Pollard to go Free

Jonathan Pollard is going to be paroled:

In July 2014, after Jonathan J. Pollard had served 29 years of a life sentence for spying on behalf of Israel, his hopes for freedom were thwarted when a federal panel denied his request for parole.

But that hearing set in motion an intense scramble by lawyers for Mr. Pollard to ensure a different result a year later, when he would be eligible for parole after serving 30 years. They wrote letters, cited statistics and introduced evidence that their client met two legal standards for parole: that he had behaved well in prison, and that he posed no threat of returning to a life of espionage.

On Tuesday, the effort finally succeeded, as the United States Parole Commission announced that Mr. Pollard, 60, met the legal standards and would be released just before Thanksgiving.

On the strict letter of the law, they were correct. However, the government have objected to it and apparently has not. The official reason is that Pollard is no longer a threat and is in poor health. The rumored reason is that it is to smooth over relations with Israel after the Iran deal (although this appears very unlikely to work).

My position on Pollard has brought me into conflict with some people, including many fellow Jews. I think his sentence was entirely justified. The excuse that he only sold secrets “to our ally” did not impress me. As I have noted many times, even our allies have different interests from us. We keep secrets from them; they keep secrets from us. We spy on them; they spy on us. There’s nothing shameful about that. Pursuing the interests of one’s country is a leader’s job. There’s nothing wrong with Israel spying on us or paying one of our citizens for secrets. But there is something wrong with that citizens selling them. That’s called treason.

And Doug Mataconis reminds us that Pollard’s spying was far from benign:

When Pollard was first sentenced in 1985, for example, then Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger penned a blistering letter to the Judge, some of which classified, in which he laid forth the manner in which Pollard’s actions had endangered American national security. For example, while it wasn’t widely reported at the time, it became known to the United States that the Israelis had used some of the information Pollard had provided to them to trade with the Soviet Union for the safe release of Jews living in the USSR, thus handing vital American intelligence to our principal adversary at the time. Additionally, over the years other leaders in the U.S. intelligence community made it known that Pollard had also offered to sell classified information to three other nations other than Israel, an accusation which certainly makes him a far less sympathetic figure. The antipathy toward Pollard was so high at one point that in 1998, then CIA Director George Tenant threatened to resign if he was released.

As someone who is against massive prison sentences for all but the worst criminals, I suppose I should be OK with this. Pollard is in failing health and it’s not like he’s going to start spying again. But if we are to release Pollard, it’s not a victory. It’s the end of a sad saga that began when Pollard decided to betray his country.

How sad things are…

Rasmussen has a poll that asked people if they bought Obama’s most recent attempt to hide the fact that under his administration the IRS conveniently targeted his political opponents right before an election, and the sad thing is that the result was that only 52% of likely US voters believe that this was highly illegal and a directed political attack. I suspect that amongst the democrat voting block there are two issues that drive this number. The first that these democrat voters are predominantly low information voters: they get their news from comedians or DNC apparatchiks like the NYT or PSMNBC, which pretend to be doing unbiased news, but are nothing but shills for the DNC. But I suspect that there is also a large block that know this was illegal and a dangerous abuse of power they would never, ever, have gone along with, but they don’t care to admit that now, because it benefited their guy and their side.

These idiots are the ones that make totalitarian systems possible. They are fine with abuses of power and law breaking as long as it is done by their guys – explained away as a necessary evil in their battle against the enemy – and never figure out that eventually they will be in the line of fire themselves until it is too late. One can forgive the low information voter. After all, stupid is as stupid does. But willfully ignoring criminal activity is another thing. And during the Obama term we sure as hell have seen some unbelievable abuses of power. From this IRS scandal to the things going on in the ME (Benghazi. Iran deal, and more), to the attack on Walker Hal posted about, these people have shown they operate like a criminal syndicate. And we as a country are all suffering for it. When the rule of law crumbles as it is doing now, sooner than later, you will get those that decide to take the law into their own hands.

Walker Vindicated … Again

Color me surprised:

Dealing Gov. Scott Walker a victory just as his presidential campaign gets underway, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a sweeping decision Thursday ruled the governor’s campaign and conservative groups had not violated campaign finance laws.

The ruling means the end of the investigation, which has been stalled for 18 months after a lower court judge determined no laws were violated even if Walker’s campaign and the groups had worked together as prosecutors believe.

This is the infamous “John Doe” investigation where government agents basically had an ongoing far-reaching investigation that involved, essentially, harassing Walker’s supporters and any other conservatives within reach with midnight raids, gag orders and endless investigation:

In international law, the Western world has become familiar with a concept called “lawfare,” a process whereby rogue regimes or organizations abuse legal doctrines and processes to accomplish through sheer harassment and attrition what can’t be accomplished through legitimate diplomatic means. The Palestinian Authority and its defenders have become adept at lawfare, putting Israel under increasing pressure before the U.N. and other international bodies. The John Doe investigations are a form of domestic lawfare, and our constitutional system is ill equipped to handle it. Federal courts rarely intervene in state judicial proceedings, state officials rarely lose their array of official immunities for the consequences of their misconduct, and violations of First Amendment freedoms rarely result in meaningful monetary damages for the victims.

Investigators would conduct armed police raids on the houses of Wisconsin conservatives. They seized computers, phones and as many documents as they could get their hands on. They then issued gag orders preventing the targets their neighbors what was going on. All this because of supposed violation of campaign finance laws; laws we now know were not broken.

You can read more from the WSJ:

For the past few days, I’ve been talking to the targets of the task force of Milwaukee Democratic prosecutors, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board and Special Prosecutor Francis Schmitz. Their experiences, on the record here for the first time, reveal the nasty political sweep of an investigation that invaded privacy with surveillance of email accounts, raided homes with armed law enforcement, and swarmed individuals with subpoenas demanding tens of thousands of documents while insisting on secrecy.

Gabriel Malor shows just how empty this investigation was:

The theory of the prosecutor’s case was that conservative groups had illegally coordinated with candidates for office by means of issue advocacy. Applying well-settled principles of election law, the Wisconsin high court holds that this goes too far because “[d]iscussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election.” The courts have long treated express advocacy—that is, speech directly supporting a candidate for election—as wholly separate from issue advocacy—that is, speech about political issues. The court explains that, insofar as the Wisconsin statute purports to regulate issue advocacy the way that it does express advocacy, it is overbroad and vague under both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Wisconsin’s own Article 1, Section 3.

Read the whole thing. The judges were brutal on the prosecutors saying their investigation was “unsupported by reason” and “employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing”. This isn’t just saying there’s no evidence; this is saying the investigation was a complete travesty designed entirely to harass Wisconsin conservatives.

The Democrats had a lot riding on this. Just a few months ago, they were writing smug posts on how the John Doe investigation was going to crush Walker’s Presidential campaign. Now the investigation is in ruins, their slimy tactics open for the world to see.

I am honestly amazed by what we’ve seen in Wisconsin. Vicious election fights. Recall elections. The legislature fleeing the state. An aggressive intrusive useless investigation from the people who’ve spent the last decade vilifying Ken Starr for his “politicized investigations” that … um … produced thirty felony convictions.

And all of this just to get one governor. What the heck?

The Cuomo Apple Doesn’t Fall Far

At one point, I was optimistic that Andrew Cuomo wouldn’t be the big disaster for New York that his father was. Fat chance:

Under a plan approved by New York’s Fast Food Wage Board, a $15-per-hour minimum wage would be phased in over three years in New York City and six years across upstate New York, whose economy has long been the American equivalent of East Germany. The mandate would apply to any restaurant chain with 30 or more locations in the state.

Speaking at a rally in Manhattan, Cuomo pledged that he’s just gettin’ started:

“You cannot live and support a family on $18,000 a year in the state of New York — period….This is just the beginning. We will not stop until we reach true economic justice.”

The legal status of the diktat is not immediately clear. Cuomo created this particular board after failing to push a broader minimum wage hike through the legislature. Chains are expected to fight the rules, which single them out for particular treatment.

OK, do we have to go over this again? You’re not supposed to raise a family on minimum wage. It’s an entry level wage. Yeah, I know Roosevelt referred to it as a “living wage”. It’s still an entry-level wage that we have set up all kinds of anti-poverty programs around to make surviving on it easier.

(Obama’s former cabinet member Janet Napolitano is also raising the minimum wage to $15 in California schools. Expect, in a few years, to see a bunch of think pieces asking why the UC system is having to raise tuition again.)

We are now engaged in one of the most massive economic experiments in history, seeing if governments can magically create wealth and prosperity by fiat. That’s fine … if you don’t care about the people affected by it. But when prices go up and employment goes down, it will be cold comfort to people to learn that the liberals were wrong and the Law of Supply and Demand actually exists.

(As it happens, New York and California already have two of the highest minimum wages in the country. They also have two of the highest levels of income inequality and, if you account for cost of living, very high levels of poverty. It’s a mystery as to why that is.)

Cuomo has a bunch of other idiotic policies you can find at the link. But the minimum wage hike takes the cake. It applies to everyone in the state, whether they live in areas with a high cost-of-living or a low cost-of living. It singles out a particular industry with the hope of diving and conquering. It’s not even clear that it’s legal. But, I guess nothing will stand in the way of idiotic liberals determined to achieve “social justice”.

This sort of crap almost has me hoping that Hillary Clinton wins the election next year. Because there should be a Democrat around to take credit for the mess they’re creating.

How Social Justice systems always play out

Chavez fooled enough people in his country to go along with the usual redistributive nonsense that SJW, capitalizing on the envy and greed of those that for whatever reason feel their existence justifies their needs, peddle to grab power. he’s now dead, and his social experiment, resulting in one failure after another, has come to ,a href=”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/11754156/Venezuelan-farmers-ordered-to-hand-over-produce-to-state.html” target=”_new”>this:

Venezuela’s embattled government has taken the drastic step of forcing food producers to sell their produce to the state, in a bid to counter the ever-worsening shortages.

Farmers and manufacturers who produce milk, pasta, oil, rice, sugar and flour have been told to supply between 30 per cent and 100 per cent of their products to the state stores. Shortages, rationing and queues outside supermarkets have become a way of life for Venezuelans, as their isolated country battles against rigid currency controls and a shortage of US dollars – making it difficult for Venezuelans to find imported goods.

Pablo Baraybar, president of the Venezuelan Food Industry Chamber, said that the order was illogical, and damaging to Venezuelan consumers.

“Taking products from the supermarkets and shops to hand them over to the state network doesn’t help in any way,” he said. “And problems like speculating will only get worse, because the foods will be concentrated precisely in the areas where the resellers go.

There is power in this approach, Pablo. This move by the Venezuelan government may not make sense to someone that genuinely wants to let the market figure this stuff out, but it makes perfect sense if you look at it from the stand that the government can grandstand and pretend they are doing it to help, but then use it to control people. And collectivism, despite the bullshit you get sold by the SJW, is all about control. The power to punish those that you deem to have violated whatever arbitrary line you have drawn and to keep the others in line out of fear is central to the command economy politics of collectivism.

Be it hard core communism, the state owned socialism of Franco and the Nazi party, the crony-capitalism socialism of the west, or anything in between, the system can’t survive without the state’s ability to control and punish dissent. The end result, when you run out of other people’s money is the rationing of basic necessities – from toilet paper to soap – and the government confiscating the production of labor, like in this case, leading to a drastic decline in productivity across the board. After all, who wants to work hard to get the same reward as the people that do absolutely nothing?

This is what the social revolution will always play out as. Ask the Greeks how close they are to just this.

Sandra Bland

The big news this week is the arrest and subsequent death of Sandra Bland. An activist soon to start a job at Prairie View A&M, she was arrested after being pulled over for failing to signal a turn, then found dead in her cell. Her death was ruled a suicide but is now being investigated as a murder

Yesterday, dash cam footage was released. In it, Bland is told to put out her cigarette by the officer. When she refuses, the situation escalates almost immediately as the officer orders out of the car, threatens her with a taser and arrests her. There is then a confrontation off camera where the officer says she assaulted him, which was the reason she went to jail (although she was arrested before the assault).

A lot of things to unpack here.

First, was the officer within his power to order her out of the car? Jacob Sullum goes over the legal issues and the answer is “maybe”.

Based on their comments in the video, Encinia and Bland clearly agreed that the escalation from warning to arrest was ridiculous, but they had diametrically opposed views of who was to blame. If only Bland had been more respectful and cooperative, Encinia thought, she could have been on her way. If only Encinia had not been so determined to assert his authority for its own sake, Bland thought, he never would have forced her out of the car, let alone handcuffed her and knocked her down.

Second, I keep thinking of what Radley Balko often says about police shootings: even if the shooting itself was justified, there were often errors and bad decisions leading up to that point. Even if arresting Bland for assaulting an officer was justified, the decisions leading up to that are questionable at best. I think that pulling Bland out of her car, threatening her with a taser and arresting her was a bit of an over-reaction to someone for talking back (mildly at first, but becoming more confrontational as the arrest proceeds as she yells at him and calls him “a pussy”).

Finally, there is the big issue of the circumstances of Bland’s death. All indications are that Bland was not the kind to kill herself and I think a full and thorough investigation is warranted. We’ve had a few of these incidents, including at least two incidents were a person who had been searched, handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car supposedly found a gun and shot himself to death.

That having been said … we should be prepared if it turns out that she did indeed kill herself. Suicides tend to be impulsive and Bland’s family wouldn’t be the first to be shocked by a unexpected suicide. Last year, we were told over and over again that there was no way Michael Brown would attack a police officer and then charge into gunfire. The argument convinced me to be skeptical of the officer’s version of events. But it turned out to be the truth. Sometimes people do stupid, irrational and tragic things.

So, yes, let’s investigate the death. And let’s also ask questions about why a routine traffic stop ended in an arrest. And let’s accept the answers, whatever they are.

The Nanny State Strikes Again

Every time I think we’ve reached a new low with people freaking out about kids, we manage to break through the bottom of the barrel:

Laura Browder said she had her 6-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son with her at Memorial City Mall for a job interview because she didn’t have enough time to line up child care. Browder sat her children down inside the food court near a McDonald’s and went to her interview, she said. The interview wasn’t for a job at the mall, but the food court was a meeting ground for each party.

Browder said she wasn’t more than 30 feet away from her children at any point and they were always in her line of sight. After Browder returned to her children, a police officer was on scene and arrested her.

The arrest came moments after Browder had accepted a job. She said she’s unsure how her arrest that day will affect her opportunity with that job.

CPS officials said they’re still in the early stages of their investigation, but added they could offer services to help Browder find suitable daycare.

This isn’t just ridiculous, it’s cruel. This is a single mother going to college trying to get a job. I’d be a bit nervous about leaving a 6-year-old and a toddler by themselves as way, but arresting her and charging her with abandonment is just absurd. Maybe there’s more to the story, but the information we have now makes it seem like an absurd over-reaction.

Science Sunday: The Anti-GMO Crackpots

This week’s science blog is an excuse to point you at Will Saletan’s thorough article exposing the deceptions used by the forces opposed to genetically modified foods. After a year of reporting, he has unveiled a long post thick with links to studies by scientists and claims by anti-GMO activists. It is very very damning. The anti-GMO crowd make the Intelligent Designers look like Marie Curie:

I’ve spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Here’s what I’ve learned. First, it’s true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. It’s full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. They’re counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.

Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movement—that prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, food—is a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.

Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isn’t a thing. It’s a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If you’re concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label won’t tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.

Saletan focuses on three examples of anti-GMO nutbaggery. The first the is the ringspot virus-resistant papaya, engineered to save the papaya industry in Hawaii. Environmentalist groups unleashed every trick in the book: claiming it was unsafe to consume a viral protein that people were consuming anyway; claiming it was bankrupting farmers (because of their opposition); claiming it had not been proven safe. All of these were lies and distortions, pushed by people with an agenda.

Next is crops containing Bt — a protein that kills predatory insects. Anti-GMO activists insist that plants contain Bt are poison … when they aren’t claiming they are ineffective. They do this while pushing Bt-containing sprays as safe and sustainable and attributing harms from Bt sprays to Bt-engineered crops.

Finally, he gets to the golden rice, which we’ve mentioned before. The golden rice could save the eyesight of hundreds of thousands of children. Anti-GMO activists opposed it because it didn’t have enough vitamin A. Then opposed because it had too much.

That summary doesn’t do justice to what’s going on. All along the way, the anti-GMO forces have been … well, lying. They distort studies, they misquote studies, they ignore studies that contradict their opinion. They denounce things as dangerous when they come from genetic engineering but proclaim them safe when they come from other means.

Now you might say, “Hey, what’s the harm in labeling GMO foods?” Here’s the harm:

GMO labels don’t clarify what’s in your food. They don’t address the underlying ingredients—pesticides, toxins, proteins—that supposedly make GMOs harmful. They stigmatize food that’s perfectly safe, and they deflect scrutiny from non-GMO products that have the same disparaged ingredients.

In other words, that safe organic banana might actually have more pesticide, more bacteria and more “toxins” than the supposedly dangerous GMO product. Putting a scarlet letter on GMO products isn’t “informing the public”. It’s trying to scare them into supporting an agenda.

This isn’t a trivial matter. Right now, we are seeing the spread of the UG-99 wheat rust. This rust has the potential to wreck the world’s wheat production, causing mass starvation and economic chaos. We desperately need to engineer strains of wheat that can resist the rust. But if the anti-GMO forces get their way, we’ll only be able to use the slow and less certain process of traditional breeding. Millions could die as a result.

(Saletan, like everyone who defends GMO’s, is being accused of being paid off by Monsanto. Monsanto had a clever reply to this.)

Saletan doesn’t ignore legitimate issues with GMO crops, such as the arms race they are creating in weed control. But those are solvable problems. Solvable problems that are not getting enough attention because the green luddites have us focused on the wrong things.

GMO crops are safe. This is the conclusion of every scientific study that has been done. There are issues around GMO’s that need some work. Let’s concentrate on that.

What could go wrong?

I am not surprised to hear that the crime syndicate running the country right now is basically collecting information on the serfs, and absolutely not surprised the emphasis on race is there. After all, the grief mongers have an election coming soon and running on the disastrous record of the last 7 years is not an option. Money quote:

A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.

This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.

So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.

Funny this, because the last 3 months have I have experienced 3 scenarios where when prompted I told the people I wouldn’t disclose my race or didn’t want them to note it, and met with huge resistance. My dental assistant was flabbergasted that I wouldn’t let her note my race on the reams of paperwork the government demands be filled (one other question asked was if I owned fire arms and I told her the answer was “fuck off, slavers”). The two people that called me with their surveys – both of them with clear agendas – also were insistent that I provide race information. I refused. Adamantly. They were not happy.

Considering the agenda, I am not surprised they want to collect this. Considering their other corrupt activities, I have no doubt this will also be mishandled and presented in whatever way will benefit the social justice warrior class. But have no doubt that they will find a way to abuse this. That is the legacy of this band of thieves, after all.

Trump Implodes

If you had July 18th in the pool for when Trump self-destructed, collect your winnings:

Donald Trump ignited a political firestorm Saturday by questioning whether Sen. John McCain — who spent over five years as a prisoner during the Vietnam War — is a war hero.

By mid-afternoon, Trump tried to walk back his blunder on Twitter, saying “captured or not, all our soldiers are heroes!”

But his attempt at damage control seemed unlikely to diminish the anger his remarks had caused. They provoked an immediate outcry from his 2016 presidential rivals and the Republican National Committee, which has expressed concern about the impact his controversial remarks on immigration have had on the GOP brand.

The controversy began early Saturday afternoon, when Trump, speaking at a question-and-answer session at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, commented on McCain, with whom he’s recently feuded over illegal immigration.

“He is not a war hero,” Trump told pollster Frank Luntz, who was hosting the session.

“He is a war hero,” Luntz interjected.

“He is a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said, cutting him off. “I like people that weren’t captured, OK? I hate to tell you. He is a war hero because he was captured. OK, you can have — I believe perhaps he is a war hero.”

Let’s review John McCain’s record here. When we got into Vietnam, McCain requested a combat assignment. While on the Forrestal, he barely escaped with his life during the Forrestal fire and was injured trying to save another pilot. He then volunteered for combat duty again, during which he was shot down and captured.

“Shot down and captured” is a nice word for breaking both arms and a leg, being beaten by Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, bayoneted and put into the infamous Hanoi Hilton. He refused early release (the Vietnamese wanted to use his release for propaganda), which resulted in more torture.

No one — not even McCain’s harshest critics — questions that he was a war hero, both before his capture and especially during it. Trump, who appears to have received at least five deferments, including a medical one, should not be surprised with how people are reacting.

This is the problem with having a Presidential candidate who “says what he thinks”. Politics is the art of saying what you think without pissing off half the country. You frequently have to against what the majority of Americans want. If you look at some of our best Presidents — like Reagan — they had a way of expressing their point of view while not driving away the other party. They had a way of negotiating with foreign leaders while not driving them from the table. It’s a skill and a critical one. And I’ve seen no evidence that Trump has it.

I’m open a brash interloper who shakes things up. Hell, I’ve been a big fan of the Pauls for a while. I’m even a fan of third party candidates. I don’t think our budget would have gotten balanced in the 90’s if not for the Perot insurgency. But what is the issue that Trump’s trying to make noise about? Immigration? The economy? The deficit? Anything other than himself? Rand Paul is trying to open the party to young people and minorities. Marco Rubio has been trying to expand the party’s appeal to the middle and working class. Both of these men have done a good job this year of stating their views without driving anyone away. Who exactly is Trump trying to open the party to?

Trump won’t get the nomination, obviously. Despite “leading the polls” (i.e, drawing 17% in a big field based on name recognition), his negatives among the Republican party are off the charts. But the longer he is sucking up the oxygen in the room, the more likely it is that the Republicans establishment will panic and go with an ultra-safe candidate like Jeb Bush. And indeed, Jeb is getting the lion’s share of contributions right now.

I really hope this is the end of Trump’s publicity stunt, but I doubt it. He’s getting too much attention from the wing of the party that has long been dissatisfied with the leadership. It tells you how disaffected they are that they support someone like this:

In public statements, he has advocated government healthcare, a woman’s right to an abortion, an assault weapons ban, and paying off the national debt by forcing rich people to forfeit 14.25 percent of their total wealth. When the man married his third wife, he invited Bill and Hillary Clinton to the wedding, and he has given many thousands to their political campaigns and their foundation. He’s donated many thousands more that helped elect Democrats to the Senate and the House. And George W. Bush was “maybe the worst president in the history of this country,” the man said in 2008. “He was so incompetent, so bad, so evil.”

Look, I understand the frustration a lot of people have the GOP, especially on issues like immigration .We have a lot of problems right now that need to addressed: big future deficits, big current deficits, the bill coming due for Obamacare, a broken immigration system, a broken justice system, Russia rattling the saber, a brewing Sunni-Shia War in the Middle East. I like the idea of supporting an insurgent candidate but Trump is not that candidate. He’s a circus freak biting the heads of chickens. And his comments on John McCain are just the wool coming off of a few million eyes.