hotair--2020-07-09--SCOTUS finale: Two 7-2 punts give Trump a short-term TD; <span class='red'>Trump attorney: We're del

SCOTUS finale: Two 7-2 punts give Trump a short-term TD; Trump attorney: We're delighted, and we'll keep fighting

There are no absolutes , at least not at the Supreme Court , and that was both good and bad news for Donald Trump .
In two 7-2 decisions , the court ruled that the presidency does not have “ absolute immunity ” from subpoena nor a “ heightened need ” that privileges him over any other citizen .
Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote that Congress does not have an absolute right to subpoena a president ’ s personal records , and that lower courts erred in not considering separation-of-powers issues more carefully .
The upshot : no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tax returns for months , if ever .
Let ’ s start with the clear loss in Trump v Vance , which nonetheless has a yuuuge silver lining .
Trump sued Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance to block his subpoena of Trump ’ s financial records on the basis of “ absolute immunity.
” Roberts scoffed at that , along with everyone else on the court , even dissenters : Nor does a subpoena require a demonstration of “ heightened need ” when it involves a president : We next consider whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s private papers must satisfy a heightened need standard .
The Solicitor General would require a threshold showing that the evidence sought is “ critical ” for “ specific charging decisions ” and that the subpoena is a “ last resort , ” meaning the evidence is “ not available from any other source ” and is needed “ now , rather than at the end of the President ’ s term.
” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29 , 32 ( internal quotation marks and alteration omitted ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , agrees that a state criminal subpoena to a President “ should not be allowed unless a heightened standard is met.
” Post , at 16–18 ( asking whether the information is “ critical ” and “ necessary .
.
.
now ” ) .
We disagree , for three reasons .
… Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents with “ no real protection.
” Post , at 19 ( opinion of ALITO , J. )
.
To start , a President may avail himself of the same protections available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , although the Constitution does not entitle the Executive to absolute immunity or a heightened standard , he is not “ relegate [ d ] ” only to the challenges available to private citizens .
Post , at 17 ( opinion of ALITO , J. )
.
A President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges , in either a state or federal forum .
As previously noted , he can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties , in violation of the Supremacy Clause .
See supra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against local political machinations “ interposed as an obstacle to the effective operation of a federal constitutional power.
” United States v. Belmont , 301 U. S. 324 , 332 ( 1937 ) .
In addition , the Executive can—as the district attorney concedes—argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties .
These issues contribute to the massive silver lining to the dark cloud of Vance .
And that is that the court did not order Trump to turn over those records , as some media outlets initially reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the district court to give Trump ’ s attorneys another opportunity to argue those points in opposing the subpoena : In other words , it might well be a year or more before this case gets settled again .
It won ’ t be the last time the Supreme Court sees it , unless Vance loses interest in the subpoena .
And given that the political value of those records disappears in November no matter how the election goes , one has to wonder whether Vance ’ s interest in those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The real surprise today came in Trump v Mazars , in which the president challenged a series of subpoenas from the House for his financial records .
In an identical 7-2 split , the court overturned lower-court rulings ordering Mazars to release the information .
Once again Roberts didn ’ t put an end to the case , but this time he warned that Congress didn ’ t have supremacy over the executive .
In the summary to the opinion , the 7-2 majority holds that the lower courts didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political interests ” involved , and remanded it back with a much tougher test : The approach proposed by the House , which relies on precedents that did not involve the President ’ s papers , fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President ’ s information .
The House ’ s approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President ’ s personal records .
A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself at the President ’ s expense .
These separation of powers concerns are unmistakably implicated by the subpoenas here , which represent not a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved .
The interbranch conflict does not vanish simply because the subpoenas seek personal papers or because the President sued in his personal capacity Nor are separation of powers concerns less palpable because the subpoenas were issued to third parties .
… First , courts should carefully assess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant step of involving the President and his papers .
“ ‘ [ O ] ccasion [ s ] for constitutional confrontation between the two branches ’ should be avoided whenever possible.
” Cheney v. United States Dist .
Court for D. C. , 542 U. S. 367 , 389–390 ( quoting Nixon , 418 U. S. , at 692 ) .
Congress may not rely on the President ’ s information if other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective .
Second , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the branches , courts should insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress ’ s legislative objective .
The specificity of the subpoena ’ s request “ serves as an important safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the Office of the President.
” Cheney , 542 U. S. , at 387 .
Third , courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose .
The more detailed and substantial , the better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contemplates legislation that raises sensitive constitutional issues , such as legislation concerning the Presidency .
Fourth , courts should assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena , particularly because they stem from a rival political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage .
Other considerations may be pertinent as well ; one case every two centuries does not afford enough experience for an exhaustive list .
If Vance was a temporary loss but tactical win for Trump , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats .
Undoubtedly , Trump would have preferred a ruling that confirmed “ absolute immunity ” while in office , but it ’ s not too much exaggeration that Trump might have been the only person who thought it existed .
( In fact , it ’ s not even certain Trump actually believed that argument . )
This scolding from Roberts , and the 7-2 split that includes all four liberal justices , makes it pretty clear that they saw those subpoenas not as legitimate legislative mechanisms but political ploys .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the lower courts .
Mazars might still come back to the Supreme Court , but it won ’ t be before November , either .
That means that House Democrats can ’ t raid Trump ’ s financial records before the election .
After the election , Vance may or may not still be interested in them , but House Democrats won ’ t have any use for them at all .
This is a dead issue .
Clarence Thomas ’ dissent in Mazars should be read in full for his masterful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Thomas would have struck down Congress ’ appropriation of any subpoena power outside of an impeachment proceeding , especially in regard to private papers of a president : The four-factor test will be enough for Trump at this late stage .
One would think he ’ d be high-fiving , but … Finally , the only other surprise is that only one of the three cases got decided on a 5-4 split — and that was McGirt , a dispute over the status of the Creek Nation reservation in Oklahoma .
Neil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declaring that the “ allotment ” process adopted by the government did not negate the treaty establishing the reservation , and that only an act of Congress could do that ( via the Original Pechanga ) : In the Treaty of 1856 , Congress promised that “ no portion ” of the Creek Reservation “ shall ever be embraced or included within , or annexed to , any Territory or State.
” Art .
IV , 11 Stat .
700 .
And within their lands , with exceptions , the Creeks were to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of self-government , ” with “ full jurisdiction ” over enrolled Tribe members and their property .
Art .
XV , id.
, at 704 .
So the Creek were promised not only a “ permanent home ” that would be “ forever set apart ” ; they were also assured a right to self-government on lands that would lie outside both the legal jurisdiction and geographic boundaries of any State .
Under any definition , this was a reservation .
… The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reservation .
It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe ’ s authority .
But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation .
As a result , many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern .
Yes , promises were made , but the price of keeping them has become too great , so now we should just cast a blind eye .
We reject that thinking .
If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises , it must say so .
Unlawful acts , performed long enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to amend the law .
To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law , both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right .
It ’ s a novel approach — keeping our word to Native American tribes .
Perhaps this is as good a time as any to try that strategy .
Update : Trump ’ s attorney is happier than Trump is : Well , Sekulow will get more billable hours out of it , too .
But all kidding aside , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tactical war .

There are no absolutes, at least not at the Supreme Court, and that was both good and bad news for Donald Trump. In two 7-2 decisions, the court ruled that the presidency does not have “absolute immunity” from subpoena nor a “heightened need” that privileges him over any other citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote that Congress does not have an absolute right to subpoena a president’s personal records, and that lower courts erred in not considering separation-of-powers issues more carefully.
The upshot: no one’s gonna see Trump’s tax returns for months, if ever.
Let’s start with the clear loss in Trump v Vance, which nonetheless has a yuuuge silver lining. Trump sued Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance to block his subpoena of Trump’s financial records on the basis of “absolute immunity.” Roberts scoffed at that, along with everyone else on the court, even dissenters:
Given these safeguards and the Court’s precedents, we cannot conclude that absolute immunity is necessary or appropriate under Article II or the Supremacy Clause. Our dissenting colleagues agree. JUSTICE THOMAS reaches the same conclusion based on the original understanding of the Constitution reflected in Marshall’s decision in Burr. Post, at 2, 5–6. And JUSTICE ALITO, also persuaded by Burr, “agree[s]” that “not all” state criminal subpoenas for a President’s records “should be barred.” Post, at 16. On that point the Court is unanimous.
Nor does a subpoena require a demonstration of “heightened need” when it involves a president:
We next consider whether a state grand jury subpoena seeking a President’s private papers must satisfy a heightened need standard. The Solicitor General would require a threshold showing that the evidence sought is “critical” for “specific charging decisions” and that the subpoena is a “last resort,” meaning the evidence is “not available from any other source” and is needed “now, rather than at the end of the President’s term.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29, 32 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). JUSTICE ALITO, largely embracing those criteria, agrees that a state criminal subpoena to a President “should not be allowed unless a heightened standard is met.” Post, at 16–18 (asking whether the information is “critical” and “necessary . . . now”). We disagree, for three reasons. … Rejecting a heightened need standard does not leave Presidents with “no real protection.” Post, at 19 (opinion of ALITO, J.). To start, a President may avail himself of the same protections available to every other citizen. … Furthermore, although the Constitution does not entitle the Executive to absolute immunity or a heightened standard, he is not “relegate[d]” only to the challenges available to private citizens. Post, at 17 (opinion of ALITO, J.). A President can raise subpoena-specific constitutional challenges, in either a state or federal forum. As previously noted, he can challenge the subpoena as an attempt to influence the performance of his official duties, in violation of the Supremacy Clause. See supra, at 17. This avenue protects against local political machinations “interposed as an obstacle to the effective operation of a federal constitutional power.” United States v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324, 332 (1937). In addition, the Executive can—as the district attorney concedes—argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties.
These issues contribute to the massive silver lining to the dark cloud of Vance. And that is that the court did not order Trump to turn over those records, as some media outlets initially reported. Instead, they sent the case back to the district court to give Trump’s attorneys another opportunity to argue those points in opposing the subpoena:
The arguments presented here and in the Court of Appeals were limited to absolute immunity and heightened need. The Court of Appeals, however, has directed that the case be returned to the District Court, where the President may raise further arguments as appropriate. 941 F. 3d, at 646, n. 19.6 We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In other words, it might well be a year or more before this case gets settled again. It won’t be the last time the Supreme Court sees it, unless Vance loses interest in the subpoena. And given that the political value of those records disappears in November no matter how the election goes, one has to wonder whether Vance’s interest in those records will survive much past that point.
The real surprise today came in Trump v Mazars, in which the president challenged a series of subpoenas from the House for his financial records. In an identical 7-2 split, the court overturned lower-court rulings ordering Mazars to release the information. Once again Roberts didn’t put an end to the case, but this time he warned that Congress didn’t have supremacy over the executive. In the summary to the opinion, the 7-2 majority holds that the lower courts didn’t take enough note of the “intense political interests” involved, and remanded it back with a much tougher test:
The approach proposed by the House, which relies on precedents that did not involve the President’s papers, fails to take adequate account of the significant separation of powers issues raised by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information. The House’s approach would leave essentially no limits on the congressional power to subpoena the President’s personal records. A limitless subpoena power could transform the established practice of the political branches and allow Congress to aggrandize itself at the President’s expense. These separation of powers concerns are unmistakably implicated by the subpoenas here, which represent not a run-of-the-mill legislative effort but rather a clash between rival branches of government over records of intense political interest for all involved. The interbranch conflict does not vanish simply because the subpoenas seek personal papers or because the President sued in his personal capacity Nor are separation of powers concerns less palpable because the subpoenas were issued to third parties. … First, courts should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers. “ ‘[O]ccasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two branches’ should be avoided whenever possible.” Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 389–390 (quoting Nixon, 418 U. S., at 692). Congress may not rely on the President’s information if other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it needs in light of its particular legislative objective. Second, to narrow the scope of possible conflict between the branches, courts should insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective. The specificity of the subpoena’s request “serves as an important safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the Office of the President.” Cheney, 542 U. S., at 387. Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose. The more detailed and substantial, the better. That is particularly true when Congress contemplates legislation that raises sensitive constitutional issues, such as legislation concerning the Presidency. Fourth, courts should assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena, particularly because they stem from a rival political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage. Other considerations may be pertinent as well; one case every two centuries does not afford enough experience for an exhaustive list.
If Vance was a temporary loss but tactical win for Trump, this is both a tactical and permanent loss for House Democrats. Undoubtedly, Trump would have preferred a ruling that confirmed “absolute immunity” while in office, but it’s not too much exaggeration that Trump might have been the only person who thought it existed. (In fact, it’s not even certain Trump actually believed that argument.) This scolding from Roberts, and the 7-2 split that includes all four liberal justices, makes it pretty clear that they saw those subpoenas not as legitimate legislative mechanisms but political ploys. That message will resonate loudly and clearly in the lower courts.
Mazars might still come back to the Supreme Court, but it won’t be before November, either. That means that House Democrats can’t raid Trump’s financial records before the election. After the election, Vance may or may not still be interested in them, but House Democrats won’t have any use for them at all. This is a dead issue.
Clarence Thomas’ dissent in Mazars should be read in full for his masterful rejection of Congressional supremacy. In summation, Thomas would have struck down Congress’ appropriation of any subpoena power outside of an impeachment proceeding, especially in regard to private papers of a president:
Congress’ legislative powers do not authorize it to engage in a nationwide inquisition with whatever resources it chooses to appropriate for itself. The majority’s solution— a nonexhaustive four-factor test of uncertain origin—is better than nothing. But the power that Congress seeks to exercise here has even less basis in the Constitution than the majority supposes. I would reverse in full because the power to subpoena private, nonofficial documents is not a necessary implication of Congress’ legislative powers. If Congress wishes to obtain these documents, it should proceed through the impeachment power. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The four-factor test will be enough for Trump at this late stage. One would think he’d be high-fiving, but …
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1281238370316890119
Finally, the only other surprise is that only one of the three cases got decided on a 5-4 split — and that was McGirt, a dispute over the status of the Creek Nation reservation in Oklahoma. Neil Gorsuch sided with the four liberals in declaring that the “allotment” process adopted by the government did not negate the treaty establishing the reservation, and that only an act of Congress could do that (via the Original Pechanga):
In the Treaty of 1856, Congress promised that “no portion” of the Creek Reservation “shall ever be embraced or included within, or annexed to, any Territory or State.” Art. IV, 11 Stat. 700. And within their lands, with exceptions, the Creeks were to be “secured in the unrestricted right of self-government,” with “full jurisdiction” over enrolled Tribe members and their property. Art. XV, id., at 704. So the Creek were promised not only a “permanent home” that would be “forever set apart”; they were also assured a right to self-government on lands that would lie outside both the legal jurisdiction and geographic boundaries of any State. Under any definition, this was a reservation. … The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.
It’s a novel approach — keeping our word to Native American tribes. Perhaps this is as good a time as any to try that strategy.
Update: Trump’s attorney is happier than Trump is:
Sekulow: “We are pleased that in decisions issued today, the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked both Congress & New York prosecutors from obtaining the President’s financial records. We will now proceed to raise additional Constitutional and legal issues in the lower courts.” — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) July 9, 2020
Well, Sekulow will get more billable hours out of it, too. But all kidding aside, Sekulow understands that Trump just won the tactical war.


hotair--2020-07-09--Turkey is still threatening to leave NATO. Let's take them up on that

Our supposed ally and NATO partner Turkey is back in the headlines , once again for all the wrong sorts of reasons .
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been in something of a spat with France ’ s Emmanuel Macron over the past couple of months and their relationship is clearly continuing to deteriorate .
This week , Turkey ’ s Ambassador to France suggested that it might be time for his country to leave the NATO alliance , going on to imply that there wouldn ’ t even be a functional body such as NATO without Turkey ’ s participation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snooty and rude ?
They ’ ve got nothing on the Turks these days .
( Free Beacon ) A Turkish official raised the possibility of the country leaving NATO , according to a Tuesday Reuters report .
Citing an already tenuous relationship with fellow member states , Turkish ambassador to France Ismail Hakki Musa questioned NATO ’ s capabilities absent Turkey ’ s involvement .
“ Imagine NATO without Turkey , ” he said .
“ You would have no NATO.
” Turkey has pivoted away from the alliance in recent months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Russia , strengthening its ties with the longtime NATO competitor .
Meanwhile , it has cracked down on domestic dissent , imprisoning a group of journalists last year and recently loosening protections for Uighur refugees from China .
The decline of Turkey ’ s once-promising democracy and their increasingly close ties to Russia , China , Iran and other bad actors is a major disappointment .
The recent spat with France would be both shocking and alarming if it weren ’ t for the fact that it ’ s largely in keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent actions .
The dispute in question took place last month when a Tanzanian freighter in the Mediterranean was suspected of illegal arms smuggling and other violations .
A French ship flying the NATO flag was dispatched to intercept them and conduct routine inspections .
In response , Turkey sent three of their own warships out to target the French ship with their targeting radar systems and armed their crews in a threatening fashion .
The Tanzanian ship was assisted in getting away .
Does that sound like the actions of an ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were already all too familiar with Turkey ’ s many ham-handed maneuvers over the past couple of years .
They not only held an American pastor hostage for more than two years but more recently took the side of Syrian forces under Bashar al Assad over the Kurds who have been fighting as allies to the United States .
On top of that , Turkey has conducted arms deals with the Russians , purchasing missile systems that are not compatible with the rest of NATO ’ s forces .
Erdogan has also been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of late , in addition to providing material assistance to Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro while he ’ s been under sanctions from virtually everyone else .
The list goes on .
Turkey has been playing both sides of the coin for years , soaking up all the benefits of being a member of NATO while acting in direct conflict to the organization ’ s goals .
As far as I ’ m concerned , it ’ s time for the United States and the rest of our NATO partners to either fish or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to act as a reasonable ally , they should be dropped from NATO ’ s ranks .
Yes , this would be a potentially costly move for both America and the rest of NATO , as we would have to deploy our military forces elsewhere in the region if we ’ re losing access to Turkey ’ s airbases .
But what good is their military strength doing for NATO if it ’ s being deployed to help our adversaries rather than our allies ?
And something tells me that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this action , Erdogan may suddenly see the light and come back to the table .
Direct confrontation and significant action are probably the only things he understands and respects .

Our supposed ally and NATO partner Turkey is back in the headlines, once again for all the wrong sorts of reasons. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been in something of a spat with France’s Emmanuel Macron over the past couple of months and their relationship is clearly continuing to deteriorate. This week, Turkey’s Ambassador to France suggested that it might be time for his country to leave the NATO alliance, going on to imply that there wouldn’t even be a functional body such as NATO without Turkey’s participation. And you thought the French were snooty and rude? They’ve got nothing on the Turks these days. (Free Beacon)
A Turkish official raised the possibility of the country leaving NATO, according to a Tuesday Reuters report. Citing an already tenuous relationship with fellow member states, Turkish ambassador to France Ismail Hakki Musa questioned NATO’s capabilities absent Turkey’s involvement. “Imagine NATO without Turkey,” he said. “You would have no NATO.” Turkey has pivoted away from the alliance in recent months. The country recently bought fighter jets from Russia, strengthening its ties with the longtime NATO competitor. Meanwhile, it has cracked down on domestic dissent, imprisoning a group of journalists last year and recently loosening protections for Uighur refugees from China.
The decline of Turkey’s once-promising democracy and their increasingly close ties to Russia, China, Iran and other bad actors is a major disappointment. The recent spat with France would be both shocking and alarming if it weren’t for the fact that it’s largely in keeping with the Tyrant of Turkey’s recent actions.
The dispute in question took place last month when a Tanzanian freighter in the Mediterranean was suspected of illegal arms smuggling and other violations. A French ship flying the NATO flag was dispatched to intercept them and conduct routine inspections. In response, Turkey sent three of their own warships out to target the French ship with their targeting radar systems and armed their crews in a threatening fashion. The Tanzanian ship was assisted in getting away.
Does that sound like the actions of an ally to you? Of course, Americans were already all too familiar with Turkey’s many ham-handed maneuvers over the past couple of years. They not only held an American pastor hostage for more than two years but more recently took the side of Syrian forces under Bashar al Assad over the Kurds who have been fighting as allies to the United States. On top of that, Turkey has conducted arms deals with the Russians, purchasing missile systems that are not compatible with the rest of NATO’s forces.
Erdogan has also been cozying up with both China and Iran of late, in addition to providing material assistance to Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro while he’s been under sanctions from virtually everyone else. The list goes on. Turkey has been playing both sides of the coin for years, soaking up all the benefits of being a member of NATO while acting in direct conflict to the organization’s goals.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s time for the United States and the rest of our NATO partners to either fish or cut bait. If Turkey doesn’t want to act as a reasonable ally, they should be dropped from NATO’s ranks. Yes, this would be a potentially costly move for both America and the rest of NATO, as we would have to deploy our military forces elsewhere in the region if we’re losing access to Turkey’s airbases. But what good is their military strength doing for NATO if it’s being deployed to help our adversaries rather than our allies? And something tells me that if we get close to pulling the trigger on this action, Erdogan may suddenly see the light and come back to the table. Direct confrontation and significant action are probably the only things he understands and respects.


hotair--2020-07-09--Lady A**: Newly woke band sues black singer to show their solidarity with the struggle, or something

One has to wonder whether the Woke Band Formerly Known as Lady Antebellum has decided to become an avante-garde performance artist troupe rather than an actual country-music band .
First the Nashville-based group tried to change its name and claim that it had no idea about the baggage around the word “ antebellum , ” a laughable premise in itself .
Then it claimed the name Lady A , only to discover that an African-American blues singer had used that for years , who then accused the band of exercising its “ white privilege ” in not even bothering to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And just when you thought the story couldn ’ t get any better , the lawsuit dropped .
No , Anita “ Lady A ” White didn ’ t sue Lady Antebellum — the band is suing her to get control of the name , all in service of paying homage to Black Lives Matter .
Because nothing says “ woke ” like appropriating a black woman ’ s stage name and then suing her to steal it for good , right ?
Country group Lady A , which dropped the word “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word ’ s ties to slavery , has filed a lawsuit against a Black singer who has performed as Lady A for years .
The Grammy-winning vocal group filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court after negotiations with Anita White broke down in recent weeks .
According to the lawsuit , the band is seeking a ruling that their use of the trademark “ Lady A ” does not infringe on White ’ s alleged trademark rights of the same name .
The band is not seeking monetary damages .
… According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for trademarks for the name “ Lady A ” for entertainment services and for use on clothing back in 2010 and no oppositions were filed by any person or entity .
“ When we learned that Ms. White had also been performing under the name Lady A , we had heartfelt discussions with her about how we can all come together and make something special and beautiful out of this moment , ” said the group in a statement .
“ We never even entertained the idea that she shouldn ’ t also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A , and never will — today ’ s action doesn ’ t change that.
” Er … wan na bet ?
If the group trademarked the name “ Lady A ” in 2010 , then they had a duty to defend it and to use it commercially for themselves .
Part of defending a trademark is to show some effort in making sure it doesn ’ t get used commercially by others , especially in the same industry .
A Lady A shaver , for instance , might not be a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under that name for ten years without their knowledge will look to a court like the band abandoned that claim .
Their trademark won ’ t survive long if that ’ s the case , and if White did trademark it too , then Lady Wokebellum is going to have some real problems .
Supposedly the negotiations broke down over the payment to White for not contesting the new name .
Reportedly , she wanted millions of dollars , no doubt for some justice for the band ’ s complete ignorance of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
The band may want to show solidarity with Black Lives Matter , but White might want to impress on them just how much she matters .
When this is all over , a $ 10 million check might end up looking like a steal .
The end result is likely that Lady Cray-Cray will need to come up with a new name … again .
Perhaps Lady A** will suffice as different enough from White ’ s persona and trademark , and it might be the most accurate name yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brit alt-pop and rename themselves Wokery Will Eat Itself .
Can you dig it ?

One has to wonder whether the Woke Band Formerly Known as Lady Antebellum has decided to become an avante-garde performance artist troupe rather than an actual country-music band. First the Nashville-based group tried to change its name and claim that it had no idea about the baggage around the word “antebellum,” a laughable premise in itself. Then it claimed the name Lady A, only to discover that an African-American blues singer had used that for years, who then accused the band of exercising its “white privilege” in not even bothering to check whether the name was available.
And just when you thought the story couldn’t get any better, the lawsuit dropped. No, Anita “Lady A” White didn’t sue Lady Antebellum — the band is suing her to get control of the name, all in service of paying homage to Black Lives Matter. Because nothing says “woke” like appropriating a black woman’s stage name and then suing her to steal it for good, right?
Country group Lady A, which dropped the word “Antebellum” from its name because of the word’s ties to slavery, has filed a lawsuit against a Black singer who has performed as Lady A for years. The Grammy-winning vocal group filed the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court after negotiations with Anita White broke down in recent weeks. According to the lawsuit, the band is seeking a ruling that their use of the trademark “Lady A” does not infringe on White’s alleged trademark rights of the same name. The band is not seeking monetary damages. … According to the lawsuit, the band applied for trademarks for the name “Lady A” for entertainment services and for use on clothing back in 2010 and no oppositions were filed by any person or entity. “When we learned that Ms. White had also been performing under the name Lady A, we had heartfelt discussions with her about how we can all come together and make something special and beautiful out of this moment,” said the group in a statement. “We never even entertained the idea that she shouldn’t also be able to use the name Lady A, and never will — today’s action doesn’t change that.”
Er … wanna bet? If the group trademarked the name “Lady A” in 2010, then they had a duty to defend it and to use it commercially for themselves. Part of defending a trademark is to show some effort in making sure it doesn’t get used commercially by others, especially in the same industry. A Lady A shaver, for instance, might not be a problem, but having another recording artist perform under that name for ten years without their knowledge will look to a court like the band abandoned that claim. Their trademark won’t survive long if that’s the case, and if White did trademark it too, then Lady Wokebellum is going to have some real problems.
Supposedly the negotiations broke down over the payment to White for not contesting the new name. Reportedly, she wanted millions of dollars, no doubt for some justice for the band’s complete ignorance of her existence until after they announced the name change. The band may want to show solidarity with Black Lives Matter, but White might want to impress on them just how much she matters. When this is all over, a $10 million check might end up looking like a steal.
The end result is likely that Lady Cray-Cray will need to come up with a new name … again. Perhaps Lady A** will suffice as different enough from White’s persona and trademark, and it might be the most accurate name yet. However, they can always borrow from Brit alt-pop and rename themselves Wokery Will Eat Itself. Can you dig it?


hotair--2020-07-09--New York City limits the number of cops who can retire each week

Amid all of the protests and moves to “ defund the police ” in New York City over the past month or two , it ’ s probably not much of a surprise to learn that a significant number of police officers are packing it in .
Those who have twenty years on the force and are eligible for vested retirement plans have been increasingly ready to end their service in Gotham and seek greener pastures elsewhere .
But for any wishing to do so in the next month or two , they may need to prepare for an extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit on how many police officers can file for retirement each day , citing a variety of reasons .
( NY Post ) New York ’ s Finest are putting in for retirement faster than the NYPD can handle — citing a lack of respect and the loss of overtime pay , The Post has learned .
A surge of city cops filing for retirement during the past week more than quadrupled last year ’ s number — as the city grapples with a surge of shootings — and the stampede caused a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delay putting in their papers , officials and sources said .
The NYPD said Wednesday that 179 cops filed for retirement between June 29 and Monday , an astounding 411-percent increase over the 35 who filed during the same time period in 2019 .
What the NYPD is dealing with here is a perfect storm , largely of the city ’ s own making .
As noted in the linked article , there has been a more than 400 % increase in the number of officers filing for retirement as compared to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prolonged period from May 25th ( the date of George Floyd ’ s death ) to July 3rd , there was a 75 % increase in retirement requests .
But at the same time , the personnel office that processes such requests has lost all of their overtime authorization because of the recent cuts to the police budget ( Defund the Police ! )
signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio this month .
That means that more request forms are in the queue while the office ’ s capacity to process applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a vicious circle because most of the cops on the beat have had their overtime cut as well , and that ’ s being cited as one of the common factors in their decisions to retire .
Of course , there are other reasons as well .
One officer waiting to file his retirement papers was quoted as saying , “ Why would you want to stay on this job when people don ’ t appreciate what you do ?
” Among the cops who are too young or don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retire , some are looking at simply resigning and moving away if they have the means to do so .
And all of this is taking place just as the city is experiencing a historic increase in shootings as well as a spike in property crimes .
The plainclothes anti-crime unit was disbanded recently , leading officials from the police unions to wonder just who was running the show at this point and what they could possibly be thinking ?
In retrospect , this sequence of events should have been entirely predictable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYPD has been in the tank since shortly after de Blasio first took office .
New York cops have physically turned their backs on the Mayor when he showed up to speak at funerals for fallen officers .
And when he immediately jumped in to take the side of the protesters over his own cops , that was obviously a bridge too far for many of them .
Bleeding out your police force just as your city is experiencing rapidly rising violent crime rates is a recipe for disaster .
If Bill de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to turn back into a larger version of Baltimore .
And then you ’ ll really see people fleeing the Big Apple .
And I ’ m not just talking about the cops .

Amid all of the protests and moves to “defund the police” in New York City over the past month or two, it’s probably not much of a surprise to learn that a significant number of police officers are packing it in. Those who have twenty years on the force and are eligible for vested retirement plans have been increasingly ready to end their service in Gotham and seek greener pastures elsewhere. But for any wishing to do so in the next month or two, they may need to prepare for an extended wait. The city has placed a limit on how many police officers can file for retirement each day, citing a variety of reasons. (NY Post)
New York’s Finest are putting in for retirement faster than the NYPD can handle — citing a lack of respect and the loss of overtime pay, The Post has learned. A surge of city cops filing for retirement during the past week more than quadrupled last year’s number — as the city grapples with a surge of shootings — and the stampede caused a bottleneck that’s forcing others to delay putting in their papers, officials and sources said. The NYPD said Wednesday that 179 cops filed for retirement between June 29 and Monday, an astounding 411-percent increase over the 35 who filed during the same time period in 2019.
What the NYPD is dealing with here is a perfect storm, largely of the city’s own making. As noted in the linked article, there has been a more than 400% increase in the number of officers filing for retirement as compared to the same one-week period last year. For the prolonged period from May 25th (the date of George Floyd’s death) to July 3rd, there was a 75% increase in retirement requests. But at the same time, the personnel office that processes such requests has lost all of their overtime authorization because of the recent cuts to the police budget (Defund the Police!) signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio this month.
That means that more request forms are in the queue while the office’s capacity to process applications is decreased. It’s something of a vicious circle because most of the cops on the beat have had their overtime cut as well, and that’s being cited as one of the common factors in their decisions to retire. Of course, there are other reasons as well. One officer waiting to file his retirement papers was quoted as saying, “Why would you want to stay on this job when people don’t appreciate what you do?”
Among the cops who are too young or don’t have enough time on the job to retire, some are looking at simply resigning and moving away if they have the means to do so. And all of this is taking place just as the city is experiencing a historic increase in shootings as well as a spike in property crimes. The plainclothes anti-crime unit was disbanded recently, leading officials from the police unions to wonder just who was running the show at this point and what they could possibly be thinking?
In retrospect, this sequence of events should have been entirely predictable. The relationship between the Mayor and the NYPD has been in the tank since shortly after de Blasio first took office. New York cops have physically turned their backs on the Mayor when he showed up to speak at funerals for fallen officers. And when he immediately jumped in to take the side of the protesters over his own cops, that was obviously a bridge too far for many of them.
Bleeding out your police force just as your city is experiencing rapidly rising violent crime rates is a recipe for disaster. If Bill de Blasio isn’t careful, Gotham is going to turn back into a larger version of Baltimore. And then you’ll really see people fleeing the Big Apple. And I’m not just talking about the cops.


hotair--2020-07-09--"Utopia is a bunch of BS": Black activist confronts Minneapolis city council member over dismantling

"Utopia is a bunch of BS": Black activist confronts Minneapolis city council member over dismantling police force

Will the Minneapolis city council dismantle the city ’ s police department — or will it listen to the local black community ?
The two came together late yesterday in an awkward , accidental meeting as community violence-prevention advocates literally called “ BS ” on the council ’ s plan to dismantle the Minneapolis PD .
“ It is time to stand up in this city , it is time to tell the city council that Utopia is a bunch of BS , ” former police officer and now activist Lisa Clemons declared .
And that ’ s when one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police happened by ( via PJ Media ’ s Jim Treacher ) : Lisa Clemons is a former officers and a peace activist with “ A Mother ’ s Love.
” She said to a crowd of reporters , “ We can not have bullets continue to fly in our community.
” A panel of African-American violence prevention advocates held what they call an emergency news conference to speak against the city council ’ s push to dismantle the police department .
“ It is time to stand up in this city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city council that utopia is a bunch of B.S .
We are not in Mayberry we are in the wild wild west and it is time for some answers , ” Clemons said .
At that point , Andrea Jenkins just happened to wander by .
When confronted — in a collegial way — by Clemons , Jenkins insisted that she was concerned about the violence too , and that the city would have policing .
Of some sort , anyway , but not until the council “ reimagined ” it : Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of the current police department ?
Perhaps we could ask them to simply put those policies in place .
Oh , wait !
It ’ s Jenkins and the rest of her colleagues on the city council , isn ’ t it ?
Indeed it is — and this push to dismantle the police department is just a way to dodge responsibility for the fact that the current council has done a piss-poor job in one of its core missions .
They want to wipe the slate clean because then they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those failures .
That might fly with some activists , but not those with real skin in the game .
The African-American community has vocally opposed this idea all along , and they ’ re getting more assertive with every shooting that takes place while the city council evades its responsibilities .
Their proposal to dismantle the police will take months , possibly years to try , thanks to a requirement in the city charter for a police department .
Voters would have to approve that change , and the referendum is almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November ballot .
The city council action could leave the city and its law enforcement needs in limbo until 2022 rather than work on fixing the problems now within the police department they already control .
And even if they do wait that long , it ’ s getting pretty clear that the referendum on the charter change is almost certain to fail .
The council still doesn ’ t have any idea what replacement will follow the dismantling of the police department .
They want to pass the charter change first … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that idea .
The further this gets from the George Floyd killing , the tougher that sale will be , especially with violence surging in the city every day since .
That means their constituents might wait for years and still be left right where they are today .
There ’ s a reason that the local NAACP , the Urban League , and the residents they represent call the city council ’ s actions “ egregious , grotesque , absurd , crazy , ridiculous.
” This pusillanimous council is more interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis residents at the mercy of criminals .
Jenkins ’ double-talk is all they ’ re getting , and hopefully every one of them remembers it the next time the city elects its council .

Will the Minneapolis city council dismantle the city’s police department — or will it listen to the local black community? The two came together late yesterday in an awkward, accidental meeting as community violence-prevention advocates literally called “BS” on the council’s plan to dismantle the Minneapolis PD. “It is time to stand up in this city, it is time to tell the city council that Utopia is a bunch of BS,” former police officer and now activist Lisa Clemons declared.
And that’s when one of the councillors pushing hardest to abolish the police happened by (via PJ Media’s Jim Treacher):
Lisa Clemons is a former officers and a peace activist with “A Mother’s Love.” She said to a crowd of reporters, “We cannot have bullets continue to fly in our community.” A panel of African-American violence prevention advocates held what they call an emergency news conference to speak against the city council’s push to dismantle the police department. “It is time to stand up in this city, it is time to tell the city council that utopia is a bunch of B.S. We are not in Mayberry we are in the wild wild west and it is time for some answers,” Clemons said.
At that point, Andrea Jenkins just happened to wander by. When confronted — in a collegial way — by Clemons, Jenkins insisted that she was concerned about the violence too, and that the city would have policing. Of some sort, anyway, but not until the council “reimagined” it:
Jenkins voted to move closer to dismantling the police department but said she still sees a need for public safety. “I want to reimagine a police force that responds to the community in a way that is respectful,” Jenkins replied.
Well, gee, who’s in charge of the current police department? Perhaps we could ask them to simply put those policies in place. Oh, wait! It’s Jenkins and the rest of her colleagues on the city council, isn’t it? Indeed it is — and this push to dismantle the police department is just a way to dodge responsibility for the fact that the current council has done a piss-poor job in one of its core missions. They want to wipe the slate clean because then they can pretend they had nothing to do with those failures.
That might fly with some activists, but not those with real skin in the game. The African-American community has vocally opposed this idea all along, and they’re getting more assertive with every shooting that takes place while the city council evades its responsibilities. Their proposal to dismantle the police will take months, possibly years to try, thanks to a requirement in the city charter for a police department. Voters would have to approve that change, and the referendum is almost certain not to make it onto the November ballot. The city council action could leave the city and its law enforcement needs in limbo until 2022 rather than work on fixing the problems now within the police department they already control.
And even if they do wait that long, it’s getting pretty clear that the referendum on the charter change is almost certain to fail. The council still doesn’t have any idea what replacement will follow the dismantling of the police department. They want to pass the charter change first … and city residents are already balking at that idea. The further this gets from the George Floyd killing, the tougher that sale will be, especially with violence surging in the city every day since. That means their constituents might wait for years and still be left right where they are today.
There’s a reason that the local NAACP, the Urban League, and the residents they represent call the city council’s actions “egregious, grotesque, absurd, crazy, ridiculous.” This pusillanimous council is more interested in posing as “woke” while leaving Minneapolis residents at the mercy of criminals. Jenkins’ double-talk is all they’re getting, and hopefully every one of them remembers it the next time the city elects its council.


hotair--2020-07-10--NFL players uninterested in sharing the burden of lower revenues

As with many of the football faithful , I ’ ve been biding my time throughout the pandemic relatively sure in my belief that the NFL would find a way to pull off the 2020 season for us , even if they had to play in front of empty stadiums or employ an abbreviated schedule with less travel .
After all , we ’ re not talking about the pampered weenies in major league baseball or the NBA here .
This is football !
It ’ s the sport where the Monsters of the Midway make the ground quake when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone can get this done , it ’ s the NFL , right ?
Well , it might not be as simple as all that .
And the problem isn ’ t the novel coronavirus , protests or social unrest .
The real issue may arise from the NFL Players ’ Association .
The league is already anticipating massive losses in revenue if stadiums aren ’ t allowed to sell tickets and fill the stands .
Advertisers are short on cash also , so they ’ re not buying as many ads .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and struggling to make their rent aren ’ t as likely to be shopping for merchandise from their favorite teams .
With all that in mind , the league pitched an idea where the players could put 35 percent of their salaries for this season in escrow , just to help keep the lights on .
And how did the Players ’ Association respond ?
They literally told them to “ kick rocks.
” ( CBS Boston ) The latest issue — like so many issues at this juncture in time — has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Tom Pelissero first reported for NFL Network , the NFL has proposed that players put 35 percent of their 2020 salaries in escrow , to help account for the significant revenue losses expected from the lack of fans paying for tickets to games .
According to Pelissero , the NFLPA responded to the NFL ’ s request by saying this : “ Kick rocks.
” Beyond the “ formal ” response of telling the league to kick rocks , a lot of players spoke up about this budding issue .
Unsurprisingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off more than a third of their 2020 salaries .
Many crying-laughing emojis were used .
Multiple GIFs were employed .
The CBS article includes quite a few responses from players around the league , but I ’ ll highlight a couple of them here .
Let ’ s just say they seemed “ less than generous.
” To a certain extent , I can understand what some of these players are saying in terms of being rewarded for the risks involved .
If there are still major outbreaks of COVID-19 taking place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and physical interaction with people ?
But with that said , there are a few other points to consider .
These guys don ’ t travel in coach class .
The teams have their own jets and their own terminals at airports .
If you can test everyone on the team and make sure they aren ’ t infected , nobody will be getting sick .
Also , in terms of risk factors , this disease primarily hits the oldest and those with underlying health issues the hardest .
These players are nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30s who are arguably among the healthiest people in the country .
And they have some of the best doctors in the country at their beck and call if they come down with so much as a sniffle .
If there ’ s a group with a lower risk of serious consequences from the novel coronavirus I ’ m hard-pressed to think who that might be .
There ’ s also the matter of relative wealth .
The minimum salary for any NFL rookie , even if they spend the entire season riding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ ve been in the league for seven years , regardless of your performance , the minimum salary is $ 1.05 million .
According to Sportscasting dot com , the average salary for NFL players last year was $ 2.07 million , though that number is bumped up a bit by the real superstars pulling down paydays in the tens of millions .
In other words , these guys aren ’ t exactly finishing practice and running out to stand in line at the soup kitchen .
The median income in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-40K range and the average household income is still below $ 60K .
If everyone else is doing without and the league is anticipating actually losing money , is it so crazy to think that those who have been so blessed with rare opportunities and rich rewards could set a portion of their income aside for a single year ?
And they ’ re not even being asked to simply give up the money .
The league just wants to put it in escrow while they sort out all the red ink .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting down and discussing ?
It sounds to me as if some of these young men have really become the epitome of spoiled , entitled brats , as our friends in the Progressive Rioting Coalition like to say .
Most of these players are saying that the owners and the league itself need to be dipping into their own pockets .
While the league generates considerable revenue , they should keep in mind that the owners generally do not .
Buying an NFL team is more of an exercise in swelling egos than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set you back up to nearly a billion dollars or so .
( Though I hear the Jets were available in trade for a few cans of Spam at one point . )
And profit margins tend to be low , even for some of the more successful teams .
The only time you make any real money by owning an NFL franchise is when you sell it .
The fans want their football games back this fall .
Perhaps the players should check their own egos at the door for a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Considering how blessed nearly all of them are to be able to play football for a living at the highest level , a bit of appreciation and a willingness to give something back in the short term would do a lot for all of their images .

As with many of the football faithful, I’ve been biding my time throughout the pandemic relatively sure in my belief that the NFL would find a way to pull off the 2020 season for us, even if they had to play in front of empty stadiums or employ an abbreviated schedule with less travel. After all, we’re not talking about the pampered weenies in major league baseball or the NBA here. This is football! It’s the sport where the Monsters of the Midway make the ground quake when they stride across the field. If anyone can get this done, it’s the NFL, right?
Well, it might not be as simple as all that. And the problem isn’t the novel coronavirus, protests or social unrest. The real issue may arise from the NFL Players’ Association. The league is already anticipating massive losses in revenue if stadiums aren’t allowed to sell tickets and fill the stands. Advertisers are short on cash also, so they’re not buying as many ads. And people who are out of work and struggling to make their rent aren’t as likely to be shopping for merchandise from their favorite teams. With all that in mind, the league pitched an idea where the players could put 35 percent of their salaries for this season in escrow, just to help keep the lights on. And how did the Players’ Association respond? They literally told them to “kick rocks.” (CBS Boston)
The latest issue — like so many issues at this juncture in time — has to do with money. Specifically, as Tom Pelissero first reported for NFL Network, the NFL has proposed that players put 35 percent of their 2020 salaries in escrow, to help account for the significant revenue losses expected from the lack of fans paying for tickets to games. According to Pelissero, the NFLPA responded to the NFL’s request by saying this: “Kick rocks.” Beyond the “formal” response of telling the league to kick rocks, a lot of players spoke up about this budding issue. Unsurprisingly, not many players are willing to put off more than a third of their 2020 salaries. Many crying-laughing emojis were used. Multiple GIFs were employed.
How did the NFLPA react to the NFL's proposal to escrow 35% of player salaries this season? NFLPA executive Don Davis told players on a conference call: "Basically, we told them to kick rocks." Union's stance is any escrow deal must be collectively bargained. https://t.co/b3c7ihAOiD — Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) July 7, 2020
The CBS article includes quite a few responses from players around the league, but I’ll highlight a couple of them here. Let’s just say they seemed “less than generous.”
https://twitter.com/Cantguardmike/status/1280646572339007489
https://twitter.com/Cantguardmike/status/1280664233135550464
To a certain extent, I can understand what some of these players are saying in terms of being rewarded for the risks involved. If there are still major outbreaks of COVID-19 taking place, who wants to risk extra travel and physical interaction with people? But with that said, there are a few other points to consider. These guys don’t travel in coach class. The teams have their own jets and their own terminals at airports. If you can test everyone on the team and make sure they aren’t infected, nobody will be getting sick.
Also, in terms of risk factors, this disease primarily hits the oldest and those with underlying health issues the hardest. These players are nearly all young men in their 20s and 30s who are arguably among the healthiest people in the country. And they have some of the best doctors in the country at their beck and call if they come down with so much as a sniffle. If there’s a group with a lower risk of serious consequences from the novel coronavirus I’m hard-pressed to think who that might be.
There’s also the matter of relative wealth. The minimum salary for any NFL rookie, even if they spend the entire season riding the bench, is $480,000. If you’ve been in the league for seven years, regardless of your performance, the minimum salary is $1.05 million. According to Sportscasting dot com, the average salary for NFL players last year was $2.07 million, though that number is bumped up a bit by the real superstars pulling down paydays in the tens of millions.
In other words, these guys aren’t exactly finishing practice and running out to stand in line at the soup kitchen. The median income in America for individual workers remains in the mid-40K range and the average household income is still below $60K. If everyone else is doing without and the league is anticipating actually losing money, is it so crazy to think that those who have been so blessed with rare opportunities and rich rewards could set a portion of their income aside for a single year? And they’re not even being asked to simply give up the money. The league just wants to put it in escrow while they sort out all the red ink.
Is such a proposal not even worth sitting down and discussing? It sounds to me as if some of these young men have really become the epitome of spoiled, entitled brats, as our friends in the Progressive Rioting Coalition like to say. Most of these players are saying that the owners and the league itself need to be dipping into their own pockets. While the league generates considerable revenue, they should keep in mind that the owners generally do not. Buying an NFL team is more of an exercise in swelling egos than anything else. Buying a team will set you back up to nearly a billion dollars or so. (Though I hear the Jets were available in trade for a few cans of Spam at one point.) And profit margins tend to be low, even for some of the more successful teams. The only time you make any real money by owning an NFL franchise is when you sell it.
The fans want their football games back this fall. Perhaps the players should check their own egos at the door for a little while be willing to compromise here. Considering how blessed nearly all of them are to be able to play football for a living at the highest level, a bit of appreciation and a willingness to give something back in the short term would do a lot for all of their images.


hotair--2020-07-09--International insult: Statue of Melania Trump is canceled in Slovenia

A life-size statue of Melania Trump was unveiled in Rozno , near her hometown of Sevnica , Slovenia , on July 5 , 2019 .
It is a wooden statue , carved out of a living tree with a chainsaw .
A year later , that statue has been removed .
The desecration of statues is an international action of our moral betters in the cancel culture .
The truth is , this may not prove to be a crushing loss to the community .
The insult of the statue being burned on July 4th was the action meant to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was an ugly statue , carved in Melania ’ s ‘ likeness ’ not easily recognized but for the powder blue coat and shoes painted on the wooden statue like the new First Lady wore during the inauguration ceremony and parade afterward .
The face of the statue wasn ’ t that of Melania ’ s .
The sculpture ’ s commissioner at the time said he understood why some thought the sculpture “ falls short as a description of her physical appearance ” but he thought it was beautiful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ beholder , right ?
The statue was carved from the trunk of a linden tree by Ales “ Maxi ” Zupevc after being commissioned by artist Brad Downey , an American artist based in Berlin .
It wasn ’ t even a gesture made to honor the American First Lady .
Downey sounds disgruntled with President Trump ’ s immigration policies and used the statue of his wife , herself an immigrant , to start a conversation about immigration policy .
While Americans celebrated the 4th of July , someone set the statue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notified Downey on Sunday and he had it removed , as the flames had blackened it .
Downey wants to know who did it .
Downey , 39 , said he had filed a police report and would like to interview the culprits , if found , for a film he is preparing ahead of his exhibition due to open in Slovenia in September .
“ The investigation in this case has not been completed yet so we can not reveal details due to the interest of further procedures , ” police spokeswoman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statue of Donald Trump was also burned in Slovenia last year , in the city of Moravce .
Even overseas , the cancel culture feels entitled to destroy whatever suits their fancy at that moment .
Added into the mix , especially in this case thanks to an American , Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to move people to act in dishonorable and destructive ways .

A life-size statue of Melania Trump was unveiled in Rozno, near her hometown of Sevnica, Slovenia, on July 5, 2019. It is a wooden statue, carved out of a living tree with a chainsaw. A year later, that statue has been removed. The desecration of statues is an international action of our moral betters in the cancel culture.
The truth is, this may not prove to be a crushing loss to the community. The insult of the statue being burned on July 4th was the action meant to grab a headline or two. Frankly, it was an ugly statue, carved in Melania’s ‘likeness’ not easily recognized but for the powder blue coat and shoes painted on the wooden statue like the new First Lady wore during the inauguration ceremony and parade afterward. The face of the statue wasn’t that of Melania’s. The sculpture’s commissioner at the time said he understood why some thought the sculpture “falls short as a description of her physical appearance” but he thought it was beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?
“You know what makes her resemble Melania?” a woman who went to see the sculpture asked. “Look at how high she climbed to the top, just like real Melania, who rose to the top of America. A little girl from Sevnica. Hats off to her.”
The statue was carved from the trunk of a linden tree by Ales “Maxi” Zupevc after being commissioned by artist Brad Downey, an American artist based in Berlin. It wasn’t even a gesture made to honor the American First Lady. Downey sounds disgruntled with President Trump’s immigration policies and used the statue of his wife, herself an immigrant, to start a conversation about immigration policy.
While Americans celebrated the 4th of July, someone set the statue of Melania on fire. The police notified Downey on Sunday and he had it removed, as the flames had blackened it. Downey wants to know who did it.
Downey, 39, said he had filed a police report and would like to interview the culprits, if found, for a film he is preparing ahead of his exhibition due to open in Slovenia in September. “The investigation in this case has not been completed yet so we cannot reveal details due to the interest of further procedures,” police spokeswoman Alenka Drenik told Reuters.
Statue of Melania Trump torched in her native Slovenia https://t.co/8cm3YoRZb8 pic.twitter.com/MDhGsR4sZ6 — New York Post (@nypost) July 8, 2020
A wooden statue of Donald Trump was also burned in Slovenia last year, in the city of Moravce.
Even overseas, the cancel culture feels entitled to destroy whatever suits their fancy at that moment. Added into the mix, especially in this case thanks to an American, Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to move people to act in dishonorable and destructive ways.


hotair--2020-07-09--Still rising: Texas, Florida set new daily records for COVID deaths

I don ’ t know that there ’ s much to add to this morning ’ s post except to confirm that , yes , the long-feared rise in daily deaths in hot-spot states seems to be upon us .
Texas recorded 98 deaths yesterday , a new record , and topped it today with 105 .
Total hospitalizations in the state also set a new record and are approaching 10,000 .
All of that is still just a shadow of what New York went through in April , when that state reached nearly 800 dead on a single day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Texas is comparable , just that the mystery of why deaths hadn ’ t been rising nationally lately as cases exploded seems to be in the process of finally being solved .
The big news is Florida , though .
They were an exception to the trio of states I wrote about earlier , as they hadn ’ t broken any records in terms of deaths in the past 48 hours .
They have now .
I don ’ t know what DeSantis is thinking comparing classrooms to Home Depot .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one space being much larger than another , it ’ s the fact that Florida ’ s eagerness to reopen businesses like Home Depot is partly to blame for what it ’ s suffering through now .
I flagged an expert in this post who thinks we got it all wrong by prioritizing businesses over schools in May ; Anthony Fauci went further today by singling out Florida as an example of a state that reopened before it should have under the White House guidelines .
What does the national death toll look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly better than yesterday , which is good .
But noticeably worse than last week , which further confirms that we ’ re seeing a belated trend towards higher deaths now after weeks of case counts rising : DeSantis has said repeatedly that he won ’ t issue new lockdown orders .
Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott has also warned recently that he won ’ t allow cities and counties to lock down again , as that would defy his current executive order .
( In fact , the mask mandate he recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public as a sort of half-measure that would allow the state to stay open safely . )
What does Fauci think about that ?
“ What we are seeing is exponential growth .
It went from an average of about 20,000 to 40,000 and 50,000 .
That ’ s doubling .
If you continue doubling , two times 50 is 100 , ” Fauci said on a Wall Street Journal podcast .
“ Any state that is having a serious problem , that state should seriously look at shutting down .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state is different.
” On Thursday , however , Fauci said states should not necessarily think about it as a complete shutdown , according to the Hill , but rather that states should update their restrictions , tailoring them to what is currently known about the virus .
“ Rather than think in terms of reverting back down to a complete shutdown , I would think we need to get the states pausing in their opening process , looking at what did not work well and try to mitigate that , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told The Hill ’ s Editor-at-Large Steve Clemons .
“ I don ’ t think we need to go back to an extreme of shutting down.
” That reminds me of the time Trump criticized him as someone who likes to play both sides , saying one thing behind closed doors and another in front of the public .
In this case he may have gotten out over his skis .
There ’ s strong resistance among Trump and Republican governors to locking down again ; if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might lose whatever remaining influence he has with them .
So he backed off .
Back to Florida .
The epidemic there is now concerning enough that even proponents of reopening schools soon , as DeSantis wants , are starting to get cold feet .
Recently the American Academy of Pediatrics put out a statement strongly encouraging states to have in-person classes for kids this fall , not just to keep their educations moving along but because the lack of social contact could damage them psychologically .
Today the group ’ s president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to follow through on reopening them and , well , her enthusiasm has waned a bit : Well , let me just ask about that — the level of virus in the state of Florida — we saw 7,000 new cases in a single day this week .
I mean , would you encourage schools to open today if that decision had to be made based on the numbers you ’ re seeing ?
The way the numbers are looking in Florida right now are concerning .
The level of the virus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate to reopen [ schools ] without consideration of community spread really goes against our recommendations .
So you think that this was not a good idea for officials in Florida to come out [ Tuesday ] and say , “ You all have to reopen this fall ?
” We know that COVID is still a dangerous virus , and it ’ s circulating throughout the country .
And there are definitely hot spots , and Florida is one of them .
And so all decisions really have to be made with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at that as part of their decision-making on whether they can reopen safely .
Florida ’ s epidemic is also a potential problem for the GOP given the upcoming convention in Jacksonville although mitigation efforts are reportedly in the works .
They ’ re looking at outdoor venues now for Trump ’ s speech , which was inevitable given the bad press they got last night out of Tulsa .
Outdoor venues aren ’ t perfectly safe either but they ’ re easier to defend from media attacks than indoor ones are .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests and say he ’ s exercising the same amount of care about transmissions as the woke darlings of America ’ s press did .
Speaking of which , here ’ s America ’ s worst mayor — who was praised today by Fauci as someone who “ understand [ s ] what it means to go by the guidelines ” for reopening — telling Wolf Blitzer he ’ ll maintain a ban on all mass gatherings in the name of containing the virus , with one exception .
You would think losing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politically motivated line-drawing in issuing social-distancing regulations would have taught him to be more careful about what he says , especially since he ’ s engaged in obvious viewpoint discrimination here .
But they don ’ t call him America ’ s worst mayor for nothing .

I don’t know that there’s much to add to this morning’s post except to confirm that, yes, the long-feared rise in daily deaths in hot-spot states seems to be upon us. Texas recorded 98 deaths yesterday, a new record, and topped it today with 105. Total hospitalizations in the state also set a new record and are approaching 10,000.
All of that is still just a shadow of what New York went through in April, when that state reached nearly 800 dead on a single day. The point here isn’t that Texas is comparable, just that the mystery of why deaths hadn’t been rising nationally lately as cases exploded seems to be in the process of finally being solved.
The big news is Florida, though. They were an exception to the trio of states I wrote about earlier, as they hadn’t broken any records in terms of deaths in the past 48 hours. They have now.
FL today shattered its daily death record, with 120, 45% more than the 83 reported dead on April 28 Daily hospitalizations also hit record highs of 409. The 7-day average of 288 is well above the pre-reopening peak of 171 Oh, & school classrooms are nothing like big box stores https://t.co/9GS3GgnrGc — Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) July 9, 2020
I don’t know what DeSantis is thinking comparing classrooms to Home Depot. It’s not just a matter of one space being much larger than another, it’s the fact that Florida’s eagerness to reopen businesses like Home Depot is partly to blame for what it’s suffering through now. I flagged an expert in this post who thinks we got it all wrong by prioritizing businesses over schools in May; Anthony Fauci went further today by singling out Florida as an example of a state that reopened before it should have under the White House guidelines.
Fauci said Florida, for example, jumped over a couple of checkpoints in reopening. https://t.co/DLaQYtWWYi pic.twitter.com/q1bLHjqr36 — FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) July 9, 2020
What does the national death toll look like amid all this? Well, slightly better than yesterday, which is good. But noticeably worse than last week, which further confirms that we’re seeing a belated trend towards higher deaths now after weeks of case counts rising:
Nationally, the 7-day average in deaths has begun to rise after an extended decline. The last three days were the highest numbers we’ve since early June. pic.twitter.com/fRlYZeYrxa — The COVID Tracking Project (@COVID19Tracking) July 9, 2020
That's now 3 days in a row with death tolls elevated over the same day a week ago. And while lags from the holiday weekend (which featured low death tolls) may account for *some* of that, we've now more than made up for the low weekend numbers with high ones this week. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) July 9, 2020
DeSantis has said repeatedly that he won’t issue new lockdown orders. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has also warned recently that he won’t allow cities and counties to lock down again, as that would defy his current executive order. (In fact, the mask mandate he recently imposed on Texas was pitched to the public as a sort of half-measure that would allow the state to stay open safely.) What does Fauci think about that?
“What we are seeing is exponential growth. It went from an average of about 20,000 to 40,000 and 50,000. That’s doubling. If you continue doubling, two times 50 is 100,” Fauci said on a Wall Street Journal podcast. “Any state that is having a serious problem, that state should seriously look at shutting down. It’s not for me to say because each state is different.” On Thursday, however, Fauci said states should not necessarily think about it as a complete shutdown, according to the Hill, but rather that states should update their restrictions, tailoring them to what is currently known about the virus. “Rather than think in terms of reverting back down to a complete shutdown, I would think we need to get the states pausing in their opening process, looking at what did not work well and try to mitigate that,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told The Hill’s Editor-at-Large Steve Clemons. “I don’t think we need to go back to an extreme of shutting down.”
That reminds me of the time Trump criticized him as someone who likes to play both sides, saying one thing behind closed doors and another in front of the public. In this case he may have gotten out over his skis. There’s strong resistance among Trump and Republican governors to locking down again; if he starts pushing for that, he might lose whatever remaining influence he has with them. So he backed off.
Back to Florida. The epidemic there is now concerning enough that even proponents of reopening schools soon, as DeSantis wants, are starting to get cold feet. Recently the American Academy of Pediatrics put out a statement strongly encouraging states to have in-person classes for kids this fall, not just to keep their educations moving along but because the lack of social contact could damage them psychologically. Today the group’s president was asked about DeSantis’s desire to follow through on reopening them and, well, her enthusiasm has waned a bit:
Well, let me just ask about that — the level of virus in the state of Florida — we saw 7,000 new cases in a single day this week. I mean, would you encourage schools to open today if that decision had to be made based on the numbers you’re seeing? The way the numbers are looking in Florida right now are concerning. The level of the virus is really high. And so a statewide mandate to reopen [schools] without consideration of community spread really goes against our recommendations. So you think that this was not a good idea for officials in Florida to come out [Tuesday] and say, “You all have to reopen this fall?” We know that COVID is still a dangerous virus, and it’s circulating throughout the country. And there are definitely hot spots, and Florida is one of them. And so all decisions really have to be made with public health and the school officials looking at that as part of their decision-making on whether they can reopen safely.
Florida’s epidemic is also a potential problem for the GOP given the upcoming convention in Jacksonville although mitigation efforts are reportedly in the works. They’re looking at outdoor venues now for Trump’s speech, which was inevitable given the bad press they got last night out of Tulsa. Outdoor venues aren’t perfectly safe either but they’re easier to defend from media attacks than indoor ones are. Trump can simply point to the BLM protests and say he’s exercising the same amount of care about transmissions as the woke darlings of America’s press did.
Speaking of which, here’s America’s worst mayor — who was praised today by Fauci as someone who “understand[s] what it means to go by the guidelines” for reopening — telling Wolf Blitzer he’ll maintain a ban on all mass gatherings in the name of containing the virus, with one exception. You would think losing a federal court case over his arbitrary politically motivated line-drawing in issuing social-distancing regulations would have taught him to be more careful about what he says, especially since he’s engaged in obvious viewpoint discrimination here. But they don’t call him America’s worst mayor for nothing.


hotair--2020-07-10--Lopez Obrador to Trump: Hey, thanks for not mentioning the wall in front of the press

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador visited President Trump at the White House this week .
The two men mostly focused on economic issues , including celebrating a revamped North American trade accord that took effect at the beginning of this month .
A topic that wasn ’ t discussed publicly by the two men was the hot button issue of the wall along the U.S. – Mexican border .
During a government press conference Friday in Mexico , AMLO ( as he is popularly known in Mexico ) expressed his thanks to Trump for leaving any talk of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a White House dinner .
It wasn ’ t quite a formal state dinner at the White House , thanks to the coronavirus , but nonetheless , the president hosted a White House dinner for his guest .
The border wall was discussed by the two men during the White House dinner , just not in front of the White House press corps during their joint press conference .
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Friday expressed his gratitude to Donald Trump for avoiding in public the thorny subject of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two leaders ’ summit in Washington earlier this week .
Lopez Obrador also thanked his U.S. counterpart for a less “ discriminatory tone ” during his visit , a rare reference from the Mexican leader to Trump ’ s past insults toward Mexico and its migrants .
“ We thank him for not raising the subject ( of the border wall ) in public , ” Lopez Obrador told reporters at a regular government news conference , adding that the wall was mentioned during a White House dinner “ but without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt compelled to mention that Trump didn ’ t make a big issue of the border wall in front of the press and only gently during their dinner ( if his characterization is correct ) because of the backlash AMLO has received in Mexico for making the trip to the White House .
Before the visit , AMLO was warned about the risks of such a visit , especially given the alleged anti-Mexican rhetoric in past speeches .
The visit , they have said , was an incomprehensible choice in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming with the risk of public humiliation at the hands of Mr. Trump , who has called Mexican immigrants “ rapists ” and “ animals ” and has said that Mexico is “ not our friend.
” “ President Trump ’ s discourse regarding Mexico has been more respectful than it was previously , for which we are very grateful , ” Mr. López Obrador said in a recent news conference .
“ I am also going to give thanks for the U.S. government ’ s respectful treatment of us.
” Bernardo Sepúlveda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an open letter to the government that the trip would “ negatively affect national interests ” in the long term , noting that Mr. Trump has been “ stigmatizing , offending and humiliating Mexican immigrants.
” Nonetheless , AMLO persisted .
He ’ s no worse off for the visit , it seems .
He was right to accept Trump ’ s invitation and publicly appear amiable .
AMLO can tout the fact that Trump was “ respectful to Mexico ” and “ not treating us like a colony ” to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home to cringe .
Critics say that López Obrador , popularly known as Amlo , has meekly agreed to US demands to step up migration enforcement , and accepted Trump ’ s policy of sending asylum seekers to await their hearings in Mexico .
But Amlo also won praise for voicing support for Mexican migrants in the US – and escaping relatively unscathed from his encounter with Trump .
Trump showed “ an unusual courtesy to his peer ” and “ @ lopezobrador gave a speech of historic , political and diplomatic depth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dignified , democratic and sovereign country , ” tweeted Álvaro Delgado Gómez , columnist with the newspaper El Heraldo de México .
Mostly , however , Amlo won plaudits for simply avoiding humiliation .
“ Trump surprised us in a good way : he behaved , ” said Carlos Bravo Regidor , a political analyst .
“ He didn ’ t score any goals against Amlo .
It was Amlo who scored an own goal , when he talked about ‘ respect ’ and ‘ understanding ’ .
That was unnecessary and excessive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign was looking for electorally.
” So , let the critics be “ surprised ” .
It was a win for both Trump and AMLO .
Let the political analyst condescendingly say that Trump “ behaved ” .
Trump is the most powerful man in the world , he had no need to punch down to the Mexican president .
The fact is that President Trump and President AMLO have worked well on border issues and Mexico actually cooperates with law enforcement at the border .
That sure didn ’ t happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents , George W. Bush and Barack Obama .
Those two presidents bent over backward to show how woke they were to Mexico yet received little in exchange .
Obama had to resort to deporting illegal migrants while trying to appease others with DACA .
Trump has been consistent since he first rode down the escalator in Trump Tower to declare himself a candidate for president .
His consistency has paid off .
Trump is no doubt enjoying the Democrats ’ reaction to the visit .
Joe Biden knows it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
Biden sounds out of touch when he says “ We need to work in partnership with Mexico.
” Hey Joe , that ’ s exactly what is happening .
Try to keep up .
North of the border , Democrats blasted the visit as unnecessarily helping Trump ’ s re-election .
Joe Biden tweeted : “ Trump launched his 2016 campaign by calling Mexicans rapists … We need to work in partnership with Mexico .
We need to restore dignity and humanity to our immigration system.
” Trump ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcoming Amlo to the White House and spread them on social media – something that didn ’ t go unnoticed in Mexico .
“ Trump has capitalised on this according to script .
And he ’ ll continue doing so until election day , ” Heredia said .
“ If voters say , ‘ you ’ re a racist , ’ he can now answer , ‘ Look , I have the president of Mexico at my side … If I were a racist , he wouldn ’ t be here.
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a move by the White House usually means Trump is on the right track .
Democrats are just unhappy that they didn ’ t get the credit for the visit or the photo ops to use in their own campaigns .
Chalk this up as a win .

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador visited President Trump at the White House this week. The two men mostly focused on economic issues, including celebrating a revamped North American trade accord that took effect at the beginning of this month. A topic that wasn’t discussed publicly by the two men was the hot button issue of the wall along the U.S. – Mexican border.
During a government press conference Friday in Mexico, AMLO (as he is popularly known in Mexico) expressed his thanks to Trump for leaving any talk of the wall to the time they spent during a White House dinner. It wasn’t quite a formal state dinner at the White House, thanks to the coronavirus, but nonetheless, the president hosted a White House dinner for his guest. The border wall was discussed by the two men during the White House dinner, just not in front of the White House press corps during their joint press conference.
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Friday expressed his gratitude to Donald Trump for avoiding in public the thorny subject of the U.S. president’s promised border wall during the two leaders’ summit in Washington earlier this week. Lopez Obrador also thanked his U.S. counterpart for a less “discriminatory tone” during his visit, a rare reference from the Mexican leader to Trump’s past insults toward Mexico and its migrants. “We thank him for not raising the subject (of the border wall) in public,” Lopez Obrador told reporters at a regular government news conference, adding that the wall was mentioned during a White House dinner “but without the purpose of imposing anything.”
Perhaps AMLO felt compelled to mention that Trump didn’t make a big issue of the border wall in front of the press and only gently during their dinner (if his characterization is correct) because of the backlash AMLO has received in Mexico for making the trip to the White House. Before the visit, AMLO was warned about the risks of such a visit, especially given the alleged anti-Mexican rhetoric in past speeches.
The visit, they have said, was an incomprehensible choice in the middle of a pandemic and global economic crisis, coming with the risk of public humiliation at the hands of Mr. Trump, who has called Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “animals” and has said that Mexico is “not our friend.” “President Trump’s discourse regarding Mexico has been more respectful than it was previously, for which we are very grateful,” Mr. López Obrador said in a recent news conference. “I am also going to give thanks for the U.S. government’s respectful treatment of us.” Bernardo Sepúlveda, a former foreign minister, wrote in an open letter to the government that the trip would “negatively affect national interests” in the long term, noting that Mr. Trump has been “stigmatizing, offending and humiliating Mexican immigrants.”
Nonetheless, AMLO persisted. He’s no worse off for the visit, it seems. He was right to accept Trump’s invitation and publicly appear amiable. AMLO can tout the fact that Trump was “respectful to Mexico” and “not treating us like a colony” to his countrymen.
The comments caused some back home to cringe. Critics say that López Obrador, popularly known as Amlo, has meekly agreed to US demands to step up migration enforcement, and accepted Trump’s policy of sending asylum seekers to await their hearings in Mexico. But Amlo also won praise for voicing support for Mexican migrants in the US – and escaping relatively unscathed from his encounter with Trump. Trump showed “an unusual courtesy to his peer” and “@lopezobrador gave a speech of historic, political and diplomatic depth as the representative of a free, dignified, democratic and sovereign country,” tweeted Álvaro Delgado Gómez, columnist with the newspaper El Heraldo de México. Mostly, however, Amlo won plaudits for simply avoiding humiliation. “Trump surprised us in a good way: he behaved,” said Carlos Bravo Regidor, a political analyst. “He didn’t score any goals against Amlo. It was Amlo who scored an own goal, when he talked about ‘respect’ and ‘understanding’. That was unnecessary and excessive, and provided the fodder Trump’s campaign was looking for electorally.”
So, let the critics be “surprised”. It was a win for both Trump and AMLO. Let the political analyst condescendingly say that Trump “behaved”. Trump is the most powerful man in the world, he had no need to punch down to the Mexican president. The fact is that President Trump and President AMLO have worked well on border issues and Mexico actually cooperates with law enforcement at the border. That sure didn’t happen during the terms of the two previous presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Those two presidents bent over backward to show how woke they were to Mexico yet received little in exchange. Obama had to resort to deporting illegal migrants while trying to appease others with DACA. Trump has been consistent since he first rode down the escalator in Trump Tower to declare himself a candidate for president. His consistency has paid off.
The visit underscored the surprisingly warm personal relations between the austere Mexican and his US counterpart. “The predictions were wrong,” Amlo told reporters. “We didn’t fight. We’re friends, and will continue to be friends.”
Trump is no doubt enjoying the Democrats’ reaction to the visit. Joe Biden knows it’s a good move for Trump’s re-election campaign. Biden sounds out of touch when he says “We need to work in partnership with Mexico.” Hey Joe, that’s exactly what is happening. Try to keep up.
North of the border, Democrats blasted the visit as unnecessarily helping Trump’s re-election. Joe Biden tweeted: “Trump launched his 2016 campaign by calling Mexicans rapists … We need to work in partnership with Mexico. We need to restore dignity and humanity to our immigration system.” Trump’s campaign was quick to produce videos of Trump welcoming Amlo to the White House and spread them on social media – something that didn’t go unnoticed in Mexico. “Trump has capitalised on this according to script. And he’ll continue doing so until election day,” Heredia said. “If voters say, ‘you’re a racist,’ he can now answer, ‘Look, I have the president of Mexico at my side … If I were a racist, he wouldn’t be here.’”
Any time a Castro twin is bothered by a move by the White House usually means Trump is on the right track.
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Joaquín Castro slammed Trump for engaging in political spin to distract from his “failure to contain” the coronavirus pandemic that has disproportionately affected Latinos in some states. CHC members signed a July 1 letter to Trump that said holding the meeting while members were in their districts addressing the needs of communities devastated by the pandemic is a “blatant attempt to politicize the important U.S.-Mexico relationship along partisan lines.”
Democrats are just unhappy that they didn’t get the credit for the visit or the photo ops to use in their own campaigns. Chalk this up as a win.