No Worse Than Before

Criticism of Donald Trump's vow (video below) at a campaign rally Monday evening to bar all Muslims from entering the USA was swift.




 




The evening hosts on MSNBC were apoplectic at what they seemed to believe is a singularly dangerous proposal, with Steve Benen, writing for Rachel Maddow on the host's website ,contending that "to a dangerous and genuinely scary degree" Trump "has out-Trumped" (GOP rivals) who "have been caught dabbling in the discrimination."  Similarly, Politico reporters termed it "a surprising escalation of rhetoric—even for him."

The Anti-Defamation League called the plan "unacceptable and antithetical to American values." Intimate Clinton aide Huma Abedin sent out an e-mail blast noting "I'm a proud Muslim -- but you don't have to share my faith to share my disgust" (because) "Trump wans to literally write racism into our law books."  (Trump doesn't want literally to write anything and Islam is not a race- but never mind.)

Even Republicans rivals joined the chorus. Chris Christie, the guy who believes law enforcement should be kept in the dark when mentally ill individuals apply for an expungement of residential treatment in order to buy a gun (no joke), maintained Trump's idea is "a ridiculous view."   John Ellis Bush called the leading presidential contender in in his Party "unhinged" and John Kasich described it as "just more of the outrageous dissension that characterizes his every breath." Candidates Huckabee, Rubio, Fiorina, and Graham also criticized the front-runner. Even Dick Cheney panned Trump's scheme, suggesting it "goes against everything we stand for and believe in."

These folks are right, but we may be losing perspective, and not only because, as Lizz Winstead tweeted, "all Trump has done is amp up the existing rhetoric created by the current GOP. It's a joke to watch them clutch their pearls." A few weeks ago, the candidate said he would "certainly implement" a program to track Muslims in the USA.  After criticism (including a comparison to pre-war Nazi Germany) his campaign manager claimed Trump was speaking of a terrorist watch list.

But given that Trump never actually retracted his proposal, and that a terrorist watch list has been in effect for several years, it appears that Trump really likes the idea of a national database, which he defended by arguing "It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally."

The criticism now eclipses that over his support of creating a national database of American citizens (and individuals legally in the country) which, upon reflection, is a little odd.  The candidate who wants to humiliate and disadvantage persons already in the USA legally has decided that we should not admit any of those individuals.

Ce un outrage! However, the questions that beg to be asked are:

1) Why would someone want to get into the country, only to be persecuted because of her religion; and

2) Why would we want to welcome someone we hold in so low esteem, and whom we consider sufficiently dangerous,  that we would require her to register?

The answer to (1) is: no one with good sense. That forms part of the answer  to (2). The other part can be extrapolated by the remarks to Maddow of NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Richard Engel, back in the states after a long stint in the Middle East, who asked rhetorically "what has happened since the last time I spoke to you?"   Moments later, he explained

The reason there are 5,000 people from western Europe who've joined ISIS and left Europe is because they feel ghettoized, because they feel they're not part of the community, and the reason we have only 250 or so people from the United States who have gone to join ISIS is by and large because they feel they're getting a fair shake and have a shot at the American Dream. If you change that equation, you change the number.

We want, or should want, Muslims in this country, consistent with our immigration and refugee policies.  However, the worst approach is not to bar them from coming in but to treat those already here, or who would immigrate, in such a way that they sense they are not getting a fair shake. That would create a situation far more dangerous than we now have. It is an outcome that characterizes Europe, as Engel pointed out, and one which would be nearly unequalled as a recruiting tool for ISIL.

Share |

A Candidate Islamic Terrorists Can Love

Marco Rubio wants you to know he is very, very concerned with the rights of Americans.

Appearing on CNN's State of the Union (transcript and video of the segment below), Rubio understands that the effort of congressional Democrats to prevent a suspicious individual from possessing or buying a firearm applies not only to the FBI's no-fly list but also to the agency's Terrorist Screening Database, of which the no-fly list is a subset.

He maintains also, however, that "the majority of people on the no-fly list are oftentimes people that basically just have the same name as somebody else who don't (sic) belong on the no-fly list." Translated into English ("the majority are oftentimes"?), the Florida Senator is inferring that most individuals on the no-fly list have the same name as someone justifiably on the list, a starkly insupportable claim.

The watch lists, Rubio argued, "shouldn't be used as a tool to impede 700,000 Americans or potential Americans -- people on that list from having access to be able to fully utilize their Second Amendment rights."  That would be a strong argument, if there were an individual right to own a firearm under the US Constitution, people on the list were routinely denied a weapon, and there were roughly 700,000 Americans on the Terrorist Screening Database.

But there is no constitutional, individual right to own a firearm. Further, according to this source, "people denied a gun are either convicted felons, undocumented immmigrants, under indictment, fleeing justice, or mentally ill."

Moreover, there are nowhere near 700,000 American citizens or legal residents on the list.   Politifact explains

The number of Americans on the list likely doesn’t exceed 10,000, said Martin Reardon, former chief of the FBI Terrorist Screening Center’s operations branch.

Some innocent people have been wrongly included in the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list, which can affect their lives in ways such as having to go through extra airport security or being stopped from boarding a plane. But for an American to get on that list by accident is "harder than people think," added Reardon, who is now a vice president at the Soufan Group, a consulting firm.

To be fair, Rubio never has been good at math, making it more difficult for him a few years back to get by without charging to his state party various trips to gas stations, restaurants, drugstores, book stores, and florists.

Still, the Senator's concern for individual liberties would be admirable if, for instance, he were concerned about individual liberties. However

In the wake of Wednesday's massacre in San Bernardino, California, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on Friday dinged Ted Cruz and his other fellow senators and GOP presidential rivals for their votes to end the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone metadata.

“A couple points. First of all, we have to have robust intelligence gathering capabilities to disrupt plots. It’s one of the reasons why I was opposed to this law that even some of my opponents running for president voted for, this USA [Freedom] Act that passed a few months ago. It took away the right to collect metadata, which means that we can now not access the phone records of individuals that we either suspect of being involved in terrorism or who carry out an attack to see who they were coordinating or talking to," Rubio told "CBS This Morning."

Cruz, one of Rubio's closest competitors in most national polling, voted to pass the USA Freedom Act in June, which sought to reform the NSA in part by ending the federal government's collection of bulk metadata. Rubio co-sponsored legislation on Wednesday with Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton that would reinstate the NSA's ability to collect phone metadata, among other powers that fell away last week with the expiration of the agency's ability to collect such information.

Marco Rubio, it turns out, is less dedicated to civil liberties than... Ted Cruz, the man who wants admitted to the USA refugees from Syria, as long as they're Christian. Rubio's tears of concern for individuals improperly placed on the watch list would be more credible if, for instance, he joined American Civil Liberties Union affiliates in advocating a simplification of the process of challenging inclusion on the No Fly List.

But he won't, will he? He won't, because the rights of American citizens are among the furthest things from Rubio's mind, except when it comes to owing or possessing a firearm. Then, he supports the (mythical) right to arm bears, even for the 15,000+ non-Americans whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation has identified as potential terrorists. It tuns out that Marco Rubio really wants you to know that liberty begins and ends with the Second Amendment.













Because there are -- the majority of people on the no-fly list are oftentimes people that basically just have the same name as somebody else who don't belong on the no-fly list.

The -- former Senator Kennedy -- Ted Kennedy once said he was on a no- fly list. I mean, there are -- I -- we -- there are journalists on the no-fly list. There are others involved in the no-fly list that wind up there.

These are everyday Americans that have nothing to with terrorism. They wind up on the no-fly list. There's no due process or any way to get your name removed from it in a timely fashion. And now they're having their Second Amendment right being impeded upon.

If these were perfect lists, that would be one thing. But there are over 700,000 Americans on some watch list or another that would all be captured under this amendment the Democrats offered. And that's the problem.

The vast -- there aren't 700,000 terrorists operating in America openly on watch lists. They include vast numbers of Americans who have names similar to someone we're looking for. Sometimes, you're only on that list because the FBI wants to talk to you about someone you know, not because you're a suspect. And, again, now your Second Amendment right is being impeded with.

TAPPER: I don't think it's accurate to say that a majority of them are on the list by accident, but let me... RUBIO: A very significant number of people on those lists are on there because they have names similar to somebody else. My office deals with dozens of calls every year from people that are on no-fly lists or identified lists of watch lists. It's not just the no-fly lists. That's not just the no-fly lists.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: So, these watch lists should just be -- these watch lists should just be ignored?

RUBIO: No, they shouldn't be ignored. But they shouldn't be used as a tool to impede 700,000 Americans or potential Americans -- people on that list from having access to be able to fully utilize their Second Amendment rights.

There are many people on no-fly lists that are not terrorists, not just no-fly lists -- I apologize -- on any of these terror watch lists, because that amendment was not just limited to the no-fly list. That's not a perfect database. And it has a significant number of errors.








Share |

Prayers Of Little Meaning

Executive Director of Christianity Today Andy Crouch concludes his piece "the victims of the shootings in San Bernardino, and all those who were caught up in the violence and live this very moment in its awful continuing reality and consequences, and also those who perpetrated the violence, are in our thoughts and prayers." He argues

To insist that people should act instead of pray, or that we should act without praying, is idolatry, substituting the creature for the Creator. It insinuates that goodness can be known, possessed, or done apart from relationship with the only One who is truly good. While our neighbors who do not share our faith will not agree, for people with biblical faith this prideful declaration of independence is idolatry, the original sin of humanity, and the ultimate source of the evil in the world and in our own hearts.

There may be debate on the nature of "goodness" or its criteria, but 11,000 gun-related homicides a year certainly would not qualify for goodness. When Connecticut senator Chris Murphy (AP photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) tweets "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing- again," his words appy to both mass shootings, which are well publicized, and everyday murder in homes and on the streets, which would be far less common if gun safety weren't neglected by the GOP.

Senator Murphy (after the Sandy Hook did not suggest we should act without praying.  A couple of days after the San Bernardino murders, he told Think Progress "Having lived through the Sandy Hook experience, I know that thoughts and prayers are important. We appreciated them from every corner of the globe.”

But Murphy emphasized that neither praying in public nor indicating an intention to do so, as was the instant reaction of several Republicans (including some presidential candidates), is what we elect individuals to Congress to do.  Cursory tweets are not what Jesus had in mind when he warned "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

"Prayer," Murphy told Think Progress, "is an insufficient response from elected officials today.  You get elected to Congress not to send your sympathy tweets, but to pass laws to keep people safer.” It's a sentiment which would have been understood by James (whose words orthodox Christians believe were inspired by God) when he argued "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Murphy wasn't alone in calling out hypocrisy, and he and others were accused of "prayer shaming." However, Steve M., recognizing the GOP tweets all sounded about the same, realizes

if someone in the GOP consultant class has advised you that "thoughts and prayers" is the response to a mass shooting that tests well in focus groups of swing voters and you go out and post that, then, sorry, you're a phony, and I'm insulting you as a politician, not as a Christian, if I call you on your phoniness.

One analyst of traditional, reformed Christianity explains

.... how can God hold us accountable for a sin we did not personally commit? There is a plausible interpretation that we become responsible for original sin when we choose to accept, and act according to, our sinful nature. There comes a point in our lives when we become aware of our own sinfulness. At that point we should reject the sinful nature and repent of it. 

"Thou shalt not murder/kill" (interpretations vary), reads one commandment.  "God helps those who help themselves" goes the old adage (repeated in a completely unrelated 1970s-era song, below).  The right has chosen to avoid, even deride, modest and popular measures which would bring down the number of gun deaths in the USA. (All four GOP presidential candidates now in the Senate voted against the proposals the day after the carnage in San Bernardino.) Extremely violent behavior is a sin, but repentance is never on the Republican dance card.















Share |

The Actions Which Don't Match The Rhetoric

It has been two days since the convention of the Republican Jewish Coalition, thus two days since Donald Trump was asked whether Jerusalem should remain undivided and the capital of Israel. He is said to have remarked "I don't know that Israel has the commitment to make it," spurring Zeke Miller to observe "you can hear a pin drop."

Context is everything, or at least a lot, so it's difficult to determine whether the crowd believed that Trump wanted Israel's confidence to flag or that he merely expected it to occur.  However, the thought process was clearer and less complicated when, as Scott Eric Kaufman wrote

Trump spoke about the infamous $43 million gas station in Afghanistan, asking the crowd, “How many of you think you could have done it for less?” His question was greeted with silence, so he moved on. “I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” he said while discussing what he considers to be the failures of the recent nuclear deal struck with Iran.






Rarely does a politician so explicitly reveal anti-Semitism (video, above), but then part of Trump's appeal always has been that of someone not a career politician.  Further, Jews in the USA do not face the constant danger that the State of Israel does, nor do they- unlike Israel- confront forces determined to annihilate them.

The GOP candidates have kept silent about Trump's lukewarm remarks about Israel before the RJC., odd given that their comments about President Obama's policy in the region have included (from the first, second, and fourth debates respectively):



The president can’t tell you what we got. I’ll tell you what the world got. The world has a burgeoning nuclear power that didn’t, as the Soviets, say “we might defend ourselves in a war.”

What the Iranians have said is, “we will wipe Israel off the face of the map, and we will bring death to America.” When someone points a gun at your head and loads it, by God, you ought to take them seriously, and we need to take that seriously. (M. Huckabee)

You know, we turned our back on Israel, our ally. You know, and a situation like that, of course Obama’s not going to be able to do anything. I would shore up our military first, because if you don’t get the military right, nothing else is going to work. (B. Carson)

The next thing I intend to do is instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS to start (sic) persecuting religious liberty, and then intend to cancel the Iran deal, and finally move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. (T. Cruz)

***********

As it relates to Iran, it’s not a strategy to tear up an agreement. A strategy would be how do we confront Iran? And, the first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel which has been altered by this administration. And, make sure that they have the most sophisticated weapons to send a signal to Iran that we have Israel’s back. (JEB!)

If they don’t go with us, we slap the sanctions on anyway. If they fund these radical groups that threaten Israel and all of the West, then we should rip up the deal and put the sanctions back on. (J. Kasich)

On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel. (C. Fiorina)

***********

In the groups — in the countries of the Gulf states of Bahrain, the Cleveland Clinic is opening an operation. Clearly we see the same with them. And in Israel, we have no better ally in the world, and no more criticizing them in public, we should support them. (J. Kasich)

His calculation in the Middle East is that he has seen what this president has done, which is nothing, the president has no strategy, our allies in the region do not trust us. For goodness sake, there is only one pro-American free enterprise democracy in the Middle East, it is the state of Israel.

And we have a president that treats the prime minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the ayatollah in Iran. And so our allies in the region don’t trust us. (M. Rubio)



However, it seems that when it comes to action, support for the tiny nation flags, inasmuch as

Democrats say there’s only one reason that pro-Israel language is not included in the revival of the Export-Import Bank: Mitch McConnell.

The Senate majority leader has been wary of Democratic maneuvering around Israeli politics, and he's recently warned that the minority party might attempt to “get well” with the Jewish community after they backed the nuclear accord with Iran.

Now, senators and Democratic leadership sources say McConnell is taking out his frustrations by rejecting a popular provision that would express the Senate’s support for Israel’s economy and undercut the pro-Palestine Boycott, Divestiture and Sanctions campaign. The provision, which has bipartisan support, had been targeted for inclusion in a larger transportation bill.

The news was delivered to Reid in a meeting with McConnell on Monday to game out the end of the year. Reid was furious upon learning that the pro-Israel language was being jettisoned, people close to him said.

The McConnell camp denies the accusation but

Two other Democratic senators blamed McConnell for blocking the language, which would require the Ex-Im Bank to consider whether applicants for loans oppose “policies and actions that are politically motivated" and meant to inhibit "commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel."

GOP candidates frequently use questions about Iran, Syria, or ISIL to declare their undying love for Israel.  Of course, the uncompromising prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself probably is the object of their affection but the nation itself also garners their unequivocal support in public. That is, until Republican leadership has the opportunity to erode support for a rabidly anti-Zionist, (barely) arguably anti-Semitic, movement.   They then go silent, demonstrating yet again there is little substantial difference between Donald Trump and the rest of the pathetic GOP presidential field.








Share |

Tolerance Of Mass Murder

Wow.

In an article posted at 4:48 p.m. eastern on Tuesday  December 1, Slate legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick quoted Harry Reid noting "whipping people into a frenzy of hate and anger while providing them with easy access to firearms has proven disastrous to our country."

"Of course," Lithwick added, "none of the Republicans who have made claims about the baby killers at Planned Parenthood have accepted even a filament of responsibility for the Colorado killings, or for the other five attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics since July, when the first sting videos were released."

Recognizing the effect of easy access to firearms and of the ongoing GOP effort to block gun safety, Lithwick went on to say- on Tuesday afternoon

Gun policy couldn’t possibly be to to blame, either, because it’s never to blame. And that means that the president will say “enough is enough” once again in a few days, when the next mass shooting occurs.

That's so prescient as almost to be creepy. Perspective, however, is harder to come by the closer one is to a problem, so across the pond (a terrible cliche, admittedly) the BBC opened its coverage of the San Bernardino mass shooting (video below) as “Just another day in the United States of America, another day of gunfire, panic, and fear.” Another day of exceptionalism, indeed.








With 4.4% of the world's population, the USA has almost half the civilian-owned firearms, one reason we have had 351 mass shootings in the past 335 days and 1,040 since 27 people were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, 2012.  Following one of those crimes (click here to Vox to find out which one), President Obama pointed out "This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America," an observation which could be mde almost daily.

It appears the perpetrators of the latest act of mass violence were Muslims. If nothing else, that assures the attack- and its victims- will get the attention denied to the terrorist act prompting Lithwick's piece. Whether or not it fits the facts, foreign-based terrorism will be the focus of rhetoric while proliferation of  firearms will be ignored as usual.

On Thursday, Senator Dianne Feinstein offered an amendment (which would have required 60 votes to prevail) to the budget bill. It would at least conditionally have prohibited individuals on the terrorism watch list from buying a firearm or explosives.  It gained 45 votes, one of them a Republican, while 53 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it.

Republicans this past week have offered their prayers and only apathy about a) guns and b) terrorism. Meanwhile, Friday morning's New York Daily News (below) calls them out, as has Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut in his tweet :  "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing- again."

Share |

Nothing Less, Nor More, Than Terrorism.

Because Wednesday is a day ending in a "y," there has been another mass shooting, and probable case of terrorism, in the USA. (Photo below by Think Progress' Alex Zielinski is of Dr. Nina Agrawal calling just prior to San Bernardino shooting for a resumption of firearms research).

There may be a logical reason not to bandy about the term "terrorism" or the more-encompassing and misleading "terror."  (What we now think of  as "bullying" or continual, extended harasssment previously was accurately referred to as "terror.")

But if there is a logical reason, it evades Jack Mirkinson when he writes

If “terrorism” were an ideologically neutral and dispassionate term, I doubt I would have any trouble with the push to widen its use. But the notion of terrorism is not deployed in a vacuum, as anybody who has lived through the so-called “war on terror” knows all too well. We have now spent the better part of two decades explicitly constructing a world of mass surveillance, indefinite detention, torture and constant war, all in the name of battling terrorism. Terrorism has been used as a cudgel to repress dissent; as an easy way to whip up cheap nationalism; as a brush with which to tar entire communities; as an excuse for ever-wider militarism; and I could go on and on. 

We have been constructing a world of mass surveillance, indefinite deterntion, torture and constant war, all in the name of battling terrorism.  However, neither accusing Robert Lewis Dear of domestic terrorism nor even convincing Americans he was a domestic terrorist would expand unconstitutional, unethical, or harmful surveillance, deterntion, torture, or war. Make no mistake about it: accusing Republicans who employ vicious and vile rhetoric against Planned Parenthood would not whip up cheap nationalism or drive one forced-birth advocate into exile like Eric Snowden. And I could go on and on.

Chris Hayes is thinking a little clearer when he argues 

I think there`s an impulse to label things domestic terrorism as a means of saying this is an act of political violence and it`s important, important and we should marshal the kind of concern over it that we marshal over, say, the Boston Marathon bombing, right? Which, let`s be clear, killed less people. Fewer people.

But it also strikes me that going -- calling lots of things terrorism is not really a long-run political solution to any of the kind of violence we face, and in fact, lots of things we label terrorism we don`t go about combating in a particularly useful way.

It is not alone the solution. Nonetheless, being necessary though not sufficient, it is a step in the right (or, rather, left) direction.  Hayes would be more convincing if he- and many of our fellow progressives- didn't believe labeling something "racist" were part of the solution to ending racial discrimination. Or if conservatives didn't believe they could block change by labeling the estate tax upon the extremely wealthy as the "death tax," comprehensive immigration reform as "amnesty," a fetus as a "baby," or reproductive freedom as "murder."  However, they do believe it, and generally have been successful.

Most Americans don't think of any mass murder committed by non-Muslims as any sort of terrorism. Until they do, the nation will not marshall the necessary resources to counteract it. Moreover, referring to such acts as domestic terrorism is simply accurate. Just as an intimidated Hillary Clinton refusing to recognize immigrants who have entered the country illegally as "illegal immigrants" will not magically transform the individuals into citizens, so will a refusal to use the term "domestic terrorism" fail to end terrorism.  Phenomena, whether illegal immigration or terrorism, should be characterized as they are.

It would be more effective still if we did not label it "domestic terrorism." It is terrorism, period. Terrorism.








Share |

"Republican" Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

There have been weaker and worse responses to the apparent terrorist act of last Friday in Colorado Springs than that of Mike Huckabee. Appearing on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday, he conceded "there's no excuse for killing other people." Of course, he then went on to compare Robert Lewis Dear and Planned Parenthood, even suggesting the latter is worse: "whether it's happening inside the Planned Parent headquarters, inside their clinics, where many millions of babies die,or whether it's people attacking Planned Parenthood."

See what the Slick Man of Hope did there? "Many millions of babies die" at Planned Parenthood compared to various unnamed people who are merely attacking Planned Parenthood.

More significantly, however, the former governor went on to maintain "I know of nobody who has ever suggested that Planned Parenthood be the target of some type of violent attack."

That technically is true, in the same way another slick guy from Hope once was asked by Jim Lehrer "You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?" (i.e., Monica Lewinsky) and the President responded "There is not a sexual relationship- that is accurate."

The sexual relationship had occurred- it was not occurring, in much the same way that nobody has said "go out and start shooting people at a Planned Parenthood clinic." A critic could argue that one or more Republicans has suggested such an action, given that Merriam-Webster gives as one definition of suggest as "to mention or imply as a possibility." Yet, that is not the main definition, so we give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, one GOP candidate, at least, came awfully close to advocating a murderous attack upon Planned Parenthood.  At the September 16, 2015 debate hosted by CNN, Carly Fiorina declared (video below)

As regards to Planned parenthood, anyone who has watched this vdeo tape,I dare Hillary Clnton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. To watch a fully formed fetus on the table. Its heart beating. Its legs kicking while someone says "We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain."








We're still waiting to see that video tape Fiorina swore exists, but seems not to.  We're waiting, also, to hear anyone say "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain"  and are anxious to see the fetus with its heart beating and leg kicking (questioned by Chris Wallace, below). But never mind.  A presidential candidate and former CEO accuses Planned Parenthood of putting a fully formed fetus, with its heart beating and legs kicking, on a table to "keep it alive to harvest its brain,"   Then in a remarkable suspension of thought, she labels any linkage of incendiary remarks and violent behavior "typical left-wing politics."










And have I mentioned how loathsome Carly Fiorina is?







Share |