hotair--2020-05-06--Politico correspondent: How dare these right-wing news sites quote the NY Times!

There is still a point at which the partisan hackery of some journalists is embarrassing to people in their own industry .
A few Politico correspondent reached that point yesterday after the NY Times published a letter to the editor from Martin Tolchin , a man identified on the NY Times ’ op-ed page as “ a founder of Politico.
” Yesterday , Ed wrote about the amazing op-ed Tolchin penned .
It argued that any investigation of Tara Reade ’ s sexual assault allegations was too risky because it could reveal “ damaging information ” that would get in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronation ” as president .
In short , I don ’ t care about the truth , only about the outcome of the election .
As some observers said , Tolchin was saying the quiet part out loud .
Politico staff and others quickly disputed that Tolchin was a “ founder of Politico.
” Some were quick to call out right-leaning sites over what they claimed was an error .
Enter Tim Alberta , a Politico correspondent who was clearly furious that outlets on the right were referring to Tolchin as “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But wait a minute , didn ’ t all these sites get the reference to Tolchin as “ founder ” directly from the NY Times ?
Mollie Hemingway pointed out that none of the people disputing the claim seemed upset with the Times , only with the sites that quoted them .
Also , a bio page for Tolchin on Politico ’ s site said “ he is helping launch Politico.
” According to Tim Alberta ’ s that ’ s completely different .
CNN ’ s Brian Stelter jumped in to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manhattan Institute was one of several people who pointed out that attacking right-leaning sites for repeating what the NY Times printed is some “ next level partisan hackery.
” Tim Alberta clarified that he was upset with the NY Times and Tolchin .
But most of his fury seemed to be reserved for “ bad-faith actors on the right ” who made the mistake of believing the NY Times and Tolchin .
Sean Davis from the Federalist , one of the outlets Tim Alberta singled out for quoting the NY Times , pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which also described Tolchin as a “ founder ” of Politico .
Apparently this particular error has been around for quite a while , so why is that the right ’ s fault again ?
In fact , it ’ s even worse than that .
The Washington Post piece which identified Tolchin as a founder was quoted by Politico at the time .
Here ’ s the page .
Why didn ’ t Politico correct this error four years ago when they were clearly aware of it ?
I also came across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his wife .
If you scroll down there ’ s an “ About the Author ” section which reads , “ He also was the founding senior publisher and editor of ‘ Politico ’ .
” For the record , it wasn ’ t just right-wing sites that quoted the NY Times on that point .
People on the left were doing it too : But somehow it was only the right that the Politico ’ s defenders were angry with .
As of this moment , the Times op-ed page hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tolchin as a “ founder ” of Politico .
I ’ m sure their failure to correct it is also conservatives ’ fault .
To wrap this up , I ’ d like to point out that Tolchin ’ s letter wasn ’ t the only one printed by the Times Monday which suggested Reade ’ s allegations shouldn ’ t matter even if they are true .
Karen Wilson from Dallas wrote : I am a retired attorney and a survivor of multiple # MeToo experiences over my 66 years , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and try to avoid it and those who practice it… We can not survive as a democratic society with Mr. Trump in office for four more years .
The need to get him out of office overrules every scruple we may have .
I will live with my hypocrisy and believe that tens of millions of Americans will feel the same .
Maybe # LiveWithMyHypocrisy should replace # BelieveWomen as the new # MeToo slogan .

There is still a point at which the partisan hackery of some journalists is embarrassing to people in their own industry. A few Politico correspondent reached that point yesterday after the NY Times published a letter to the editor from Martin Tolchin, a man identified on the NY Times’ op-ed page as “a founder of Politico.”
Yesterday, Ed wrote about the amazing op-ed Tolchin penned. It argued that any investigation of Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations was too risky because it could reveal “damaging information” that would get in the way of Biden’s “coronation” as president. In short, I don’t care about the truth, only about the outcome of the election. As some observers said, Tolchin was saying the quiet part out loud.
Politico staff and others quickly disputed that Tolchin was a “founder of Politico.”
Marty Tolchin is not the Founder of POLITICO, and it's false to describe him that way. He WAS a co-founder of "The Hill" and a consultant who helped in the founding of the "Capitol Leader." He was not a part of active management when POLITICO launched. https://t.co/N7RJ0thv9B — Brad Dayspring (@BDayspring) May 5, 2020
Some were quick to call out right-leaning sites over what they claimed was an error.
I was there when POLITICO launched. Marty Tolchin was never a founder. Nor does he represent the publication in any way, shape or form more than 13 years later. https://t.co/eUT7HGbiLC — Carrie Budoff Brown (@cbudoffbrown) May 5, 2020
Enter Tim Alberta, a Politico correspondent who was clearly furious that outlets on the right were referring to Tolchin as “a founder” without confirming this claim.
Love to see the Daily Callers, Federalists, and Benny Johnsons of the world seize upon Tolchin's asinine commentary to make a point about journalistic ethics…. without so much as making a call to confirm that he is, in fact, the "founder" of Politico. (He is not.) https://t.co/Mpg1adKLMa — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) May 5, 2020
But wait a minute, didn’t all these sites get the reference to Tolchin as “founder” directly from the NY Times? Mollie Hemingway pointed out that none of the people disputing the claim seemed upset with the Times, only with the sites that quoted them. Also, a bio page for Tolchin on Politico’s site said “he is helping launch Politico.”
Rolling all the eyes right now. Sounds like you're angry with the NYT for publishing his letter that identifies himself as a founder. Also, you might want to memory hole this Politico link that says he helped launch Politico before you lash out like this. https://t.co/De1rQXHjeV — Mollie (@MZHemingway) May 6, 2020
According to Tim Alberta’s that’s completely different. CNN’s Brian Stelter jumped in to back him up.
wait, you're saying that words like "founder" have meanings? whoa. — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 6, 2020
Brian Riedl at the Manhattan Institute was one of several people who pointed out that attacking right-leaning sites for repeating what the NY Times printed is some “next level partisan hackery.”
So the NYT printed an error — and you choose to attack people on Twitter who quoted the NYT article instead of the NYT itself. That is some next-level partisan hackery. Bravo. — Brian Riedl 🧀 (@Brian_Riedl) May 6, 2020
Tim Alberta clarified that he was upset with the NY Times and Tolchin. But most of his fury seemed to be reserved for “bad-faith actors on the right” who made the mistake of believing the NY Times and Tolchin.
My beef *is* with the NYT for not vetting the guy. And with the guy himself for giving us a bad name. My beef is also with bad-faith actors on the right who somehow think they're combatting media bias by trafficking in deceptive headlines and faulty information. Got it? Gnight. pic.twitter.com/gKiKir0Fjj — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) May 6, 2020
Sean Davis from the Federalist, one of the outlets Tim Alberta singled out for quoting the NY Times, pointed to a Washington Post piece from 2016 which also described Tolchin as a “founder” of Politico. Apparently this particular error has been around for quite a while, so why is that the right’s fault again?
https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1257864739213975561
In fact, it’s even worse than that. The Washington Post piece which identified Tolchin as a founder was quoted by Politico at the time.
Here is a link to the Politico Playbook in 2016 approvingly quoting a Washington Post article referring to Martin Tolchin as "a founder of the political news website Politico." Beam in your eye, splinter from your brother's, etc. etc. etc.https://t.co/NeF0YFjHZE https://t.co/zYGT3tBLDZ — Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) May 6, 2020
Here’s the page. Why didn’t Politico correct this error four years ago when they were clearly aware of it? I also came across this page for a book Tolchin wrote with his wife. If you scroll down there’s an “About the Author” section which reads, “He also was the founding senior publisher and editor of ‘Politico’.”
For the record, it wasn’t just right-wing sites that quoted the NY Times on that point. People on the left were doing it too:
"I don’t want an investigation. I want a coronation of Joe Biden"– Martin Tolchin, former NYT Washington Bureau journalist & founder of Politico, objecting to a NYT editorial calling for an investigation to determine if Biden raped Tara Reade. He added:https://t.co/qkM6NkV7gr pic.twitter.com/5mYbxCdwjN — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 5, 2020
But somehow it was only the right that the Politico’s defenders were angry with. As of this moment, the Times op-ed page hasn’t been updated and still describes Tolchin as a “founder” of Politico. I’m sure their failure to correct it is also conservatives’ fault.
To wrap this up, I’d like to point out that Tolchin’s letter wasn’t the only one printed by the Times Monday which suggested Reade’s allegations shouldn’t matter even if they are true. Karen Wilson from Dallas wrote:
I am a retired attorney and a survivor of multiple #MeToo experiences over my 66 years, including a violent rape. I loathe hypocrisy and try to avoid it and those who practice it… We cannot survive as a democratic society with Mr. Trump in office for four more years. The need to get him out of office overrules every scruple we may have. I will live with my hypocrisy and believe that tens of millions of Americans will feel the same.
Maybe #LiveWithMyHypocrisy should replace #BelieveWomen as the new #MeToo slogan.


hotair--2020-05-06--Trump: COVID-19 task force is here "indefinitely"; <span class='red'>Update: Trump slaps "fake news"

Trump: COVID-19 task force is here "indefinitely"; Update: Trump slaps "fake news" again

Come on , man .
No one seriously thought the White House would disband this way-too-politically-useful team in the middle of the shutdown , right ?
Donald Trump answered the rumors and leaks this morning , setting up another political Rorschach test , or maybe a chicken-egg question : Less than a day after signaling the White House task force on coronavirus would be disbanded , President Donald Trump said Wednesday the group will “ continue on indefinitely ” and shift focus to reopening and manufacturing vaccines .
Trump ’ s latest thinking on the task force , created in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , came a day after Vice President Mike Pence and other officials said the group ’ s work would be transferred to federal agencies as soon as this month .
The idea drew fire from some critics who said it was too soon to disband the group .
But the president left both the composition of the task force and its focus murky .
Trump said he may remove some members of the group and add others , though he did not indicate specifically who he had in mind .
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety ” and reopening the nation ’ s economy , as well as vaccine production .
Was this a reversal at all , or simply an explanation of how the mission is changing ?
Here ’ s the Rorschach test : People passionately invested in opposing Trump would likely argue that the outrage yesterday after reports that Trump would disband the COVID-19 changed his mind .
Those passionately invested in supporting Trump will argue that the media got it wrong again and tried to smear Trump by reporting rumors that fit their narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall into either category , YMMV .
This rumor never made sense , though , for a few reasons .
In the first place , the task force is comprised by people who would be doing this job anyway and coordinating on some level while doing so .
The “ transfer ” of tasks to federal agencies is nothing more than noting that federal agencies are the ones doing these tasks now , under the leadership of the executive branch .
Every member of the task force except Dr. Deborah Birx runs a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sphere , and Dr. Birx has taken a job in the White House as an advisor to facilitate that work .
Even without a “ task force ” construct , the members of this team would still be doing exactly what they ’ re doing now in coordinating efforts , while federal agencies perform the work under their leadership .
They ’ d probably even still have their regular meetings , with only the letterhead changing — if that .
The members might even have welcomed that change , which would free up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the task at hand rather than hold continual press briefings .
Second , the mission is changing , logistically and strategically .
It makes sense to adjust the lineup as it does , as well as to shift focus to the critical tasks at each stage .
The first phase was mitigation and critical-resource production for health care providers ; the next stage ’ s critical task will be to focus on reopening , effective therapies , and vaccines .
Why wouldn ’ t the task force change and expand or contract based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a standing agency , after all , but simply a coordinative effort of federal agencies in a crisis .
Finally , the political cover Trump gets from his “ task force ” is enormous , and it has the added benefit of boosting Mike Pence ’ s profile at the same time .
Pence has been the ultimate team player for Trump but lends his own air of competence and calm to the crisis .
While Pence runs this group , Trump can point to it as his expert team when outsiders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump ’ s participation in it raises his own profile as a crisis-managing president , allowing him to take personal credit for every win the team produces .
Even assuming Trump could “ disband ” this group of agency heads , why would he want to do it ?
What possible benefit would Trump gain from it ?
This looks like a case of the rumor/speculation mill going into overdrive more than a “ reversal.
” Regardless of who ’ s meeting with whom and how often at the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist no matter what .
As long as it provides political benefit to make them as public as possible , expect that to continue .
Update : The first tweets didn ’ t directly rebut the reporting .
This one seems … related , though : Given a lack of any other context , this seems to be referring to yesterday ’ s media percolation of the “ task force disbanding ” story .

Come on, man. No one seriously thought the White House would disband this way-too-politically-useful team in the middle of the shutdown, right? Donald Trump answered the rumors and leaks this morning, setting up another political Rorschach test, or maybe a chicken-egg question:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1258020211883638786
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1258020241063510018
USA Today paints this as a “reversal”:
Less than a day after signaling the White House task force on coronavirus would be disbanded, President Donald Trump said Wednesday the group will “continue on indefinitely” and shift focus to reopening and manufacturing vaccines. Trump’s latest thinking on the task force, created in January to coordinate the response to the virus, came a day after Vice President Mike Pence and other officials said the group’s work would be transferred to federal agencies as soon as this month. The idea drew fire from some critics who said it was too soon to disband the group. But the president left both the composition of the task force and its focus murky. Trump said he may remove some members of the group and add others, though he did not indicate specifically who he had in mind. He said the group would focus more on “safety” and reopening the nation’s economy, as well as vaccine production.
Was this a reversal at all, or simply an explanation of how the mission is changing? Here’s the Rorschach test: People passionately invested in opposing Trump would likely argue that the outrage yesterday after reports that Trump would disband the COVID-19 changed his mind. Those passionately invested in supporting Trump will argue that the media got it wrong again and tried to smear Trump by reporting rumors that fit their narrative. For those who don’t fall into either category, YMMV.
This rumor never made sense, though, for a few reasons. In the first place, the task force is comprised by people who would be doing this job anyway and coordinating on some level while doing so. The “transfer” of tasks to federal agencies is nothing more than noting that federal agencies are the ones doing these tasks now, under the leadership of the executive branch. Every member of the task force except Dr. Deborah Birx runs a federal agency with responsibilities in the public-health sphere, and Dr. Birx has taken a job in the White House as an advisor to facilitate that work.
Even without a “task force” construct, the members of this team would still be doing exactly what they’re doing now in coordinating efforts, while federal agencies perform the work under their leadership. They’d probably even still have their regular meetings, with only the letterhead changing — if that. The members might even have welcomed that change, which would free up some of their time to work on the task at hand rather than hold continual press briefings.
Second, the mission is changing, logistically and strategically. It makes sense to adjust the lineup as it does, as well as to shift focus to the critical tasks at each stage. The first phase was mitigation and critical-resource production for health care providers; the next stage’s critical task will be to focus on reopening, effective therapies, and vaccines. Why wouldn’t the task force change and expand or contract based on its mission? This isn’t a standing agency, after all, but simply a coordinative effort of federal agencies in a crisis.
Finally, the political cover Trump gets from his “task force” is enormous, and it has the added benefit of boosting Mike Pence’s profile at the same time. Pence has been the ultimate team player for Trump but lends his own air of competence and calm to the crisis. While Pence runs this group, Trump can point to it as his expert team when outsiders criticize the administration’s COVID-19 response. Trump’s participation in it raises his own profile as a crisis-managing president, allowing him to take personal credit for every win the team produces. Even assuming Trump could “disband” this group of agency heads, why would he want to do it? What possible benefit would Trump gain from it?
This looks like a case of the rumor/speculation mill going into overdrive more than a “reversal.” Regardless of who’s meeting with whom and how often at the White House, the “task force” still would exist no matter what. As long as it provides political benefit to make them as public as possible, expect that to continue.
Update: The first tweets didn’t directly rebut the reporting. This one seems … related, though:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1258053124893347841
Given a lack of any other context, this seems to be referring to yesterday’s media percolation of the “task force disbanding” story.


hotair--2020-05-06--The shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

The shooting of Ahmaud Arbery

Let ’ s go step by step here .
Step one is Georgia ’ s statute authorizing citizen ’ s arrests in certain cases : Note well : “ [ I ] f the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
” If you ’ re going to make a citizen ’ s arrest instead of phoning the cops , you ’ d better be very , very sure that your man is guilty of the offense he ’ s suspected of .
Step two is the police report .
Back in February , Greg McMichael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lookout for a suspect in a rash of burglaries in their neighborhood outside Brunswick , Georgia .
Ahmaud Arbery was spotted running through their neighborhood .
McMichael , a former cop — repeat : former — thought Arbery matched the description of the suspect .
So he and his son , along with a third person , took off after Arbery .
Here ’ s how McMichael described what happened to police : By his own description , McMichael hasn ’ t seen Arbery commit any crime and yet has two cars not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cut him off in the middle of the road .
According to the Times , “ In a recording of a 911 call , which appears to have been made moments before the chase began , a neighbor told a dispatcher that a black man was inside a house that was under construction on the McMichaels ’ block.
” Was that Arbery ?
Was the man inside the house there to steal something or for some other reason ?
No idea .
Arbery did have a minor criminal record for shoplifting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun to a high-school basketball game , but of course McMichael didn ’ t know any of that .
And he had a good reason to be running through the neighborhood : “ Friends and family said he liked to stay in good shape , and he was often seen jogging in and around his neighborhood.
” Now let ’ s watch what actually happened .
This video shows a man dying , so stop here if you ’ d rather not watch .
McMichael ’ s caught in at least one lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he and his son didn ’ t “ pull up beside ” Arbery before the fatal confrontation .
They were waiting for him .
Arbery appears to have been running in their direction because the third man with them , “ Roddy , ” who may be the one recording the dashcam video , was chasing him from the other side .
Imagine being Arbery , having two cars following you and trying to cut you off in opposite directions so that you can ’ t escape , then seeing one man in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out with a shotgun in his hand .
At 0:15 it looks like Arbery was planning to jog left past the McMichaels ’ truck but is confronted by Travis McMichael , so he veers right and runs around the truck along the right side .
At 0:20 , he comes around the front of the truck to find Travis McMichael brandishing a gun and lunges at him — as a shot goes off .
Greg McMichael , standing in the truck ’ s bed , appears to have taken a potshot at him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truck .
Arbery ’ s already under fire even though he ’ s the one being confronted with weapons , not confronting them with a weapon himself .
McMichael would say that he was just protecting his son as a suspected burglar made a move to grab his son ’ s weapon .
Arbery would say that his life was being threatened by a group of men and he defended himself by trying to disarm them .
Maybe he was a burglar who was trying to get away , or maybe he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jog and terrified that he ’ d run into a group of the wrong white men on the wrong day .
Here ’ s the point : It doesn ’ t matter .
There ’ s no reason why the McMichaels should have confronted Arbery even if he ’ s guilty of everything they suspect him of .
They ’ re not cops .
They didn ’ t personally witness him commit any crime .
The risk that they would misidentify an innocent man as a criminal was perfectly foreseeable , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They should have called the sheriff , who could have stopped Arbery lawfully and used the surveillance video mentioned in the police report to determine if he really was the burglary suspect they ’ re looking for .
Why didn ’ t they do that ?
If they can get away with this then the “ citizen ’ s arrest ” statute is license for legalized vigilantism .
Indict them .

Let’s go step by step here. Step one is Georgia’s statute authorizing citizen’s arrests in certain cases:
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Note well: “[I]f the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” If you’re going to make a citizen’s arrest instead of phoning the cops, you’d better be very, very sure that your man is guilty of the offense he’s suspected of.
Step two is the police report. Back in February, Greg McMichael and his son Travis were on the lookout for a suspect in a rash of burglaries in their neighborhood outside Brunswick, Georgia. Ahmaud Arbery was spotted running through their neighborhood. McMichael, a former cop — repeat: former — thought Arbery matched the description of the suspect. So he and his son, along with a third person, took off after Arbery. Here’s how McMichael described what happened to police:
By his own description, McMichael hasn’t seen Arbery commit any crime and yet has two cars not only in pursuit of Arbery but attempting to cut him off in the middle of the road. According to the Times, “In a recording of a 911 call, which appears to have been made moments before the chase began, a neighbor told a dispatcher that a black man was inside a house that was under construction on the McMichaels’ block.” Was that Arbery? Was the man inside the house there to steal something or for some other reason? No idea. Arbery did have a minor criminal record for shoplifting and was indicted years ago for bringing a gun to a high-school basketball game, but of course McMichael didn’t know any of that. And he had a good reason to be running through the neighborhood: “Friends and family said he liked to stay in good shape, and he was often seen jogging in and around his neighborhood.”
Now let’s watch what actually happened. This video shows a man dying, so stop here if you’d rather not watch.
NEWS: Graphic video appears to show Ahmaud Arbery, 25 of GA., whose family says he was out for a run, confronted by 2 men who shot him dead saying they thought he was a burglar. A prosecutor wants a grand jury to decide whether the men should be charged. https://t.co/kEYYJW7UlM — David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) May 5, 2020
McMichael’s caught in at least one lie. You can see at 0:10 that he and his son didn’t “pull up beside” Arbery before the fatal confrontation. They were waiting for him. Arbery appears to have been running in their direction because the third man with them, “Roddy,” who may be the one recording the dashcam video, was chasing him from the other side. Imagine being Arbery, having two cars following you and trying to cut you off in opposite directions so that you can’t escape, then seeing one man in the truck in front of you step out with a shotgun in his hand.
At 0:15 it looks like Arbery was planning to jog left past the McMichaels’ truck but is confronted by Travis McMichael, so he veers right and runs around the truck along the right side. At 0:20, he comes around the front of the truck to find Travis McMichael brandishing a gun and lunges at him — as a shot goes off. Greg McMichael, standing in the truck’s bed, appears to have taken a potshot at him judging by the wisp of smoke over the truck. Arbery’s already under fire even though he’s the one being confronted with weapons, not confronting them with a weapon himself.
McMichael would say that he was just protecting his son as a suspected burglar made a move to grab his son’s weapon. Arbery would say that his life was being threatened by a group of men and he defended himself by trying to disarm them. Maybe he was a burglar who was trying to get away, or maybe he was just a black man out for a jog and terrified that he’d run into a group of the wrong white men on the wrong day.
Here’s the point: It doesn’t matter. There’s no reason why the McMichaels should have confronted Arbery even if he’s guilty of everything they suspect him of. They’re not cops. They didn’t personally witness him commit any crime. The risk that they would misidentify an innocent man as a criminal was perfectly foreseeable, especially to a former cop like McMichael. They should have called the sheriff, who could have stopped Arbery lawfully and used the surveillance video mentioned in the police report to determine if he really was the burglary suspect they’re looking for. Why didn’t they do that?
If they can get away with this then the “citizen’s arrest” statute is license for legalized vigilantism. Indict them.


hotair--2020-05-06--Biden: No World Cup funding if no equal pay for women

Last week U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled against the U.S. women ’ s national soccer team ( USWNT ) in a lawsuit over equal pay .
The women contend that they don ’ t receive equal pay with that of the men players .
Many of the women on the U.S. championship team are social and political activists .
One of the team ’ s leading members , Megan Rapinoe , really enjoys the spotlight and is known for stunts that will bring headlines , like when she refused to sing the National Anthem or when she kneels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustice .
Biden must have had her in mind when he tweeted out support for the women after their loss in court .
Rapinoe did an Instagram live appearance with Joe and Dr. Jill during which she all but begged to be Biden ’ s choice for vice-president .
She was kind of joking , I think , but not really , if you know what I mean .
It sounds like it is Dr. Jill who is the superfan of the women ’ s team , especially Rapinoe , in the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support of Rapinoe ( who also had purple hair ) and the team during the World Cup competition .
So , Jill voiced her approval of Rapinoe as Joe ’ s choice .
It was an unserious moment but shows the obnoxious pandering that takes place during a political campaign .
Joe ’ s stuck in the basement right now due to the coronavirus pandemic so he has been trying to capture attention with video appearances and virtual town halls , mostly with disastrous results .
I just don ’ t understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with such an incompetent campaign staff .
He ’ s been in politics for over forty years and has contacts everywhere .
He was on a presidential ticket , for heaven ’ s sake .
Yet , the people around him continue to set up these events in front of a camera in his basement and the predictable continues to happen .
Dr. Jill has been joining Joe for many of them , as though she is his chaperone .
She joined in with Rapinoe ’ s Instagram appearance .
Anyway , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge ’ s 32-page decision is that he clearly spells out that it isn ’ t a denial of the women ’ s right to equal pay , it is enforcing the terms of the women ’ s ’ contract .
They are being paid exactly what they negotiated for , which is a contract that is completely separate from the men ’ s contract .
As Jazz ’ s post reads , “ The men ’ s team worked out a deal where they would receive less guaranteed pay in exchange for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast , the women ’ s team wanted more guaranteed pay upfront with less bonus money on the back end .
Had they negotiated for the same deal the men arranged , they would have made considerably more money after winning the championship.
” After the women ’ s team won the World Cup in 2019 they used the publicity that came their way to promote their social and political agendas .
That isn ’ t unusual these days , especially in the Age of Trump .
It ’ s tedious to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtue-signaling celebrities and sports stars but that is where we are .
If you are a soccer fan , you know that the women are very talented – they won the World Cup but the men ’ s team didn ’ t .
There is no denying they should be compensated for their work and victories .
But , the twist is that they are compensated exactly as they claimed they wanted to be .
Their success doesn ’ t give them the right to suddenly make new demands outside of what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden wins the election in November , cutting World Cup funding specifically over the equal pay issue wouldn ’ t be a wise move .
His tweet about it makes him look daft .
Another part of the women ’ s lawsuit will go forward – it addresses allegations brought against U.S. Soccer of unfair treatment in travel , housing , and medical support by the team .
Something that has struck me during Biden ’ s run for the Democrat nomination is his complete lack of original or innovative ideas on just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or policy proposals sound new or inspiring .
He has ramped up some specific pandering to special interest groups , like embracing the Green New Deal proposals to appease the Sanders wing of the party .
But , he mostly sounds like a run of the mill Democrat beholden to labor unions and the usual special interests .
This idea of withholding funds from men ’ s World Cup competition isn ’ t even an original one – Senator Joe Manchin beat him to it two days after the women won the 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is not the first politician to call for equality .
U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W. Va. , introduced a bill in the Senate last July that tied federal funding for the 2026 men ’ s World Cup to equal pay for the women ’ s team .
“ Notwithstanding any other provision of law , no Federal funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available to provide support for the 2026 World Cup , including support for a host city , a participating State or local agency , ( CONCACAF ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the date on which the United States Soccer Federation agrees to provide equitable pay to the members of the United States Women ’ s National Team and the United States Men ’ s National Team , ” Manchin ’ s bill read in part .
Oh well .
Joe and Dr. Jill got to take a stand for the women during a time when he is being held accountable ( slowly ) for allegedly sexually abusing Tara Reade .
He was trying to change the subject .
Rapinoe originally supported Elizabeth Warren but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate standing , she ’ s supporting him and possibly hitting him up for a job in the process .
If nothing else , the opportunism is strong here .

Last week U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled against the U.S. women’s national soccer team (USWNT) in a lawsuit over equal pay. The women contend that they don’t receive equal pay with that of the men players.
Many of the women on the U.S. championship team are social and political activists. One of the team’s leading members, Megan Rapinoe, really enjoys the spotlight and is known for stunts that will bring headlines, like when she refused to sing the National Anthem or when she kneels on the field in protest of social injustice. Biden must have had her in mind when he tweeted out support for the women after their loss in court.
To @USWNT: don’t give up this fight. This is not over yet. To @USSoccer: equal pay, now. Or else when I'm president, you can go elsewhere for World Cup funding. https://t.co/XK6t9oM94k — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 2, 2020
Rapinoe did an Instagram live appearance with Joe and Dr. Jill during which she all but begged to be Biden’s choice for vice-president. She was kind of joking, I think, but not really, if you know what I mean. It sounds like it is Dr. Jill who is the superfan of the women’s team, especially Rapinoe, in the Biden family – she dyed her hair purple in support of Rapinoe (who also had purple hair) and the team during the World Cup competition. So, Jill voiced her approval of Rapinoe as Joe’s choice. It was an unserious moment but shows the obnoxious pandering that takes place during a political campaign. Joe’s stuck in the basement right now due to the coronavirus pandemic so he has been trying to capture attention with video appearances and virtual town halls, mostly with disastrous results. I just don’t understand how he has managed to surround himself with such an incompetent campaign staff. He’s been in politics for over forty years and has contacts everywhere. He was on a presidential ticket, for heaven’s sake. Yet, the people around him continue to set up these events in front of a camera in his basement and the predictable continues to happen. Dr. Jill has been joining Joe for many of them, as though she is his chaperone. She joined in with Rapinoe’s Instagram appearance.
Anyway, what Joe Biden fails to grasp about the judge’s 32-page decision is that he clearly spells out that it isn’t a denial of the women’s right to equal pay, it is enforcing the terms of the women’s’ contract. They are being paid exactly what they negotiated for, which is a contract that is completely separate from the men’s contract. As Jazz’s post reads, “The men’s team worked out a deal where they would receive less guaranteed pay in exchange for larger bonuses based on performance. By contrast, the women’s team wanted more guaranteed pay upfront with less bonus money on the back end. Had they negotiated for the same deal the men arranged, they would have made considerably more money after winning the championship.”
After the women’s team won the World Cup in 2019 they used the publicity that came their way to promote their social and political agendas. That isn’t unusual these days, especially in the Age of Trump. It’s tedious to hear the constant Orange Man bad lectures from virtue-signaling celebrities and sports stars but that is where we are. If you are a soccer fan, you know that the women are very talented – they won the World Cup but the men’s team didn’t. There is no denying they should be compensated for their work and victories. But, the twist is that they are compensated exactly as they claimed they wanted to be. Their success doesn’t give them the right to suddenly make new demands outside of what was negotiated in their contract. If Joe Biden wins the election in November, cutting World Cup funding specifically over the equal pay issue wouldn’t be a wise move. His tweet about it makes him look daft.
Another part of the women’s lawsuit will go forward – it addresses allegations brought against U.S. Soccer of unfair treatment in travel, housing, and medical support by the team.
Something that has struck me during Biden’s run for the Democrat nomination is his complete lack of original or innovative ideas on just about anything. None of his initiatives or policy proposals sound new or inspiring. He has ramped up some specific pandering to special interest groups, like embracing the Green New Deal proposals to appease the Sanders wing of the party. But, he mostly sounds like a run of the mill Democrat beholden to labor unions and the usual special interests. This idea of withholding funds from men’s World Cup competition isn’t even an original one – Senator Joe Manchin beat him to it two days after the women won the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup.
Biden is not the first politician to call for equality. U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., introduced a bill in the Senate last July that tied federal funding for the 2026 men’s World Cup to equal pay for the women’s team. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available to provide support for the 2026 World Cup, including support for a host city, a participating State or local agency, (CONCACAF), or (FIFA), until the date on which the United States Soccer Federation agrees to provide equitable pay to the members of the United States Women’s National Team and the United States Men’s National Team,” Manchin’s bill read in part.
Oh well. Joe and Dr. Jill got to take a stand for the women during a time when he is being held accountable (slowly) for allegedly sexually abusing Tara Reade. He was trying to change the subject. Rapinoe originally supported Elizabeth Warren but now that Joe’s the last candidate standing, she’s supporting him and possibly hitting him up for a job in the process. If nothing else, the opportunism is strong here.


hotair--2020-05-06--Wisconsin giving teens licenses without driving tests

Everybody gets an A ?
That ’ s what it sounds like in the Badger State this month .
With the DMV ( and many other government offices ) being shut down or operating with reduced services , there ’ s been a backlog of teenagers waiting to get their driver ’ s license .
Road tests were shut down in March to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus , so the licensing process was effectively shut down as well .
But starting next week , Wisconsin will allow new drivers to receive a “ provisional license ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vehicle .
What could possibly go wrong ?
( CBS Minnesota ) The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will soon allow 16 and 17-year-olds to get their driver ’ s license without completing a road test .
DMVs stopped doing road tests in mid-March because of COVID-19 .
Now , WisDOT is waiving road tests amid the pandemic , beginning May 11 , according to an announcement on Tuesday .
People under the age of 18 who have completed their required training and have the endorsement of a parent or guardian will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without completing a test .
To be fair , they aren ’ t going to suddenly start handing out licenses like candy to anyone who asks .
There are some requirements in place in order to qualify .
New drivers under the age of 18 will need to complete a driver ’ s education course and obtain a learner ’ s permit for at least six months without any violations .
They will also need to get the signature of a parent or guardian sponsoring them after completing a minimum of 30 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With all of those requirements in place , I suppose this probably isn ’ t as bad of a situation as it looked like at first glance .
But it still raises a couple of questions .
For example , what do they mean by a “ probationary license ?
” Will it expire once testing resumes at the DMV ?
( That ’ s expected to happen on May 25th . )
If so , then they ’ re not doing anything about their massive backlog problem .
They ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wisconsin will have to wait and see what the results of this little experiment look like , but we may be about to see yet another example of how well Americans can do without certain government services .
If there ’ s a sudden spike in instances of teenagers mowing down pedestrians , then it will be obvious that the tests were important and the people who made this decision will be pilloried .
But if everything continues as normal , will there be any reason to go back to mandating these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and parental guidance and training are good enough to assure public safety during the pandemic , why wouldn ’ t they be good enough during more “ normal ” times ?
That may wind up being the case for all sorts of systems in both the public and private sectors .
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to do many things in different ways than we used to .
Employers are learning the limits of how many employees can adequately perform their jobs from home .
Why go back to paying for larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entail if your company can accomplish its mission with more people working remotely ?
And much like the driver ’ s license situation in Wisconsin , there are any number of licenses , regulations and other government “ services ” requiring us to jump through plenty of hoops .
If we can suspend those portions of the government ’ s involvement in our lives and suffer no ill effects , why would we return to the old way of doing things ?
It feels like this is said on a daily basis now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
Some of those changes are clearly awful .
But it ’ s just possible that we may learn more about what we ’ re really capable of and do things differently going forward .
Necessity is , after all , the mother of invention .

Everybody gets an A? That’s what it sounds like in the Badger State this month. With the DMV (and many other government offices) being shut down or operating with reduced services, there’s been a backlog of teenagers waiting to get their driver’s license. Road tests were shut down in March to help reduce the risk of spreading the virus, so the licensing process was effectively shut down as well. But starting next week, Wisconsin will allow new drivers to receive a “provisional license” without demonstrating that they can safely operate a vehicle. What could possibly go wrong? (CBS Minnesota)
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will soon allow 16 and 17-year-olds to get their driver’s license without completing a road test. DMVs stopped doing road tests in mid-March because of COVID-19. Now, WisDOT is waiving road tests amid the pandemic, beginning May 11, according to an announcement on Tuesday. People under the age of 18 who have completed their required training and have the endorsement of a parent or guardian will be able to get a probationary driver license without completing a test.
To be fair, they aren’t going to suddenly start handing out licenses like candy to anyone who asks. There are some requirements in place in order to qualify. New drivers under the age of 18 will need to complete a driver’s education course and obtain a learner’s permit for at least six months without any violations. They will also need to get the signature of a parent or guardian sponsoring them after completing a minimum of 30 hours of practice with them in the vehicle.
With all of those requirements in place, I suppose this probably isn’t as bad of a situation as it looked like at first glance. But it still raises a couple of questions. For example, what do they mean by a “probationary license?” Will it expire once testing resumes at the DMV? (That’s expected to happen on May 25th.) If so, then they’re not doing anything about their massive backlog problem. They’d just be pushing it down the road.
Wisconsin will have to wait and see what the results of this little experiment look like, but we may be about to see yet another example of how well Americans can do without certain government services. If there’s a sudden spike in instances of teenagers mowing down pedestrians, then it will be obvious that the tests were important and the people who made this decision will be pilloried. But if everything continues as normal, will there be any reason to go back to mandating these driving tests? If driver education programs and parental guidance and training are good enough to assure public safety during the pandemic, why wouldn’t they be good enough during more “normal” times?
That may wind up being the case for all sorts of systems in both the public and private sectors. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to do many things in different ways than we used to. Employers are learning the limits of how many employees can adequately perform their jobs from home. Why go back to paying for larger offices and all the overhead costs they entail if your company can accomplish its mission with more people working remotely? And much like the driver’s license situation in Wisconsin, there are any number of licenses, regulations and other government “services” requiring us to jump through plenty of hoops. If we can suspend those portions of the government’s involvement in our lives and suffer no ill effects, why would we return to the old way of doing things?
It feels like this is said on a daily basis now, but the novel coronavirus is changing us. Some of those changes are clearly awful. But it’s just possible that we may learn more about what we’re really capable of and do things differently going forward. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.


hotair--2020-05-06--Grenell warns Schiff: Release House Intel transcripts now -- or I will

Is this a bluff , a threat — or an incentive ?
Almost two years ago , the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release transcripts from 53 interviews in their Russia-collusion probe as soon as intelligence agencies reviewed and redacted them .
Since that time , Adam Schiff has taken over the HIC and no one has seen those transcripts .
Republicans have accused Schiff of sitting on them for his own political purposes , but the issue has flown under the radar for months .
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has now upped the ante .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and most have been for almost a year .
If Schiff doesn ’ t release them , Byron York reports , Grenell is threatening to publish them himself under the authority of the previous unanimous HIC vote : In a rare moment of comity , Democrats agreed , and on September 26 , 2018 , the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts .
But there was a catch : The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community .
So off they went to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , in May 2020 , they ’ re still secret .
Two weeks ago , the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts , but Schiff was refusing to release them .
The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts .
In the letter , Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019 .
Schiff has been sitting on them all that time .
Grenell said the final ten have just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urge you to honor your previous public statements , and your committee ’ s unanimous vote on this matter , to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible , ” Grenell said .
Just in case Schiff is still not interested , Grenell added , “ I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence , as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.
” That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been sitting on these for some reason , and it ’ s safe to say that it ’ s not because they vindicate Schiff or indict Donald Trump .
Grenell ’ s letter suggests that he might find publication of these transcripts useful — but why ?
York also reports that Grenell has not shared the transcripts with the White House , per Schiff ’ s requirements , a demand that also should raise some eyebrows .
Can Grenell do that , though ?
The transcripts are the product of the HIC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most if not all of the interview subjects don ’ t and didn ’ t work for the intelligence agencies , either .
Their transcripts were reviewed by ODNI only for the purpose of ensuring that classified information didn ’ t break out into the open .
Furthermore , ODNI is an executive-branch function , from which the legislature is separate and co-equal .
Any attempt to release these transcripts without authorization would immediately end up in federal court .
Although Grenell will argue that the committee has already authorized their release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Schiff ’ s call to make as to timing of the release .
Grenell probably wants to raise public pressure on Schiff to authorize release of the transcripts , whether they make him look bad or not .
However , it also increases the incentives on Senate Democrats .
Grenell only has this authority as ODNI until a formal replacement gets confirmed — and guess what the Senate ’ s doing this week ?
The confirmation hearing for John Ratcliffe got off to a bit of a rocky start , but this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impetus to accelerate Grenell ’ s departure .
Ratcliffe probably would threaten a release too , but it might take months for him to get around to it , and a change at ODNI might buy enough time to get past the election .
That still leaves the question as to what exactly is in those transcripts … and why Schiff won ’ t let anyone see them .
Republicans have a pretty good idea , though : The chairman has shown no hesitation to keep secrets even when they involve non-classified information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Schiff is still concealing the committee ’ s impeachment inquiry interview with Michael Atkinson , at the time the Intelligence Community Inspector General , in the Ukraine matter .
As for the Trump-Russia interviews , Republicans remember when Schiff claimed he had “ direct evidence ” of collusion — a charge special counsel Robert Mueller was never able to establish .
Some GOP lawmakers believe the transcripts will help show that Schiff was making it up all along .
It ’ s time for the public to learn that , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conspiracy-theory nonsense , only to get publicly debunked by Mueller ’ s final findings .
It ’ s long past time to find out exactly what Schiff knew and when he knew it in his McCarthyite campaign .

Is this a bluff, a threat — or an incentive? Almost two years ago, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously to release transcripts from 53 interviews in their Russia-collusion probe as soon as intelligence agencies reviewed and redacted them. Since that time, Adam Schiff has taken over the HIC and no one has seen those transcripts. Republicans have accused Schiff of sitting on them for his own political purposes, but the issue has flown under the radar for months.
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has now upped the ante. All 53 transcripts are ready for release, and most have been for almost a year. If Schiff doesn’t release them, Byron York reports, Grenell is threatening to publish them himself under the authority of the previous unanimous HIC vote:
In a rare moment of comity, Democrats agreed, and on September 26, 2018, the committee voted unanimously to release the transcripts. But there was a catch: The documents would have to first be checked for classified information by the Intelligence Community. So off they went to the IC — never to be seen again. Now, in May 2020, they’re still secret. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal editorial board reported that the IC had finished its review of 43 of the transcripts, but Schiff was refusing to release them. The paper said Schiff was also preventing declassification of the remaining ten transcripts. In the letter, Grenell revealed that the 43 transcripts have been finished since June 2019. Schiff has been sitting on them all that time. Grenell said the final ten have just been finished as well. “I urge you to honor your previous public statements, and your committee’s unanimous vote on this matter, to release all 53 cleared transcripts to Members of Congress and the American public as soon as possible,” Grenell said. Just in case Schiff is still not interested, Grenell added, “I am also willing to release the transcripts directly from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.”
That’s a tantalizing statement. Schiff has been sitting on these for some reason, and it’s safe to say that it’s not because they vindicate Schiff or indict Donald Trump. Grenell’s letter suggests that he might find publication of these transcripts useful — but why? York also reports that Grenell has not shared the transcripts with the White House, per Schiff’s requirements, a demand that also should raise some eyebrows.
Can Grenell do that, though? The transcripts are the product of the HIC, not the intelligence communities that he oversees. Most if not all of the interview subjects don’t and didn’t work for the intelligence agencies, either. Their transcripts were reviewed by ODNI only for the purpose of ensuring that classified information didn’t break out into the open. Furthermore, ODNI is an executive-branch function, from which the legislature is separate and co-equal. Any attempt to release these transcripts without authorization would immediately end up in federal court. Although Grenell will argue that the committee has already authorized their release, a federal judge could see it as Schiff’s call to make as to timing of the release.
Grenell probably wants to raise public pressure on Schiff to authorize release of the transcripts, whether they make him look bad or not. However, it also increases the incentives on Senate Democrats. Grenell only has this authority as ODNI until a formal replacement gets confirmed — and guess what the Senate’s doing this week? The confirmation hearing for John Ratcliffe got off to a bit of a rocky start, but this might give some balky Senate Democrats some impetus to accelerate Grenell’s departure. Ratcliffe probably would threaten a release too, but it might take months for him to get around to it, and a change at ODNI might buy enough time to get past the election.
That still leaves the question as to what exactly is in those transcripts … and why Schiff won’t let anyone see them. Republicans have a pretty good idea, though:
The chairman has shown no hesitation to keep secrets even when they involve non-classified information of great national interest. For example, Schiff is still concealing the committee’s impeachment inquiry interview with Michael Atkinson, at the time the Intelligence Community Inspector General, in the Ukraine matter. As for the Trump-Russia interviews, Republicans remember when Schiff claimed he had “direct evidence” of collusion — a charge special counsel Robert Mueller was never able to establish. Some GOP lawmakers believe the transcripts will help show that Schiff was making it up all along. It’s time for the public to learn that, too.
Indeed. Schiff had spewed every sort of conspiracy-theory nonsense, only to get publicly debunked by Mueller’s final findings. It’s long past time to find out exactly what Schiff knew and when he knew it in his McCarthyite campaign.


hotair--2020-05-06--Texas salon owner jailed for opening her business

I suppose we knew this was coming sooner or later .
With frustration mounting around the nation among business owners over shutdown orders , one beauty salon operator in Texas publicly ripped up the court order the police gave her and reopened her business anyway .
And now she ’ s being sent to jail .
In addition to that , Shelley Luther has already racked up $ 3,500 in fines and more are being added by the day .
Luther ’ s protests about being unable to feed her family or keep her workers out of the poor house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judge was concerned .
( Dallas News ) A Dallas salon owner will spend a week in jail after she was found in contempt of court Tuesday for violating a court order to close her salon during the coronavirus pandemic .
In addition to the jail time , Shelley Luther was fined at least $ 3,500 for continuing to operate her business , Salon à la Mode , in violation of a temporary restraining order issued against the business .
Like other businesses deemed nonessential , Luther ’ s Far North Dallas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Dallas County enacted its stay-at-home order .
She reopened the salon on April 24 despite that order , and tore up a cease-and-desist letter from Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins at a demonstration the following day .
It ’ s true that there were both state and local executive orders forcing nonessential businesses to remain closed .
And as we ’ ve noted here before , the courts tend to uphold such executive actions during a declared state of emergency .
But it ’ s also worth remembering that Ms. Luther was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had never been approved by the legislatures at any level .
To be fair , the judge had previously offered to skip the jail time if Luther would issue a public apology and promise not to reopen her business until the mandatory lockdown ended .
She declined the offer , saying that feeding her children and keeping her workers off the bread lines was more important .
But still… this seems rather heartless on the part of the judge .
When you look at the particulars of the case , it seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t have moderated their decision a bit , at least to the point where she could avoid jail time .
When Luther reopened her salon , she took all of the precautions being mandated in many other states for businesses that wish to reopen .
Less than 25 % of her staff was working .
Customers had to wait outside and not stand in groups until their stylist was ready for them .
Both workers and customers had to wear masks .
Work stations were being disinfected between each use and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luther had tried to play by the rules .
When she was shut down in March , she applied for a federal loan from the government designed to help business owners in her position .
But the loan never arrived until this past Sunday .
Making the story even more sadly ironic was the fact that the judge issued his ruling only moments after Governor Greg Abbott announced that salons and barbershops would able to reopen this Friday .
As I ’ ve been saying since this entire catastrophe started , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of executive authority during a time of crisis .
While the courts may be willing to play along , there is almost certainly a point beyond which the people will rebel .
Shelley Luther rebelled and will now sit in a jail cell as a result .
The question is , how much of this type of authoritarian strongarming are the citizens of the country willing to tolerate ?
I get the feeling that if too many more people like Ms. Luther wind up behind bars , it ’ s going to start @ @ @ @ @ @

I suppose we knew this was coming sooner or later. With frustration mounting around the nation among business owners over shutdown orders, one beauty salon operator in Texas publicly ripped up the court order the police gave her and reopened her business anyway. And now she’s being sent to jail. In addition to that, Shelley Luther has already racked up $3,500 in fines and more are being added by the day. Luther’s protests about being unable to feed her family or keep her workers out of the poor house fell on deaf ears as far as the judge was concerned. (Dallas News)
A Dallas salon owner will spend a week in jail after she was found in contempt of court Tuesday for violating a court order to close her salon during the coronavirus pandemic. In addition to the jail time, Shelley Luther was fined at least $3,500 for continuing to operate her business, Salon à la Mode, in violation of a temporary restraining order issued against the business. Like other businesses deemed nonessential, Luther’s Far North Dallas salon was forced to close March 22 after Dallas County enacted its stay-at-home order. She reopened the salon on April 24 despite that order, and tore up a cease-and-desist letter from Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins at a demonstration the following day.
It’s true that there were both state and local executive orders forcing nonessential businesses to remain closed. And as we’ve noted here before, the courts tend to uphold such executive actions during a declared state of emergency. But it’s also worth remembering that Ms. Luther was arrested for violating a “rule” that had never been approved by the legislatures at any level.
To be fair, the judge had previously offered to skip the jail time if Luther would issue a public apology and promise not to reopen her business until the mandatory lockdown ended. She declined the offer, saying that feeding her children and keeping her workers off the bread lines was more important. But still… this seems rather heartless on the part of the judge.
When you look at the particulars of the case, it seems unreasonable in the extreme that the court couldn’t have moderated their decision a bit, at least to the point where she could avoid jail time. When Luther reopened her salon, she took all of the precautions being mandated in many other states for businesses that wish to reopen. Less than 25% of her staff was working. Customers had to wait outside and not stand in groups until their stylist was ready for them. Both workers and customers had to wear masks. Work stations were being disinfected between each use and hand sanitizer was provided for everyone.
Luther had tried to play by the rules. When she was shut down in March, she applied for a federal loan from the government designed to help business owners in her position. But the loan never arrived until this past Sunday. Making the story even more sadly ironic was the fact that the judge issued his ruling only moments after Governor Greg Abbott announced that salons and barbershops would able to reopen this Friday.
As I’ve been saying since this entire catastrophe started, we’re witnessing a test of the limits of executive authority during a time of crisis. While the courts may be willing to play along, there is almost certainly a point beyond which the people will rebel. Shelley Luther rebelled and will now sit in a jail cell as a result. The question is, how much of this type of authoritarian strongarming are the citizens of the country willing to tolerate? I get the feeling that if too many more people like Ms. Luther wind up behind bars, it’s going to start getting seriously ugly out there.


hotair--2020-05-06--Pence's pause: Are we in Cold War 2.0 with China?

Better question : Haven ’ t we always been in Cold War 2.0 with China , only failed to recognize it ?
Hugh Hewitt asks Vice President Mike Pence instead whether the coronavirus pandemic has put the US in nonviolent confrontation with the communist regime in Beijing , and gets four seconds of silence before Pence talks around it .
Hugh then mentions that the mask is “ coming off the CCP , ” but that might not be the best analogy for this situation : HH : It is .
Now I ’ ve got three more .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you at the Lincoln Memorial talked about China .
And the President said that look , the Chinese allowed people from Wuhan to fly to international destinations , but not within China .
And he intimated that they may have done that knowingly for the purposes of spreading the disadvantage , the economic chaos .
Are we in Cold War 2.0 , Vice President Pence ?
MP : ( 4 second pause ) Well , let me say President Trump ’ s made it clear that we ’ re going to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China and why it was that China and the World Health Organization did not inform the United States or nations around the planet of the real threat of the Coronavirus .
We ’ ve got our intelligence community working on that now .
And I know we ’ ll get to the bottom of the facts , but that we ’ re going to hold , as the President ’ s already suspended payments to the World Health Organization , the President ’ s made it clear that at the right time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts to the American people , and we ’ re going to hold China accountable .
That being said , look , one of the enduring lessons that I think has broken through with the American people has been just how right President Trump has been for years about the need to reset our trading relationship with China first , and with other nations around the world .
I mean , we ’ ve met the needs of our health care community .
We ’ ve had what we call an air bridge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in from around the world of masks and gloves and gowns .
But one of the things going forward is we are going to be working very earnestly to bring back home and domestic production of these critical elements of our health care system .
And but I think all of your listeners can be confident that President Trump , as he ’ s done from Day One , is going to continue to stand strong about the advantage that China has taken of the United States for decades , to reset that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re going to get to the bottom of it , and we ’ re going to hold those that did not play straight with the world accountable .
HH : Well , you hesitated , though .
You don ’ t want to use the word Cold War 2.0 , do you ?
And I don ’ t understand why , but I understand diplomacy .
Maybe it ’ s not an opportune time to do it , but it does seem like among the masks that are at issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the CCP .
MP : Well , look , we hope for a better relationship with China .
But whether it be the imposition of tariffs , whether it be the way we ’ ve spoken out against human rights abuses by the People ’ s Republic of China , you know , the suppression of religious freedoms , the persecution of Christian pastors , of Muslim Uighurs , the confronting China with their ambitions in the South China Sea , and continuing to defend our commitment to freedom of navigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those stands .
But you know , from early on , the President forged a good working relationship with President Xi , and we continue to hope for better things in our relationship with China .
But the American people can be confident this president , this administration will continue to stand firm on behalf of our economy and on behalf of our most cherished ideals .
That four second pause , followed by a non-denial , speaks louder than anything that preceded or followed it .
Of course we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment , but the first rule of Cold War Club is that you don ’ t talk about Cold War Club , lest you take the blame for it .
China has aimed malicious propaganda at the US and other nations that have called out Beijing for its lies and cover-up of this pandemic .
China still refuses to cooperate honestly , denying access to their viral material and destroying evidence that might point to the real origin of the virus .
However , the issue isn ’ t a “ mask ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blinders that the West imposed on itself for years , perhaps decades , about the CCP .
China has relentlessly exploited free trade to steal intellectual property , especially that which can be put to use by its military to compete with the US .
Their CM2025 project aims to develop enough power to push the US out of the western Pacific ; their Belt and Road Initiative is designed to replicate the Soviet Union ’ s malign control of other countries through economic and technological dependency in Asia , Africa , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aimed at limiting American reach and influence , and by the way it ’ s working already .
And that doesn ’ t even count the years-long cyberwarfare conducted by China against US government operations .
The time to ask about Cold War 2.0 was in 2013 at the latest , when the Pentagon warned that China was hacking into its computer operations .
That would later include the Office of Professional Management , as well as commercial targets like Equifax .
That cyberwarfare is a little warmer than a “ cold war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t whether Pence declares Cold War 2.0 .
It ’ s why it has taken this long to take the blinders off and realize we ’ ve been under attack for years .
The Trump administration at least pushed back on China ’ s IP theft in trade , but the entire country needs a wake-up call .
Perhaps COVID-19 will inadvertently provide the catalyst for finally removing those blinders .
The Hugh Hewitt show hasn ’ t posted the video of the interview yet on YouTube , but the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War 2.0 discussion gets clipped out , I ’ ll add it to the post .

Better question: Haven’t we always been in Cold War 2.0 with China, only failed to recognize it? Hugh Hewitt asks Vice President Mike Pence instead whether the coronavirus pandemic has put the US in nonviolent confrontation with the communist regime in Beijing, and gets four seconds of silence before Pence talks around it. Hugh then mentions that the mask is “coming off the CCP,” but that might not be the best analogy for this situation:
HH: It is. Now I’ve got three more. This is a hard one. The President and you at the Lincoln Memorial talked about China. And the President said that look, the Chinese allowed people from Wuhan to fly to international destinations, but not within China. And he intimated that they may have done that knowingly for the purposes of spreading the disadvantage, the economic chaos. Are we in Cold War 2.0, Vice President Pence? MP: (4 second pause) Well, let me say President Trump’s made it clear that we’re going to get to the bottom of what happened in China and why it was that China and the World Health Organization did not inform the United States or nations around the planet of the real threat of the Coronavirus. We’ve got our intelligence community working on that now. And I know we’ll get to the bottom of the facts, but that we’re going to hold, as the President’s already suspended payments to the World Health Organization, the President’s made it clear that at the right time, we’re going to bring the facts to the American people, and we’re going to hold China accountable. That being said, look, one of the enduring lessons that I think has broken through with the American people has been just how right President Trump has been for years about the need to reset our trading relationship with China first, and with other nations around the world. I mean, we’ve met the needs of our health care community. We’ve had what we call an air bridge, has flown 119 flights of supplies in from around the world of masks and gloves and gowns. But one of the things going forward is we are going to be working very earnestly to bring back home and domestic production of these critical elements of our health care system. And but I think all of your listeners can be confident that President Trump, as he’s done from Day One, is going to continue to stand strong about the advantage that China has taken of the United States for decades, to reset that relationship. But specifically on the Coronavirus, we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and we’re going to hold those that did not play straight with the world accountable. HH: Well, you hesitated, though. You don’t want to use the word Cold War 2.0, do you? And I don’t understand why, but I understand diplomacy. Maybe it’s not an opportune time to do it, but it does seem like among the masks that are at issue is the one that’s coming off the CCP. MP: Well, look, we hope for a better relationship with China. But whether it be the imposition of tariffs, whether it be the way we’ve spoken out against human rights abuses by the People’s Republic of China, you know, the suppression of religious freedoms, the persecution of Christian pastors, of Muslim Uighurs, the confronting China with their ambitions in the South China Sea, and continuing to defend our commitment to freedom of navigation, we’ll continue to make all of those stands. But you know, from early on, the President forged a good working relationship with President Xi, and we continue to hope for better things in our relationship with China. But the American people can be confident this president, this administration will continue to stand firm on behalf of our economy and on behalf of our most cherished ideals.
That four second pause, followed by a non-denial, speaks louder than anything that preceded or followed it. Of course we’re in a Cold War situation at the moment, but the first rule of Cold War Club is that you don’t talk about Cold War Club, lest you take the blame for it. China has aimed malicious propaganda at the US and other nations that have called out Beijing for its lies and cover-up of this pandemic. China still refuses to cooperate honestly, denying access to their viral material and destroying evidence that might point to the real origin of the virus.
However, the issue isn’t a “mask” over the China Communist Party but the blinders that the West imposed on itself for years, perhaps decades, about the CCP. China has relentlessly exploited free trade to steal intellectual property, especially that which can be put to use by its military to compete with the US. Their CM2025 project aims to develop enough power to push the US out of the western Pacific; their Belt and Road Initiative is designed to replicate the Soviet Union’s malign control of other countries through economic and technological dependency in Asia, Africa, and even Europe. All of that is aimed at limiting American reach and influence, and by the way it’s working already.
And that doesn’t even count the years-long cyberwarfare conducted by China against US government operations. The time to ask about Cold War 2.0 was in 2013 at the latest, when the Pentagon warned that China was hacking into its computer operations. That would later include the Office of Professional Management, as well as commercial targets like Equifax. That cyberwarfare is a little warmer than a “cold war,” too.
The real question isn’t whether Pence declares Cold War 2.0. It’s why it has taken this long to take the blinders off and realize we’ve been under attack for years. The Trump administration at least pushed back on China’s IP theft in trade, but the entire country needs a wake-up call. Perhaps COVID-19 will inadvertently provide the catalyst for finally removing those blinders.
The Hugh Hewitt show hasn’t posted the video of the interview yet on YouTube, but the entire show is below. When the Cold War 2.0 discussion gets clipped out, I’ll add it to the post.


hotair--2020-05-06--Armed protesters arrested outside bar, demand state reopen now

Armed protesters supporting a local bar in West Odessa , Texas Monday were arrested .
While Governor Abbott has slowly begun to reopen businesses in Texas , bars are still ordered to remain closed .
On Friday , more businesses will be allowed to reopen according to an announcement made Tuesday by Governor Abbott .
Instead of waiting until May 18 for Phase Two of the state ’ s task force ’ s recommendations to kick in , as originally planned , barbershops , salons , and nail salons will be allowed to reopen Friday , though the businesses are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social distancing measures as well as using personal protection equipment ( PPE ) like face masks and gloves .
Bars and gyms are not to reopen yet .
On May 18 , gyms and manufacturing plants will have the ok to reopen .
Small businesses are bearing the brunt of the economic shutdown .
Big Daddy Zane ’ s Bar owner Gabrielle Ellison was arrested for violating Governor Abbott ’ s lockdown orders , along with six armed men from a group called Open Texas .
The men were wearing body armor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Apparently someone snitched and Ector County Sheriff Mike Griffis ’ s office responded .
More than 20 people took part in the protest , with members of Open Texas providing support .
The group was busy Monday , going to Ms. Ellison ’ s bar after a rally at Anytime Fitness in Odessa earlier in the day .
The group travels around the state with their weapons offering help to businesses deemed non-essential by the governor including a nail salon in Dallas .
Members of the protest coming from a rally at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Big Daddy Zane ’ s Bar at around 5 p.m. Monday with loaded “ AR-15 type weapons ” which they said they did not intend to use , but only had because it represented their Second Amendment rights .
They said they carried in defense of the bar ’ s First Amendment rights .
Open Texas member and online personal trainer Philip Archibald , 29 , was not arrested and said members of the group helped defend a hair salon owner opening in Dallas and an Ice House owner in Houston .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t about the guns .
This is Texas , a very gun-friendly state .
The arrests were about the violation of the governor ’ s order and the support offered at the front entrance by the armed men .
In a Facebook live post , Mr. Archibald said “ When we help businesses open up , support them .
We get them some revenue and we get them back on their feet .
We are only going to reopen the country by empowering people and helping them stand up and getting them back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say his group is helping businesses because of dire financial situations .
The group is trying to look out for business owners so that more government help isn ’ t needed and they aren ’ t dependent on government assistance .
There seems to be some confusion on the part of Ms. Ellison over the legality of carrying a weapon on private property .
Law enforcement drove behind the bar where owner Gabrielle Ellison , 47 , had told armed protestors to stand because it was not considered her business property , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bar .
Multiple ECSO Deputies and Texas Troopers drove their vehicles including an Armored Personnel Carrier behind the bar and pointed guns at the armed protesters telling them to put their hand ’ s up .
Those who were carrying guns were handcuffed and transported to the Ector County Detention Center .
ECSO Sheriff Mike Griffis said in a phone interview that six people were arrested for felony unlawfully carrying a weapon on a licensed premise , Ellison was arrested for violation of the Governor ’ s order and one bystander was arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer .
Eight people were arrested in total .
Archibald said that those arrested were done so illegally because protesters were arrested on private property .
Ellison said that she asked those armed protesters to stay on the private property because of a 51 percent law , which details that people can not carry guns into Texas bars .
She said that she thought that only applied to inside the bar .
Sheriff Griffis said he was advised by Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission ( TABC ) that “ any part of that property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connected to that bar is the premises and TABC is going to be fully involved in this deal also.
” Ellison ’ s business is struggling and her employees are suffering since the bar closed down .
She says she has been paying her employees without the help of the paycheck protection program .
She notes that the rights of business owners have been stripped away in the face of the coronavirus pandemic including “ the right to survive ” .
She doesn ’ t approve of the way businesses are reopening .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that her bar has to remain closed while restaurants are reopening for dine-in customers .
She also mentioned that game rooms around her bar are allowed to open while her bar is closed .
There was also a mistake made by Odessa Mayor David Turner , Ellison said .
She asked him if she could open and he said yes , with 25 % occupancy .
Then he came back to her and said that he was mistaken and she couldn ’ t open it .
She asked the Open Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vigilantes ” were a step too far for the sheriff .
You can ’ t blame a small business owner for trying to stay afloat and continue to pay her employees .
They are between a rock and a hard place , trying to survive while also following the governor ’ s orders .
She tried to get official guidance by asking the mayor about opening and even he was confused .
At first , I thought it would be best for bars to remain closed for the time being , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using the 25 % occupancy guideline .
Maybe bars can safely reopen with only 25 % occupancy , too .
And will customers who get tipsy abide by the social distancing rules ?
I don ’ t know .
That ’ s the problem , though .
No one seems to know what the answers are right now .
We ’ re all flying by the seat of our pants at this point .

Armed protesters supporting a local bar in West Odessa, Texas Monday were arrested. While Governor Abbott has slowly begun to reopen businesses in Texas, bars are still ordered to remain closed.
On Friday, more businesses will be allowed to reopen according to an announcement made Tuesday by Governor Abbott. Instead of waiting until May 18 for Phase Two of the state’s task force’s recommendations to kick in, as originally planned, barbershops, salons, and nail salons will be allowed to reopen Friday, though the businesses are under orders to limit capacity, practice social distancing measures as well as using personal protection equipment (PPE) like face masks and gloves. Bars and gyms are not to reopen yet. On May 18, gyms and manufacturing plants will have the ok to reopen.
Small businesses are bearing the brunt of the economic shutdown. Big Daddy Zane’s Bar owner Gabrielle Ellison was arrested for violating Governor Abbott’s lockdown orders, along with six armed men from a group called Open Texas. The men were wearing body armor and standing outside the entrance to the bar. Apparently someone snitched and Ector County Sheriff Mike Griffis’s office responded.
“This was not a protest of their second amendment rights. It was a show of force to ensure this lady could violate the governor’s order,” Griffis told reporters. The officers arrested the owner and charged her for violating the governor’s orders and arrested the armed men for having weapons on a licensed property, Griffis said. The owner will be fined, according to the sheriff.
More than 20 people took part in the protest, with members of Open Texas providing support. The group was busy Monday, going to Ms. Ellison’s bar after a rally at Anytime Fitness in Odessa earlier in the day. The group travels around the state with their weapons offering help to businesses deemed non-essential by the governor including a nail salon in Dallas.
Members of the protest coming from a rally at Anytime Fitness in Odessa showed up to Big Daddy Zane’s Bar at around 5 p.m. Monday with loaded “AR-15 type weapons” which they said they did not intend to use, but only had because it represented their Second Amendment rights. They said they carried in defense of the bar’s First Amendment rights. Open Texas member and online personal trainer Philip Archibald, 29, was not arrested and said members of the group helped defend a hair salon owner opening in Dallas and an Ice House owner in Houston.
So, no, the arrests weren’t about the guns. This is Texas, a very gun-friendly state. The arrests were about the violation of the governor’s order and the support offered at the front entrance by the armed men. In a Facebook live post, Mr. Archibald said “When we help businesses open up, support them. We get them some revenue and we get them back on their feet. We are only going to reopen the country by empowering people and helping them stand up and getting them back off their knees.” He went on to say his group is helping businesses because of dire financial situations. The group is trying to look out for business owners so that more government help isn’t needed and they aren’t dependent on government assistance.
There seems to be some confusion on the part of Ms. Ellison over the legality of carrying a weapon on private property.
Law enforcement drove behind the bar where owner Gabrielle Ellison, 47, had told armed protestors to stand because it was not considered her business property, but was her private property behind the bar. Multiple ECSO Deputies and Texas Troopers drove their vehicles including an Armored Personnel Carrier behind the bar and pointed guns at the armed protesters telling them to put their hand’s up. Those who were carrying guns were handcuffed and transported to the Ector County Detention Center. ECSO Sheriff Mike Griffis said in a phone interview that six people were arrested for felony unlawfully carrying a weapon on a licensed premise, Ellison was arrested for violation of the Governor’s order and one bystander was arrested for interfering with duties of a peace officer. Eight people were arrested in total. Archibald said that those arrested were done so illegally because protesters were arrested on private property. Ellison said that she asked those armed protesters to stay on the private property because of a 51 percent law, which details that people cannot carry guns into Texas bars. She said that she thought that only applied to inside the bar.
Sheriff Griffis said he was advised by Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) that “any part of that property that is owned or adjacent to, connected to that bar is the premises and TABC is going to be fully involved in this deal also.”
Ellison’s business is struggling and her employees are suffering since the bar closed down. She says she has been paying her employees without the help of the paycheck protection program. She notes that the rights of business owners have been stripped away in the face of the coronavirus pandemic including “the right to survive”. She doesn’t approve of the way businesses are reopening. No doubt she doesn’t appreciate the fact that her bar has to remain closed while restaurants are reopening for dine-in customers. She also mentioned that game rooms around her bar are allowed to open while her bar is closed.
There was also a mistake made by Odessa Mayor David Turner, Ellison said. She asked him if she could open and he said yes, with 25% occupancy. Then he came back to her and said that he was mistaken and she couldn’t open it. She asked the Open Texas group for help. The “armed vigilantes” were a step too far for the sheriff.
“I understand their side of it,” he said in a phone interview, “Defying the Governor’s orders is one thing, but when you bring a bunch of armed vigilantes in from other parts of the state for a show of force, I just got a problem with that,” he said.
You can’t blame a small business owner for trying to stay afloat and continue to pay her employees. They are between a rock and a hard place, trying to survive while also following the governor’s orders. She tried to get official guidance by asking the mayor about opening and even he was confused. At first, I thought it would be best for bars to remain closed for the time being, even though restaurants were given the go-ahead to reopen, using the 25% occupancy guideline. Maybe bars can safely reopen with only 25% occupancy, too. And will customers who get tipsy abide by the social distancing rules? I don’t know. That’s the problem, though. No one seems to know what the answers are right now. We’re all flying by the seat of our pants at this point.