Monday, February 10, 2020

Prosecutors Recommend a Huge Sentence for Roger Stone and Their Reason Is Garbage

 Prosecutors Recommend a Huge Sentence for Roger Stone and Their Reason Is Garbage

 Article by Bonchie in "RedState":

Let me preface this article by saying I’m not here to provide a litany of reasons why Roger Stone isn’t guilty or is actually an upstanding citizen. This guy is pretty clearly a crook and clown in much the same mold as Michael Cohen.

He decided to be a moron and pretty obviously lied to the FBI. As has been made clear the last three years, if you chose to do that, they will nail you if you have ever even used the same bathroom as Donald Trump. The witness tampering charges were also much of Stone’s own doing, as he refused to follow sound legal advice and kept running his mouth like a cheap mafioso.

With that said, the sentence that is being recommended for his convictions is insane. Prosecutors want to give 9 years to a 67 year old man for a couple of process crimes.

Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., on Monday recommended that longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone serve up to nine years in prison following his conviction on false statements and witness tampering charges related to the Russia investigation.
In their court filing, prosecutors asserted that Stone deserved the multi-year sentence because “[f]oreign election interference is the ‘most deadly adversar[y] of republican government.’”

Yeah, well except Stone didn’t engage in “foreign election interference,” nor is that what his convictions center on. Yet, the government is using that as a reason to push his sentence in the purely absurd.

But despite linking Stone to foreign election meddling, the 67-year-old Republican political operative was never charged with working with Russia to influence the 2016 election…
…Despite Democrats’ and the special counsel’s initial suspicions that Stone conspired with Russia or WikiLeaks, investigators found no evidence that the Trump associate had direct contact with anyone involved in stealing or disseminating Democrats’ emails.

This is just politics run amok. There’s no reason to be recommending a nearly decade long sentence for an old man who didn’t even commit the crimes he was originally suspected of. You can think Stone is a crook and this still make no sense.

If this judge has an ounce of integrity, he’ll scoff at the prosecutions citing of “election interference” and not humor this nonsense. If the government had the goods on Stone working with the Russians, they should have shown that in their prosecution. They didn’t and they shouldn’t be allowed to pretend they did.

And on a broader topic, this isn’t just a Roger Stone issue. This is an issue with our criminal justice system. No one committing a process crime should be given 9 years in prison, if for no other reason that it’s an idiotic use of public resources. We keep far too many people behind bars for far too long over non-violent crimes. Meanwhile, violent criminals in places like San Francisco and New York can shuffle through dozens of arrests with no repercussions. The system is broken and needs fixing. Prosecutors have too much ability to destroy the lives of those they target.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/02/10/prosecutors-recommend-huge-sentence-for-roger-stone-and-their-reason-is-garbage/

Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation' against left-wing sanctuary cities



FILE - In this June 26, 2017, file photo, protesters outside the federal courthouse in San Antonio, Texas, take part in a rally to oppose a new Texas "sanctuary cities" bill that aligns with the president's tougher stance on illegal immigration. A federal appeals court gave Texas more latitude Monday, Sept. 25, 2017, to enforce a "sanctuary cities" ban backed by the Trump administration, but opponents suing over the immigration crackdown said it was unlikely to drastically change the status quo. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
Article by Greg Re in "Fox News"
 
Charging that so-called "sanctuary" cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a "significant escalation" against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the "lawful functioning of our nation's immigration system."

Speaking at the National Sheriff’s Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in Washington, D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement, and implement unprecedented national reviews of left-wing sanctuary governments and prosecutors.

"Let us state the reality upfront and as clearly as possible," Barr began. "When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape. These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society.  Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes.  This is neither lawful nor sensible."

The DOJ has now filed a federal complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief "against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS," Barr said.

That was a reference to New Jersey Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2018-6, which the DOJ says illegally bars officials from sharing the immigration status and release dates of individuals in custody. It also requires New Jersey law enforcement to “promptly notify a detained individual, in writing and in a language the individual can understand” if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) files an immigration detainer request for the individual.

Additionally, "we are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy ... that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport," Barr said.

That lawsuit targets King County Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which the DOJ said has dramatically increased operating costs for ICE as detainees have had to be transported to Yakima, Washington. The executive order unconstitutionally conflicts with the federal Airline Deregulation Act, which "prohibits localities such as King County from enacting or enforcing laws or regulations that relate to prices, routes, or services of air carriers," the DOJ said.

"Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country.  This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States," Barr added, noting that the DOJ would support DHS with "federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions."

And, Barr said, "we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct.  In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens."

Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called "collateral consequences," including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.

Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow "criminal aliens to escape" federal law enforcement -- and some jurisdictions are becoming "more aggressive" in undermining immigration authorities, with local politicians  even developing "schemes" to circumvent immigration officials.

In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.

As the president did during last week's State of the Union address, the attorney general cited several instances in which illegal immigrants were able to commit deadly crimes because they were sheltered by left-wing sanctuaries.

"In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father," Barr said. "The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer.  So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as 'abuelita,' a fixture of her Queens neighborhood."

And, In October 2017, DHS "identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State," Barr continued. "DHS filed a detainer.  Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment.  But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer.  In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin."

While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.

"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"

He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order.  Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government.  And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.  While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."

Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many "criminal aliens" are in the U.S., in part because of "local policies," although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.

"Assuming that estimate was accurate, the numbers are likely even higher today despite the Trump Administration’s consistent and concerted efforts to find and deport this criminal population," Barr said.

It is the "rule of law that is fundamental to ensuring both freedom and security," Barr asserted, saying law enforcement officers are increasingly under fire in "heinous" attacks that "come against the backdrop of cynicism and disrespect for law enforcement."

Barr touted the DOJ's lawsuit against California and other states over their sanctuary policies. The suit over California involves the law prohibiting the federal government from conducting operations in its own affiliated private immigration facilities and detention centers.

The law, Barr said, was a "blatant attempt by the State to prohibit DHS from detaining aliens, and to interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service to manage federal detainees and prisoners."

"Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of 'sanctuary cities.'"
— Attorney General Bill Barr

"The department sued the State of California to enjoin numerous state laws that attempted to frustrate federal immigration enforcement," Barr said. "We prevailed on several of our claims in the lower courts, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant our request to review the remaining issues and side with us against California’s obstructionist policies."

He concluded, "Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of 'sanctuary cities.'  But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe.  We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law."

Barr's new sanctions come as the Trump administration has already announced other initiatives targeting illegal immigration in the wake of the president's State of the Union address last week.

Last week, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents — a dramatic move in response to the liberal state's recently enacted sanctuary "Green Light Law."

Barr slammed the law in his speech Monday, calling it "unlawful."

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations Todd Owen later told Fox News that up to 800,000 New Yorkers could be affected by the rule change within the next five years. Owen said people with pending Global Entry applications would be refunded, and that those with active applications would not be affected until their renewal date.

Illegal immigrants rushed to New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in large numbers after the "Green Light Law," which allowed them to obtain driver's licenses or learner's permits regardless of their immigration status, took effect last December. The law also permitted applicants to use foreign documents, including passports, to be submitted in order to obtain licenses.

In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited DMV agencies across the state from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE.

"In New York alone, last year ICE arrested 149 child predators, identified or rescued 105 victims of exploitation and human trafficking, arrested 230 gang members, and seized 6,487 pounds of illegal narcotics, including fentanyl and opioids," Wolf wrote to New York officials. "In the vast majority of these cases, ICE relied on New York DMV records to fulfill its mission."

The "Green Light Law," Wolf went on, "compromises CBP's ability to confirm whether an individual applying for TTP membership meets program eligibility requirements."

"This Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS' s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised," he said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-announces-new-sanctuary-policies

Pele is depressed, reclusive due to health issues, says son

February 10, 2020
SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Brazilian soccer great Pele is depressed over his poor health and reluctant to leave the house because he cannot walk unaided, his son Edinho said in an interview published in Brazil on Monday.
Pele, widely considered to be one of the greatest footballers in history and who will be 80 in October, has had hip trouble for years and now needs a frame to walk. Many of his recent public appearances have been in a wheelchair.
“He’s pretty fragile. He had a hip replacement and didn’t have an adequate or ideal rehabilitation,” Edinho told TV Globo.
“So he has this problem with mobility and that has set off a kind of depression. Imagine, he’s the King, he was always such an imposing figure and today he can’t walk properly.
“He’s embarrassed, he doesn’t want to go out, be seen, or do practically anything that involves leaving the house,” his son added. “He is very sheepish, reclusive.”
Edinho said he had argued with his father because he had not done the physiotherapy called for after a hip operation.
Pele, the only player to win three World Cups, spent most of his career with Brazilian team Santos before moving to New York Cosmos in the 1970s.
This summer will mark the 50th anniversary of the striker’s third World Cup title, won in Mexico in 1970 with what many people believe is the greatest team of all time.
 French soccer player Kylian Mbappe and Brazilian soccer legend Pele pose ahead of their meeting in Paris, France April 2, 2019.
https://www.oann.com/pele-is-depressed-reclusive-due-to-health-issues-says-son/

5 Biggest James Carville Warnings...


5 Biggest James Carville Warnings To Woke Democrats

Democrat strategist James Carville warned that the smug, urbanist mindset is causing the Democratic Party to be distracted by the wrong issues.

Democratic strategist James Carville unleashed on 2020 Democratic candidates for pulling the party too far left and warned Democrats are at risk of seeming “culturally arrogant” to the working class. His rant began on a viral MSNBC segment this week after the chaos of the Iowa caucuses, then he extended his admonishments in an interview with Vox.

Vox Writer Sean Illing seemed to question whether Carville’s strong reaction was warranted. Are Democrats “really destroying the party?” he asked. “What does that even mean?” Carville admitted that at the end of the day, he would vote for Bernie Sanders should he win the nomination, but reiterated, as someone who lives in the South, that the Democratic Party should not represent themselves to the public as socialists like Sanders. Here are the top warnings Carville issued to elite, coastal Democrats.

1. Stop Talking About Issues That Don’t Matter to Voters

Carville complained how candidates spending time on the debate stage discussing issues that do not win on a national level, issues like: open borders, decriminalizing illegal immigration, banning nuclear energy, banning fracking, giving criminals and terrorists in jail the right to vote, and more distractions.

He reflected on how Democrats won in 2018 by doing the opposite. “We just had an election in 2018. We did great. We talked about everything we needed to talk about and we won. And now it’s like we’re losing our d-mn minds.”

2. Talk About Issues That Matter to Families, Working People

How do Democrats create a winning message? “By framing, repeating, and delivering a coherent, meaningful message that is relevant to people’s lives and having the political skill not to be sucked into every rabbit hole that somebody puts in front of you,” he said.

Carville praised ideas like Sen. Cory Booker’s “baby bonds plans,” which would deposit taxpayer dollars in an investment account for every child born to a low-income person, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s government child care plans as the “kind of thing the party could connect to people’s actual lives.”

3. Become a Majoritarian Party

Carville stressed that becoming a majoritarian party was critical, and going far-left with Sanders so quickly is not the path to Democrat power.

“Eighteen percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats,” Carville said. “We’ve got to be a majoritarian party. The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”

Carville said the purpose of a political party is to acquire power. “Without power, nothing matters.”

4. Don’t Patronize the Middle of the Country

Carville warned that the smug, urbanist mindset was causing candidates to be distracted by the wrong issues and to lose connection with people in the South and the middle of the country.

He gave the example of New York Times writer Binyamin Appelbaum, who recently posted a “snarky tweet” about Louisiana State University.

“You know how f—ing patronizing that is to people in the South or in the middle of the country?” Carville asked. “We can’t win the Senate by looking down at people. The Democratic Party has to drive a narrative that doesn’t give off vapors that we’re smarter than everyone or culturally arrogant.”

5. Don’t Lose the Most Important Vote: African Americans

When Illing suggested former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg seemed to be a more moderate candidate than Sanders, and thus more likely to beat Donald Trump, Carville pointed out Buttigieg’s biggest weakness: African American voters.

“Mayor Pete has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a h-ll of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter,” he said.

Madeline Osburn is a staff editor at the Federalist and the producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. 

Bill Maher Gets It Right on Trumps State of the Union Speech About Black Voters



Lots of people simply hate Bill Maher because he is a lefty who does not believe in God. I love the fact that he is honest and simply tells it as he sees it. This is very helpful if you want to hear what is going on with the liberal-progressive side of things. You should never be afraid to see what the other side thinks, you might learn a thing or two.

Case in point.

Last Friday, Maher on his show ‘Real Time With Bill Maher’ on HBO brought up the subject of President Trump’s State of the Union speech and where he had a lot of parts of his speech that was geared towards black voters.

Here is a sampling from Mediaite
“State of the Union, I was surprised, I thought I was watching BET,” Maher said, adding “The whole thing seemed geared toward winning the black voter, right? I mean, he had the little girl who is going to go to a charter school, he called out the one black Republican senator Tim Scott, he had the Tuskegee airman, he cited a lot of stats about black unemployment being better, all this stuff.”
“Wow, the Democrats, Democrats their weak point is the South. They just write it off. They don’t even try,” Maher continued. “Trump is like what’s my weak point? Blacks? I’m going to get them. I got Melania back, I’m going to get them too.”
“I think there’s a question, though of whether politically he is trying to actually win black voters, or whether he wants to appear to his voters as if he’s trying to win black voters, which is different,” (Sarah) Isgur said.
“More specifically, I think he’s trying to say I got a black friend. He’s not trying to save everybody. Bill,” Gillum said.
“But he is trying to win that vote,” Maher said.
“I don’t think he is,” (Andrew) Gillum replied.

Maher’s guests in this exchange were Sarah Isgur who is a Republican strategist and now CNN contributor and Andrew Gillum former Mayor of Tallahassee Florida. They disagreed with Maher’s assertion and went on to say that somehow this was an attempt to capture white suburban women.

Ummmmmmmmmmmm.

Trump was featuring all these people who happened to be black, both in the gallery and peppering the speech with facts about how life has improved for all segments of society, and some think it is to impress white women?

Whatever they are drinking before that show is some good stuff.

Let me for a moment do my best channeling of Cenk Uygur when I type out and say with feeling…

OF COURSE, TRUMP WAS PLAYING FOR THE BLACK VOTE.

Duh.

Whatever half-cocked conspiracy theory that Maher’s guests were spreading is flat out nonsensical. Trump was not only playing to the crowd of Americans who are black, but he was also being blatant about it. There is no 3-d chess game here kids. This was straight up the gut political football yelling stop me if you can. If Maher’s guests think otherwise that shows how badly the Democrats are thinking stuff through right now and the Republicans who love those ideas.

Thankfully someone who knows a bit more than these experts had taken to the airwaves right after the State of the Union speech and gave heads-up that this is exactly what Trump was doing.

CNN contributor Van Jones.

Here is an excerpt of what Van Jones said that night…
At the same time, warning the Democrats. What he was saying to African-Americans can be effective. You may not like it but he mentioned HBCUs, black colleges have been struggling for a long time, a bunch of them have gone under, he threw a lifeline to them in real life in his budget. He talked about that. He talked about criminal justice reform. He talked about opportunity zones…
The thing about it is, and we’ve got to wake up, folks, there’s a whole bubble thing that goes on, he said s-hole nations, therefore all black people are going to hate him forever. That ain’t necessarily so. I think what you’re going to see him do, you may not like my rhetoric, but look at my results and my record to black people, if he narrow casts that, it’s going to be effective. Which means, as we move through this primary process, we’ve got to pay a lot more attention both to what’s going on with the Latino vote. Are we going to get a benefit in terms of having them respond and with the black vote. It it going to be a split off, especially for black male voters? We’ve got to be clinical about this stuff. We get so emotional about it. That was a warning to us. That was a warning shot across the bow to us Democrats that he’s going after enough black votes to cause us problems. It’s not just suburban votes, he’s going after black votes.

If Trump just picks up another 3 to 5% of what he got in 2016 from the black community he will win easily. If the numbers are any higher than that he will definitely win in a walk.

As I said at the beginning of this article you should always listen to what your opponents in the political arena are saying. Both Bill Maher and Van Jones recognized what Donald Trump was doing and they both were trying to sound the alarm. Being they both do not want Trump reelected they are trying to offer some sound analysis for others in the Democratic Party to listen too and it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

For the supporters of President Trump that should make you very very happy.

No, There Is No Coming Race War






No, There Is No
Coming Race War

February 2020


The story of race and crime in America is better than you think
by Wilfred C. Reilly


A remarkable irony of the modern American conversation is that while race relations have empirically never been better, many members of different races are terrified of one another. Perceptions of crime are a primary source of this tension. The center-left mainstream media run stories almost daily about tough whites attacking blacks and other people of color for trivial reasons, while a substantial cottage industry on the far right focuses on sensational depictions of black crime. In reality, however, incidents like these, which make for almost weekly viral news stories, are quite rare; so, too, is serious interracial crime in general. According to the 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) crime report, blacks made up only 15 percent of those who criminally attacked whites in the United States in 2018. Whites attacked blacks even less often, 11 percent of the time. For good or ill, the person most likely to kill you remains your husband or wife, not an exotic stranger. It is well worth unpacking the actual U.S. national crime data as a means of tamping down tensions among countrymen.

The media’s sensational fixation on interracial crime has grown steadily in recent years. A black friend has joked with me that 2018, in particular, was “the year of whites with crazy nicknames.” Major media outlets ran story after story about obnoxious Caucasians attacking blacks for the flimsiest of reasons. On June 29, 2018, “Pool Patrol Paula”—actually named Stephanie Sebby-Strempel—made headlines after allegedly shouting at and striking a pleasant young black man attempting to use a South Carolina public pool, telling him he didn’t belong in the water. When police officers attempted to arrest her for misdemeanor assault, she bit one of them.

Sebby-Strempel did not police the waters alone. On July 5 of the same year, a man named Adam Bloom was dubbed “Pool Patrol PAUL” after getting into a heated argument with a black woman who was using his condo complex’s swimming facilities. When Bloom asked to see her resident ID, she replied: “This is textbook racial profiling.” Multiple officers had to be called in to resolve the situation. On Facebook, her video recording and breakdown of the incident went massively viral.

On July 15, 2018—barely a week later—Chicago CVS manager Morry Matson got famous as “Coupon Carl,” following his decision to contact the police and accuse a black female customer of using a counterfeit coupon. The fact that Matson, a gay man, is not only himself a member of an “oppressed” minority group but also a leader of the moderate and all-LGBT Log Cabin Republicans did not suffice to save him from the scarlet “R” of alleged racism. He was fired days later, and the story became a cautionary tale for both blacks and whites.

But the Queen of them all was BBQ Becky. On April 29, 2018, “Becky”—real name Jennifer Schulte—became internationally famous as a symbol of “the everyday racism black people face,” as USA Today put it, after she confronted a black family that was holding a cookout in a no-charcoal-grilling area of Oakland’s Lake Merritt. Schulte asked the family to leave, and they refused. The ensuing confrontation lasted several hours, during which family members accused Schulte of harassing them and several hostile park attendees followed her out of the park. Oakland Police eventually defused the situation, but a photograph of Schulte calling them on her cellphone trended online not long afterward and eventually became one of the most iconic memes of the past decade. Many laughed at the meme, but the legacy of incidents like these extends well beyond Internet in-jokes. According to Pew Social Trends’ analysis “Race in America 2019,” fully 71 percent of African Americans now see race relations as “generally bad,” and 56 percent think they have worsened under President Trump. It is impossible not to see epidemic media coverage of situations such as those mentioned above as a factor contributing to this malaise.

While the mainstream media lean left and tend to focus their race-baiting on stories of white-on-black crime and harassment, a growing right-wing alternative media take the opposite tack, sensationalizing virtually every prominent story of black-on-white crime. The alt-right website American Renaissance literally maintains a “Black on White Crime Archive,” chock-full of stories such as “Anti-white Mob Cuts Off 18 Year Old’s Hand Following Road Rage” (this happened in the UK) and “The Porch Pirate of Potrero Hill: Inveterate Thief Blames Her Woes on Racism.” Similar content can be found at VDARE, World Net Daily, Info Wars, the Unz Review, the Stuff Black People Don’t Like blog, and a dozen similar outlets.

Gonzo journalist Colin Flaherty runs an entire website devoted to stories about black-on-white crime. One tab on the site promises the “top 200 Black mob violence videos,” while another invites readers to “Make a Difference” by contacting Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones and recommending Flaherty’s book on race-related crime. While content like this is generally at least somewhat less widely distributed than mainstream media stories about white rowdiness, this is not for want of trying. A quick Google search reveals that one of the most popular pieces ever to appear on Flaherty’s website is headlined: “Five Cases (of Black Crime) People Want on National TV.”

Looking at today’s dueling headlines, it is tempting to ask: “So, do we have an epidemic of horrifically racist white-on-black crimes or an epidemic of brutish black-on-white crimes?” The answer is “neither.” Moreover, the statistics so thoroughly refute popular fear-mongering that Americans of all colors should take the media to task for the divisive false version of reality they so often present. In September of this year, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice released the 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report, entitled “U.S. Criminal Victimization 2018,” a comprehensive breakdown of U.S. crime data for the year in question. The reality of interracial crime revealed within the pages of this thorough report is far indeed from the “race war” fantasies of extremists on either side.

According to the report, only 15.3 percent of the 3,581,360 violent crimes against whites in 2018 were committed by blacks, who make up 12 to 13 percent of the U.S. population. These percentages are, needless to say, almost directly proportional. And whites were even less likely to commit racist crimes: Only about 11 percent of the 563,940 violent crimes against blacks were committed by whites. Significantly, no third group—say, Latinos—made up for these positive findings. During the study year, persons of Hispanic or Latino descent made up only 7.9 percent of all those who attacked blacks and just 10.2 percent of all those who attacked whites. The massive majority of crime in 2018 was intra-racial, with 62.1 percent of all attacks on white people coming from other whites (non-Hispanic whites make up 61 percent of the U.S. population) and 70.3 percent of all attacks on black people coming from other blacks. For good measure, nearly 50 percent of all attackers of Hispanics were themselves Hispanic. All told, only about 2,000,000 crimes, out of 5,061,940 violent crimes and roughly 12,000,000 total crimes, involved any interracial use of force whatsoever.

It is true that, as alt-righters are fond of pointing out, there are more black attacks on whites than white attacks on blacks in a typical year: Generally about 500,000 of the first and 100,000 or fewer of the latter (59,777 in 2018). However, this fact taken alone is, in debater’s parlance, “true but meaningless.” The honest math around the topic gets more complicated than this, but it’s worth noting as a starting point that there are five times as many white people as black people in the United States. Even an utterly anti-racist black criminal would thus find himself confronted with 500 to 600 percent more white targets than black ones. It is also true that, on average, whites have more money than blacks do, making the former more tempting targets for such crimes as robbery. And the black violent-crime rate overall, as per the BJS, is roughly 2.4 times the white rate, making blacks statistically more likely to be involved in crime against members of all groups.

Once variables such as these are adjusted for, we see that blacks attack whites less than would be mathematically predicted, even in a default scenario where no racial hostility whatsoever existed on either side. In that scenario, we would expect blacks to make up around 30 percent of attackers of whites (12 percent multiplied by 2.4 percent), but blacks in fact make up only 15.3 percent of those who attack whites. At an even more basic level of analysis, whites make up 61 percent of the population but only 46 percent of those attacked by black criminals. Whites return the favor, attacking black citizens—again, 12 percent or more of the population—roughly 3 percent of the time.

The absolute absence of an American race war is most obvious in the context of that most warlike of crimes: murder. Figures from every recent year indicate that roughly 85 percent of murders of whites and an astonishing 91 to 95 percent of murders of blacks are intra-racial. In the representative year of 2015, there were only 500 black-on-white murders and 229 white-on-black murders reported nationally, according to the International Business Times. To put these figures in context, the Homicide Data Tables of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for the same year indicate that 5,854 whites and 7,039 blacks were murdered. For good or ill, social scientists almost universally note that the person most likely to kill you is a current or former lover and not five strangers from a different ethnic group.

There certainly are some interesting heterodox nuggets to be mined from the BJS and other major data sets, which might advance the agenda of one group or another. For example, it is hard not to notice that Asian Americans apparently take it on the chin from everyone else in terms of criminal victimization. While blacks committed 70 percent of all acts of violence against blacks in 2018, and whites committed well over 60 percent of violent acts against whites, Asian Americans committed only 24.1 percent of all violent acts against Asians. Whites (24.1 percent), blacks (27.5 percent), and Hispanics and “others” combined (21.4 percent) all attacked Asians roughly as often as other Asians did. The report also showed an unusually high percentage of attacks against Asians (2.9 percent) in which one Asian was assaulted by “multiple offenders of various races.” This is well ahead of the corresponding findings for blacks (1.9 percent) and whites (2.1 percent) and rivaled only by that of Hispanics.

And, of course, American Jews are another small, successful group who are subjected to inter-racial attacks with disproportionate frequency. The New York City area, in particular, has witnessed an astounding wave of anti-Semitic attacks, almost all committed by people of color, during the past few months. On December 28, 2019, a bearded black man wielding a machete stabbed five Orthodox Jews inside Rabbi Chaim Rottenberg’s in-home shul in the New York suburb of Monsey. The sole suspect in the attack had previously Googled phrases like “Why did Hitler hate the Jews?” on his home computer. This incident occurred less than a month after six people were killed during a shooting at a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, New Jersey, apparently carried out by acolytes of the racialist Black Hebrew Israelite movement. These were far from the only anti-Semitic attacks in and around New York during this period. New York City police have cited “at least eight anti-Semitic incidents” between December 13 and December 31 of the past year. In one case, an African-American woman, Tiffany Harris—who was arraigned on December 28 for slapping and cursing at three ultra-Orthodox women in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights—was charged again, on December 30, for punching a Jewish woman in the face in front of her two young children. Notably, Harris was released from custody without paying bail in either case, courtesy of “bail reform” laws championed by current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

New York does not appear to be an extreme outlier. It would be virtually impossible to determine how many attacks against Jews have been subsumed into the “white” category of interracial crime statistics and thus estimate the percentage of all crime directed specifically at them. It definitely can be said, however, that American Jews—who, with an estimated population of 6,829,000, represent 1.7 percent of the total U.S. population—were the targets of at least 11.7 percent of all U.S. hate crimes (835 out of 7,120) and almost 60 percent of hate crimes motivated by the victim’s religion (835 out of 1,419) in 2018. In contrast, American Muslims, with a population very similar in size to that of Jews, reported only 188 total hate crimes in 2018, while blacks experienced slightly more than twice as many hate crimes as those against Jews (1,943) despite having a population more than six times as large. As with Asian Americans, Jews are attacked by members of multiple ethnic groups. In 2018, 179 of the 835 attacks on Jews were perpetrated by whites, 41 were described as black, and there were at least 14 incidents involving multiracial groups who attacked Jews. Two hundred and fifty-eight perpetrators were not definitively identified in racial terms. Three-hundred forty-three police/FBI reports apparently did not include a racial description of the suspect.

Analysis of patterns of interracial crime in general, and of the Asian and Jewish case studies in particular, lends support to a point frequently made by conservatives: The presentation of interracial crime by the center-left mainstream media dominant in the United States is more than a bit dishonest. While there is little serious interracial violence, black-on-white crimes make up about 80 percent of violent criminal incidents involving whites and blacks in a typical year. It’s fair to say, based on empirical analysis, that mainstream media coverage of interracial crime slants in almost exactly the opposite direction: Rare incidents of white-on-black violence receive far more coverage than more common black-on-white assaults. At the most basic qualitative level of review, every single one of the incidents of white-on-black harassment discussed in this piece became a national or international story, while the black-on-white cases received mostly local coverage.

More broadly, entire storylines that characterize American criminal justice, such as the epidemic of diverse and minority-generated violence against Asian Americans and Jews, are frequently missing from the national headlines. In a remarkable piece headlined “Is It Safe to Be Jewish in New York ?” Ginia Bellafante of the New York Times largely admits that the legacy media underreport East Coast anti-Semitism because of the diverse racial backgrounds of those brutalizing Jews. To quote directly: “The varied backgrounds of people who commit hate crimes…make combatting and talking about anti-Semitism in New York much harder.” This blunt statement by Bellafante, who deserves credit for her honesty, caused David Marcus of the Federalist to point out the obvious: If dozens of Jewish taxpayers were being beaten bloody by white men in MAGA hats or Pepe the Frog T-shirts, this “would not be hard to talk about—it would be a clear cut case of bigotry.”

Similarly slanted media coverage is not uncommon as regards other important issues involving race and violence. When, for my book Hate Crime Hoax, I conducted in-depth quantitative analysis of how police shootings are covered, I found that non-blacks make up 70 percent of police-shooting victims but receive perhaps 20 percent of national media coverage of police shootings. A Google search for the phrase “well-known police shooting” turned up four white cases, four Hispanic cases, and 32 black cases in the first 10 pages of search results, with all cookies and trackers that might affect these results having previously been deleted.

But the big picture of interracial crime—and ethnic conflict more broadly—in the United States is a surprisingly positive one. There certainly are small groups that are targeted with disturbing frequency, and the mass media have certainly failed in reporting honestly on these trends. However, there is no current or upcoming race war, or indeed general epidemic of interracial violence.

Given the actual statistical demographics of violent crime in America, the best advice for most of those who are terrified by its specter is this: Get out of the house, go to your gym or library or place of worship, and mingle with your countrymen.


It’s time for Trump to fight fire with fire

 Image result for cartoons about kgb

 Article by Jay Latimer in "The American Thinker":

So another coup attempt has failed.

Fact: The Russia investigation known as Spygate did not arise because the FBI and CIA thought it likely that Trump colluded with Russia -- everyone knew that was bullshit. The Russia probe and the resultant Mueller investigation were based on a false dossier paid for by the DNC. The FBI, CIA, and DoJ used these documents -- knowing full well that they were fraudulent -- in order to spy on and undermine the Trump administration. It was a coup attempt, plain and simple.

Fact: The impeachment did not arise because a principled whistleblower spontaneously came forward with a tale of a Ukraine phone call. We know this because (1) Inspector General Michael Atkinson clandestinely changed the rules to allow the whistleblower to file a complaint using only hearsay evidence, and (2) the whistleblower’s colleague joined Adam Schiff’s staff just weeks before it was launched. These are not coincidences, they are evidence of a deliberate plot to destroy the President.

We should all recoil in horror that the Intelligence Community and the DoJ could be weaponized against a sitting president. Spying, planting informants, the use of purely partisan Democrats’ oppo research to create a fake criminal narrative; how could decent Americans allow the rule of law to be bent in such an unlawful fashion?

And these plotters used scorched-earth tactics; surprising Trump supporters with unannounced interviews to create perjury traps, threatening their children with jail time, sending SWAT teams to kick in their doors at 3 a.m., raiding his lawyers’ offices to search for dirt, and placing a defendant for a nonviolent white-collar crime in solitary confinement.

How could this happen in the Land of the Free?

My first reaction was, in order to punish those responsible for this travesty, Trump and his DoJ must be utterly impartial. Yes, the Spygate instigators must be brought to justice, but Attorney General William Barr should not stoop as low as they did. Otherwise the result might rightly be seen as merely fighting partisan action with a partisan reaction, and the punishment of the Spygate crew for an illegitimate investigation will itself be seen as illegitimate.

So my instinct, and that of many other observers, is to fight partisanship with a strict adherence to the rule of law, and a determination to keep politics out of the legal equation.

However, I now feel that this may be a misguided as well as naïve view.

Who are we kidding? No one will give Trump or Barr credit for an impartial investigation. The Democrats and the media will automatically label any attempt by Trump to punish these wrongdoers as partisan and illegitimate. No matter how even-handed Trump tries to be, any such actions will be treated by the dishonest media as mere political payback or (more likely) proof that Trump has become an authoritarian dictator hell-bent on revenge.

Given this, why should Trump not use every weapon at his disposal? If he is being attacked in an unfair fashion, why should he alone be required to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules?  Why should Trump fight back with one hand tied behind his back, particularly when no one will credit him for acting in fairly?

And, just as important, there is a lesson to be learned – that partisanship begets more partisanship. Put simply, the instigators of Spygate must learn that partisanship is a two-way street. If these Deep State actors feel empowered to use purely partisan malice to inflict pain on their enemies, they should be aware that, eventually, their enemies will do the same thing to them.

It’s now time to do just that.

My advice to the Trump administration is to act -- now! Let the Hounds of Hell loose on those bad actors who engineered these two failed coup attempts. They are the ones who truly deserve to be punished.

In short, let them know exactly what it feels like to have the Deep State breathing down their necks. And make them pray for forgiveness for what they’ve done to President Trump -- and our country.

Medal of Honor Recipient Defends Trump on Removal of Vindman, Says Ranger Peers Thought He ‘Couldn’t Be Trusted’



Democrats and other folks on the left have been imploding over the removal of Alexander Vindman from the NSC, calling it “retribution” for his testimony during the impeachment trial and painting Vindman as a military hero. 

But Medal of Honor recipient Master Sergeant Leroy Petry said on Fox and Friends that Joe Biden calling for giving for a cheer for Vindman and saying he should have received the Medal of Freedom instead of Rush Limbaugh was “ridiculous.” Petry also defended the decision by President Donald Trump.
“I respect Donald Trump’s actions on escorting him out of the White House because he, as a team player, he should have brought it up through the chain of command and then blown the whistle if it didn’t get approved,” Petry began. “So, exactly my insight is, I would fired him too, I can’t trust you on my team, if you can’t bring me things you don’t agree with.”

As the testimony of Tim Morrison revealed, he and other people had issues with Vindman’s judgement and there were concerns about leaking.



Note Vindman was in contact with the “one person” that Schiff wouldn’t allow to be named, i.e. the whistleblower, reportedly Eric Ciaramella. 

Petry also disputed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others terming him a hero, noting that while he respected Vindman’s service, that being a Purple Heart recipient doesn’t necessarily make somebody a hero.

Folks on the NSC serve at the pleasure at the president, Fox’s Pete Hegseth pointed out. Vindman was not actually “fired” per se, more exactly he was reassigned to another position at the Pentagon. You don’t have a right to advise the president and the president has a right to choose advisers on which he can rely. 

Petry filled in some background on Vindman, he wasn’t quite as he was being painted. 
Petry went on to explain that Vindman, according to friends who had been with the lieutenant colonel in Ranger School, had referred to him as a “chow thief” and had not thought highly of him even then. “In ranger school, [they] said he couldn’t be trusted. They tried peering him out. They said, ‘Well, I guess it hasn’t changed much.’ Usually folks that try to make a big statue of something, what we call spotlighters in the military, trying to highlight themselves as a hero or doing something great. and you could do something great just doing your job.” 
Hegseth jumped back in then to “translate” some of the military jargon Petry had used to describe Vindman, saying, “Chow thief, meaning that when there is limited food, you’re taking some so you can have some and your buddies don’t. Spotlight ranger is someone who, when the spotlight is on, you do a great job when spotlight is off, you’re not necessarily helping your buddies. And peered out means your fellow peers are voting against you to graduate from that particular school.”

How Democracy Is Undermining the...


How Democracy Is Undermining the Constitution and Civil Liberties

Holding democracy out as an ideal overlooks the question of whether market democracy or political democracy better serves citizens.

That Americans are in the throes of a crisis in democracy has become a commonplace refrain of late. I have noticed that almost all such commentary treats political democracy, implicitly or explicitly, as the ideal. Yet in truth, it is a seriously flawed ideal. In fact, as F. A. Hayek noted years ago,
all the inherited limitations on government power are breaking down before…unlimited democracy…the problem today.

Perhaps the most blatant evidence against the idea that moving toward more democracy is always an improvement is the frequency with which policies and candidates claiming majority support advance coercive measures that take from some to give to others. That is robbery, which violates universal moral and ethical principles, making it less than an ideal.

Democracy's Shortfallings

There are, in fact, several ways that political democracy comes up short as an ideal. An ideal would avoid violating individuals' established rights. It would be responsive; people's choices would have to matter. It would give people incentives to become well informed and think carefully about policies. It would require powerful incentives to deter dishonesty and misrepresentation. It would have to be limited in scope, as no one wants every choice about their lives subject to majority determination.

It is hard to think of government policies that do not violate some people's rights. Such violations are, in fact, often the main drivers of policy (e.g., price controls), even though they violate the central function of a government advancing its citizens' well-being—defending existing rights.

In contrast to reams of democracy-extolling rhetoric, the fact is that virtually no one’s vote changes the results at the ballot box. Just ask yourself if you can name an exception.

Politics imposes fewer effective constraints on dishonesty and misrepresentation than market arrangements do.Consequently, "democratic" results are not responsive to individuals' preferences.

Further, voters typically face binary votes on "electable" candidates who represent bundles of policies and promises, some of which the vast majority of even those who voted for them object to. That is a long way from giving voters power to effectively exercise their desires. The least harmful option, not the most preferred, is frequently chosen.

Most voters also face very limited incentives to think carefully about policies, illustrated by the vast number who don't even know their political representatives' names. That is largely because unlike individuals' market votes with their dollars, which change their outcomes—better matching their circumstances and preferences—public policy voting does not.

Politics also imposes fewer effective constraints on dishonesty and misrepresentation than market arrangements do. Beyond greater "customer" ignorance, politics has no truth-in-advertising laws, money-back guarantees, or effective warrantees. Politicians' wares are not easily evaluated, since they are (hopefully) plausible-sounding stories about candidates' intentions, which they cannot accomplish alone, backed by the every-ready escape-hatch excuse that failures to deliver on what was promised represent the best deal that was actually possible. There is also typically no more than one "electable" competitor to keep candidates honest, and that is frequently limited only to election season.

Market Democracy vs. Political Democracy

In a political democracy, a majority can also force its preferences on others in any issue. That is why our founders adopted constraints on majority abuse, such as limited, delegated powers and the Bill of Rights. However, those constraints have largely been undermined.

In contrast to political democracy, free-market capitalism, which reflects democratic self-government, represents a far better ideal.

Holding democracy out as an ideal overlooks the question of whether market democracy or political democracy better serves citizens.
Its system of exclusively voluntary cooperation based on self-ownership requires that property rights be respected; no majority can violate owners' rights. Individuals' dollar votes change their outcomes, even when their preferences are not the majority’s preferences, making them far better informed than they are about politics. There also are more mechanisms providing honesty and accountability.

Holding democracy out as an ideal overlooks the question of whether market democracy or political democracy better serves citizens. And if that is the end in view, a superior form of democracy is to remove virtually all decisions and policies that we need not share in common (almost all of them, beyond the mutual protection of our property rights) from government dictation, even if they are "democratic," and let people exercise self-government through their own voluntary arrangements, protected by their inalienable rights.


Trump's Supporters Are Not Cult Members. We're Americans.


 Image result for cartoons about trump derangement syndrome
 Article by Sally Zelikovsky in "The American Thinker":

Former one-term Republican congressman and radio host Joe Walsh recently withdrew from running against Trump in the Republican primary.  He apparently got the message that his candidacy was dead when the Iowa caucus crowd responded with raucous cheers for Trump to his comment "if you want four more year of the Donald Trump show" and roundly booed his claim that the president "makes every day about himself."

Any birdbrain knows that Trump makes every day about us and the U.S.  The only reason he has had to talk about himself is because he's been under constant attack, and Democrats demanded his head.  Past Republican presidents likely would not have responded, concluding that it was beneath the dignity of the office.  Perhaps.  But at some point, you have to fight back, or you'll eventually be ousted.  When they called George Bush a liar and accused him of starting a war for oil we never got but would somehow benefit him, he just took it and virtually disappeared.  When you don't present your case forcefully, the accusations become the truth, no matter how false.

Republicans are trained to respond like that.  When running for office, you are advised not to address outrageous accusations — because it drives more media and public attention to the issue, keeping it in the spotlight.  Instead, candidates are supposed to pivot towards what they can do or have done or what one's opponent hasn't done, etc.   The tactic of punching back should be deployed only in very rare circumstances.  This might have worked in a more chivalrous period of American politics, but once the Democrats shifted to a strategy of relentlessly lobbing mostly false accusations at their competitors, Republicans should have altered their strategy.  But they didn't, and, for too long, the Democrats have been cage-fighting while we pretend-fight with our Rock 'Em, Sock 'Em Robots. 

Democrats got used to bullying Republicans, and Republicans forgot how to stand up for themselves.  That all changed when Trump seismically disrupted the status quo, and Democrats and establishment Republicans went nuts.  Democrats lost their stronghold over Republicans, and the Republican establishment didn't know what hit them: they couldn't control someone who burned their playbook and didn't care about perceptions. 

Taking the high road is admirable, but if you continue to come up short, you are going to have to find another path if you want to win.  The new path forged by Trump is that of punching back with whatever you've got — facts, insults, rumors, truths — and, duh!  It's working, and Democrats don't like that.  Neither does Joe Walsh or Trump's remaining challenger, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. 
  
Walsh labeled Trump a "dictator" and "king" and said he withdrew from the race because the Republican party had become an unbeatable cult of Trump.  Walsh couldn't be more wrong.  Cultists follow their leaders with blind faith and, like automatons, comport themselves exactly how the cult leader instructs them.  Trump, on the contrary, is doing what we want him to do — what we've wanted every Republican president, presidential candidate, and congressperson to do for decades.

That's not a cult; it's literally the definition of a Democratic Republic — we vote for representatives to do what we want them to do.  If they don't, we vote for others who will.  We are not blindly following a manifesto that Trump drafted in the bowels of his basement, but abiding by a Constitution that has withstood the test of time.  Our "Kool-Aid" is the relatively benign patriotism and flag-waving that have been a staple of the American ethos.

Cultists see no faults in their cult leaders.  They see them as G-d — omnipotent.  Omniscient.  Trump-supporters see his weaknesses and faults clearly, and, frankly, he doesn't hide them.  He's comfortable in his imperfect skin.

But — and this is what NeverTrumps, Walsh, the entirety of the left wing, and the Democrat Media Complex still do not fully comprehend — the flawless, slick, well dressed, well spoken, polite presidential candidates of the past who repeatedly let us down (like Romney, who...oops, did it again) and saw compromise versus commitment to conservatism as the only way to govern didn't work for the average American anymore.   They alienated vast swaths of our broad middle class and allowed the left-wing fifth column to march into our homes, schools, houses of worship, and workplaces and destroy our families and our futures and trample our civil rights.

The intolerance and hate, of which we are daily accused, oozes from the pores of most left-wingers.  They call us the most loathsome of names and marginalize us, and we are told to make nice.  They try to destroy our president, accuse him of treason, impeach and remove him, tear this country in half for three years, ridicule his supporters, and then we are told to turn the other cheek, call for unity, and move forward.  Sometimes.

Other times you have to call people out for what they have done and demand accountability.  Trump deftly demonstrated this as they escorted Lt. Col. Vindman out of the White House and recalled that colossal boobenheimer Sondland.

Democrats are experts at fake outrage, fake sincerity, and transferring all of their insincerity and provocation to the Republicans.  Take Debbie Dingle dingling around on Fox News, trying to look sincere and wringing her hands, brow furrowed with fake worry about how divided the country is, insisting she is open-minded about working together, and then she does an about-face as she becomes divisive talking about how divisive Trump's non-divisive State of the Union is. 

Democrats don't want unity or collaboration.  Their messaging post-SOTU and post-acquittal has been  It's not over yet, my pretty.  Meanwhile, they shredded the Constitution, denying the accused president any due process, and literally shredded the SOTU speech, then promised to continue to investigate, "do oversight," and impeach over and over until they destroy the country, the president, or both.  They can't win 2020 on merit, so they have to win with chaos.

Like a kid throwing a tantrum knowing eventually he will get his way as long as he doesn't stop screaming, Democrats will keep it up as long as they think we will cave after enough of us have been broken, bankrupted, and canceled.  Trump punched back, making clear we won't capitulate, and that has knocked them so far off their game that they are, as we say in Yiddish, vertutzt.

When another choice emerged (and it could have been anyone, but this time it was Trump) who understood us, understood we'd been shafted and shivved, it didn't matter if he was a smooth talker, a great rhetorician, an experienced politician, or even groomed in the manner we'd become accustomed to. 

Trump's entire appeal was I get you, I see what's happened, I see what you want, and I will fight to get you that.  I will not be bullied or pushed into compromises for the sake of compromise unless it directly benefits you.  I'm not perfect and don't pretend to be.  I haven't been consistent in my political beliefs, but I am firmly grounded now.  I don't need this job but feel a sense of duty because I see how it can be fixed and no one else seems to get that or be willing to do what has to be done to right this ship.  I will work for you every day, and I'm not just saying that like other politicians do — although you will have to take a leap of faith on that.  Try me.  If I fail to deliver, vote for the next guy.

So we went with Trump, with our eyes wide open.  We see clearly who he is and how he lived his life and, so far, how he has fought for us.  That doesn't make us cultists.  It just means we are discerning voters. 

In a way, I think we have made Trump a better man — a man maybe he never realized he could be.  Meanwhile, guys like Joe Walsh and Mitt Romney and their newfound pals Bernie Sanders and Adam Schiff will be relics of the past, residing on the ash heap of history...with the rest of the dirtbags.