hotair--2020-07-08--Trump: I'll be having a chat with the CDC about their very strict guidelines for reopening schools

He has the right instinct in wanting to give it a go with schools this fall .
But as has happened so many times during his presidency , by expressing that instinct in the Trumpiest possible way , he ’ s going to end up alienating people who might otherwise agree with him .
Start with this graph from a Pew poll last month : It should not be the case that the CDC is America ’ s most trusted coronavirus authority given how abysmally they ’ ve performed since the start of the pandemic .
But they amassed decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck , and many people don ’ t follow the news closely enough to know how badly the agency botched testing during the critical period in February and March when we might have been able to contain the epidemic .
For better or worse , the CDC has public credibility here .
More so than the president does .
So here ’ s the president picking a fight with the CDC over who knows best on when and whether schools should reopen : Here ’ s the first problem with that reasoning : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening schools if America was experiencing case counts more like Germany ’ s .
Even Fauci said yesterday that he supports reopening schools in communities with lower spread .
Pointing to Europe and saying “ Why can ’ t we be like them ?
” invites the answer : Because we haven ’ t been like them .
The time to worry about how parents might react to sending their children off to school this fall amid a raging epidemic was back in April , when Trump was insisting that we reopen businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seed that epidemic .
Now we are where we are , and where we are isn ’ t where Germany is .
The second problem is his instinct to threaten other politicians in order to get his way , in this case by potentially depriving states of funding if governors don ’ t do what he says .
People like Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer will respond to that the same way they responded in the spring when he started musing about forcing them to reopen businesses .
They ’ re going to laugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re more popular and more trusted locally than he is .
Most of the public will side with them .
Worse , Trump ’ s heavy-handedness might breed suspicion among parents in states where schools *do* reopen that they ’ re not being reopened because it ’ s safe for their kids , rather they ’ re being reopened because the president compelled it .
Some parents will react by keeping their children home — even if it ’ s actually safe on the merits for them to attend .
Trump will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way he approached this .
The fact that he ’ s being so heavy-handed at a moment when cases nationally have never been higher only further damages his cause .
Now is a moment for humility , or whatever emotion Trump is capable of that ’ s closest to that .
Recognize that parents are terrified that their kids — and eventually themselves — might be infected if schools reopen .
Reassure people that safety will come first .
Emphasize that distance learning and long-term isolation at home have their own deleterious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead this guy once again instinctively resorts to going full Trump , up to and including threatening to strong-arm America ’ s infectious disease experts into relaxing safety guidelines in order to get kids back to class .
He doesn ’ t even specify which guidelines he finds too “ tough.
” Is he trying to undermine public faith that schools will be safe when they reopen ?
If not , what ’ s his plan for making sure that schools will have PPE and other expensive precautions they might need to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priority ?
Experts have been chattering for weeks that there isn ’ t much time left for the feds to fund everything that might be needed to reopen safely on schedule .
The White House “ plan ” seems to be nothing more than having the president hoot at people that if they don ’ t reopen they ’ ll be stripped of funding .
Which is in keeping with their overall “ learn to live with it ” approach to the virus now .
On top of everything else , if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reopen schools before safety measures are in place and there ’ s an outbreak at a school , he ’ ll own the backlash .
He already owns some of the backlash for the outbreaks in southern states that reopened businesses early , but adults having to pay the price for his electoral agenda is one thing , children having to pay it is another .
Maybe it won ’ t happen : Kids , especially younger kids , might be so naturally resistant to the virus that there ’ ll be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can take an “ I told you so ” victory lap .
But he ’ s betting his presidency on it , now that he ’ s gone all-in on using threats to get schools open ASAP .
I feel like we ’ ve seen this movie before .
Here was Deborah Birx just yesterday : “ The South , which didn ’ t experience a significant outbreak through the March-April timeframe , I think came at this opening in a different way than the Northeast or the Midwest that had experience with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to Birx , the surge in coronavirus cases can be linked to how quickly the South reopened .
“ And so when they opened , instead of gating closely through all of the recommended gates , a lot of individuals and a lot of businesses instead of driving 25 in a 25 mile an hour zone , stepped on the gas and started going 65 , and it ’ s really evident now in the spread of cases across most age groups , ” Birx said .
That ’ s the head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force warning the country to follow the federal guidelines if they want to safely reopen things like businesses and schools .
And now here ’ s her boss 24 hours later declaring his intention to have the guidelines rewritten in order to hurry along further reopenings .
Amazing .
There ’ s a theory among some Never Trumpers that the president is actively trying to lose the election for whatever weird reason ; I don ’ t buy it , but I confess that at moments like this I wonder if there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local governments call the shots here , just as they did with reopening businesses , and the White House will end up having to acknowledge it ( just as they did with reopening businesses ) .
Watch Betsy DeVos speaking earlier this afternoon about that , insisting that schools must reopen but that local governments obviously have great flexibility in how that happens .
Cuomo laughed at her and Trump on Twitter a few hours ago , saying , “ The federal government does not decide if NYS schools reopen — the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the science and the data.
” He knows the White House isn ’ t going to follow through on its threats .
Update : This should go over spectacularly well .
Per NBC : “ NEWS : The White House plans to issue its own guidelines for the reopening of schools because officials now say the ones released earlier this summer by the Centers for Disease Control are too restrictive , a senior administration official tells @ carolelee and @ PeterAlexander ”

He has the right instinct in wanting to give it a go with schools this fall.
But as has happened so many times during his presidency, by expressing that instinct in the Trumpiest possible way, he’s going to end up alienating people who might otherwise agree with him.
Start with this graph from a Pew poll last month:
It should not be the case that the CDC is America’s most trusted coronavirus authority given how abysmally they’ve performed since the start of the pandemic. But they amassed decades of goodwill among the public before COVID-19 struck, and many people don’t follow the news closely enough to know how badly the agency botched testing during the critical period in February and March when we might have been able to contain the epidemic. For better or worse, the CDC has public credibility here. More so than the president does.
So here’s the president picking a fight with the CDC over who knows best on when and whether schools should reopen:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280853299600789505
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1280857657365200902
Here’s the first problem with that reasoning:
New cases, yesterday: Germany: 298
Denmark: 10
Norway: 11
Sweden: 57 United States: 55,442 https://t.co/g7SlEt4exo — Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) July 8, 2020
There’d be less anxiety about reopening schools if America was experiencing case counts more like Germany’s. Even Fauci said yesterday that he supports reopening schools in communities with lower spread. Pointing to Europe and saying “Why can’t we be like them?” invites the answer: Because we haven’t been like them. The time to worry about how parents might react to sending their children off to school this fall amid a raging epidemic was back in April, when Trump was insisting that we reopen businesses early despite the risk that it might seed that epidemic. Now we are where we are, and where we are isn’t where Germany is.
The second problem is his instinct to threaten other politicians in order to get his way, in this case by potentially depriving states of funding if governors don’t do what he says. People like Cuomo and Gretchen Whitmer will respond to that the same way they responded in the spring when he started musing about forcing them to reopen businesses. They’re going to laugh in his face because they know they’re more popular and more trusted locally than he is. Most of the public will side with them. Worse, Trump’s heavy-handedness might breed suspicion among parents in states where schools *do* reopen that they’re not being reopened because it’s safe for their kids, rather they’re being reopened because the president compelled it. Some parents will react by keeping their children home — even if it’s actually safe on the merits for them to attend. Trump will have defeated his own purpose because of the way he approached this.
The fact that he’s being so heavy-handed at a moment when cases nationally have never been higher only further damages his cause. Now is a moment for humility, or whatever emotion Trump is capable of that’s closest to that. Recognize that parents are terrified that their kids — and eventually themselves — might be infected if schools reopen. Reassure people that safety will come first. Emphasize that distance learning and long-term isolation at home have their own deleterious effects on children’s health. Instead this guy once again instinctively resorts to going full Trump, up to and including threatening to strong-arm America’s infectious disease experts into relaxing safety guidelines in order to get kids back to class. He doesn’t even specify which guidelines he finds too “tough.”
Is he trying to undermine public faith that schools will be safe when they reopen? If not, what’s his plan for making sure that schools will have PPE and other expensive precautions they might need to give parents some confidence that health is a priority? Experts have been chattering for weeks that there isn’t much time left for the feds to fund everything that might be needed to reopen safely on schedule. The White House “plan” seems to be nothing more than having the president hoot at people that if they don’t reopen they’ll be stripped of funding. Which is in keeping with their overall “learn to live with it” approach to the virus now.
On top of everything else, if he does succeed in pressuring some red-state governors to reopen schools before safety measures are in place and there’s an outbreak at a school, he’ll own the backlash. He already owns some of the backlash for the outbreaks in southern states that reopened businesses early, but adults having to pay the price for his electoral agenda is one thing, children having to pay it is another. Maybe it won’t happen: Kids, especially younger kids, might be so naturally resistant to the virus that there’ll be no contagion at schools. Then he can take an “I told you so” victory lap. But he’s betting his presidency on it, now that he’s gone all-in on using threats to get schools open ASAP.
I feel like we’ve seen this movie before. Here was Deborah Birx just yesterday:
“The South, which didn’t experience a significant outbreak through the March-April timeframe, I think came at this opening in a different way than the Northeast or the Midwest that had experience with the outbreak,” Birx said. According to Birx, the surge in coronavirus cases can be linked to how quickly the South reopened. “And so when they opened, instead of gating closely through all of the recommended gates, a lot of individuals and a lot of businesses instead of driving 25 in a 25 mile an hour zone, stepped on the gas and started going 65, and it’s really evident now in the spread of cases across most age groups,” Birx said.
That’s the head of White House’s coronavirus task force warning the country to follow the federal guidelines if they want to safely reopen things like businesses and schools. And now here’s her boss 24 hours later declaring his intention to have the guidelines rewritten in order to hurry along further reopenings. Amazing. There’s a theory among some Never Trumpers that the president is actively trying to lose the election for whatever weird reason; I don’t buy it, but I confess that at moments like this I wonder if there’s something to it.
Anyway, local governments call the shots here, just as they did with reopening businesses, and the White House will end up having to acknowledge it (just as they did with reopening businesses). Watch Betsy DeVos speaking earlier this afternoon about that, insisting that schools must reopen but that local governments obviously have great flexibility in how that happens. Cuomo laughed at her and Trump on Twitter a few hours ago, saying, “The federal government does not decide if NYS schools reopen — the state does. We will make that decision based on the science and the data.” He knows the White House isn’t going to follow through on its threats.
Update: This should go over spectacularly well. Per NBC: “NEWS: The White House plans to issue its own guidelines for the reopening of schools because officials now say the ones released earlier this summer by the Centers for Disease Control are too restrictive, a senior administration official tells @carolelee and @PeterAlexander”


hotair--2020-07-08--The Butterfly Trust: How Deutsche Bank helped Jeffrey Epstein maintain his criminal lifestyle

New York State ’ s Department of Financial Services has published a consent order including the results of an investigation into Deutsche Bank ’ s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein .
According to the document , Deutsche Bank agreed to make Epstein a client despite knowing about his jail time for solicitation of underage girls and then turned a blind eye to years of suspicious financial transactions involving some of his former co-conspirators .
A trust Epstein set up at Deutsche Bank—the Butterfly Trust—sent payments to women with Eastern European names .
He also withdrew around $ 800,000 in cash which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expenses .
Epstein moved his accounts to Deutsche Bank in 2013 , several years after his conviction for soliciting underage girls and his brief stint in jail .
Deutsche Bank prepared a memo about his past .
They then held a meeting at which they concluded working with Epstein posed no reputational risk to the company .
Curiously , no notes about that meeting exist according to Deutsche Bank [ emphasis added ] : On May 5 , 2013 , EXECUTIVE-1 sent an email ( hereinafter , the “ Approval Email ” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with [ the Head of AML Compliance for Deutsche Bank Americas and the then-General Counsel for Deutsche Bank Americas , who at that time served as chair of the Bank ’ s Americas Reputational Risk Committee ( “ ARRC ” ) ] .
Neither suggest [ that the Epstein relationship ] requires rep risk and we can move ahead so long as nothing further is identified through KYC and AML client adoptions.
” The Bank has represented to the Department that it has no other record of this communication between EXECUTIVE-1 and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not meet in connection with the initial onboarding of Mr. Epstein .
Despite concluding he wasn ’ t a risk to the company ’ s reputation , the bank did classify Epstein ’ s accounts as “ high risk.
” In early 2014 , it set up a trust for him called “ The Butterfly Trust.
” Among the beneficiaries of the trust were three people who had been publicly identified as his previous co-conspirators ( one of whom is probably Ghislaine Maxwell ) .
But Epstein claimed they were just his employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangement .
Having been given a green light , here ’ s what the money was used for : In 2015 , more reports about Jeffrey Epstein ’ s past activities began to surface in the press and Deutsche Bank suddenly became concerned that he may in fact pose a threat to their corporate reputation .
To investigate the bank sent two representatives to Epstein ’ s home in New York .
Once again , the bank claims it has no documents about what transpired at the meeting or the internal meeting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that month , on January 22 , 2015 , in preparation for the ARRC meeting , EXECUTIVE-1 and RELATIONSHIP MANAGER-1 met in person with Mr. Epstein at his New York home .
During the meeting , EXECUTIVE-1 asked Mr. Epstein about the veracity of the recent allegations and appeared to be satisfied by Mr. Epstein ’ s response .
The Bank has represented to the Department that it is not in possession of contemporaneous records reflecting the substance of EXECUTIVE-1 ’ s meeting with Epstein and is not aware of any other steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veracity of the allegations beyond speaking with Mr. Epstein .
On January 30 , 2015 , members of the ARRC met to discuss the Epstein relationship .
Despite the fact that Deutsche Bank ’ s policies and procedures mandate that detailed minutes of such meetings be kept , the Bank has represented to the Department that there are no recorded minutes from that particular meeting .
Later that day , however , a member of the ARRC emailed EXECUTIVE-1 to say , without explanation , that the committee was “ comfortable with things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that another member of the committee had “ noted a number of sizable deals recently.
” Despite Epstein ’ s assurances , the bank decided to place some new conditions on their relationship with him .
Basically this boiled down to needing to monitor how he was spending his money to make sure nothing suspicious was going on .
But that decision didn ’ t get communicated properly to everyone working with Epstein .
In the end , the compliance people were simply verifying that the transactions weren ’ t considered unusual for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Specifically , AML OFFICER-2 interpreted the clause “ transactions [ with ] unusual and/or suspicious activity or are in a size that is unusually significant or novel in structure ” to mean transactions that were unusual , suspicious , or novel as compared to the prior history of transactions related to the Epstein relationship .
He communicated this interpretation to the rest of the transaction monitoring team responsible for the Epstein relationship .
The interpretation was exemplified by a later email exchange in March of 2017 , when a member of the transaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payments to a Russian model and Russian publicity agent , stating , “ [ s ] ince this type of activity is normal for this client it is not deemed suspicious.
” Instead of monitoring the accounts for all potential crimes and suspicious activity that could be implicated by Mr. Epstein ’ s alleged past conduct , including payments to co-conspirators and those that could be related to sex trafficking involving adults , AML OFFICER-2 only instructed the relevant transaction monitoring team to verify , using internet searches , that any woman involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was at least 18 years old and to only flag transactions if they could not discern a rational reason for the transaction , a standard which had little if any effect on the Bank ’ s relationship with Mr. Epstein .
Epstein ’ s relationship with Deutsche Bank continued like this for years .
When a new account relationship manager was brought in in 2018 , he initially thought it was odd that Epstein was using his account to send money to women with Eastern European names but was told it was tuition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends .
The investigation also notes that Epstein ’ s lawyer withdrew about $ 800,000 cash over a period of four years .
Supposedly this was for travel and tipping expenses .
Deutsche Bank finally ended its relationship with Epstein after the Miami Herald published an article about him .
The Department of Financial Services concludes that all of this activity was obviously suspicious and should have concerned the bank in light of Epstein ’ s prior conviction .
The DFS says Deutsche Bank ’ s behavior is indefensible and in fact violated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this is that the bank has 10 days to pay a penalty of $ 150 million dollars .
Here ’ s hoping the damage to their reputation from years of turning a blind eye to Epstein ’ s criminal behavior costs them more than that .
The Hill ’ s Saagar Enjeti spelled out the findings of the consent decree on his show .

New York State’s Department of Financial Services has published a consent order including the results of an investigation into Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. According to the document, Deutsche Bank agreed to make Epstein a client despite knowing about his jail time for solicitation of underage girls and then turned a blind eye to years of suspicious financial transactions involving some of his former co-conspirators. A trust Epstein set up at Deutsche Bank—the Butterfly Trust—sent payments to women with Eastern European names. He also withdrew around $800,000 in cash which he allegedly used on travel and tipping expenses.
Epstein moved his accounts to Deutsche Bank in 2013, several years after his conviction for soliciting underage girls and his brief stint in jail. Deutsche Bank prepared a memo about his past. They then held a meeting at which they concluded working with Epstein posed no reputational risk to the company. Curiously, no notes about that meeting exist according to Deutsche Bank [emphasis added]:
On May 5, 2013, EXECUTIVE-1 sent an email (hereinafter, the “Approval Email”) to RELATIONSHIP MANAGER-1 which read “spoke with [the Head of AML
Compliance for Deutsche Bank Americas and the then-General Counsel for Deutsche Bank Americas, who at that time served as chair of the Bank’s Americas Reputational Risk Committee (“ARRC”)]. Neither suggest [that the Epstein relationship] requires rep risk and we can move ahead so long as nothing further is identified through KYC and AML client adoptions.” The Bank has represented to the Department that it has no other record of this communication between EXECUTIVE-1 and the other officers, and the ARRC did not meet in connection with the initial onboarding of Mr. Epstein.
Despite concluding he wasn’t a risk to the company’s reputation, the bank did classify Epstein’s accounts as “high risk.” In early 2014, it set up a trust for him called “The Butterfly Trust.” Among the beneficiaries of the trust were three people who had been publicly identified as his previous co-conspirators (one of whom is probably Ghislaine Maxwell). But Epstein claimed they were just his employees and friends and the bank approved the arrangement. Having been given a green light, here’s what the money was used for:
While Epstein held accounts at Deutsche Bank, he used the Butterfly Trust account and various other accounts to send over 120 wires totaling $2.65 million to beneficiaries of the Butterfly Trust, including some transfers to alleged co-conspirators or women with Eastern European surnames, for the stated purpose of covering hotel expenses, tuition, and rent.
In 2015, more reports about Jeffrey Epstein’s past activities began to surface in the press and Deutsche Bank suddenly became concerned that he may in fact pose a threat to their corporate reputation. To investigate the bank sent two representatives to Epstein’s home in New York. Once again, the bank claims it has no documents about what transpired at the meeting or the internal meeting that followed [emphasis added]:
Later that month, on January 22, 2015, in preparation for the ARRC meeting, EXECUTIVE-1 and RELATIONSHIP MANAGER-1 met in person with Mr. Epstein at his New York home. During the meeting, EXECUTIVE-1 asked Mr. Epstein about the veracity of the recent allegations and appeared to be satisfied by Mr. Epstein’s response. The Bank has represented to the Department that it is not in possession of contemporaneous records reflecting the substance of EXECUTIVE-1’s meeting with Epstein and is not aware of any other steps taken at the time to investigate the veracity of the allegations beyond speaking with Mr. Epstein. On January 30, 2015, members of the ARRC met to discuss the Epstein relationship. Despite the fact that Deutsche Bank’s policies and procedures mandate that detailed minutes of such meetings be kept, the Bank has represented to the Department that there are no recorded minutes from that particular meeting. Later that day, however, a member of the ARRC emailed EXECUTIVE-1 to say, without explanation, that the committee was “comfortable with things continuing” with Mr. Epstein, and that another member of the committee had “noted a number of sizable deals recently.”
Despite Epstein’s assurances, the bank decided to place some new conditions on their relationship with him. Basically this boiled down to needing to monitor how he was spending his money to make sure nothing suspicious was going on. But that decision didn’t get communicated properly to everyone working with Epstein. In the end, the compliance people were simply verifying that the transactions weren’t considered unusual for Jeffrey Esptein. [emphasis added]
Specifically, AML OFFICER-2 interpreted the clause “transactions [with] unusual and/or suspicious activity or are in a size that is unusually significant or novel in structure” to mean transactions that were unusual, suspicious, or novel as compared to the prior history of transactions related to the Epstein relationship. He communicated this interpretation to the rest of the transaction monitoring team responsible for the Epstein relationship. The interpretation was exemplified by a later email exchange in March of 2017, when a member of the transaction monitoring team responded to an alert about payments to a Russian model and Russian publicity agent, stating, “[s]ince this type of activity is normal for this client it is not deemed suspicious.” Instead of monitoring the accounts for all potential crimes and suspicious activity that could be implicated by Mr. Epstein’s alleged past conduct, including payments to co-conspirators and those that could be related to sex trafficking involving adults, AML OFFICER-2 only instructed the relevant transaction monitoring team to verify, using internet searches, that any woman involved with transactions related to the Epstein relationship was at least 18 years old and to only flag transactions if they could not discern a rational reason for the transaction, a standard which had little if any effect on the Bank’s relationship with Mr. Epstein.
Epstein’s relationship with Deutsche Bank continued like this for years. When a new account relationship manager was brought in in 2018, he initially thought it was odd that Epstein was using his account to send money to women with Eastern European names but was told it was tuition money for one of Epstein’s friends.
The investigation also notes that Epstein’s lawyer withdrew about $800,000 cash over a period of four years. Supposedly this was for travel and tipping expenses. Deutsche Bank finally ended its relationship with Epstein after the Miami Herald published an article about him.
The Department of Financial Services concludes that all of this activity was obviously suspicious and should have concerned the bank in light of Epstein’s prior conviction. The DFS says Deutsche Bank’s behavior is indefensible and in fact violated NY banking laws. The outcome of all of this is that the bank has 10 days to pay a penalty of $150 million dollars. Here’s hoping the damage to their reputation from years of turning a blind eye to Epstein’s criminal behavior costs them more than that.
The Hill’s Saagar Enjeti spelled out the findings of the consent decree on his show.


hotair--2020-07-08--Texas GOP convention moves forward, Mayor's plea for cancellation is rejected

The largest indoor event since the coronavirus pandemic struck the State of Texas is about to happen in Houston .
The state convention for the Republican Party of Texas will be held July 16 – 18 .
About 6,000 people are expected to attend .
Originally , face masks were not going to be required , which set off the Texas Medical Association ( TMA ) , a sponsor of the convention .
( They also sponsor the Democrat convention , which this year was held virtually . )
The TMA first said they would still sponsor the GOP convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face masks and social distancing efforts will now be in place .
The TMA pulled its sponsorship after the state party decided to move forward with the convention , ignoring the medical organization ’ s plea to cancel the event .
The state GOP has safety precautions in place , according to the party ’ s leadership .
The Republican Party leaders insist that the convention has to be in-person because a virtual convention isn ’ t as productive or effective as a standard , in-person convention .
Thus , the battle between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the mayor , continues .
Mayor Turner formally requested that party Chairman James Dickey cancel the convention .
Dickey rejected the request on Tuesday .
James Dickey , chairman of the Texas GOP , in a statement said the party has been “ proactive in implementing safety measures ” and had “ extensive conversations ” with Houston First , the public nonprofit that serves as the city ’ s convention arm and operates the George R. Brown Convention Center .
The convention is set to take place there from July 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently in place , the Republican Party of Texas intends to proceed with an in-person convention next week in Houston , ” Dickey said .
It all boils down to a power struggle between a state political party versus elected officials , in particular , Mayor Sylvester and Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo .
Both of them have been enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame on network and cable station interviews in recent days , as the coronavirus pandemic spikes in Houston .
In contrast , Republicans are “ incredulous ” that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memorials , protests , and the like after the death of George Floyd , a Houston native .
Social distancing was not adhered to during any of that , all producing very large crowds , substantially more than 6,000 people .
The only two elected officials with the power to shut down the convention are Governor Abbott and Mayor Turner .
Turner is clearly looking for an excuse to do so , while Governor Abbott straddles the fence .
There is no indication , at this time , that Abbott will move in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to cancel the convention .
At the city level , Turner issued an executive order in June that required the cancellation of all events of more than 50 people in city-owned buildings , including ones involving a third party such as the Texas GOP .
The mayor , who is a Democrat , removed that provision from his order last week and has yet to explain why he did so , though he has said he does not want to cancel the convention , fearing that doing so would politicize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list of conditions Monday it would need to follow during the convention , including denying entry to anyone who has tested positive for COVID or come in contact with a COVID patient between July 2 and July 15 .
The party also must require convention guests to wear masks and provide touchless hand sanitizing stations throughout the convention center , Turner said .
A public health authority is working with Mayor Turner and will advise him to shut it down if violations are found during the event .
An assistant county attorney is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussing it with the Harris County Judge Hidalgo ’ s office , looking into her authority limitations concerning the convention .
Suddenly , Hidalgo is not publicly offering up her hot takes on the convention .
She seems to be letting the mayor take the lead .
As Chairman Dickey points out , the “ demands ” from the mayor are already agreed upon by the state party to be in place .
A decision has been made for all elected officials to speak via video to the convention instead of in-person speeches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention-goers to conduct their business quickly and efficiently .
So , convention-goers will be at risk of coronavirus exposure but the elected officials will be away from the convention , in the comfort of their own surroundings , not taking the health risk .
How convenient .
I remain of the same opinion that I ’ ve had from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle – an in-person convention is not a good idea .
It is an unnecessary health risk to elderly delegates and attendees and it may spread the virus to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Large gatherings , for whatever reason , are just not a good idea at this time during the pandemic .
The Texas Craft Brewers Guild has dropped its support of the GOP state convention , citing safety concerns .
Update : The mayor pulled the trigger .
The state GOP convention has been canceled .
Mayor Turner had Houston First , the public nonprofit that serves the city ’ s convention center deliver the news .
The Texas GOP says it is prepared for legal action .
The letter states the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger to the health and well-being of convention attendees , workers , local hotel and restaurant owners and Houstonians ” .

The largest indoor event since the coronavirus pandemic struck the State of Texas is about to happen in Houston. The state convention for the Republican Party of Texas will be held July 16 – 18. About 6,000 people are expected to attend.
Originally, face masks were not going to be required, which set off the Texas Medical Association (TMA), a sponsor of the convention. (They also sponsor the Democrat convention, which this year was held virtually.) The TMA first said they would still sponsor the GOP convention but that has since changed, though face masks and social distancing efforts will now be in place. The TMA pulled its sponsorship after the state party decided to move forward with the convention, ignoring the medical organization’s plea to cancel the event.
The state GOP has safety precautions in place, according to the party’s leadership. The Republican Party leaders insist that the convention has to be in-person because a virtual convention isn’t as productive or effective as a standard, in-person convention. Thus, the battle between Republican Party officials and Houston elected officials, including the mayor, continues.
Mayor Turner formally requested that party Chairman James Dickey cancel the convention. Dickey rejected the request on Tuesday.
James Dickey, chairman of the Texas GOP, in a statement said the party has been “proactive in implementing safety measures” and had “extensive conversations” with Houston First, the public nonprofit that serves as the city’s convention arm and operates the George R. Brown Convention Center. The convention is set to take place there from July 16 to 18. “With these precautions currently in place, the Republican Party of Texas intends to proceed with an in-person convention next week in Houston,” Dickey said.
It all boils down to a power struggle between a state political party versus elected officials, in particular, Mayor Sylvester and Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo. Both of them have been enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame on network and cable station interviews in recent days, as the coronavirus pandemic spikes in Houston.
Turner said he was “incredulous” that the GOP is moving ahead with the event amid a local escalation of the COVID-19 pandemic. He reiterated that health department officials would shut it down if they find people are not following city COVID-19 guidelines. “It is the only convention or conference that has elected to proceed,” Turner said. “All of the other conferences and conventions have chosen to cancel or reschedule.”
In contrast, Republicans are “incredulous” that the Houston mayor was perfectly fine with the memorials, protests, and the like after the death of George Floyd, a Houston native. Social distancing was not adhered to during any of that, all producing very large crowds, substantially more than 6,000 people.
The only two elected officials with the power to shut down the convention are Governor Abbott and Mayor Turner. Turner is clearly looking for an excuse to do so, while Governor Abbott straddles the fence. There is no indication, at this time, that Abbott will move in and shut it down. Turner denies he wants to cancel the convention.
At the city level, Turner issued an executive order in June that required the cancellation of all events of more than 50 people in city-owned buildings, including ones involving a third party such as the Texas GOP. The mayor, who is a Democrat, removed that provision from his order last week and has yet to explain why he did so, though he has said he does not want to cancel the convention, fearing that doing so would politicize the situation. He sent the GOP a list of conditions Monday it would need to follow during the convention, including denying entry to anyone who has tested positive for COVID or come in contact with a COVID patient between July 2 and July 15. The party also must require convention guests to wear masks and provide touchless hand sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, Turner said.
A public health authority is working with Mayor Turner and will advise him to shut it down if violations are found during the event. An assistant county attorney is looking into the situation. He is discussing it with the Harris County Judge Hidalgo’s office, looking into her authority limitations concerning the convention. Suddenly, Hidalgo is not publicly offering up her hot takes on the convention. She seems to be letting the mayor take the lead.
As Chairman Dickey points out, the “demands” from the mayor are already agreed upon by the state party to be in place.
“Mayor Turner must not have had the information about the measures being voluntarily implemented,” Dickey said. “The Republican Party, delegates, and guests are looking forward to a safe and productive Convention next week.”
A decision has been made for all elected officials to speak via video to the convention instead of in-person speeches. This is supposed to allow the convention-goers to conduct their business quickly and efficiently.
The Republican Party of Texas is moving forward with its controversial in-person convention during the coronavirus pandemic — but elected officials including Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick will be giving their scheduled speeches virtually. “All the elected officials are switching from a live, in-person speech to videos,” Kyle Whatley, the party’s executive director, said during a town hall livestreamed Tuesday night. “They’re doing that for us in order to focus all the attention on the business of the meeting and to get everybody in and out of here as quickly and as safely as possible.”
So, convention-goers will be at risk of coronavirus exposure but the elected officials will be away from the convention, in the comfort of their own surroundings, not taking the health risk. How convenient. I remain of the same opinion that I’ve had from the beginning of this whole kerfuffle – an in-person convention is not a good idea. It is an unnecessary health risk to elderly delegates and attendees and it may spread the virus to other people once the attendees return home. Large gatherings, for whatever reason, are just not a good idea at this time during the pandemic.
The Texas Craft Brewers Guild has dropped its support of the GOP state convention, citing safety concerns.
Update: The mayor pulled the trigger. The state GOP convention has been canceled. Mayor Turner had Houston First, the public nonprofit that serves the city’s convention center deliver the news. The Texas GOP says it is prepared for legal action.
Mayor Sylvester Turner announced on Wednesday that the city has canceled the Texas Republican Party’s in-person state convention in downtown Houston next week. Houston First, the public nonprofit that serves as the city’s convention arm, sent a letter to the party’s executive committee notifying it that the convention has been canceled. The letter triggers a part of the contract called a “force majeure” clause, which allows one side to cancel for an occurrence out of its control. The definition included “epidemics in the City of Houston,” according to the Houston First letter.
The letter states the state convention poses a “clear and present danger to the health and well-being of convention attendees, workers, local hotel and restaurant owners and Houstonians”.


hotair--2020-07-08--Kanye West: I'm taking off the red hat and thinking about running as an independent

Lot going on here , as tends to be the case when West starts talking .
“ I am taking the red hat off , with this interview , ” he told Forbes in a lengthy piece today about his nascent presidential bid .
When asked why , he answered , “ It looks like one big mess to me… I don ’ t like that I caught wind that [ Trump ] hid in the bunker.
” But he ’ s far more critical of Biden than he is of Trump , calling POTUS “ special ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in years to allowing God to still be part of the conversation.
” The best thing about Kanye ’ s flirtation with politics is his righteous indignation at the idea that black Americans should be expected to vote a certain way .
He describes his famous donning of the MAGA hat as “ a protest to the segregation of votes in the Black community ” and complains more than once about Biden ’ s infamous comment that “ you ain ’ t black ” unless he support him this fall : “ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacy and white control to say that all Black people need to be Democrat and to assume that me running is me splitting the vote .
All of that information is being charged up on social media platforms by Democrats .
And Democrats used to tell me , the same Democrats have threatened me… .
The reason why this is the first day I registered to vote is because I was scared .
I was told that if I voted on Trump my music career would be over .
I was threatened into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened as a celebrity into being in one party .
I was threatened as a Black man into the Democratic party .
And that ’ s what the Democrats are doing , emotionally , to my people .
Threatening them to the point where this white man can tell a Black man if you don ’ t vote for me , you ’ re not Black.
” That ’ s the good part of the interview .
The bad part is that policy is an afterthought to his presidential aspirations , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 and and yet highly sub-optimal in a healthy country .
Foreign policy ?
“ I haven ’ t developed it yet.
” Tax policy ?
“ I haven ’ t done enough research on that yet.
” Policy generally ?
“ I don ’ t know if I would use the word policy for the way I would approach things .
I don ’ t have a policy when I went to Nike and designed Yeezy and went to Louis and designed a Louis Vuitton at the same time .
It wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a design .
We need to innovate the design to be able to free the mind at this time.
” As I said a few days ago , this is a guy who clearly wants to be a religious leader but is channeling his grandiose ambitions into politics because that ’ s what modern American culture prescribes for people with grandiose ambitions .
His running mate is a Wyoming “ Bible life coach , ” in case any further evidence was needed .
He explains his sudden decision to run by saying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said it ’ s time ” and “ If I win in 2020 then it was God ’ s appointment.
” His commentary throughout the Forbes interview is far more religiously than politically geared .
Nothing wrong with that , but if he ’ s uninterested in policy then he ’ s barking up the wrong tree ambition-wise .
Even Trump had certain policies he was passionate about , like protectionism and withdrawal abroad , when he ran in 2016 .
So much for the good and the bad .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s so many of our children that are being vaccinated and paralyzed… So when they say the way we ’ re going to fix Covid is with a vaccine , I ’ m extremely cautious .
That ’ s the mark of the beast .
They want to put chips inside of us , they want to do all kinds of things , to make it where we can ’ t cross the gates of heaven .
I ’ m sorry when I say they , the humans that have the Devil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that , the saddest thing is that we all won ’ t make it to heaven , that there ’ ll be some of us that do not make it .
Next question.
” Asked about his proposal for curing coronavirus , he called for prayer and said , “ We need to stop doing things that make God mad.
” Which , in his defense , isn ’ t all that different from certain woke approaches to the virus .
And then , because Kanye is Kanye , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re left wondering if he ’ s all there : “ I ’ m gon na use the framework of Wakanda right now because it ’ s the best explanation of what our design group is going to feel like in the White House…That is a positive idea : you got Kanye West , one of the most powerful humans—I ’ m not saying the most because you got a lot of alien level superpowers and it ’ s only collectively that we can set it free.
” He also promises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Nanchang ” once he ’ s president and reiterates three times that he loves China .
If you thought there was never a dull moment during Trump ’ s presidency , just wait for the wild , wild West administration .
He told Forbes that he has 30 days to make a decision on running and might sue if he misses the ballot deadline , alleging that coronavirus made it difficult this year .
David Byler of WaPo wrote yesterday about his fledgling campaign with a gentle reminder that Kanye isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not to say he can ’ t pull enough votes from one candidate or the other ( likely Biden ) to play spoiler , just that the demand for West as a public figure outside the hip-hop context may be more limited than everyone thinks .
Here ’ s how he polled two years ago at the height of his MAGA period : Just nine percent of black adults rated him at least somewhat favorably .
Less than a quarter of young adults ( 21 percent ) did so , almost indistinguishable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 percent ) who did the same .
He doesn ’ t need to be popular to affect the outcome of the election , but his grandiosity is such that I think he might be legitimately surprised and dismayed if he ran and discovered he was a five-percent niche candidate .
Would he and his “ Birthday Party ” ( “ Because when we win , it ’ s everybody ’ s birthday ” ) campaign steadily for three months to win five percent of the vote or would he quit after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve ?
Given how low opinion of him was already among black Americans because of his friendliness with Trump , I ’ d be curious to see how they ’ d react to him if he jumped into the race and saved his harshest criticism for the Democratic nominee , as he did in today ’ s interview .
Suspicions that he ’ s a stalking horse for Trump would dog his candidacy from its first minute to its last .
If he actually succeeded in tipping the election to Trump in close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by liberals like few other figures in American life .
Stay tuned .
Exit quotation from the man himself : “ Planned Parenthoods have been placed inside cities by white supremacists to do the Devil ’ s work .
”

Lot going on here, as tends to be the case when West starts talking. “I am taking the red hat off, with this interview,” he told Forbes in a lengthy piece today about his nascent presidential bid. When asked why, he answered, “It looks like one big mess to me… I don’t like that I caught wind that [Trump] hid in the bunker.”
But he’s far more critical of Biden than he is of Trump, calling POTUS “special” and “the closest president we’ve had in years to allowing God to still be part of the conversation.”
The best thing about Kanye’s flirtation with politics is his righteous indignation at the idea that black Americans should be expected to vote a certain way. He describes his famous donning of the MAGA hat as “a protest to the segregation of votes in the Black community” and complains more than once about Biden’s infamous comment that “you ain’t black” unless he support him this fall:
“That is a form of racism and white supremacy and white control to say that all Black people need to be Democrat and to assume that me running is me splitting the vote. All of that information is being charged up on social media platforms by Democrats. And Democrats used to tell me, the same Democrats have threatened me…. The reason why this is the first day I registered to vote is because I was scared. I was told that if I voted on Trump my music career would be over. I was threatened into being in one party. I was threatened as a celebrity into being in one party. I was threatened as a Black man into the Democratic party. And that’s what the Democrats are doing, emotionally, to my people. Threatening them to the point where this white man can tell a Black man if you don’t vote for me, you’re not Black.”
That’s the good part of the interview. The bad part is that policy is an afterthought to his presidential aspirations, which is perfectly true to the spirit of America 2020 and and yet highly sub-optimal in a healthy country. Foreign policy? “I haven’t developed it yet.” Tax policy? “I haven’t done enough research on that yet.” Policy generally? “I don’t know if I would use the word policy for the way I would approach things. I don’t have a policy when I went to Nike and designed Yeezy and went to Louis and designed a Louis Vuitton at the same time. It wasn’t a policy, it was a design. We need to innovate the design to be able to free the mind at this time.”
As I said a few days ago, this is a guy who clearly wants to be a religious leader but is channeling his grandiose ambitions into politics because that’s what modern American culture prescribes for people with grandiose ambitions. His running mate is a Wyoming “Bible life coach,” in case any further evidence was needed. He explains his sudden decision to run by saying, “God just gave me the clarity and said it’s time” and “If I win in 2020 then it was God’s appointment.” His commentary throughout the Forbes interview is far more religiously than politically geared. Nothing wrong with that, but if he’s uninterested in policy then he’s barking up the wrong tree ambition-wise. Even Trump had certain policies he was passionate about, like protectionism and withdrawal abroad, when he ran in 2016.
So much for the good and the bad. There’s also the ugly:
“It’s so many of our children that are being vaccinated and paralyzed… So when they say the way we’re going to fix Covid is with a vaccine, I’m extremely cautious. That’s the mark of the beast. They want to put chips inside of us, they want to do all kinds of things, to make it where we can’t cross the gates of heaven. I’m sorry when I say they, the humans that have the Devil inside them. And the sad thing is that, the saddest thing is that we all won’t make it to heaven, that there’ll be some of us that do not make it. Next question.”
Asked about his proposal for curing coronavirus, he called for prayer and said, “We need to stop doing things that make God mad.” Which, in his defense, isn’t all that different from certain woke approaches to the virus.
And then, because Kanye is Kanye, there’s a certain amount of garden-variety kookery where you’re left wondering if he’s all there: “I’m gonna use the framework of Wakanda right now because it’s the best explanation of what our design group is going to feel like in the White House…That is a positive idea: you got Kanye West, one of the most powerful humans—I’m not saying the most because you got a lot of alien level superpowers and it’s only collectively that we can set it free.” He also promises to reopen the NBA “from Nigeria to Nanchang” once he’s president and reiterates three times that he loves China.
If you thought there was never a dull moment during Trump’s presidency, just wait for the wild, wild West administration.
He told Forbes that he has 30 days to make a decision on running and might sue if he misses the ballot deadline, alleging that coronavirus made it difficult this year. David Byler of WaPo wrote yesterday about his fledgling campaign with a gentle reminder that Kanye isn’t actually very popular. That’s not to say he can’t pull enough votes from one candidate or the other (likely Biden) to play spoiler, just that the demand for West as a public figure outside the hip-hop context may be more limited than everyone thinks. Here’s how he polled two years ago at the height of his MAGA period:
Just nine percent of black adults rated him at least somewhat favorably. Less than a quarter of young adults (21 percent) did so, almost indistinguishable from the number of senior citizens (20 percent) who did the same. He doesn’t need to be popular to affect the outcome of the election, but his grandiosity is such that I think he might be legitimately surprised and dismayed if he ran and discovered he was a five-percent niche candidate. Would he and his “Birthday Party” (“Because when we win, it’s everybody’s birthday”) campaign steadily for three months to win five percent of the vote or would he quit after a month once his polling didn’t improve?
Given how low opinion of him was already among black Americans because of his friendliness with Trump, I’d be curious to see how they’d react to him if he jumped into the race and saved his harshest criticism for the Democratic nominee, as he did in today’s interview. Suspicions that he’s a stalking horse for Trump would dog his candidacy from its first minute to its last. If he actually succeeded in tipping the election to Trump in close states, he’d be despised by liberals like few other figures in American life.
Stay tuned. Exit quotation from the man himself: “Planned Parenthoods have been placed inside cities by white supremacists to do the Devil’s work.”


hotair--2020-07-08--<span class='red'>Breaking: SCOTUS expands religious-liberty and ministerial-exception protections i

Breaking: SCOTUS expands religious-liberty and ministerial-exception protections in 7-2 decisions on Little Sisters, discrimination claims

The Supreme Court wanted to end their 2019-20 with a bang — and dropped two Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch this morning .
On two 7-2 votes , the court upheld free-exercise claims in religious liberty , the more notable of which came in the long-standing fight by the Little Sisters of the Poor against the HHS contraception mandate .
Clarence Thomas wrote the majority decision , while Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented : The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Little Sisters of the Poor are exempt from an Obama-era mandate to provide contraception in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania , marked the Catholic religious order ’ s second time before the Supreme Court , after nearly 10 years of legal dispute .
It arose when the New Jersey and Pennsylvania state governments sued the Trump administration for exempting the Little Sisters from the contraception mandate .
Thomas , as usual , cuts to the heart of the dispute , and smacks the dissenters for essentially attempting to rewrite the ObamaCare statute : By its terms , the ACA leaves the Guidelines ’ content to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plain reading of the statute , then , we conclude that the ACA gives HRSA broad discretion to define preventive care and screenings and to create the religious and moral exemptions.7 The dissent resists this conclusion , asserting that the Departments ’ interpretation thwarts Congress ’ intent to provide contraceptive coverage to the women who are interested in receiving such coverage .
See post , at 1 , 21 ( opinion of GINSBURG , J. )
.
It also argues that the exemptions will make it significantly harder for interested women to obtain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , post , at 15–17 , which we have previously “ assume [ d ] ” is a compelling governmental interest , Hobby Lobby , 573 U. S. , at 728 ; but see post , at 10–12 ( ALITO , J. , concurring ) .
The Departments dispute that women will be adversely impacted by the 2018 exemptions .
82 Fed .
Reg .
47805 .
Though we express no view on this disagreement , it bears noting that such a policy concern can not justify supplanting the text ’ s plain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 531 U. S. 206 , 220 ( 2001 ) .
“ It is not for us to rewrite the statute so that it covers only what we think is necessary to achieve what we think Congress really intended.
” Lewis v. Chicago , 560 U. S. 205 , 215 ( 2010 ) .
Moreover , even assuming that the dissent is correct as an empirical matter , its concerns are more properly directed at the regulatory mechanism that Congress put in place to protect this assumed governmental interest .
As even the dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in §300gg–13 ( a ) ( 4 ) , and no language in the statute itself even hints that Congress intended that contraception should or must be covered .
See post , at 4–5 ( citing legislative history and amicus briefs ) .
Thus , contrary to the dissent ’ s protestations , it was Congress , not the Departments , that declined to expressly require contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself .
Hence the term “ HHS mandate.
” This came about as a matter of regulatory policy , not statutory requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies in accordance with the APA and other procedural guidelines .
Given that this has been going on for nine years now , anyone who needed notice of administrative change should have been well informed by this point .
Besides , Thomas argues , the imposition on religious liberty is very plain in this instance , and the regulation should have been subject to RFRA : Moreover , our decisions all but instructed the Departments to consider RFRA going forward .
For instance , though we held that the mandate violated RFRA in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Federal Government to develop and implement a solution .
At the same time , we made it abundantly clear that , under RFRA , the Departments must accept the sincerely held complicity-based objections of religious entities .
That is , they could not “ tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed ” because , in the Departments ’ view , “ the connection between what the objecting parties must do .
.
.
and the end that they find to be morally wrong .
.
.
is simply too attenuated.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 723–724 .
Likewise , though we did not decide whether the self-certification accommodation ran afoul of RFRA in Zubik , we directed the parties on remand to “ accommodat [ e ] ” the free exercise rights of those with complicity-based objections to the self-certification accommodation .
578 U. S. , at ___ ( slip op.
, at 4 ) .
It is hard to see how the Departments could promulgate rules consistent with these decisions if they did not overtly consider these entities ’ rights under RFRA .
Finally , Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applying a contraception mandate on a group of nuns : For over 150 years , the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice , motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother .
“ [ T ] hey commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the unique , inviolable dignity of every person , particularly those whom others regard as weak or worthless.
” Complaint ¶14 .
But for the past seven years , they—like many other religious objectors who have participated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today ’ s decision— have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs .
After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts , the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns—the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate .
We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption , as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption .
We further hold that the rules promulgating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Therefore , we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion .
Some of the news coverage of this decision is already claiming that the court has weakened the overall mandate .
That ’ s not actually true ; what Thomas ’ opinion does , though , is make it clear that HHS can craft religious exemptions to it .
The Hobby Lobby decision probably did much more to allow a broader access to those exemptions than Little Sisters does here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , and the media angst is at least rational here .
In the long-awaited ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v Morrissey-Berru , the court ruled 7-2 that religious schools have wide latitude in selecting instructors and other personnel in relation to religious convictions .
This strengthens an earlier unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor , but creates a much broader range for action than that earlier ruling did : “ The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission , ” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the 7-2 majority .
“ Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.
” A 2012 Supreme Court ruling protects churches , the schools they run , and other religious organizations from lawsuits brought by employees who perform a “ ministerial ” function .
Allowing such suits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government interference in a religious institution ’ s internal affairs .
… [ Agnes ] Morrissey-Berru sued Our Lady of Guadalupe School in Hermosa Beach for age discrimination when her contract was terminated .
Kristen Biel sued St. James School in Torrance when her contract wasn ’ t renewed after she was diagnosed with breast cancer .
She said the school violated the Americans with Disabilities Act .
In both cases , the churches said they were protected from discrimination lawsuits .
But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even though the teachers taught some religious subjects , their duties were not ministerial .
Morrissey-Berru is not a practicing Catholic and was not required to attend any religious training for most of the time she taught at Our Lady of Guadalupe .
Unlike Hosanna-Tabor , these two cases didn ’ t involve contradictory life-style choices or teachings in the school environment .
Neither instructor got dismissed for rebelling against church doctrine .
Morrissey-Berru got demoted and claimed age discrimination when she was replaced with a younger woman , and Biel was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed other reasons for terminating those employments .
Both claimed in separate ways that Biel and Morrissey-Berru had done poorly in implementing a new curricula , and Biel had only worked at her school for a year .
In fighting the lawsuits , the school invoked the ministerial exception claim under Hosanna-Tabor , but the Ninth Circuit basically called that a non-sequitur .
In his majority opinion , Samuel Alito writes that the ministerial exception applies regardless of which discrimination law is in question .
The point of that exception is to exempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions , as the First Amendment protection of free expression of religion must take precedence : A variety of factors may be important in determining whether a particular position falls within the ministerial exception .
The circumstances that informed the Court ’ s decision in Hosanna-Tabor were relevant because of their relationship to Perich ’ s “ role in conveying the Church ’ s message and carrying out its mission.
” 565 U. S. , at 192 .
But the recognition of the significance of those factors in Perich ’ s case did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all other cases .
What matters is what an employee does .
Implicit in the Hosanna-Tabor decision was a recognition that educating young people in their faith , inculcating its teachings , and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of a private religious school ’ s mission .
Applying this understanding of the Religion Clauses here , it is apparent that Morrissey-Berru and Biel qualify for the exception recognized in Hosanna-Tabor .
There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith .
Their titles did not include the term “ minister ” and they had less formal religious training than Perich , but their core responsibilities were essentially the same .
And their schools expressly saw them as playing a vital role in carrying out the church ’ s mission .
A religious institution ’ s explanation of the role of its employees in the life of the religion in question is important .
The Ninth Circuit mistakenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Hosanna-Tabor as a checklist of items to be assessed and weighed against each other .
That rigid test produced a distorted analysis .
First , it invested undue significance in the fact that Morrissey-Berru and Biel did not have clerical titles .
Second , it assigned too much weight to the fact that Morrissey-Berru and Biel had less formal religious schooling that Perich .
Third , the St. James panel inappropriately diminished the significance of Biel ’ s duties .
Respondents would make Hosanna-Tabor ’ s governing test even more rigid .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that an employee can never come within the Hosanna-Tabor exception unless the employee is a “ practicing ” member of the religion with which the employer is associated .
Deciding such questions risks judicial entanglement in religious issues .
The free exercise of religion by non-secular schools has to mean that the state has little or no role in mediating termination disputes , Alito writes : But it is instructive to consider why a church ’ s independence on matters “ of faith and doctrine ” requires the authority to select , supervise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister without interference by secular authorities .
Without that power , a wayward minister ’ s preaching , teaching , and counseling could contradict the church ’ s tenets and lead the congregation away from the faith.9 The ministerial exception was recognized to preserve a church ’ s independent authority in such matters .
… The case featured two concurrences .
In the first , JUSTICE THOMAS stressed that courts should “ defer to a religious organization ’ s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister.
” Id.
, at 196 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because “ [ a ] religious organization ’ s right to choose its ministers would be hollow .
.
.
if secular courts could second-guess ” the group ’ s sincere application of its religious tenets .
Id.
, at 197 .
The second concurrence argued that application of the “ ministerial exception ” should “ focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies ” rather than labels or designations that may vary across faiths .
Id.
, at 198 ( opinion of ALITO , J. , joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion viewed the title of “ minister ” as “ relevant ” but “ neither necessary nor sufficient.
” This is all solid reasoning , but it gives religious organizations a rather large carte blanche even on its less ministerial jobs .
The problem , as Alito points out , is in determining which is which , and Alito concludes that the state is in no position to dictate those terms in light of the First Amendment .
Sotomayor points out the scope of that carte blanche in her dissent : In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees taught short religion modules at Catholic elementary schools , they were “ ministers ” of the Catholic faith and thus could be fired for any reason , whether religious or nonreligious , benign or bigoted , without legal recourse .
The Court reaches this result even though the teachers taught primarily secular subjects , lacked substantial religious titles and training , and were not even required to be Catholic .
In foreclosing the teachers ’ claims , the Court skews the facts , ignores the applicable standard of review , and collapses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single consideration : whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role .
Because that simplistic approach has no basis in law and strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections , I respectfully dissent .
… The “ ministerial exception , ” by contrast , is a judge-made doctrine .
This Court first recognized it eight years ago in Hosanna-Tabor , concluding that the First Amendment categorically bars certain antidiscrimination suits by religious leaders against their religious employers .
565 U. S. , at 188–190 .
When it applies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives an employer free rein to discriminate because of race , sex , pregnancy , age , disability , or other traits protected by law when selecting or firing their “ ministers , ” even when the discrimination is wholly unrelated to the employer ’ s religious beliefs or practices .
Id.
, at 194–195 .
That is , an employer need not cite or possess a religious reason at all ; the ministerial exception even condones animus .
When this Court adopted the ministerial exception , it affirmed the holdings of virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the doctrine .
Id.
, at 188 , and n. 2 .
Those courts had long understood that the exception ’ s stark departure from antidiscrimination law is narrow .
Wary of the exception ’ s “ potential for abuse , ” federal courts treaded “ case-by-case ” in determining which employees are ministers exposed to discrimination without recourse .
Scharon v. St. Luke ’ s Episcopal Presbyterian Hospitals , 929 F. 2d 360 , 363 , n. 3 ( CA8 1991 ) .
Thus , their analysis typically trained on whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ r ] ” within a congregation such that “ he or she should be considered clergy.
” Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists , 772 F. 2d 1164 , 1168–1169 ( CA4 1985 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ) ; see also Hankins v. Lyght , 441 F. 3d 96 , 117–118 , and n. 13 ( CA2 2006 ) ( Sotomayor , J. , dissenting ) ( cataloging Circuit consensus ) .
That approach recognized that a religious entity ’ s ability to choose its faith leaders—rabbis , priests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to name a few—should be free from government interference , but that generally applicable laws still protected most employees .
It does seem a bit amusing to read Sotomayor ’ s highlighting of a “ judge-made doctrine.
” Otherwise , though , Sotomayor has a point , albeit perhaps countered by Alito ’ s analysis .
One might not need to be called a “ minister ” for a ministerial exception , but what is the functional limit of that exception ?
Is there any ?
Would churches and schools be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What about administrative personnel at schools that might come into contact with students but otherwise have no teaching role ?
Those could fit inside Our Lady of Guadalupe , or perhaps not , but it might take another court case to find out .
The problem is that identifying ministerial roles is not the business of courts — it ’ s the business of the religious institutions themselves .
At least , it is now , in Alito ’ s controlling opinion .
This is much more wide-ranging than Little Sisters , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotly debated than abortion coverage for nuns .

The Supreme Court wanted to end their 2019-20 with a bang — and dropped two Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch this morning. On two 7-2 votes, the court upheld free-exercise claims in religious liberty, the more notable of which came in the long-standing fight by the Little Sisters of the Poor against the HHS contraception mandate. Clarence Thomas wrote the majority decision, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the Little Sisters of the Poor are exempt from an Obama-era mandate to provide contraception in their health care plans. The case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, marked the Catholic religious order’s second time before the Supreme Court, after nearly 10 years of legal dispute. It arose when the New Jersey and Pennsylvania state governments sued the Trump administration for exempting the Little Sisters from the contraception mandate.
Thomas, as usual, cuts to the heart of the dispute, and smacks the dissenters for essentially attempting to rewrite the ObamaCare statute:
By its terms, the ACA leaves the Guidelines’ content to the exclusive discretion of HRSA. Under a plain reading of the statute, then, we conclude that the ACA gives HRSA broad discretion to define preventive care and screenings and to create the religious and moral exemptions.7 The dissent resists this conclusion, asserting that the Departments’ interpretation thwarts Congress’ intent to provide contraceptive coverage to the women who are interested in receiving such coverage. See post, at 1, 21 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). It also argues that the exemptions will make it significantly harder for interested women to obtain seamless access to contraception without cost sharing, post, at 15–17, which we have previously “assume[d]” is a compelling governmental interest, Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 728; but see post, at 10–12 (ALITO, J., concurring). The Departments dispute that women will be adversely impacted by the 2018 exemptions. 82 Fed. Reg. 47805. Though we express no view on this disagreement, it bears noting that such a policy concern cannot justify supplanting the text’s plain meaning. See Gitlitz v. Commissioner, 531 U. S. 206, 220 (2001). “It is not for us to rewrite the statute so that it covers only what we think is necessary to achieve what we think Congress really intended.” Lewis v. Chicago, 560 U. S. 205, 215 (2010). Moreover, even assuming that the dissent is correct as an empirical matter, its concerns are more properly directed at the regulatory mechanism that Congress put in place to protect this assumed governmental interest. As even the dissent recognizes, contraceptive coverage is mentioned nowhere in §300gg–13(a)(4), and no language in the statute itself even hints that Congress intended that contraception should or must be covered. See post, at 4–5 (citing legislative history and amicus briefs). Thus, contrary to the dissent’s protestations, it was Congress, not the Departments, that declined to expressly require contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself.
Hence the term “HHS mandate.” This came about as a matter of regulatory policy, not statutory requirement, which means regulators can change those policies in accordance with the APA and other procedural guidelines. Given that this has been going on for nine years now, anyone who needed notice of administrative change should have been well informed by this point.
Besides, Thomas argues, the imposition on religious liberty is very plain in this instance, and the regulation should have been subject to RFRA:
Moreover, our decisions all but instructed the Departments to consider RFRA going forward. For instance, though we held that the mandate violated RFRA in Hobby Lobby, we left it to the Federal Government to develop and implement a solution. At the same time, we made it abundantly clear that, under RFRA, the Departments must accept the sincerely held complicity-based objections of religious entities. That is, they could not “tell the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed” because, in the Departments’ view, “the connection between what the objecting parties must do . . . and the end that they find to be morally wrong . . . is simply too attenuated.” Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S., at 723–724. Likewise, though we did not decide whether the self-certification accommodation ran afoul of RFRA in Zubik, we directed the parties on remand to “accommodat[e]” the free exercise rights of those with complicity-based objections to the self-certification accommodation. 578 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4). It is hard to see how the Departments could promulgate rules consistent with these decisions if they did not overtly consider these entities’ rights under RFRA.
Finally, Thomas concludes by hinting at the absurdity of applying a contraception mandate on a group of nuns:
For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother. “[T]hey commit to constantly living out a witness that proclaims the unique, inviolable dignity of every person, particularly those whom others regard as weak or worthless.” Complaint ¶14. But for the past seven years, they—like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision— have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs. After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns—the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate. We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Some of the news coverage of this decision is already claiming that the court has weakened the overall mandate. That’s not actually true; what Thomas’ opinion does, though, is make it clear that HHS can craft religious exemptions to it. The Hobby Lobby decision probably did much more to allow a broader access to those exemptions than Little Sisters does here.
The second decision is more far-reaching, however, and the media angst is at least rational here. In the long-awaited ruling in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v Morrissey-Berru, the court ruled 7-2 that religious schools have wide latitude in selecting instructors and other personnel in relation to religious convictions. This strengthens an earlier unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor, but creates a much broader range for action than that earlier ruling did:
“The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the 7-2 majority. “Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.” A 2012 Supreme Court ruling protects churches, the schools they run, and other religious organizations from lawsuits brought by employees who perform a “ministerial” function. Allowing such suits, the court said then, would invite government interference in a religious institution’s internal affairs. … [Agnes] Morrissey-Berru sued Our Lady of Guadalupe School in Hermosa Beach for age discrimination when her contract was terminated. Kristen Biel sued St. James School in Torrance when her contract wasn’t renewed after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She said the school violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In both cases, the churches said they were protected from discrimination lawsuits. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to throw the cases out, ruling that even though the teachers taught some religious subjects, their duties were not ministerial. Morrissey-Berru is not a practicing Catholic and was not required to attend any religious training for most of the time she taught at Our Lady of Guadalupe.
Unlike Hosanna-Tabor, these two cases didn’t involve contradictory life-style choices or teachings in the school environment. Neither instructor got dismissed for rebelling against church doctrine. Morrissey-Berru got demoted and claimed age discrimination when she was replaced with a younger woman, and Biel was arguing an ADA claim. The schools claimed other reasons for terminating those employments. Both claimed in separate ways that Biel and Morrissey-Berru had done poorly in implementing a new curricula, and Biel had only worked at her school for a year. In fighting the lawsuits, the school invoked the ministerial exception claim under Hosanna-Tabor, but the Ninth Circuit basically called that a non-sequitur.
In his majority opinion, Samuel Alito writes that the ministerial exception applies regardless of which discrimination law is in question. The point of that exception is to exempt religious organizations from outside scrutiny of those decisions, as the First Amendment protection of free expression of religion must take precedence:
A variety of factors may be important in determining whether a particular position falls within the ministerial exception. The circumstances that informed the Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor were relevant because of their relationship to Perich’s “role in conveying the Church’s message and carrying out its mission.” 565 U. S., at 192. But the recognition of the significance of those factors in Perich’s case did not mean that they must be met in all other cases. What matters is what an employee does. Implicit in the Hosanna-Tabor decision was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of a private religious school’s mission. Applying this understanding of the Religion Clauses here, it is apparent that Morrissey-Berru and Biel qualify for the exception recognized in Hosanna-Tabor. There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties, such as educating their students in the Catholic faith and guiding their students to live their lives in accordance with that faith. Their titles did not include the term “minister” and they had less formal religious training than Perich, but their core responsibilities were essentially the same. And their schools expressly saw them as playing a vital role in carrying out the church’s mission. A religious institution’s explanation of the role of its employees in the life of the religion in question is important. The Ninth Circuit mistakenly treated the circumstances the Court found relevant in Hosanna-Tabor as a checklist of items to be assessed and weighed against each other. That rigid test produced a distorted analysis. First, it invested undue significance in the fact that Morrissey-Berru and Biel did not have clerical titles. Second, it assigned too much weight to the fact that Morrissey-Berru and Biel had less formal religious schooling that Perich. Third, the St. James panel inappropriately diminished the significance of Biel’s duties. Respondents would make Hosanna-Tabor’s governing test even more rigid. And they go further astray in suggesting that an employee can never come within the Hosanna-Tabor exception unless the employee is a “practicing” member of the religion with which the employer is associated. Deciding such questions risks judicial entanglement in religious issues.
The free exercise of religion by non-secular schools has to mean that the state has little or no role in mediating termination disputes, Alito writes:
But it is instructive to consider why a church’s independence on matters “of faith and doctrine” requires the authority to select, supervise, and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities. Without that power, a wayward minister’s preaching, teaching, and counseling could contradict the church’s tenets and lead the congregation away from the faith.9 The ministerial exception was recognized to preserve a church’s independent authority in such matters. … The case featured two concurrences. In the first, JUSTICE THOMAS stressed that courts should “defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister.” Id., at 196. That is so, JUSTICE THOMAS explained, because “[a] religious organization’s right to choose its ministers would be hollow . . . if secular courts could second-guess” the group’s sincere application of its religious tenets. Id., at 197. The second concurrence argued that application of the “ministerial exception” should “focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies” rather than labels or designations that may vary across faiths. Id., at 198 (opinion of ALITO, J., joined by KAGAN, J.). This opinion viewed the title of “minister” as “relevant” but “neither necessary nor sufficient.”
This is all solid reasoning, but it gives religious organizations a rather large carte blanche even on its less ministerial jobs. The problem, as Alito points out, is in determining which is which, and Alito concludes that the state is in no position to dictate those terms in light of the First Amendment.
Sotomayor points out the scope of that carte blanche in her dissent:
In the Court’s view, because the employees taught short religion modules at Catholic elementary schools, they were “ministers” of the Catholic faith and thus could be fired for any reason, whether religious or nonreligious, benign or bigoted, without legal recourse. The Court reaches this result even though the teachers taught primarily secular subjects, lacked substantial religious titles and training, and were not even required to be Catholic. In foreclosing the teachers’ claims, the Court skews the facts, ignores the applicable standard of review, and collapses Hosanna-Tabor’s careful analysis into a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role. Because that simplistic approach has no basis in law and strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections, I respectfully dissent. … The “ministerial exception,” by contrast, is a judge-made doctrine. This Court first recognized it eight years ago in Hosanna-Tabor, concluding that the First Amendment categorically bars certain antidiscrimination suits by religious leaders against their religious employers. 565 U. S., at 188–190. When it applies, the exception is extraordinarily potent: It gives an employer free rein to discriminate because of race, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, or other traits protected by law when selecting or firing their “ministers,” even when the discrimination is wholly unrelated to the employer’s religious beliefs or practices. Id., at 194–195. That is, an employer need not cite or possess a religious reason at all; the ministerial exception even condones animus. When this Court adopted the ministerial exception, it affirmed the holdings of virtually every federal appellate court that had embraced the doctrine. Id., at 188, and n. 2. Those courts had long understood that the exception’s stark departure from antidiscrimination law is narrow. Wary of the exception’s “potential for abuse,” federal courts treaded “case-by-case” in determining which employees are ministers exposed to discrimination without recourse. Scharon v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Presbyterian Hospitals, 929 F. 2d 360, 363, n. 3 (CA8 1991). Thus, their analysis typically trained on whether the putative minister was a “spiritual leade[r]” within a congregation such that “he or she should be considered clergy.” Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 772 F. 2d 1164, 1168–1169 (CA4 1985) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F. 3d 96, 117–118, and n. 13 (CA2 2006) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (cataloging Circuit consensus). That approach recognized that a religious entity’s ability to choose its faith leaders—rabbis, priests, nuns, imams, ministers, to name a few—should be free from government interference, but that generally applicable laws still protected most employees.
It does seem a bit amusing to read Sotomayor’s highlighting of a “judge-made doctrine.” Otherwise, though, Sotomayor has a point, albeit perhaps countered by Alito’s analysis. One might not need to be called a “minister” for a ministerial exception, but what is the functional limit of that exception? Is there any? Would churches and schools be able to apply it to secretaries and janitors? What about administrative personnel at schools that might come into contact with students but otherwise have no teaching role? Those could fit inside Our Lady of Guadalupe, or perhaps not, but it might take another court case to find out.
The problem is that identifying ministerial roles is not the business of courts — it’s the business of the religious institutions themselves. At least, it is now, in Alito’s controlling opinion. This is much more wide-ranging than Little Sisters, and it’s going to be more hotly debated than abortion coverage for nuns.


hotair--2020-07-08--Atlanta Mayor: Why would we need the National Guard?

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp ( R ) seemed to have had enough of all the shootings and other riot-related violence by this weekend , so on Monday , he issued an order for the National Guard to be activated and sent to Atlanta to assist the police in restoring order .
It seemed like a perfectly reasonable response under the circumstances , as well as being an idea that New York , Illinois , Washington State and Oregon should probably be considering .
But Atlanta ’ s Democratic Mayor , Keisha Lance Bottoms , clearly didn ’ t see it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press to complain about the order , claiming that it would make matters worse rather than better .
( Associated Press ) The mayor of Atlanta said Tuesday that she doesn ’ t agree with the Georgia governor ’ s order to mobilize the National Guard in her city as a surge in violence became a political talking point .
Gov .
Brian Kemp declared a state of emergency on Monday and authorized the activation of up to 1,000 Guard troops after a weekend of gun violence in Atlanta left five people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Guard troops will provide support at sites including the Capitol and governor ’ s mansion , freeing up state law enforcement resources to patrol other areas , according to a statement from Kemp ’ s office .
There was no visible presence of Guard troops at either site Tuesday morning .
The Mayor told Good Morning America , “ at no time was it mentioned that anyone felt there was a need for the National Guard to come in.
” The head of the state Democratic Party went even further , accusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in issuing the order .
How mobilizing the Guard is selfish or does anything to help the Governor was not explained .
Mayor Lance Bottoms seems to have a peculiar idea as to what does or doesn ’ t qualify as a crisis .
In just three days over the 4th of July weekend , 31 people were shot in Atlanta , with five of them dying .
Among the dead was an eight-year-old girl who was riding in the back seat of her mother ’ s car near the burned-out shell of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was shot .
The police still don ’ t even have a suspect in that killing .
And the police aren ’ t exactly getting a ton of support from the community .
In northeast Atlanta ’ s Edgewood neighborhood , a man and a woman were both shot and taken to the hospital .
But when the cops asked them for information about who had tried to kill them they refused to cooperate .
It would seem that the public is more afraid of the gangs than the cops at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Saturday , a large group of people in the downtown area were gathered to watch fireworks when a vehicle struck one of the pedestrians blocking the street .
At that point “ multiple people ” drew handguns and began firing .
Fourteen people wound up being shot .
The Mayor and the Atlanta Police Department do not have control of their streets .
With the police clearly having instructions to hold back and not intervene with the rioting too much , criminals are becoming increasingly emboldened .
Why on Earth wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to secure some of the more critical areas , freeing up the cops to do their jobs elsewhere ?
The city is full of frightened people right now , including many of every color , gender , sexual orientation , and every other demographic you ’ d care to name .
It ’ s the Mayor ’ s job to keep them safe and provide a sense of normalcy so Atlanta ’ s citizens can go about their business .
Keisha Lance Bottoms is failing that test of leadership on a daily basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state government and the National Guard only underscores her poor decision-making skills during this crisis .
And this is one of the people who are supposedly on Joe Biden ’ s shortlist for the veepstakes ?
God help us all .

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp (R) seemed to have had enough of all the shootings and other riot-related violence by this weekend, so on Monday, he issued an order for the National Guard to be activated and sent to Atlanta to assist the police in restoring order. It seemed like a perfectly reasonable response under the circumstances, as well as being an idea that New York, Illinois, Washington State and Oregon should probably be considering. But Atlanta’s Democratic Mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, clearly didn’t see it that way. She quickly went to the press to complain about the order, claiming that it would make matters worse rather than better. (Associated Press)
The mayor of Atlanta said Tuesday that she doesn’t agree with the Georgia governor’s order to mobilize the National Guard in her city as a surge in violence became a political talking point. Gov. Brian Kemp declared a state of emergency on Monday and authorized the activation of up to 1,000 Guard troops after a weekend of gun violence in Atlanta left five people dead, including an 8-year-old girl. The Guard troops will provide support at sites including the Capitol and governor’s mansion, freeing up state law enforcement resources to patrol other areas, according to a statement from Kemp’s office. There was no visible presence of Guard troops at either site Tuesday morning.
The Mayor told Good Morning America, “at no time was it mentioned that anyone felt there was a need for the National Guard to come in.” The head of the state Democratic Party went even further, accusing the Governor of being “selfish” in issuing the order. How mobilizing the Guard is selfish or does anything to help the Governor was not explained.
Mayor Lance Bottoms seems to have a peculiar idea as to what does or doesn’t qualify as a crisis. In just three days over the 4th of July weekend, 31 people were shot in Atlanta, with five of them dying. Among the dead was an eight-year-old girl who was riding in the back seat of her mother’s car near the burned-out shell of the Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks was shot. The police still don’t even have a suspect in that killing.
And the police aren’t exactly getting a ton of support from the community. In northeast Atlanta’s Edgewood neighborhood, a man and a woman were both shot and taken to the hospital. But when the cops asked them for information about who had tried to kill them they refused to cooperate. It would seem that the public is more afraid of the gangs than the cops at this point.
In another incident shortly after midnight on Saturday, a large group of people in the downtown area were gathered to watch fireworks when a vehicle struck one of the pedestrians blocking the street. At that point “multiple people” drew handguns and began firing. Fourteen people wound up being shot.
The Mayor and the Atlanta Police Department do not have control of their streets. With the police clearly having instructions to hold back and not intervene with the rioting too much, criminals are becoming increasingly emboldened. Why on Earth wouldn’t you welcome in the National Guard to secure some of the more critical areas, freeing up the cops to do their jobs elsewhere? The city is full of frightened people right now, including many of every color, gender, sexual orientation, and every other demographic you’d care to name. It’s the Mayor’s job to keep them safe and provide a sense of normalcy so Atlanta’s citizens can go about their business.
Keisha Lance Bottoms is failing that test of leadership on a daily basis and trying to reject the help of the state government and the National Guard only underscores her poor decision-making skills during this crisis. And this is one of the people who are supposedly on Joe Biden’s shortlist for the veepstakes? God help us all.