Monday, December 09, 2019

Eat At Your Own Risk


Member of Freedom Caucus and of House Judiciary Committee and sex-crimes apologist:
Less taxes and regulation, more freedom for you and your family. Also, more food poisoning. The Hill in September reported

A new rule, finalized today, would reduce the number of government food safety inspectors in pork plants by 40 percent and remove most of the remaining inspectors from production lines. In their place, a smaller number of company employees — who are not required to receive any training — would conduct the “sorting” tasks that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) previously referred to as “inspection.” The rule would also allow companies to design their own microbiological testing programs to measure food safety rather than requiring companies to meet the same standard. 

Equally alarming, the new rule would remove all line speed limits in the plants, allowing companies to speed up their lines with abandon. With fewer government inspectors on the slaughter lines, there would be fewer trained workers watching out for consumer safety. Faster line speeds would make it harder for the limited number of remaining meat inspectors and plant workers to do their jobs.

The experience from a long-running pilot project that involved five large hog slaughterhouses offers some insight into the possible impact of such radical deregulation. Consumer groups reviewed the government’s data from the five pilot plants and other plants of comparable size. They found that the plants with fewer inspectors and faster lines had more regulatory violations than others....

It’s not only consumers of meat who would pay a price for this misguided and dangerous new rule. There are more than 90,000 pork slaughterhouse workers whose health and limbs are already at risk under the current line speed limit of 1,106 hogs per hour. Pork slaughterhouse workers will tell you that they can barely keep up with current line speeds. They work in noisy, slippery workplaces with large knives, hooks and bandsaws, making tens of thousands of forceful repetitive motions on each and every shift to cut and break down the hogs.

The USDA is ignoring three decades of studies indicating that faster line speeds and the forceful nature of the work in meatpacking plants are the root causes of a staggeringly high rate of work-related injuries and illnesses.





In the Democratic presidential race, on the broad topic of deregulation (or its sister, privatization), there has been- as far as I know- no position paper by any of the candidates. and no forum, no town hall, and no debate questions. (If there had been, we would have heard about food safety inspections.) Its absence says a lot, whether about the media, the candidates themselves, or the false narrative that the Democratic Party is tempted by socialism and hurtling leftward.




Share |

Opportunity Squandered, Intentionally


Last month, Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg did more than "apologize" for the stop-and-frisk policy he implemented as mayor of New York City. He conceded error, stating (at :20 of the video below)

Now hindsight is 20-20.  But as crime continues to come down and as we reduce stops and as it continued to come down during the next administration, to its credit, I now see that we could, and should, have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops. I wish we had. I'm sorry we didn't. But I can't change history. However, today I want you to know I realize back then I was wrong and I"m sorry.





At first glance, this appears to contradict his defense of the policy a few years ago:

The contradiction, though, is more apparent than real.  Although Bloomberg has acknowledged the policy was misguided, he still isn't aware of the reason..  In June of 2013 he had contended "For years now critics have been trying to argue that minorities are stopped disproportionately; if you look at the crime numbers that's just not true. The numbers don't lie."

The mayor believed then that because proportionately more blacks than whites (inarguably accurate) commit violent crime that more blacks than whites should be stopped and frisked. He may still believe that.

Nonethless, when she ruled against the city in 2013, Judge Shira Sheindlin had observed

What you're drawing from the regression analysis is if they match well that proves there's no race bias. I'm saying it may be precisely the opposite. The closer the match may prove that the officer is saying that since Blacks commit crimes, I should stop Blacks to the same percentage as crime suspects. It's a worrisome argument.

It's worrisome not only because it's facially discriminatory but because it's illogical. While blacks are more likely to live in unstable and impoverished neighborhoods and thus more often run afoul of the law, the disparity dissipates within a given geographical area.   Hence, applying police resources in a particular part of town, then stopping more minorities disproportionately, is a case of double counting.

Evidently, Bloomberg does not realize that the problem with stop and frisk in NYC was that targeting blacks is unconstitutional and ineffective, as statistics indicated.   Instead, he stated "I now see that we could, and should, have acted sooner and acted faster to cut the stops,"  suggesting that fewer individuals should have been stopped rather than fewer individuals because of the color of their skin.

A "teachable moment," lost.  Anti-gun activist Mike Bloomberg could have noted that his experience as a big-city mayor has taught him two things. One of the means to reduce violence in neighborhoods plagued by crime is reducing the number of illegal firearms in circulation.  However, even that critical goal should not be pursued in a manner which promotes racial discrimination.  His choice not to do so eliminates the only worthy rationale for his candidacy.  






Share |

Thursday, December 05, 2019

Punch Up, Not Down


"I don't hate him. I am quite fond of him, actually" might have seemed a little too sarcastic. "I don't hate him, nor do I dislike eating him up and spitting him out whenever I have the privilege of talking to him" might have been too honest for a public accustomed to Donald Trump's lies, over-sensitivity of public figures, and politically correct language from right, left, and center.

Nonetheless, there must have been a better approach than when

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi minced no words with a reporter Thursday who asked at the end of a press conference if she hates President Trump. Pelosi called the president "a coward" and "cruel," but she said she still prays for him — and she warned the reporter, "Don't mess with me."

As Pelosi walked out of her weekly press conference — soon after announcing that the Democrat-controlled House will begin drafting impeachment articles against Mr. Trump — Sinclair Broadcasting reporter James Rosen called out, "Do you hate the president, Madam Speaker?"

Nancy Pelosi, occupying arguably the third most important position in the USA government, thus picked a fight with a reporter or, rather, allowed him to pick one with her.  It should be beneath the Speaker of the House to elevate a reporter, especially one with the loathsome Sinclair. Still

The question stopped Pelosi in her tracks. She turned to face Rosen directly.

"I don't hate anybody," she said, pointing at him. "I don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the world."

Rosen pushed back on Pelosi saying he had "accused" her of hating the president. He pointed out that Rep. Doug Collins (R-Georgia) claimed during Wednesday's impeachment hearing that Democrats want to impeach the president simply because they don't like him.

Pelosi then returned to her podium.

"I think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence," she said. "I think he is cruel when he doesn't deal with helping our Dreamers, of which we are very proud. I think he's in denial about the climate crisis."

Donald Trump is a coward, and it's a message Democrats should pound much more frequently.  However, if gun violence is to be Pelosi's example- and there are others more indicative of cowardice- the cowardice lies in obeisance to the National Rifle Association.  And why she and her Democratic colleagues are very proud of the Dreamers, however righteous their cause, is a mystery.  The climate crisis is critical, but has little or nothing to do with either immigrants or murders by firearm. (In a very broad sense, there is the impact of climate upon refugee movements, a global issue requiring extensive explanation.) Then

But those issues, she said, can be resolved in an election. She argued the impeachment process was about the Constitution and the president allegedly violating his oath of office.

"As a Catholic, I resent you're using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me," Pelosi said. "I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time."

 "So don't mess with me when it comes to words like that," she concluded. She then left the room.





Regrettably, Speaker Pelosi made the issue about her: "so don't mess with me...," she warned.  The first word people associate with Nancy Pelosi is not "love" and no one thinks she prays for the President. Even if true, it's not believable.

She needed to stay on message, and that message is not "Pelosi" but "Trump." Maybe that message should have been the cruelty of separating children from their parents as policy; or that of subjecting 700,000 people to hunger, disease, and even to death by throwing them off food stamps; or perhaps of inviting ISIS to exterminate our Kurdish allies in northern Syria.

Or it could be cowardice, such as giving vetoes: Putin and Erdogan over American foreign policy, the gun lobby on gun safety, pro-life extremists over women's reproductive choices, or well-heeled lobbyists on tax policy. The latter works well with a cruelty theme also, in which the middle- and working-classes are sacrificed for the rich.

Emphasize only one theme and let the fact-checkers nitpick, however legitimately, over the details of the charges. As Donald Trump understands better than anyone, the message is repeated over and over by the mainstream media, alternative media, and social media and has a far greater impact than any attempt at refutation.

James Rosen's question- actually, a charge, as Pelosi understood- was a diversion from issues. However, it also was a hanging curve and an opportunity wasted while the rule of law and the constitutional principle of checks and balances are at great risk.




Share |

Wednesday, December 04, 2019

Holiday Strategy



The day before Thanksgiving, Max Boot summarized the history of the "War on Christmas" movement, including the "notorious racist and anti-Semite Henry Ford," the far-right John Birch Society and more recently, one-time Fox News hosts John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly. According to Boot, O'Reilly in 2004 claimed

Christmas was “under siege.” He attributed this to an “anti-Christian” blitz by “secular progressives” intent on foisting “gay marriage, partial birth abortion, euthanasia, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation, and many other progressive visions” on innocent, God-fearing Americans. The following year, O’Reilly’s colleague John Gibson published a book called “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday is Worse Than You Thought.”

With the absence of any deaths or victims filling the hospital wards, there obviously is no "war."  Contrary to Boot's view, though, there has been an attack upon Christmas as a Christian holiday, but one never launched by liberals, Democrats, Socialists, big government or any one else of that variety.

It was launched, weaponized, and is now sustained by the business community and especially the retail sector, which recognized that secularizing the holiday would release the acquisitive behavior of the American consumer, which would trigger enormous profit. Capitalism and secularism, it turns out, are far more compatible than either conservatives or liberals/progressives are ever willing to admit.

This is best understood by someone who is simultaneously an unusually rapacious and corrupt capitalist and, before he discovered the evangelical base of the Republican Party, was openly contemptuous of Christianity.  Although he does not recognize that connection, Boot notes 'It did not take long for Trump — Fox News’s most faithful and credulous viewer — to join the “War on Christmas' as a full-throated combatant.

That was a wise tactical move on behalf of the narcissistic salesman from Queens and Manhattan, New York.  So now in Sunrise, Florida

"You know, some people want to change the name Thanksgiving. They don't want to use the term Thanksgiving," the president told the crowd of supporters, without explaining what he was referring to.

"That was true also with Christmas, but now everybody's using Christmas again. Remember, I said that?" he said, comparing the shadowy threat to the gluttonous day's moniker to his dubious claim that people had stopped telling each other "Merry Christmas" until he was elected.

"Now, we're going to have to do a little work on Thanksgiving. People have different ideas why it shouldn't be called Thanksgiving," he said, again without elaborating on the identity of the feast's alleged detractors.

"But everybody in this room I know loves the name Thanksgiving and we're not changing it," he defiantly declared.

You know, some people want to change the name ‘Thanksgiving.’ They don’t want to use the term ‘Thanksgiving.’ And that was true also with Christmas, but now everybody’s using Christmas again."





Obviously- and as the President very likely knows- there is almost no one, and no one in the public eye, who wants to "change the name 'Thanksgiving.'" Nor is it true that "everybody's using Christmas again" but Trump long ago learned the advantages of continuous, rapid-fire lying. 

Moreover, he knows the advantage of pledging something he can't miss on. "We're not changing it," he defiantly declared.  Of course they're not, because no one particularly wants it changed. During the election campaign (next year, not the one begun when Trump filed on the evening of January 20, 2017 for re-election), he'll be able to claim "Thanksgiving" as one of his promises fulfilled.

Alternatively, President Trump next year can gin up fear and paranoia by charging that persons named or unnamed are trying to abolish Thanksgiving. He may claim that he- and he alone, the "chosen one"- is standing up to the forces disloyal to the USA and to Christianity. 

That would be creepy, dishonest, and demagogic. It does sound a lot like Donald J. Trump.




Share |

Tuesday, December 03, 2019

For Fun And Profit


Will the real Tucker Carlson stand up? Better yet, go away. In his bid to defend Donald Trump and the modern, authoritative Russian state, Tucker Carlson on Monday night (beginning at 2:40 of the video below) maintained

We now know it's not really a story. There was no Russia collusion. Russia didn't "hack our democracy." The whole thing was a talking point, a ludicrous talking point invented by the Hillary Clinton campaign on or about November 9, 2016 to explain the unexpected defeat in the last presidential election.

"We lost and we shouldn't have lost." From the start that has been the only argument that underpins the Russia conspiracy theory. And now, thanks to a multi-million dollar investigation that extended over a period of years that the rest of us had to endure inclusive of everything else. This was everything , that conspiracy theory had to die; it was killed, in fact, by Robert Mueller.





This is awfully slick. Carlson states "there was no Russia collusion," though the investigation by the Special Counsel did not evaluate whether there was collusion, instead whether there was a criminal conspiracy, for which burden of proof is considerably and significantly higher. In April, lawyers and scholars posting at Lawfare explained

As the report is careful to explain, “collusion” is neither a criminal offense nor a legal term of art with a clear definition, despite its frequent use in discussions of the special counsel’s mandate. Mueller and his team instead examined the relationships between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government through the far narrower lens of criminal conspiracy. To establish a criminal conspiracy, a prosecutor must show, among other elements, that two or more persons agreed to either violate a federal criminal law or defraud the United States.

Cagily, Carlson switched to claiming "that conspiracy theory had to die; it was killed, in fact, by Robert Mueller." Although Mueller did probe whether there was a conspiracy, Lawfare continued

This “meeting of the minds” is ultimately the piece the Mueller team felt it could not prove, leading it not to pursue any conspiracy charges against members of the Trump campaign, even as it pursued them against Russian agents.

This conclusion is far from the full vindication that chants of “no collusion” imply, a fact driven home by the detailed factual record the Mueller report puts forward. In some cases, there was indeed a meeting of the minds between Trump campaign officials and Russia, just not in pursuit of a criminal objective. In others, members of the Trump campaign acted criminally—as evidenced by the guilty pleas and indictments that the Mueller team secured—but did so on their own. At times, these efforts even worked toward the same objective as the Russian government, but on seemingly parallel tracks as opposed to in coordination. None of this amounted to a criminal conspiracy that the Mueller team believed it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. But the dense network of interactions, missed opportunities, and shared objectives between the Trump campaign and the Russian government remains profoundly disturbing.

Mueller did not "kill" anything. Investigations are not adept at finding what they're looking for or, in the case of the one conducted by the Special Counsel's office, what they're eager to overlook. "Mueller," Elie Mystal wrote after release of the Special Counsel's report "declined to seek subpoenas to compel testimony from Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, or Eric Trump," among them the individuals best situated to know of any conspiracy.

Mueller was, as Steve Bannon suggested, a Marine sent to do a hitman's job, which was in part to determine whether there was a conspiracy to install as President an individual from the same political party as the investigator. Shockingly, the ex-Marine couldn't, or wouldn't,  find the evidence sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a political campaign and a foreign nation had knowingly colluded to manipulate an American presidential election.

Tucker Carlson is not ignorant nor a useful idiot.  Naveed Jamali seems to have figured him out:





Share |

Monday, December 02, 2019

Best Of Luck With Those Issues


This not about Ilhan Omar or anti-Semitism, nor even about Michael Bloomberg or apologists for Communist China.  This pertains to Democratic party activists or, alternatively, the race to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.

In a segment Saturday on Michael Smerconish's CNN program, proudly centrist and Independent host Smerconish and NYU professor Scott Galloway fawned over Michael Bloomberg's "evidence-based" or "data-driven" governing. At 5:17 in the video below, Smerconish's producer puts onto the screen an excerpt, from a recent Politico article, which explains why strategists for the ex-New York mayor believes he could be nominated: 

The evidence for the alleged noncraziness is based on polling, an emphatically low regard for the current field of Democratic candidates, and an emphatically high regard for Bloomberg’s purported assets. These include a compelling life story, a record of accomplishment as mayor, credibility with activists on gun control and climate change, and an ability to nationalize the race this coming winter and early spring with a historic torrent of money and messaging.





It would be enervating if someone (other than Bloomberg, friend of plutocrats everywhere) passionate about gun safety or climate change were to become the Democratic nominee and elected President. It won't happen.

Do we recall Washington governor Jay Inslee and his campaign dedicated to fighting climate change? Gone. How about Beto O'Rourke (who turned out to be a bad candidate, partly for other reasons) and his passion for gun control? Gone.

Ilhan Omar is not gone. She's still a member of the US House of Representatives, still (barely) arguably an anti-Semite, and victim of a plot to assassinate her by someone threatening to "put a bullet in her (expletive) skull," evidently because she is a Muslim.  Last month, after Patrick W. Carlineo Jr. had pled guilty in federal district court and was scheduled to be sentenced, Representative Omar sent a letter to the Judge urging leniency because

The answer to hate is not more hate; it is compassion.  Punishing the defendant with a lengthy prison sentence or a burdensome financial fine would not  would not rehabilitate him.It would not repair the harm he has caused. It would only increase his anger and resentment.

Paired with the rest of Omar's argument, the letter is misguided on several levels. However, as John Oliver would put it, the point is that Patrick Carlineo Jr. should not be the poster boy for the need for criminal justice reform. An FBI agent had signed the complaint against him and

About a week later, the authorities found a loaded .45-caliber handgun, three rifles, two shotguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition at Mr. Carlineo’s home, prosecutors said. Because of a 1998 felony conviction, he was legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

In Omar's case, reasonable regulation of dangerous weapons is merely a nice thing to support because the public overwhelmingly supports it. However, it takes a back seat to compassion for felons.

It would be less of a problem if Omar were alone. However, she is not. In June I wrote of passage in the House of Representatives of

the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would have would have "required background checks in private sales, including gun shows and online transactions. by a vote of 220 to 209.The bill would ensure that all sales (with a few exceptions) are run through the national criminal background check system. Having passed the House with 232 votes from Democrats but only 8 from Republicans, it was dead on arrival in the Senate.

The bill included an amendment (since reintroduced in the House by a Virginia Republican but stalled in committee) to require that law enforcement be notified "when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check," which notably would have included illegal immigrants. After first being rejected, the amendment passed the House with 194 Republican votes (one against) but with only 26 Democratic Representatives in favor and 208 opposed.

Let that sink in.  The party which supports sensible gun regulation overwhelmingly rejected a measure which would have effected notification of law enforcement when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check. Presumably, it would have been acceptable were it not likely to inconvenience a few illegal immigrants who wanted to buy a firearm.

Support for illegal immigration or criminal justice reform.  Whatever the sentiments of the Democratic popular base- more positive for the latter than for the former- Democratic elites will sacrifice gun control for other causes.   And concern about climate change is sufficiently weak even in the Democratic Party that a legitimate presidential candidate who based his campaign on the threat it poses was out almost before he was in.

If Michael Bloomberg is predicating his presidential run on the basis of the interest he has shown in gun control and/or global warming, his chances are slim and none, with slim on its way out of town.  It would be as likely to survive as would have Ilhan Omar, had the man whom she suggested is the mere victim of "systemic alienation and neglect" had his way.



Share |

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Funny Man


When Vice evaluated whether Donald J. Trump really acts like a mob boss

"I see many more differences than similarities," Diego Gambetta, a professor of social theory and an expert on mafias at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, told me of the Trump–mob boss comparison. "[Mob bosses] do not talk much at all. They measure their words with great care. They do not gesticulate or pull faces. They do not boast. They do not, except in the most exceptional circumstances, display their visceral feelings. The little information they pass to one another tends to be accurate, and they certainly do not cheaply resort to insulting and offending people, or issuing crass threats. They are professional in intimidation. They are not cardboard gangsters."

That's one man's opinion. And while the President's antics may not mimic those of an organized crime capo, an associate of his knows even better than Trump how it's done. In 2000, before New York mayor Rudy Giuliani would acquire his completely undeserved reputation for the (inept) handling of the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the Los Angeles Times observed

Before he was elected mayor in 1993, Giuliani earned a reputation as a no-nonsense federal prosecutor bent on breaking the mob.

As U.S. attorney in 1986, he successfully prosecuted the heads of three organized crime groups--Genovese crime family boss Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, Colombo boss Carmine “Junior” Persico and Lucchese boss Anthony “Tony Ducks” Corallo. Each received sentences of 100 years in prison.

Then as mayor, Giuliani spearheaded the effort to free the Fulton Fish Market of mob influence.

As head of the office which prosecuted several mobsters, Guiliani learned a thing or two, including how to threaten subtly.  He also worked and played in New York City, as Trump famously and corruptly did.  And so on November 23 the President's personal attorney commented

that he has “insurance” if the president tries to turn on him while defending their relationship amid the ongoing House impeachment inquiry.

Giuliani in a wide-ranging interview on Fox News declined to say if he has spoken with Trump in recent days, saying, "You can assume that I talk to him early and often."

He then touted what he called a "very, very good relationship" with Trump before knocking unspecified comments about him in the press, calling them "totally insulting."

I’ve seen things written like he’s going to throw me under the bus. When they say that, I say he isn’t, but I have insurance," Giuliani told Fox News's Ed Henry.

"This is ridiculous," Giuliani continued. "We are very good friends. He knows what I did was in order to defend him, not to dig up dirt on [former Vice President Joe] Biden."

Giuliani has made similar comments in the past, including during an interview with The Guardian earlier this month. Asked in that interview if he was nervous Trump might try to throw him under the bus, he reportedly laughed and said he was not concerned.

"I do have very, very good insurance, so if he does, all my hospital bills will be paid," Giuliani said in the phone interview, according to The Guardian. Giuliani's lawyer, who was also on the call, reportedly interjected to say that he was "joking."





Funny as a crutch, Rudy.  The former prosecutor and mayor may be ready for a career in stand-up with that kind of humor. Were he actually joking, there would be no need to point it out. Therefore, Giuliani's attorney, being the legitimate lawyer his client once was, could not allow himself to be associated with a threat and had to pretend it was a joke.

Later that day, Giuliani claimed that he had been "sarcastic"and that his remark "relates to the files in my safe" on Joe Biden. There has been no word whether anyone believed him.

It's the most effective way of sending a message. Announce that you have a shield ("insurance") against retaliation by Trump, but if the latter goes with the program, Rudy can make it worthwhile for him because he has the goods against the President's enemy. It's an easy call for Donald Trump. Play ball, and kill two birds with one stone.

Squeal and I'll break your legs. Just joking.




Share |

Friday, November 29, 2019

Maybe He Meant "Child Separation"


Perhaps the problem is prep schools- probably not, but maybe. The Washington Post reports

A liberal ex-governor walks into a bar, followed by a conservative Trump administration official.

Instead of a punchline, what followed, one witness said, was a “shame-invoking tirade” by Martin O’Malley, the former Democratic governor of Maryland, directed at Ken Cuccinelli II, the former Virginia attorney general who is acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

The two political polar opposites crossed paths Wednesday night at the Dubliner, a Capitol Hill Irish pub popular on Thanksgiving Eve with Gonzaga College High School graduates. Both men attended the school, graduating five years apart in the 1980s, and both said they were there to visit with former classmates.

Siobhan Arnold, who was visiting from Philadelphia, had just met O’Malley at the bar when Cuccinelli walked in. Soon the two men were face-to-face, she said, with O’Malley excoriating Cuccinelli over the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

O’Malley said “something about his [Cuccinelli’s] grandparents,” Arnold said in an interview. Cuccinelli said little if anything in reply, she added, quickly leaving the area.

“O’Malley was shouting,” Arnold said. “I don’t think Cuccinelli was responding. I think he’s like, ‘Time to go. Just got here and I’m leaving.’ He pretty much retreated.”

O’Malley disputed Arnold’s account on one point: He said in a text message that he wasn’t shouting, but raised his voice “just to be heard” in the pub.

Both O’Malley and Cuccinelli described a confrontation that involved O’Malley hotly criticizing Cuccinelli’s politics. And both said they eventually ended up face-to-face with O’Malley asking Cuccinelli if he wanted to throw a punch.

But the men disagreed on who invaded the other’s personal space. Cuccinelli said O’Malley, after pushing through a group, bumped up against him, an action O’Malley denied. O’Malley said Cuccinelli “put his chest up in mine, to which I said, ‘What is it, Ken? You want to take a swing?’”

O’Malley, a former Baltimore mayor who was Maryland governor from 2007 to 2015, unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. He said that when he spotted Cuccinelli, he unloaded his frustration at the Trump administration’s separation of migrant children from their parents and detention of immigrants in chain-link enclosures at the southern U.S. border.

(Cucinelli's questionable version of events can be seenhere.)

The son of immigrant parents? Cages children? Works for a fascist president? Accurate so far, though reasonable people can quibble (barely) about the last. However

"We all let him know how we felt about him putting refugee immigrant kids in cages," O'Malley said, adding that such practices were "certainly not what we were taught by the Jesuits at Gonzaga."

If it wasn't taught at Gonzaga High School in the District of Columbia, it may have been at Punahou School in Honolulu, where a young Barack Obama matriculated. In a piece in April rightly criticizing President Trump for claiming that his child separation policy mimicked that of President Obama, the Editorial Board of the Baltimore Sun explained

Now what makes this claim so insidious is that there’s a nugget of truth here but only the tiniest of one. That is to say that children were sometimes separated from adults at the border in limited cases such as suspected human trafficking or when family ties appeared doubtful or they were simply unaccompanied minors, a practice that took place during George W. Bush’s presidency as well. What raised a furor, and caused the number of incarcerated children to skyrocket, was the so-called “zero tolerance” policy begun in pilot program in 2017 and then greatly expanded by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions one year ago. Under this wholly Trump administration policy, all adults crossing the border illegally were treated as criminals and their children housed apart from them. This affected thousands of children and it was handled so poorly that the Department of Homeland Security still hasn’t offered a full accounting of how many youngsters were involved and whether they were all successfully reunited with their families. The president ended the practice last summer.





Truth be told, not every policy initiated, or continued, by Saint Obama was a good one, though this one probably was reasonable and virtually unavoidable (video above from 6/18).  It's very easy to criticize President Trump. It's also righteous and means the critic is invariably correct. It's not necessary to erase history, as Martin O'Malley has, to do so.



Share |

Thursday, November 28, 2019

Follow The Money


If you are scornful toward the Democratic Party and want to ignore very recent American history, you  are Dylan Ratigan and tweet


House leadership decided to launch an impeachment inquiry when it did because, as Paul Kane noted at the time in The Washington Post

after texting and holding conference calls, several dozen freshman Democrats stepped out from the protective shield of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). They were ready, particularly those with national security backgrounds, to push to impeach the president whose election had propelled so many of them to run for office last year.

“It’s interesting. We’re all trained to make hard decisions in tough climates,” said Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), a Navy helicopter pilot and Russian policy expert who served as a federal prosecutor before winning a longtime GOP seat in 2018. “This was actually not that hard a decision. This was such a clear violation of our norms, such a clear violation of our national security.”

.... Sherrill and six other freshmen with credentials in the military, defense or U.S. intelligence published an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for an impeachment inquiry after Trump acknowledged that he pressed Ukrainian leaders to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a leading Democratic rival for the 2020 election.

That proved seismic, helping move other wavering Democrats from swing districts off the fence.

It proved seismic because Pelosi needed those seven and the others.

It was seismic because this is 2019 and the Democratic Party, formerly perceived as the party of  "godless Communism," wants to position itself as the defenders of national security. The seven, perhaps recognizing this erogenous zone, wrote

Our lives have been defined by national service. We are not career politicians. We are veterans of the military and of the nation’s defense and intelligence agencies. Our service is rooted in the defense of our country on the front lines of national security.

And it proved seismic because five of the seven are women and (pick one; my choice is the second) this is 2019 or Nancy Pelosi views herself as a mentor of strong Democratic women succeeding in national politics.

With all that, the focus on Ukraine/Bidens probably was an error.  Kane quotes the Clinton Administration veteran, Donna Shalala of Florida, remarking “The caucus is going to stick together, the speaker speaks for us now. And my district will understand why we have to stand up now.”

But it is a truism of American politics that unless the USA is involved in a shooting war or there is panic about terrorists, few voters care about foreign policy. And now, Democrats appear to be trying to impeach a President over a country called "Ukraine," which a lot of people don't know about and many don't care about.

Numerous voters hear "Ukraine" and "Biden" and believe that it's simply a matter of two parties squabbling over a partisan issue, a misconception reinforced by ludicrous GOP claims that Democrats are trying to overturn an election (in which their candidate was preferred by fewer voters than the other, but never mind).  However, if Speaker Pelosi had chosen, the House could have considered additional charge(s) and

That would be Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which bars federal officeholders from accepting gifts from foreign governments. It is derived from the Latin word "emolumentum," meaning "profit" or "gain." And another prohibition in Article II prohibits the president from receiving domestic emoluments.

Trump's continuing ownership of hotels and restaurants, such as Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., where foreign leaders often stay, has spurred three federal lawsuits. Two courts of appeals are scheduled to hold oral arguments in December.

Deepak Gupta, an attorney litigating two of the lawsuits, says Trump's presidency is "a walking, talking Emoluments Clause violation" because Trump never divested himself of his real estate holdings.

"The Framers were obsessed with the possibility of corruption," Gupta says.





Corruption. That is something to which people respond more than they do to "Ukraine" or "the Bidens" or "quid pro quo." They also respond to the reality that they are being cheated, ripped off, and plundered- or would, if Democrats had not decided virtually to ignore it.

Nancy Pelosi, who stated in June that she wants Donald Trump "in prison," not impeached, presumably has her eyes on the prize and recognizes a worthy goal when she sees it. But first, Trump must be removed from office, through the impeachment process (unlikely) or defeat in November of 2020, lest the statute of limitations kicks in.  Hopefully, she's still dedicated to the sentiment she expressed 5+ months ago and sees clearly what I don't.



Share |

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Challenging Democratic Voters


Christina Cauterucci, who periodically writes reproductive rights pieces for Slate, observes

Historically, anti-abortion voters have been more likely than pro-choice voters to say they wouldn’t vote for a candidate that doesn’t share their views on abortion. Political analysts have taken that to mean that abortion impels more conservatives to the voting booth than liberals, making it a better bet for Republicans than Democrats to lean into their party-line positions.

Cauterucci cites polls from ABC News/Washington Post, Reuters/Ipsos, NBC News, PBS, and Pew which show increasing support for the pro-choice position among voters, especially (though not exclusively) Democrats. Nonetheless

Given their new Supreme Court appointments and their control over statehouses and governorships, Republicans have finally taken the extremist abortion rhetoric they’ve been hawking for decades to its logical conclusion. In doing so, they’ve given voters the opportunity to imagine two Americas: one governed by the abortion bans of the far right, the other by the protections of Roe v. Wade. The polls are clear on which set of policies they prefer. Voters might even be motivated enough to do something to save the abortion rights they’ve increasingly come to support: Translate those preferences into votes.

As a law professor I once had (in another field of study) enjoyed saying when he posed a dilemma to the class, it depends.

The rise in support for abortion rights, as Cauterucci recognizes, is due primarily to the recent crackdown on choice in Alabama, Georgia, and elsewhere.  Many Americans long have understood that returning abortion policy to the states, as overturning Roe would do, would impel restrictions unacceptable to most people.





Nonetheless, while Democratic politicians have for decades ignored the critical role of the Supreme Court, GOP politicians have emphasized its importance, especially to white evangelicals, who hear "abortion"  and eagerly pull the Republican lever. Democrats have forfeited the issue of the Supreme Court, a tactical error because while there is still a substantial minority of individuals supporting substantial abortion restrictions

Most Americans want the landmark abortion ruling Roe vs. Wade to stay put — but they’re far from satisfied with the current state of abortion laws.

Some 77% of Americans want the U.S. Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade in place, according to an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released Friday, while just 13% want it overturned and another 11% are unsure.

Voters are deeply suspicious, and somewhat hostile to, judges. Yet Democratic officeholders and office seekers, often identifying with the legal profession, rarely stress the relevance of federal courts and have assiduously avoided criticizing them.  But if voters are to be "motivated enough to do something to save the abortion rights they've increasingly come to support," this needs to stop, and now is the time.



                                                 HAPPY THANKSGIVING



Share |

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Chosen For What?


In July 2015 Governor Rick Perry

said Trumpism was no more than "a barking carnival act" and "a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense".

"I will not go quiet when this cancer on conservatism threatens to metastasize into a movement of mean-spirited politics that will send the Republican Party to the same place it sent the Whig Party in 1854: the graveyard," said Perry.

My, how times have changed. Now

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry says President Donald Trump is God’s “chosen one” to lead the nation, comparing the president to several Old Testament kings.

“God used imperfect people all through history,” Perry, a former Texas governor, said in an interview with Fox News over the weekend. “King David wasn’t perfect, Saul wasn’t perfect, Solomon wasn’t perfect.”

Perry told Fox News that he gave the president a one-page memo of “imperfect” Old Testament kings who were sent by God to do great things. He framed his thinking as part of his evangelical beliefs — noting that he also thought former President Barack Obama was chosen by God.





Previously a cancerous, barking carnival act, Trump since has been chosen by God to lead the USA, which is a rather harsh commentary on God and His plans for this nation. It is, though, possible that Perry was right previously (as he obviously was) and is right now.  Theologian John Piper wrote in 2014

.... the Bible portrays God’s relation to nations as tolerating sin up to a point, and then bringing calamity. God said to Abram that his descendants would spend four hundred years in a foreign land as slaves (Genesis 15:13). Then God would “bring judgment on the nation that they serve” (Genesis 15:14).

Therefore, God may in fact have chosen Donald Trump, chosen him to punish the nation for its sin and iniquity, however He might see it. This might even be consistent with Perry's suggestion- which was short of an explicit claim- that Trump was sent to do great things.  The great things might be for Turkey, Syria, or Russia- just not for the USA.

Or perhaps Perry is simply blowing smoke up his boss' posterior because he once argued that the previous President chosen by God 

hasn’t shown any “engagement to stop ISIS,” which he attributed to the president’s “lack of being able to really connect the dots” and “lack of executive experience.” […]

“I think that’s the reason ISIS has gone forward, I think that’s the reason Putin is standing there basically laughing at us as we have one lack of impact after another in the global world that we’re living in,” he said.


Maybe Donald Russia and Barack H. Obama were chosen by God, in which case Rick Perry has no more regard for God's judgement as he has for Barack Obama and Donald Trump.



Share |

Monday, November 25, 2019

Cowardly Hypocrites


On November 15, 2019 the Columbus Dispatch reported

Those performing an abortion in Ohio would be subject to the death penalty under a new ban proposed by “pro-life” groups and Republican legislators.

Except for a very narrow exception when the life of the woman is in danger, abortions would constitute aggravated murder under House Bill 413. Offenders “shall suffer death or be imprisoned for life,” the Ohio Revised Code says.

Margie Christie, president of the Right to Life Action Coalition of Ohio and executive director of Dayton Right to Life, was asked whether abortionists should be subject to the death penalty.

“Based on circumstance—would leave that up to a courts and/or jury,” she replied via email.

That means "yes." Unless there is a mandatory minimum- and it's doubtful that the death penalty is a mandatory minimum for anything anywhere in the country- the sentencing authority (usually the judge, occasionally a jury) can order a sentence less than the maximum allowable by statute.

But abortion, many Republican politicians in Ohio believe, is an unmitigated evil. We learn

After years of incremental restrictions on abortion, two dozen Ohio lawmakers say they’re ready to outlaw the practice for good in the Buckeye State.

“The time for regulating evil and compromise is over,” said Rep. Candice Keller, a Republican from Middletown.

“The time has come to abolish abortion in its entirety and recognize that each individual has the inviolable and inalienable right to life. Only respect for life can be the foundation of a free society that supports peace, justice and integrity.”

House Bill 413 would legally recognize an unborn human as a person.

If you follow abortion politics, you know what comes next:

“Any provider performing an abortion by any method, including but not limited to medical, surgical or chemical methods, will be subject to already existing murder statutes,” the lawmakers said in a press release.

The woman would not be subject to charges. And there is a narrow exception — including a requirement to attempt to implant an ectopic pregnancy into the woman’s uterus — that would allow an abortion to save the woman’s life.





Abortion is, in the view of the forced birth crowd, a contract killing, a repugnant, wicked, and evil practice that must be abolished in its entirety. But the individual who let the contract will walk free.

That's unsurprising, and only in part because it's similar to the law enacted in May in Alabama, in which a  doctor who performs an abortion upon request from a pregnant woman  an be sentenced to up to 99 years in prison. Abortion is murder, according to these laws- except the individual most responsible for the murder is automatically exonerated.

The reason is obvious. Were the woman to be punished, support for the forced birth position would dwindle substantially.  The absence of a criminal penalty for the woman demonstrates that anti-abortion rights legislators typically are hypocrites. And cowards.









Share |

Saturday, November 23, 2019

Issue Avoided


Questions posed at a debate should give candidates an opportunity to shed light upon what they would do in the office for which they are running. Rachel Maddow failed that test when in Atlanta, she asked (beginning at 1:51 of the video below) of four candidates- Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg- a question about impeachment. None of those questions was pertinent because none pertained to any actions they would do if elected President.





Serendipitously, we may have gotten a hint from what six of the candidates said in their closing statement.

Cory Booker pledged to bring "people together to create transformative change, not just beat Donald Trump." Amy Klobuchar wants to "get those independents and moderate Republicans who cannot stomach this guy anymore" to build a coalition and not "just beat Donald Trump." Tulsi Gabbard maintained her "operating principles" would be "inclusion, unity, respect, aloha."Echoing Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg argued "that era must be characterized not by exclusion but by belonging."

Kamala Harris, who appears really, really not to like Donald Trump, nevertheless struck a similar tone, stating "We also need someone who can unify the party and the country and who has the experience of having done that." Even (allegedly) Fightin' Bernie got into the act, arguing "I will lead an administration that will look like America, will end the divisiveness brought by Trump, and bring us together." It is to be wished that Sanders and Harris were being disingenuous.  The others actually appear sincere.

In an upset, Joe Biden didn't say anything as stupid or naive as these statements. However, he set the pace in this cycle (Barack Obama has retired the trophy) for blind faith, contending in May in New Hampshire

I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House — not a joke — you will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends,” he said. “And it’s already beginning. In the House now, you’ve seen people that in fact were not willing to vote for any Democratic initiative, even if they agreed with it, because they didn’t want to be the odd person out if it wasn’t going to pass. There’s no sense in getting politically beaten for something that’s not going to happen. But you are seeing the talk, even the dialogue is changing.

Many of us shook our head or even laughed upon reading this from a guy with decades in politics and eight years serving the Muslim from Kenya (a characterization condoned by those fellow who are going to have an epiphany).

However, Biden's failure to deliver something anywhere as ridiculous as his earlier remarks about GOP intentions, as well as the silly remarks of some of his rivals, suggests that Maddow's question about impeachment, at the beginning of the event, fell way off the mark. Instead of asking the candidates about their approach to impeachment in the Senate or on the campaign trail, the multi-million dollar host would have served the public well with a question such as "If elected President, would you seriously consider pardoning Donald Trump?"

A few of the candidates may have tried to get off the hook by maintaining that the Department of Justice in their administration would be impartial, would evaluate the situation based on the facts at the time, or would see that Justice is done. However, after less than three years of President Trump, few voters still believe the Justice Department ever is likely to be completely objective.

Nor does anyone want to hear it. Democratic voters would be unsatisfied, Republican voters would not be appeased, and independents would be unimpressed with the candidates' lack of resolve. The proper answer- given that a President should not give the Attorney General specific instructions- would be any variation of "I would insist that anyone who is Attorney General in my administration will believe that no one is above the law, and will act accordingly."

Preferably, he or she would make the statement with the emphasis on "no one." Given that six of the candidates responded to the question with some vision that their mission as President would be to encourage Americans to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"- instead of enacting needed change- we should not be surprised if Donald Trump, upon being defeated next November, gets to skate.  

There is, nonetheless, a more positive scenario. I may be putting too much emphasis on boring and bland closing statement segment all too common in televised debates. Better if voters had had the opportunity to hear candidates comment on whether in their Administration Donald Trump would be held accountable to the rule of law than to be subjected to a stupid round of opening questions from someone who demonstrated that being a Rhodes scholar is sound and fury and image, signifying nothing.



Share |

Friday, November 22, 2019

The Not-So-Secret Secret


It was discouraging, albeit unsurprising, when Kristen Welker at the Democratic presidential debate in Atlanta asked (beginning at 19:05 of the video below)

Senator Warren, you are running on Medicare for all. Democrats have been winning elections even in red states with a very different message on health care: protecting Obamacare. Democrats are divided on this issue. What do you say to voters who are worried that your position on Medicare for all could cost you critical votes in the general election?

It was discouraging, albeit unsurprising, when after Warren's reponse Welker asked

I want to ask you the question this way, Senator Sanders. You described your campaign, including your plans for Medicare for all, as a political revolution... President Obama explicitly said the country is, quote, "less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement. The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it," end quote. Is President Obama wrong?

Sanders began his answer with "no, he's right" because the answer to every "is President Obama wrong" question during the primary campaign must be "no, he's right." And of course Warren answered the loaded question posed to her by explaining her program rather than responding to the "why are you advocating a policy people are against?"





Sanders did add "now is the time" to "take on the pharmaceutical industry." That, sans detail, is as much as we can expect from any candidate now that, according to Slate's Jordan Weissman

Recent polling by other organizations has shown even lower levels of support for a single-payer system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey last month found just 41 percent said they backed one, with 56 percent against, while a Fox News poll found 46 percent in favor and 48 percent against. But polling results on health care can be extremely sensitive to how the question is phrased. What makes the Kaiser Family Foundation survey interesting is that it’s been asking the public the same version of its question for more than two years now—“Do you favor or oppose having a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan?”—giving us a picture of how public opinion has evolved. And it suggests that as single payer has become a more contentious political topic during the presidential campaign, it has lost a bit of its shine....

None of this is especially surprising. The phrase “Medicare for All” tended to poll well early on, but its popularity tended to drop once respondents were told it would require them to give up their private insurance. That specific issue has been front and center during the Democratic debates and may have eroded some enthusiasm for the concept. Pure partisanship has probably kicked in a bit as well; as the primary campaign has worn on, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents may have come to associate the idea with Democratic candidates, leading them to reject it.

This was written 5-6 weeks ago and I suspect that recognition of the need to eliminate private health insurance has not grown since then. As their remarks would indicate, both Sanders (though evidently not his ardent supporters) and Warren well recognize this phenomenon.

Joe Biden's approval numbers remain high among Democrats, especially in crucial South Carolina. Pete Buttigieg reportedly has surged to the top of the pack in Iowa and Amy Klobuchar has become at least a little viable. We can only hope that the hostility to single-payer among their these candidates has not contributed to their strength among Democratic primary voters.

Even if it has not, however, the framing of the questions posed to the two progressives, the Vermont and Massachusetts senators, suggests that the notion of procuring health care without a private company as intermediary has lost popularity. Kristen Welker, as network correspondent a straight-news reporter, framed the two questions to reflect conventional opinion and not only her view of reform, assuming that is what it is.

The acceptance of even Democratic, presumably left-liberal, voters of the continued dominance of the insurance industry in health care is one of the 6,000 pound elephants in the room. (A bigger elephant is the decision of President Obama not to endorse former Vice-President Biden for the nomination.)

Either Sanders or Warren, or both, must find a way to slay that elephant (though in such a way PETA won't object, which probably would be determinative in a Democratic primary). Alternatively, they can continue to skirt around the issue, hoping that this phobia declines or doesn't impede their road to the nomination. However, if one chooses the latter path and somehow manages to be nominated and elected, it does not bode well for implementation of comprehensive reform in the President's first term.



Share |

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Dreadful Debate


On Wednesday night, MSNBC got the debate it wanted. Its moderators were Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell, Kristen Welker, and Ashley Parker. If you noticed that all are women, your are the winner and so is MSNBC, which obviously believed that cleansing the team of hosts from all men would serve whatever commercial purpose it had. The selection of moderators did not arise from an interest in spirited debate which would sharpen and/or illuminate differences among candidates on pressing national issues One issue raised revealed a failure among the Democratic candidates but also in the debate format, and particularly with Rachel Maddow.

Whenever there was a question prompted sharp disagreement among candidates, one of the hosts would end it.  Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden disagreeing with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on health care; Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris over what Gabbard calls the "rot" in the Democratic Party vs. Harris' reverence for Barack Obama; Gabbard and Buttigieg over having met with murderous thug Bashir Assad (Gabbard) and the idea of USA troops fighting drug lords in northern Mexico (Buttigieg), both bad ideas.

The latter argument was broken up when Bernie Sanders completely changed the subject, because that's what Bernie Sanders does. However, the worst was yet to come  Seasoned politicians are skilled at twisting vague queries to their advantage without responding directly. Yet, Rachel Maddow would ask about abortion in a vague manner as

Welcome back to the MSNBC-Washington Post Democratic candidates debate. Many states, including right here where we are tonight in Georgia, have passed laws that severely limit or outright ban abortion. Right now, Roe v. Wade protects a woman's right to abortion nationwide. But if Roe gets overturned and abortion access disappears in some states, would you intervene as president to try to bring that access back?

Would you intervene as president to try to bring that access back.  "Access" already was a pathetically passive approach when Deanna Paul explained in The Washington Post five months ago

As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fills the judiciary with conservatives, and does so boldly and volubly, Republicans campaign on federal and Supreme Court nominations. Meanwhile, Democrats have been largely passive about the courts, rarely mentioning them, CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote in the New Yorker last week.

“Consider, for example, the Web sites of three leading contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Each site has thousands of words outlining the candidates’ positions on the issues — and none of them mentions Supreme Court nominations, much less nominations for lower-court judges,” Toobin wrote....

Republicans have a 20- to 30-year head start building institutions, such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, that train and feed right-leaning lawyers on to the bench. McConnell has focused on transforming the judiciary, calling judicial confirmations “a political decision based on who controls the Senate.” His goal, he told a group of conservative and libertarian attorneys in December, was to “confirm as many circuit judges as possible” — an ambition he has achieved, assisting President Trump in pushing more federal judges through the Senate in his first two years than any recent president.

No Democratic presidential candidate opposes a woman's right to choose, or at least none will admit it. Consequently, and with the attack upon reproductive freedom increasingly centered on the courts (video below from March), Maddow could have asked "how will you change the federal judiciary to ensure a woman's right to abortion" (or, alternatively, replacing "abortion" with "control her own body.")?

Instead, Maddow asked about "bring(ing) back access" to that right, and little of interest or importance was elicited from any candidate, and clearly nothing any would disagree about. The Post's Paul continued

By and large, Democratic voters revere the court as an institution, still viewing it from the era where it was a force for progressive change.

“There was complacency, or a non-urgency, and a belief that the court was not an issue that needed to be solved or confronted,” he said.

The confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Fallon said, was “a milestone moment” that has started to cause a shift in opinion. Democrats have long been motivated by specific issues, but “people are starting to understand the politicization of the institution and support more aggressive responses from politicians on Capitol Hill,” he explained.

If the hearing and approval of Kavanaugh in fact was "a milestone moment," it escaped the attention of Ms. Maddow, as well as every Democratic candidate on the stage in Atlanta. No one said he/she would appoint judges to the federal judiciary- the Supreme Court or lower courts- who have evinced a partiality toward reproductive freedom.

There is no need to suggest a specific "litmus test." But President Trump has chosen two Supreme Court nominees from lists provided him by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, which are extraordinarily unlikely ever to promote a candidate supportive of reproductive rights.  Between the cast of MSNBC and the Democratic presidential candidates, at least one person should understand the rules of the game that is being played.








Share |

Eat At Your Own Risk

Member of Freedom Caucus and of House Judiciary Committee and sex-crimes apologist : . @SpeakerPelosi is counting impeachment vo...