact, Democrats’ view of the sports industry has not changed significantly in the past year, while Republicans’ has slipped from a +11 net-positive score in 2019 to a net -35 today, and independents’ from +26 to -10. The sports industry’s image has also deteriorated more among women than men, and among older adults than those younger than 35. Sports has also lost more support from non-White than White Americans, but given the extraordinarily high ratings from non-White adults a year ago, this group continues to view the sports industry positively on balance today. That is not the case with White adults, who now view the sports industry more negatively than positively, and by a 22-point margin.
That description of the demographic differences distracts from one clear point — the decline is as broad as it gets. The sports industry’s positive rating fell in every demo, and by double digits in all except Democrats (-5). The rating among non-white Americans might be higher than among white Americans, but it also fell farther among non-white Americans (-35, as opposed to -26 among whites). The collapse is almost total, in other words, and even in the few demos that remain positive, enthusiasm has almost entirely evaporated.
For instance, Gallup makes much of the fact that Democrats (+11) and non-white Americans (+16) still remain positive about sports. Those ratings would put sports at the same level as the overall ratings for the oil industry (+11) and well below the banking industry (+24). Does that still sound like good news for sports?
What makes this even worse is that it bucks a clear trend toward positivity from the American public. Gallup reports that Americans largely have sunnier views of almost all industries this year, probably an outcome of COVID-19 and the “we’re all in this together” attitude. Topping the list of big gainers this year are the essential businesses on which we have focused during the shutdowns — agriculture (+58), grocery (+51), and restaurants (+46). Heck, even the legal industry has a positive rating this year, albeit an anemic one at +6, and big pharma improved by seven points to get to second-to-last.
When lawyers get a better rating than your industry, then maybe it’s time to rethink things — especially if you’re in entertainment. Speaking of which, lawyers edge out the movie industry (+4), too. You’ve been warned, Hollywood.


hotair--2020-09-12--POW/MIA flag removed from flying over White House, criticism ensues

If the presidential election was not 51 days away , this would not be a story .
But , we are and it is .
The POW/MIA flag that has been flying over the White House was removed .
It now flies in a POW/MIA memorial site on the South Lawn .
Thanks to the latest Bob Woodward book , the Democrats have another reason for faux outrage towards the Commander-in-Chief .
It ’ s obviously election-year posturing if we are to believe some of the quotes from critics .
Not a peep was uttered at the time that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some Democrat senators have written a letter demanding that the flag be returned .
To be clear , the POW/MIA flag only flew over the White House , along with the American flag , on six designated days – Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day in May , Flag Day , July 4 , POW/MIA Recognition Day in September , and Veterans Day .
This changed in 2019 .
In March 2019 , the National POW/MIA Flag Act was introduced by Rep. Jack Bergman , a Michigan Republican and a retired Marine lieutenant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat from New Hampshire .
“ Flying this flag at federal properties 365 days a year is just a small way that we can ensure their sacrifice and devotion to our nation is never forgotten , ” Mr. Bergman said .
In November , the law was signed into effect by President Trump .
The flag is to be flown every day , all year , over prominent federal buildings , including the White House , the U.S. Capitol , and all post offices and military installations .
This action was praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side , Republicans Marco Rubio , Tom Cotton , and John Thune co-sponsored the bill with Democrats Jack Reed , Elizabeth Warren , and Margaret Hassan .
Apparently , the three Democrats have now realized the POW/MIA flag was moved and they wrote a letter to the White House asking that the move be reconsidered .
Thanks to the Bob Woodward book that includes unverified quotes from Trump about some members of the military , the Democrats are trying to score political points .
“ It ’ s bad enough that President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others who were captured on the battlefield .
He inexplicably promotes the Confederate flag but fails to fly the POW/MIA flag , ” said Democratic Senator Jack Reed , a co-sponsor of the bill .
“ It ’ s part of a pattern of disrespect by President Trump toward those who honorably served our nation.
” “ This decision to abruptly move the POW/MIA Flag from atop the White House to an area that is apparently not visible to the public may violate federal law and does not appropriately honor the service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , missing servicemembers , and their families , ” the letter reads .
Hassan said that law was intended to pay tribute to the prisoners of war and those missing in action and called on the White House to reverse its decision .
Why was the move made in the first place ?
President Trump dedicated a spot on the South Lawn at the White House for a POW/MIA memorial and the flag was moved there .
That makes sense , right ?
In fact , it sounds very respectful .
The general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House but it isn ’ t flying over the White House , which seems to be the rub .
Critics say it is disrespectful and it is unlawful , according to the legislation , to not fly it over the White House .
U.S. law requires the flag to be displayed in a “ manner designed to ensure visibility to the public.
” In its current position , it can be viewed from limited vantage points outside the White House complex .
The American Ex-Prisoners of War group , which represents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it was outraged last month when it learned of the move , calling it a “ slap in the face.
” “ While he touts his support for the U.S. Armed Forces and their families , actions speak louder than words .
And this action speaks of disdain for Prisoners of War and the Missing in Action , ” the group said .
Trump touted the new law to representatives of Rolling Thunder , a veterans advocacy group , during Memorial Day weekend .
Now the group is not pleased , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t think the move is illegal or meant to be disrespectful , the flag is supposed to fly over the White House and hopes it will be relocated back there .
The chairman and chief executive officer of the National League of POW/MIA Families said that “ working-level White House staff members ” have been made aware of their desire that the flag be flown over the White House .
One group not criticizing the move is the American legion .
It is pleased that the flag “ flies 24/7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House grounds.
” I fall more along the lines of the American legion on this one .
I think a designated memorial with its own spot on the White House grounds , which can be seen by the public , is a grand gesture of respect .
Woodward ’ s book gives Democrats and other Trump opponents an excuse to trash Trump ’ s alleged behavior to the military .
These Senate Democrats are taking advantage of the election being so close .
Too bad for them that the Woodward book ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in polling of the members of the military , though .

If the presidential election was not 51 days away, this would not be a story. But, we are and it is. The POW/MIA flag that has been flying over the White House was removed. It now flies in a POW/MIA memorial site on the South Lawn. Thanks to the latest Bob Woodward book, the Democrats have another reason for faux outrage towards the Commander-in-Chief.
It’s obviously election-year posturing if we are to believe some of the quotes from critics. Not a peep was uttered at the time that the change occurred from anyone. Now, some Democrat senators have written a letter demanding that the flag be returned.
To be clear, the POW/MIA flag only flew over the White House, along with the American flag, on six designated days – Armed Forces Day and Memorial Day in May, Flag Day, July 4, POW/MIA Recognition Day in September, and Veterans Day. This changed in 2019. In March 2019, the National POW/MIA Flag Act was introduced by Rep. Jack Bergman, a Michigan Republican and a retired Marine lieutenant general, and Rep. Chirs Pappas, a Democrat from New Hampshire. “Flying this flag at federal properties 365 days a year is just a small way that we can ensure their sacrifice and devotion to our nation is never forgotten,” Mr. Bergman said.
In November, the law was signed into effect by President Trump. The flag is to be flown every day, all year, over prominent federal buildings, including the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and all post offices and military installations. This action was praised at the time.
“This is a historic victory for every man and woman who courageously defended this nation and remain unaccounted for,” Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander William “Doc” Schmitz said in a release. The display of the black POW flag, with its silhouette of a captured U.S. prisoner and the logo “You are not forgotten” would serve “as a daily reminder that these heroes and their families are forever etched in our DNA,” Mr. Schmitz said.
On the Senate side, Republicans Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and John Thune co-sponsored the bill with Democrats Jack Reed, Elizabeth Warren, and Margaret Hassan. Apparently, the three Democrats have now realized the POW/MIA flag was moved and they wrote a letter to the White House asking that the move be reconsidered. Thanks to the Bob Woodward book that includes unverified quotes from Trump about some members of the military, the Democrats are trying to score political points.
“It’s bad enough that President Trump publicly ridicules American heroes like Senator McCain and others who were captured on the battlefield. He inexplicably promotes the Confederate flag but fails to fly the POW/MIA flag,” said Democratic Senator Jack Reed, a co-sponsor of the bill. “It’s part of a pattern of disrespect by President Trump toward those who honorably served our nation.” “This decision to abruptly move the POW/MIA Flag from atop the White House to an area that is apparently not visible to the public may violate federal law and does not appropriately honor the service and sacrifices of American prisoners of war, missing servicemembers, and their families,” the letter reads. Hassan said that law was intended to pay tribute to the prisoners of war and those missing in action and called on the White House to reverse its decision.
Why was the move made in the first place? President Trump dedicated a spot on the South Lawn at the White House for a POW/MIA memorial and the flag was moved there.
“President Trump dedicated a POW/MIA memorial site earlier this year on the White House grounds to forever remember our heroic service members who were prisoners of war or missing in action,” White House spokesman Judd Deere said. “The President selected a site on the Southwest corner of the South Lawn for this prominent and sacred memorial, which is visible to all those who visit the White House, that features the POW/MIA flag,” he added.
That makes sense, right? In fact, it sounds very respectful. The general public can still see the flag at the White House but it isn’t flying over the White House, which seems to be the rub. Critics say it is disrespectful and it is unlawful, according to the legislation, to not fly it over the White House.
U.S. law requires the flag to be displayed in a “manner designed to ensure visibility to the public.” In its current position, it can be viewed from limited vantage points outside the White House complex. The American Ex-Prisoners of War group, which represents 10,000 former POWs and their families, said it was outraged last month when it learned of the move, calling it a “slap in the face.” “While he touts his support for the U.S. Armed Forces and their families, actions speak louder than words. And this action speaks of disdain for Prisoners of War and the Missing in Action,” the group said.
Trump touted the new law to representatives of Rolling Thunder, a veterans advocacy group, during Memorial Day weekend. Now the group is not pleased, with its founder and executive director saying though he doesn’t think the move is illegal or meant to be disrespectful, the flag is supposed to fly over the White House and hopes it will be relocated back there.
The chairman and chief executive officer of the National League of POW/MIA Families said that “working-level White House staff members” have been made aware of their desire that the flag be flown over the White House. One group not criticizing the move is the American legion. It is pleased that the flag “flies 24/7 at its own POW/MIA Memorial on White House grounds.” I fall more along the lines of the American legion on this one. I think a designated memorial with its own spot on the White House grounds, which can be seen by the public, is a grand gesture of respect.
Woodward’s book gives Democrats and other Trump opponents an excuse to trash Trump’s alleged behavior to the military. These Senate Democrats are taking advantage of the election being so close. Too bad for them that the Woodward book’s accusations aren’t moving the needle in polling of the members of the military, though.


hotair--2020-09-12--Four swing states: Voters believe Biden wants to defund the police, hasn't done enough to condemn ri

Four swing states: Voters believe Biden wants to defund the police, hasn't done enough to condemn rioting

You can take a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty view of this new NYT poll of Minnesota , Wisconsin , Nevada , and New Hampshire .
Glass half full : Trump ’ s “ law and order ” message *does* appear to be working to some degree .
In June , the last time the Times polled Wisconsin , Biden led by 11 .
Today he leads by just five .
More to the point , across all four states more people than not think he ’ s been too soft on the droogs burning down businesses in Kenosha , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 53 to 33 , voters over 65 in the four states said the former vice president had not done enough to denounce rioting .
And 70 percent of these same voters said crime was a “ major problem ” in the country… And there are signs that Mr. Trump ’ s barrage against Mr. Biden on the issue of policing , while inaccurate , has been effective : 44 percent of those surveyed in the four states said he supported defunding the police while only 39 percent said he was not in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president has said repeatedly .
Among all Wisconsin voters , 56 percent say Biden hasn ’ t done enough to denounce the rioting versus just 31 percent who say he has .
( Even among Democrats , 28 percent think he hasn ’ t done enough . )
The numbers are similar in Minnesota at 54/35 .
Biden has said repeatedly that he doesn ’ t want to defund the police and he ’ s made several on-camera statements condemning the violence over the past few weeks , but that message isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s helping to keep Trump close .
Glass half empty : Even so , Biden leads in all four states by an average of six points .
In none of those states does Trump reach 44 percent , an ominous ceiling in a race with no serious third-party factor .
Despite voters ’ unhappiness with Biden for not condemning rioting strongly enough , he actually leads Trump in Minnesota and Wisconsin on the questions of who ’ d do a better job on “ law and order ” ( 48/47 ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How can that be ?
“ That ’ s probably in part because they think Biden ’ s better at unifying the country , handling protests , and think Trump encourages violence , ” reasons the Times ’ s Nate Cohn .
Indeed , Biden leads Trump big on who ’ d be better at handling race relations ( 56/37 ) , unifying America ( 53/38 ) , and handling protests ( 51/42 ) .
And across Wisconsin , despite the chaos in Kenosha , voters still have a favorable view on balance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s view of law and order boils down to “ toughness ” : Who ’ s more likely to crack down hard on looters , him or Sleepy Joe ?
The electorate ’ s view of law and order seems to be more complicated : Who ’ s more likely to lower the cultural and political temperature such that violence will be less likely to happen ?
For example : Scott Lacko , a 55-year-old from the northern Wisconsin community of Eagle River , backed Mr. Trump in 2016 but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall .
The riots concern him deeply ; he argued that Black people shot by police would have been spared had they followed instructions and said that “ it ’ s sad to see these individuals continue to be placed on a pedestal.
” But he said that Mr. Trump ’ s law-and-order push had not won him over .
The president , Mr. Lacko said , can not be trusted to act in anyone ’ s interest but his own .
He reflected a majority of Wisconsin voters in seeing Mr. Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 52 percent said they trusted him more to bring people together , compared with 39 percent for Mr. Trump .
“ Trump certainly tries to take advantage of the situation and muddy the water , ” he said .
“ I may not have agreed with some of the things Biden said , but at least he ’ s trying to bring people together and find some way through it.
” Seniors are another case in point .
As noted above , a clear majority of them think Biden ’ s been too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per the Times , “ Biden enjoys a 12-point lead , 52 to 40 , among people 65 and older across the four states and , by overwhelming numbers , they say he would do a better job than Mr. Trump unifying the country , handling race relations and addressing the pandemic.
” Winning the 65+ crowd , traditionally a Republican bloc , would all but guarantee Biden the presidency .
And here he is with a double-digit lead among them in a bunch of battlegrounds *despite* seniors ’ misgivings about his resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a withering commentary on their trust in Trump .
The bottom line , I think , is that while the rioting has hurt Biden , there are too many other big-picture problems competing for voters ’ attention in this nightmare of a year for urban violence to hurt him too much .
In a world without COVID , with the economy still humming along , I can imagine a left-wing rampage becoming a gamechanger that erased his five-point pre-pandemic lead over Trump .
As it is , the electorate has to weigh riots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which candidate will better manage the economy recovery ( which includes federal relief ) , which candidate will better navigate racial tensions , and on and on .
“ Nearly one in five Wisconsinites who said that riots in American cities were a bigger problem than racism in the criminal justice system planned to vote for Mr. Biden , ” the Times reports , clear evidence that even some voters who share Trump ’ s priorities on “ law and order ” don ’ t necessarily see him as the better option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scenario in which rioting *does* become more of a gamechanging liability for Biden down the stretch .
More rioting close to Election Day and/or an especially violent outburst somewhere might cross a red line for some voters who are leaning Biden right now and push fighting crime to the top of their list of policy priorities .
But you can also imagine scenarios in which Biden wins over some of the voters who are leaning Trump at the moment because of the “ law and order ” issue .
Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he doesn ’ t support defunding the police , contrary to what Trump claims .
How many voters will feel reassured by that and give him a second look ?
A second wave of COVID might also work to Biden ’ s advantage by refocusing voters on the pandemic and causing them to lose interest in the rioting .
What happens to Trump ’ s numbers when the one issue that seems to be working for him right now — to some degree — suddenly becomes less of a priority for Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out today that ’ s worth paying a little attention to .
This comes from a national survey by Yahoo News and YouGov : Asked if their opinion of Trump ’ s coronavirus response has changed because of Woodward ’ s big scoop — a tape of Trump privately acknowledging the virus was “ deadly stuff ” even as he publicly sought , in his own words , “ to play it down ” — nearly a quarter of Americans ( 23 percent ) say yes .
Even 15 percent of those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Woodward news has changed their mind about the president ’ s handling of the pandemic .
Those might seem like small numbers .
But in an age of extreme polarization , they could augur a real shift .
Overall , 15 percent of Americans say the Woodward quotes have made them less likely to vote to reelect the president in November — and a third of these were 2016 Trump supporters .
I ’ m skeptical of that , as there hasn ’ t been any strong shift towards Biden in the RCP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Woodward stuff came out .
But then , sometimes it takes a week or two or more for news to percolate among voters before preferences begin to shift .
The danger of Trump ’ s quotes to Woodward , I think , is that they ’ ll make any second wave of COVID in October that much more of a political liability for him among voters in the final weeks of the race .
He ’ ll be fighting strong headwinds regardless if there ’ s bad news about the virus all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undecideds out there are making up their minds , but now that Democrats have weaponized his quote to Woodward about “ downplaying ” the risk early on , it could feel more like a hurricane .

You can take a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty view of this new NYT poll of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Glass half full: Trump’s “law and order” message *does* appear to be working to some degree. In June, the last time the Times polled Wisconsin, Biden led by 11. Today he leads by just five. More to the point, across all four states more people than not think he’s been too soft on the droogs burning down businesses in Kenosha, among other places.
By a 20-point margin, 53 to 33, voters over 65 in the four states said the former vice president had not done enough to denounce rioting. And 70 percent of these same voters said crime was a “major problem” in the country… And there are signs that Mr. Trump’s barrage against Mr. Biden on the issue of policing, while inaccurate, has been effective: 44 percent of those surveyed in the four states said he supported defunding the police while only 39 percent said he was not in favor of doing so, which the former vice president has said repeatedly.
Among all Wisconsin voters, 56 percent say Biden hasn’t done enough to denounce the rioting versus just 31 percent who say he has. (Even among Democrats, 28 percent think he hasn’t done enough.) The numbers are similar in Minnesota at 54/35. Biden has said repeatedly that he doesn’t want to defund the police and he’s made several on-camera statements condemning the violence over the past few weeks, but that message isn’t getting through. And it’s helping to keep Trump close.
Glass half empty: Even so, Biden leads in all four states by an average of six points. In none of those states does Trump reach 44 percent, an ominous ceiling in a race with no serious third-party factor. Despite voters’ unhappiness with Biden for not condemning rioting strongly enough, he actually leads Trump in Minnesota and Wisconsin on the questions of who’d do a better job on “law and order” (48/47) and handling violent crime (48/46). How can that be?
“That’s probably in part because they think Biden’s better at unifying the country, handling protests, and think Trump encourages violence,” reasons the Times’s Nate Cohn. Indeed, Biden leads Trump big on who’d be better at handling race relations (56/37), unifying America (53/38), and handling protests (51/42). And across Wisconsin, despite the chaos in Kenosha, voters still have a favorable view on balance of Black Lives Matter (49/43). Trump’s view of law and order boils down to “toughness”: Who’s more likely to crack down hard on looters, him or Sleepy Joe? The electorate’s view of law and order seems to be more complicated: Who’s more likely to lower the cultural and political temperature such that violence will be less likely to happen? For example:
Scott Lacko, a 55-year-old from the northern Wisconsin community of Eagle River, backed Mr. Trump in 2016 but will be voting for Mr. Biden this fall. The riots concern him deeply; he argued that Black people shot by police would have been spared had they followed instructions and said that “it’s sad to see these individuals continue to be placed on a pedestal.” But he said that Mr. Trump’s law-and-order push had not won him over. The president, Mr. Lacko said, cannot be trusted to act in anyone’s interest but his own. He reflected a majority of Wisconsin voters in seeing Mr. Biden as a unifier of the country: 52 percent said they trusted him more to bring people together, compared with 39 percent for Mr. Trump. “Trump certainly tries to take advantage of the situation and muddy the water,” he said. “I may not have agreed with some of the things Biden said, but at least he’s trying to bring people together and find some way through it.”
Seniors are another case in point. As noted above, a clear majority of them think Biden’s been too soft on rioting. And yet, per the Times, “Biden enjoys a 12-point lead, 52 to 40, among people 65 and older across the four states and, by overwhelming numbers, they say he would do a better job than Mr. Trump unifying the country, handling race relations and addressing the pandemic.” Winning the 65+ crowd, traditionally a Republican bloc, would all but guarantee Biden the presidency. And here he is with a double-digit lead among them in a bunch of battlegrounds *despite* seniors’ misgivings about his resolve in fighting crime. That’s a withering commentary on their trust in Trump.
The bottom line, I think, is that while the rioting has hurt Biden, there are too many other big-picture problems competing for voters’ attention in this nightmare of a year for urban violence to hurt him too much. In a world without COVID, with the economy still humming along, I can imagine a left-wing rampage becoming a gamechanger that erased his five-point pre-pandemic lead over Trump. As it is, the electorate has to weigh riots against which candidate will better handle coronavirus, which candidate will better manage the economy recovery (which includes federal relief), which candidate will better navigate racial tensions, and on and on. “Nearly one in five Wisconsinites who said that riots in American cities were a bigger problem than racism in the criminal justice system planned to vote for Mr. Biden,” the Times reports, clear evidence that even some voters who share Trump’s priorities on “law and order” don’t necessarily see him as the better option all things considered.
You can imagine a scenario in which rioting *does* become more of a gamechanging liability for Biden down the stretch. More rioting close to Election Day and/or an especially violent outburst somewhere might cross a red line for some voters who are leaning Biden right now and push fighting crime to the top of their list of policy priorities. But you can also imagine scenarios in which Biden wins over some of the voters who are leaning Trump at the moment because of the “law and order” issue. Biden’s going to tell America at the debates that he doesn’t support defunding the police, contrary to what Trump claims. How many voters will feel reassured by that and give him a second look? A second wave of COVID might also work to Biden’s advantage by refocusing voters on the pandemic and causing them to lose interest in the rioting. What happens to Trump’s numbers when the one issue that seems to be working for him right now — to some degree — suddenly becomes less of a priority for Americans?
There’s one other poll out today that’s worth paying a little attention to. This comes from a national survey by Yahoo News and YouGov:
Asked if their opinion of Trump’s coronavirus response has changed because of Woodward’s big scoop — a tape of Trump privately acknowledging the virus was “deadly stuff” even as he publicly sought, in his own words, “to play it down”— nearly a quarter of Americans (23 percent) say yes. Even 15 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2016 say the Woodward news has changed their mind about the president’s handling of the pandemic. Those might seem like small numbers. But in an age of extreme polarization, they could augur a real shift. Overall, 15 percent of Americans say the Woodward quotes have made them less likely to vote to reelect the president in November — and a third of these were 2016 Trump supporters.
I’m skeptical of that, as there hasn’t been any strong shift towards Biden in the RCP average over the last few days after the Woodward stuff came out. But then, sometimes it takes a week or two or more for news to percolate among voters before preferences begin to shift. The danger of Trump’s quotes to Woodward, I think, is that they’ll make any second wave of COVID in October that much more of a political liability for him among voters in the final weeks of the race. He’ll be fighting strong headwinds regardless if there’s bad news about the virus all over the news as the few remaining undecideds out there are making up their minds, but now that Democrats have weaponized his quote to Woodward about “downplaying” the risk early on, it could feel more like a hurricane.


hotair--2020-09-12--Bernie Sanders is worried that Biden is blowing it

Is this a real leak or is it just the Sanders camp flexing on Biden a bit ?
The Post frames it as a leak , i.e .
unnamed people close to Sanders say he ’ s worried Biden is about to blow the election .
But I ’ m not completely convinced : Sanders , the runner-up to Biden in the Democratic primary , has told associates that Biden is at serious risk of coming up short in the November election if he continues his vaguer , more centrist approach , according to the people , who spoke on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks .
The senator has identified several specific changes he ’ d like to see , saying Biden should talk more about health care and about his economic plans , and should campaign more with figures popular among young liberals , such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) … But Sanders has come to worry about the Biden campaign ’ s prospects , even as the Democratic nominee leads Trump in the national polls , associates said… The people familiar with Sanders ’ s private conversations said he has a expressed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the party has not received the attention its merits .
I can believe that Sanders isn ’ t happy with the moderate tone Biden is taking but the fact that he has put together “ specific changes ” makes this sound more like a planned leak than an accidental one .
Here ’ s what Sanders ’ s spokesman said about this : “ Senator Sanders is confident that Joe Biden is in a very strong position to win this election , but nevertheless feels there are areas the campaign can continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in direct contact with the Biden team and has urged them to put more emphasis on how they will raise wages , create millions of good paying jobs , lower the cost of prescription drugs and expand health care coverage.
” In other words , Sanders has already delivered this message to the Biden campaign and it seems it wasn ’ t well received , at least not to Sanders ’ satisfaction .
So what do you do when the Biden people aren ’ t listening to your concerns ?
You rattle them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying Sanders is nervous that Biden is blowing the election .
I ’ d be willing to bet the Biden campaign placed a call to Sanders this morning not long after this story was published .
Suddenly , Sanders has their full and complete attention .
Let ’ s face it .
Biden is a tough pill to swallow for the far left because he sounds pretty moderate .
Recently Biden has been condemning riots and looting to stifle Trump ’ s “ law & order ” message .
You can bet that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t like hearing any criticism of the “ uprising.
” So I think what we ’ re seeing here is a warning , i.e .
if you want to run a law & order jr. campaign you better give those of us on the left something else to get excited about .
The or else isn ’ t even implied , it ’ s being stated : Or else you ’ re going to lose .
That ’ s what I think is happening but there is one other possibility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders is an ideologue but he ’ s also a guy that riles up crowds of people ( especially younger people ) with fiery speeches , not unlike Trump .
And you look at Biden trying to read answers off a teleprompter or just bumbling through interviews and generally looking old .
It ’ s enough to put some genuine fear into the heart of any populist .

Is this a real leak or is it just the Sanders camp flexing on Biden a bit? The Post frames it as a leak, i.e. unnamed people close to Sanders say he’s worried Biden is about to blow the election. But I’m not completely convinced:
Sanders, the runner-up to Biden in the Democratic primary, has told associates that Biden is at serious risk of coming up short in the November election if he continues his vaguer, more centrist approach, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive talks. The senator has identified several specific changes he’d like to see, saying Biden should talk more about health care and about his economic plans, and should campaign more with figures popular among young liberals, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)… But Sanders has come to worry about the Biden campaign’s prospects, even as the Democratic nominee leads Trump in the national polls, associates said… The people familiar with Sanders’s private conversations said he has a expressed a sentiment that the liberal, millennial slice of the party has not received the attention its merits.
I can believe that Sanders isn’t happy with the moderate tone Biden is taking but the fact that he has put together “specific changes” makes this sound more like a planned leak than an accidental one.
Here’s what Sanders’s spokesman said about this: “Senator Sanders is confident that Joe Biden is in a very strong position to win this election, but nevertheless feels there are areas the campaign can continue to improve upon. He has been in direct contact with the Biden team and has urged them to put more emphasis on how they will raise wages, create millions of good paying jobs, lower the cost of prescription drugs and expand health care coverage.”
In other words, Sanders has already delivered this message to the Biden campaign and it seems it wasn’t well received, at least not to Sanders’ satisfaction. So what do you do when the Biden people aren’t listening to your concerns? You rattle them a bit with a “leak” saying Sanders is nervous that Biden is blowing the election. I’d be willing to bet the Biden campaign placed a call to Sanders this morning not long after this story was published. Suddenly, Sanders has their full and complete attention.
Let’s face it. Biden is a tough pill to swallow for the far left because he sounds pretty moderate. Recently Biden has been condemning riots and looting to stifle Trump’s “law & order” message. You can bet that AOC and others on the far left don’t like hearing any criticism of the “uprising.” So I think what we’re seeing here is a warning, i.e. if you want to run a law & order jr. campaign you better give those of us on the left something else to get excited about. The or else isn’t even implied, it’s being stated: Or else you’re going to lose.
That’s what I think is happening but there is one other possibility. Maybe Sanders is genuinely freaking out. Sanders is an ideologue but he’s also a guy that riles up crowds of people (especially younger people) with fiery speeches, not unlike Trump. And you look at Biden trying to read answers off a teleprompter or just bumbling through interviews and generally looking old. It’s enough to put some genuine fear into the heart of any populist.


hotair--2020-09-12--Minnesota restaurant delays opening, changes name due to "cultural appropriation"

As if it wasn ’ t already hard enough to open and maintain a restaurant in Minneapolis , what with the pandemic and rioting making the city almost unlivable .
Brian Ingram found out the hard way that there were even more challenges awaiting him has he prepared to open his new eatery , Elotes Woodfire Grill on Thursday .
The grand opening didn ’ t take place , however , for a couple of different reasons .
One was a rather mundane problem with failing a municipal fire code inspection , but the other was a protest launched against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Activists were unhappy with the name , saying that Ingram , a White man , had no business using the word “ elotes ” because it would represent “ cultural appropriation ” of Mexican heritage or something .
( CBS Minnesota ) Before it ever opened to customers , a St. Paul restaurant specializing in Mexican street food has changed its name after activists protested , citing cultural appropriation .
Elotes Woodfire Grill was slated to open Thursday on West 7th Street , inside the keystone Keg & Case Market space left vacant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new restaurant wasn ’ t able to welcome guests due to an issue with the building ’ s fire suppression equipment .
Protesters also picketed outside the restaurant .
According to an online petition , they took issue with the owner , Brian Ingram , using the word “ Elotes ” in the restaurant ’ s name .
Local food and restaurant critic Jason DeRusha put the story up on Twitter , noting how quickly Ingram had caved to the pressure from activists .
Ingram ’ s response to the criticism is pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar business owners who run afoul of the social justice warrior movement .
He immediately announced that he would be changing the name of his restaurant to Woodfire Cantina and issued a statement saying “ We are here to listen and learn.
” As I ’ ve opined here in the past , “ cultural appropriation ” is a nonsense term employed by the perpetually aggrieved if they run out of other things to complain about .
Nobody owns the exclusive rights to any particular aspect of culture , however you choose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , every aspect of American culture aside from that of the Indigenous Peoples was “ appropriated ” from someplace else , be it England , Ireland , France , Germany , Italy , or elsewhere .
In this case , the specific accusation is particularly irksome .
The word elotes just means corn in Spanish , specifically in parts of Mexico .
It ’ s a staple food and nobody “ invented ” it themselves .
But even if they had , it ’ s spread around the world .
The word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word chilli .
Should we be telling Chili ’ s Bar and Grill chain to change the name of all their establishments ?
While we ’ re on the subject , the last time I was in Tijuana I distinctly remember seeing a guy with a hot dog cart on one of the sidewalks .
Wasn ’ t he “ culturally appropriating ” the food of the United States ?
( Okay… we sort of stole that one from the Germans , but it ’ s still an American staple . )
Sadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somebody canceled in our current culture , so Ingram probably felt he had no choice in the matter .
If he had Latino critics protesting his restaurant , he wasn ’ t going to be off to a very good start in terms of attracting diners , particularly among the younger customers .
So he faced a choice of bending a knee to his progressive overlords or risk having his new business venture fail before it even made it out of the starting blocks .
And the liberals get to celebrate collecting another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organize a protest of the restaurant now just to demonstrate how pointless this all is .

As if it wasn’t already hard enough to open and maintain a restaurant in Minneapolis, what with the pandemic and rioting making the city almost unlivable. Brian Ingram found out the hard way that there were even more challenges awaiting him has he prepared to open his new eatery, Elotes Woodfire Grill on Thursday. The grand opening didn’t take place, however, for a couple of different reasons. One was a rather mundane problem with failing a municipal fire code inspection, but the other was a protest launched against the restaurant before it even opened. Activists were unhappy with the name, saying that Ingram, a White man, had no business using the word “elotes” because it would represent “cultural appropriation” of Mexican heritage or something. (CBS Minnesota)
Before it ever opened to customers, a St. Paul restaurant specializing in Mexican street food has changed its name after activists protested, citing cultural appropriation. Elotes Woodfire Grill was slated to open Thursday on West 7th Street, inside the keystone Keg & Case Market space left vacant by In Bloom. However, the new restaurant wasn’t able to welcome guests due to an issue with the building’s fire suppression equipment. Protesters also picketed outside the restaurant. According to an online petition, they took issue with the owner, Brian Ingram, using the word “Elotes” in the restaurant’s name.
Local food and restaurant critic Jason DeRusha put the story up on Twitter, noting how quickly Ingram had caved to the pressure from activists.
What a Day 1 for Elotes in St. Paul: didn’t open because of fire suppression equipment issue; protestors picketed the name as cultural appropriation; they changed the name to Woodfired Cantina. Latino and Latina chefs/restauranteurs have been pushing them on this for awhile. pic.twitter.com/kqt6EfjYYc — DeRusha Eats (@DeRushaEats) September 11, 2020
Ingram’s response to the criticism is pretty much par for the course compared to similar business owners who run afoul of the social justice warrior movement. He immediately announced that he would be changing the name of his restaurant to Woodfire Cantina and issued a statement saying “We are here to listen and learn.”
As I’ve opined here in the past, “cultural appropriation” is a nonsense term employed by the perpetually aggrieved if they run out of other things to complain about. Nobody owns the exclusive rights to any particular aspect of culture, however you choose to define it. If you think about it, every aspect of American culture aside from that of the Indigenous Peoples was “appropriated” from someplace else, be it England, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, or elsewhere.
In this case, the specific accusation is particularly irksome. The word elotes just means corn in Spanish, specifically in parts of Mexico. It’s a staple food and nobody “invented” it themselves. But even if they had, it’s spread around the world. The word “chili” comes from the Aztecan word chilli. Should we be telling Chili’s Bar and Grill chain to change the name of all their establishments?
While we’re on the subject, the last time I was in Tijuana I distinctly remember seeing a guy with a hot dog cart on one of the sidewalks. Wasn’t he “culturally appropriating” the food of the United States? (Okay… we sort of stole that one from the Germans, but it’s still an American staple.)
Sadly, it takes almost nothing to get somebody canceled in our current culture, so Ingram probably felt he had no choice in the matter. If he had Latino critics protesting his restaurant, he wasn’t going to be off to a very good start in terms of attracting diners, particularly among the younger customers. So he faced a choice of bending a knee to his progressive overlords or risk having his new business venture fail before it even made it out of the starting blocks. And the liberals get to celebrate collecting another scalp. Perhaps some conservatives need to organize a protest of the restaurant now just to demonstrate how pointless this all is.