This, Too, Will Be Part Of The Legacy

It was back in October and he later (sort of) apologized for it, but it was telling when NewsCorp chairperson Rupert Murdoch remarked "Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else."










This reflects a recurring theme throughout the right- that the first black President promised to wave a magic wand and make all of America's racial history go away.  But as Jamil Smith explained when he criticized Murdoch's perspective, once Barack Obama was inaugurated

it soon became evident that his mere corporeal presence in the Oval Office would not end racial bias or injustice—as some on both sides of the aisle had theorized. The “black president will kill racism” narrative was a joke to black folks in particular, given the inherent societal pessimism many of us share. But not to some, even today, who believe that the most prominent black leaders in any arena alone are charged with most assiduously attending to the racial divide. 

This narrative never made sense, especially to the few of us who, unpersuaded that an individual's race would be the defining characteristic of his presidency, voted against Mr. Obama in a primary in 2008 and for him in the ensuing general election.

Of course,  Republicans literally from the night of his inauguration in 2008 never gave President Obama a chance to do what almost no human being ever could do. Then, twelve Republicans including nine members of Congress met for dinner and agreed, as Robert Draper put it, to "show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies" and to "jab Obama relentlessly in 2011."  More famously, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell- absent from the 1/20/08 meeting because of a feud with a participant- in October, 2010 would admit "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

They were sincere in their intent. One of the two signature legislative achievements of the President- the stimulus bill- passed with three Republicans (all Senators) in Congress voting in favor of it, despite the appropriation of revenues sufficiently meager that conservatives should have welcomed it. The other, the Affordable Care Act, passed with a grand total of zero (0) Republicans in favor, despite offering no public option and inspired by a plan originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation.

They should be more appreciative of President Obama. After the nation in 2008 elected as President a Democrat who was a former community organizer, they feared the worst and instead were rewarded with a President who reached out to them at every opportunity.

As now evident, this was foreshadowed a few years earlier in Senator Obama's speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention when, as Smith explained, his

grandiloquence was nothing compared to the trick he pulled in perhaps its most remembered passage. In asserting the oneness of the United States of America and implying that the union is free from political or racial separation or iniquity, Obama offered preemptive disagreement to the populist claim of “two Americas” that then-vice presidential nominee John Edwards would issue the very next night in his remarks. And he did so out of a black mouth, no less. The most talented African American politician you or I likely have ever seen was making it clear that he didn’t believe we citizens live in an American reality stratified by race, political belief, or heritage. This, of course, sounded recklessly optimistic and a bit insane all at once. 

Smith, adding "I knew immediately he'd be our first black President," realized that Senator Obama was sowing the seeds for his own successful presidential candidacy , in part by assuaging the guilt of white America. Obama also was satisfying the need of the political class and of voters to ignore the existence of two Americas, divided by political belief, race and/or heritage. He thus was laying the groundwork for turning a blind eye to the wide range of social and economic problems endemic to society.

"Crushing truths perish from being acknowledged," Camus wrote. Though it may be understandable with the weight of the Republican establishment arrayed against him, Barack Obama never has wanted to acknowledge those "crushing truths" and has done his best for twelve years to deny them.









Share |

Tough Candidate On Video

"The world a President has to grapple with- sometimes you can't even imagine," intones the narrator in the Hillary Clinton ad "The World."

Evidently, the world is almost as difficult to grapple with as a 74-year-old fellow from a tiny state. Common Dreams reports

Appearing on Meet The Press Sunday, Bernie Sanders suggested a debate before the New York primary, one to be held somewhere in that state. Later that day, Sanders' campaign director Jeff Weaver sent to his counterpart in the Clinton campaign a letter in which he adopted what a New York Times writer a "taunting tone" in urging the Clinton people to accept a debate in New York State.

In response, on Monday Clinton chief pollster Joel Benenson stated that his client's future participation would "depend on the tone" set by the Vermont Senator because the latter is "running a very negative campaign against us." Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon labeled the debate proposal a "stunt."  While echoing Fallon, adviser Karen Finney complained about the Sanders campaign "polling on new lines of attack on Hillary Clinton" though at the beginning of the campaign he had said "I don't do negative attacks."

As of this moment, the candidate herself has not weighed in.  But she is a long way from the Senator who in 2008 ran a commercial (below) "It’s 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep,” adding “Who do you want answering the phone?” She didn't mean Barack Obama.









That was eight years ago. However, in "The World" Mrs. Clinton is somewhat reprising the ad, claiming "the presidency is the toughest job in the world" and urging a vote for "A tireless secretary of state, standing up against the abuse of women and girls, negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza, leading the diplomacy that keeps us out of war,"









It's easy to say that someone who runs from the old Vermont guy will have trouble confronting Vladimir Putin. That's not necessarily true, but she certainly seems to be a little frightened by a democratic socialist from New England.








Share |

Size Matters. So Do Words.

London's Daily Mail reports

viewers took to Twitter in their droves to ridicule Trump for the 'cringe' encounter, in which they accused him of not answering questions and continually repeating himself.

The entrepreneur received the bulk of Briton's taunts after he was asked if he wanted to send a message to the people of the UK, choosing to 'ramble on' about the golf course he built in Scotland.

Twitter user Kevin Meagher wrote: ' "Paris has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and so does France." Does Donald think they're two different countries?'

Meanwhile, user ImaginaryCard tweeted: 'Fav part: Piers told him to send a message to the people of the UK and he rambled on about his golf course in Scotland #MorganTrump'

Jeremy Singer ‏tweeted: 'That was bad! An hour of self promotion, weak answers & assertions by a man who could be president!'

As has been obvious throughout the campaign, Donald Trump is nothing if not a self-promoter, continually boasting about everything Trump.  Further, it's merely careless not to specify "Paris has some of the strictest gun laws in the world and so does France itself" or "... and so does the nation of France."     The candidate's statement is not unlike that of Senator Barack Obama when he said that he already had campaigned in 57 states with one left to go. (He was excluding Alaska and Hawaii).   Obama was then elected President. Twice.

More significant is what Democrats refuse to say.  Salon's Brendan Gauthier on Saturday wrote

Last night’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” got combative when New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, chose carefully to say “violent extremism” rather than “Islamic extremism.”

Maher, a documented opponent of political correctness on the issue, took issue with the phrasing, saying, “I think the Democrats risk losing this election if they cannot put together the words ‘Islamic extremism’ as opposed to ‘violent extremism.”

“Please just tell me that you recognize that it is a distinct threat much greater than any other violent extremist threat,” Maher pleaded. “You don’t really think it’s on the same order as the KKK. Are you really worried about the KKK?”

It's a good question, one skillfully avoided by the Senator and former mayor of Newark, N.J., who responded "what I'm worried about is that you begin that question by saying 'The Democrats will lose if.' First of all, if the Democrats lose by how they talk about this extremism, then they've got more problems."

Maher noted that 45% of Democrats- even Democrats- support Donald Trump's idea (if not attributed to him) of barring Muslims from the USA.  Booker then countered by denying trying to create a "false equivalency," while he referring to domestic terrorism, maintaining that since 9/11/01, we've lost 48 Americans to such incidents.

Well done, but largely beside the point, so Maher explained "but Christians are not trying to get a dirty bomb," which is a basic difference between Muslim-inspired and Christian-insprired terrorism. "That is a false equivalency," he informed Booker, who again pleaded "I'm not trying to create a false  equivalency."

When the New Jersey Senator accused Maher of considering such terrorism the only threat, Maher replied "I'm not saying only. It's distinct and different and bigger. Size matters." After Booker cautioned against fear-mongering.Maher pointed out "fear is important to people" and added "it's not mongering if there's an attack."

Though evidently a big fan of Booker aside from this issue, the host finally laid it out for the Senator: "Just say Islamic terrorism. Just say those words and you'll win the lelection. Avoid those words and you're going to lose."

Cory Booker, whose views about financial reform (should) make Hillary Clinton look like Elizabeth Warren, is not  the issue. Neither is Donald Trump who, if he's nominated, may- may- find that his lack of experience, ignorance of foreign policy, misogyny, questionable business practices, and other problems too much to overcome even if there is an attack upon the "homeland."

But it is not by coincidence that following the bombing in Brussels, Ted Cruz's first reaction, posted on his Facebook page, included

Radical Islam is at war with us. For over seven years we have had a president who refuses to acknowledge this reality.  And the truth is, we can never hope to defeat this evil so long as we refuse to even name it. That ends on January 20, 2017, when I am sworn in as president. We will name our enemy -- radical Islamic terrorism. And we will defeat it.

Say the words, Cory. Say the words, Barack. Most importantly, given the major threat of a Ted Cruz presidency and the comparatively minor threat of a Donald Trump one, Hillary Clinton must utter the phrase because if there is a Muslim-related terrorist attack prior to the election, no one will care about lead poisoning, poverty, and lack of quality jobs cited by Booker as threatening the city he served as mayor.

Nevertheless, Mrs. Clinton should say it not only to blunt criticism from Republicans because Democrats refuse to utter the phrase.

She should do so also out of honesty and out of transparency.  Islam is the religion practiced by Muslims. The terrorism which Bill Maher recognizes as the threat of greatest magnitude is committed by Muslims dedicated to Islamism and committing it in the name of Islam. Call it Islamic terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism.  Identify the danger. Minimizing or misinterpreting it does not make it go away.

















Share |

Major Flaw

From the start, the Republican presidential race was viewed as one pitting Establishment candidates against anti-Establishment candidates.   It proved to be an accurate portrayal and as the race has narrowed to three individuals, it is clear that two of the fellows, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, have survived the anti-Establishment lane while John Kasich has emerged from the Establishment lane .

It isn't, of course, black-and-white.  It is by nurture, not nature, by clear intent rather than instinct, that a graduate of two Ivy League schoos (Princeton and Harvard Law), Bush 43 official, law professor, litigator in the US Supreme Court and United States Senator has come to be seen as bucking the system. Obversely, John Kasich told an NBC reporter at the close of one of the primaries that he is not of or opposed to the Establishment but rather representing the "John Kasich lane."

Still, there is a clear distinction, and an even clearer one between two of the now-departed candidates, Ben Carson and Lindsey Graham.  However, recent television appearances by the two highlight the false dichotomy between an "establishment" candidate, as Graham clearly was portrayed, and an "anti-" candidate, as the somewhat more successful Carson portrayed himself as.

Politico reports

Ben Carson spent the majority of his time on the set of "The View" on Thursday defending Donald Trump and his endorsement of the Republican presidential front-runner, who at one point compared Carson to a child molester.

“Sir, I hate to ask this question, but you have aligned yourself with the man who has bashed women, made countless racist remarks, and you’re Ben Carson; why would you align yourself with that?” co-host Whoopi Goldberg asked the retired neurosurgeon.

Carson responded, saying on multiple occasions that “there is no perfect person” but that Trump has a history of inclusion, referring specifically to his allowing African-Americans and Jews into his Palm Beach clubs. “He insisted on Jews and blacks and helped to break that open,” Carson said, as Goldberg chuckled incredulously.

“So has he said some things that I wouldn’t say or that you wouldn’t say? Of course,” Carson said.

The panelists then discussed Trump’s run-in with the federal government in the 1970s, when the Justice Department sued him alleging racial discrimination. Trump later settled without acknowledging wrongdoing.

“I will put it this way,” Carson said. “I have met a lot of his employees, including African-Americans, and they have nothing but good things to say. Somebody who’s hired as many people as he has hired, and you can find very few people who have anything negative to say.”

Carson also had nice things to say about Trump’s family, noting that he knows the children of other wealthy people who, he said, have been raised worse.

Carson didn't ask Goldberg to cite the "racist" remarks. Nor did he explain that had Trump been required to acknowledge wrongdoing, he might have balked and been found not to be culpable, instead of simply buying his way out of the charge.

That would have been arguing on the merits of the case. Instead,he claimed that everyone else does it too, that Trump's employees won't criticize him (as if most employees are free to blast their employer), and that he is a swell family man, as if that will matter when he tries to bully (or make love to) his friend Vladimir Putin.

In everyday discourse/parlance, Carson is what is known as a "weasel." His ilk is also known as a "politician."

Contrast that with Lindsey Graham, who appeared Wednesday on The Daily Show (first part of the segment, video below).   Just this winter, Graham had famously joked "if you're a Republican and your choice is Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in a general election, it's the difference between poisoned or shot" and "if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you." Less famously, he labeled the Texas Senator "an opportunist" and maintained the latter on foreign policy is "just as wrong as Obama, if not worse."

Soon after, he endorsed Ted Cruz.  If Graham were as disingenuous a politician as Carson, he would have pointed to whatever minorities or women the Texan has on his staff; maintained that Cruz gives gifts to his aides on Administrative Professionals Day; and defends his wife whenever she's criticized.

Instead

When asked about his support of Cruz, Graham said that his change of heart "tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump."

Graham, who was once in the presidential race himself, endorsed Cruz ahead of the AIPAC conference in Washington last week.

"He was my fifteenth choice so what can I say?" Graham added.

And everything came back to Donald Trump.

What do you like about Cruz, Noah asked the senior senator. "He's not Trump," Graham replied.

"He's not completely crazy," Graham said of his colleague, adding "that works in Washington."

Cruz virtually stated he preferred being poisoned than shot. Oh, wait- not virtually:

Noah then aired a clip of Graham being asked in January whether he preferred Cruz or Trump as the nominee during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

“It’s like being shot or poisoned, what does it really matter?” Graham said.

Graham explained the comment, telling The Daily Show host, “Donald is like being shot in the head.”

On Cruz being the “poison,” the senator said, “You might find an antidote to the poisoning — I don’t know, but maybe there’s time.”

Not only is it an honest explanation, but an accurate one, for the best reason to support Ted Cruz over Donald Trump (or Trump over Cruz) is to choose the lesser of two evils.  Graham has done so in a manner befitting the sense of irony and self-detachment identified by Salon's Andrew O'Hehir.  As a candidate, Graham was caught in a bind:  a politician charged with being a typical Washington politician, yet far more forthcoming than a Dr. Carson or other anti-politician poseurs.



 

                         
                                                   HAPPY EASTER






Share |

Three Peas In A Pod

Upon hearing of the murders in Brussels, Ted Cruz took to Facebook and, after expressing sympathy for the victims,  politicized the attacks, maintaining "Radical Islam is at war with us. For over seven years we have had a president who refuses to acknowledge this reality."

More ominously, he later issued a statement which read in part

We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.

We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration. And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we are at an end. Our country is at stake. 

The Texas Senator's declaration "our country is at stake" is a long step backward from President Roosevelt's declaration "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." He conflates terrorism and immigration and advocates a path to dividing Americans by religion, a clear rebuke of the First Amendment.

When the crafty Cruz issues his prescription for terrorism- take two anti-immigration pills and go to bed scared- it bears a similarity to the immigration policy laid out by the officially designated "moderate" in the race. With Marco Rubio gone, John Kasich has become the media's favorite as the reasonable alternative to the blustery, belligerent Donald Trump.   He didn't disappoint Establishment centrists last weekend, stating on Fox News Sunday

My position has not changed. The idea that we're going to go into communities and yank people out of their homes and leave their kids on the porch crying, that's not what we're going to do. That's -- that's just -- that's more promises that will never happen, and the people will become more cynical. I don't make promises, by and large, that I can't keep. I try to keep what I say. And I - I'm not deviated from this position at all.

How compassionate not to leave kids on the porch crying. Yet, the Ohio governor maintained also

We should have a guest worker program. And for the 11.5 million who are here illegally, if they've not committed a crime since they've been here, I would give them a path to legalization where they pay a fine, back taxes, delay in any kind of benefits they get. I think is a reasonable approach, but not a path to citizenship.







They get to obey our laws faithfully  (which is more than many citizens do) pay back taxes, pay a fine, and be denied (for a time, maybe longer) benefits, and their reward is to be denied citizenship.   They are entitled, moreover, to be treated like second-class citizens- or rather, not as citizens at all.

And so is the immigration plan of the right-winger in moderate sheep's clothing akin to the terrorist control policy, an adjunct to his immigration policy, of extremist Ted Cruz.

There is no better way of creating terrorists from among Americans than to convince them that they are not Americans, or at least are not so considered.  And there is no better way to do that than to designate some neighborhoods or towns as "Muslim" and to impose a regimen of surveillance and policing devised specifically for them. Donald Trump says he supports the Senator's notion "100%."

Immigrants, most from central America, are unlikely to be terrorists, which Republicans conflating terrorism and immigration are loathe to acknowledge. Still, a path to legalization without citizenship is a formula for creating a two-tiered socio-economic system and wealth inequality second to none. Fortunately for those immigrants, most are from south of the border and able to return home when the price of being "legalized" grows greater than the value of having some minimal employment in the USA. For the others of inferior social status (legalized) the inability to achieve citizenship would prove devastating for them- and ultimately for the nation. So much for the American dream of mobility- if born outside the country, there is no need to apply.

The proposals of Kasich and Cruz are analogous.  Further, front-runner Donald Trump has proposed establishing an inventory of Muslims in the USA and building a border wall, higher and higher in the style of the Tower of Babel.  A leader in hiring illegal immigrants and exploiting guest workers, Trump would be all in on the Cruz-Kasich approach were he to be elected President.  For the remaining GOP presidential candidates, Mexicans, Muslims, and other individuals foreign-born can remain. They can be in the country, but not of the nation, and not truly part of the nation- not ever, no way.










Share |

Opening The Peanut

Are the people at Quinnipiac University on drugs? (Actually,the proper phrase is "using drugs," but no matter. And if it were marijuana, their performance would unlikely be impaired, anyway.) They're probably only bored.

We read on Politico

Donald Trump would lead either Ted Cruz or John Kasich in a two-way race, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University national poll released Wednesday.

Asked whom they would like to win the GOP nomination, 43 percent of the 652 Republicans surveyed said they wanted Trump to emerge as the party's choice in Cleveland, followed by 29 percent for Cruz and just 16 percent for Kasich, with 9 percent undecided.

In a head-to-head matchup between Trump and Cruz — with Kasich voters re-allocated to their second choices — the Manhattan real-estate mogul earned 46 percent support, compared with 37 percent for Cruz and 12 percent undecided. While the Texas senator drew slim advantages among tea party supporters, white, born-again evangelicals and those describing themselves as very conservative, Trump drew far greater support from voters who described themselves as somewhat conservative, moderate or liberal, as well as among men, women and those 45 years and older.

This is a classic wrong-headed hypothetical. There is not a two-way race, nor has there been, and if Donald Trump has his way, there will not be.  In a multiple candidate race Trump, as the candidate most voterseither love to love or love to hate, has reigned supreme (which I never expected).  His favorable rating (graph, below) always has been exceeded by his unfavorable rating, which would be critical in a two-candidate race.

Quinnipiac may think a two-way between Trump and Cruz would benefit the current front- runner, but the Senator is not convinced.  He first proposed a one-on-one debate with the front-runner on January 26 and- wisely- hasn't given up.  "Why don’t you ask Donald Trump to come here and defend himself. Donald is afraid to debate," Cruz told Bill O'Reilly Tuesday night.

The betting here is that this is not simply a case of the trailing candidate,having nothing to lose, trying to bait the leader into a debate.  Cruz might question Trump about the Donald J. Trump Foundation; The Gambling Annex; the concrete used in building Trump Tower, which delighted "Fat" Tony Salerno; employment of illegal (Polish) workers in constructing said building; employment as a consultant and pilot of a marijuana and cocaine traficker; refusal to release tax returns; corporate bankruptcies; tax evasion.

In return, Trump could ridicule Cruz's wife. Oops! He already has done that, in a tweet he was forced to delete. which threatened to smear the former Heidi Nelson (apparently for an old incident possibly related to depression). He might, however, criticize her for being a managing director (though on leave) for Goldman Sachs. For all the "populism" (oh yeah, sure) of Trump's campaign:  good luck with that line of reasoning in a GOP contest.









Trump's checkered history aside, the real estate mogul is widely suspected within the Republican Party of not being a conservative, nor possibly even a loyal Republican.  However, Cruz- disturbingly and dangerously- is the real deal, a theocratic free-market obsessive who would leave no stone unturned to achieve his extreme agenda.

Running against Bill Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992, Senator Bob Kerry of Nebraska warned of the Arkansas governor "I think he's going to get opened up like a soft peanut in November of 1992."

That never happened, in part because Clinton was an experienced and masterful politican determined to win the White House. Trump is not proven to be masterful, is thoroughly inexperienced, and presumably can return to making hundreds of millions of dollars in the private sector if he doesn't reach the White House. When the Texas senator recently accused him of having "business dealings with the mob, with the mafia," few people noticed- but in part because there were still five candidates in the race. If the competition were narrowed to two people there would be- if Trump were unable to avoid it- a debate between the two men.

Such a debate would be the ultimate in "must-see TV," pitting an untested politician against a guy who has argued in front of the United States Supreme Court and is a lifelong Republican and conservative fanatic. After a spirited exchange, we could view pieces of Donald Trump strewn out in front of the moderators.










Share |

Dividing Americans, Again

Think Progress reports as Donald Trump stepped to the podium at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee convention Monday in Washington, D.C., rabbinical student Jeremy Markiz walked out with two colleagues, intending

to counter Trump’s statements maligning immigrants and his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country, saying they intended their actions to model the “opposite to the rhetoric and vitriol that’s happening this year, in particular the language that’s coming out to hate towards Muslims, and Mexicans.” But he insisted that he move wasn’t a rejection of AIPAC itself, but of the rhetoric Trump has introduced into American political discourse.

Few people joined Markiz's act of conscience, even though Trump's xenophobic approach to immigrants, refugees, and all things possible is considered extreme even by standards set by other Republicans.

Until now.   Soon after the deadly terrorist attacks Tuesday in Brussels, Belgium, Trump's primary (pun intended) rival Ted Cruz issued a statement which included

For years, the west has tried to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. We can no longer afford either. Our European allies are now seeing what comes of a toxic mix of migrants who have been infiltrated by terrorists and isolated, radical Muslim neighborhoods.

That's a pretty slick slam of European allies; so much for empathizing, or even sympathizing, with the victims of terrorism.  At least Cruz won't succumb to the fear he derides. Oh, wait:

We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.

We need to secure the southern border to prevent terrorist infiltration. And we need to execute a coherent campaign to utterly destroy ISIS. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we are at an end. Our country is at stake.

Steve Benen has a few questions for the Texas senator, such as

.... how would Cruz determine what a “Muslim neighborhood” is? How many Muslim Americans does it take, exactly? Is it every community with a mosque? Is it constitutional for public officials to dispatch law enforcement to “patrol and secure” American neighborhoods based on the religious beliefs of some of its residents?

And what would law-enforcement officials do in these areas, exactly? After a neighborhood has been “secured” to Cruz’s satisfaction, does the Republican envision a semi-permanent police presence to monitor Americans in the area based on their faith, or can the American neighborhood eventually go back to normal, everyday life without police monitoring?

Preventing radicalization of neighborhoods by patrolling and securing neighborhoods on the basis of religion gets us into the muck and mire of the self-fulfilling prophecy, It is as if Cruz never noticed that terrorists and terrorism never had it so good until the Cheney-Bush Administration invaded Iraq. And if Cruz wants to create the volatile tension between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities common in Europe, he has offered the ideal prescription.

At every opportunity, GOP front-runner Donald Trump slams "political correctness, and now Senator Cruz blasts "political correctness and fear." For both him and Trump, who so boldly claim to be politically incorrect, there is this: what Ted Cruz calls isolating radical Muslim neighborhoods is what we once identified as a "police state."


















Share |