A Look at the Midterms and CNN's Jim Acosta

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media was so overjoyed at the prospect of a "blue wave" that they could barely contain themselves. After all, Trump just had to be stopped because of his "gross incompetence" and "troubling executive overreach" and his tolerance, even encouragement, of "corrupt behavior." So said the November 6 editorial of the USA Today, which was typical of other papers. "Gross incompetence?" Would that be having as much as a 4% growth rate in a single quarter? I recall Obama mocking the idea of being able to turn around his 2% growth rate, being the only President to never have an annual growth rate of 3% or more. Does the USA Today want to return to that "gross incompetence"?

After the election, this opinion by the LA Times was typical of the mainstream media. "...the results in the House of Representatives are a dramatic and deserved rebuke for the president," which "clearly constitutes a repudiation of Trump's reckless policies, his violation of political and ethical norms and his repeated falsehoods." It is true that the Democrats may have gained as many as 40 House seats.

But if you were expecting the media to give you any context, current or historical, well, c'mon now. As for current context, at least 38 Republicans decided not to seek reelection this year. That is the greatest number of Republicans retiring from the House since 1930. It is much more difficult for a party to hold onto a seat without the incumbent running again. Historically, even with 40 seats lost, that is less than Clinton's 54 lost seats in his first midterms, and far less than Obama's 63 lost seats in his first midterms. So, was the election a clear repudiation of President Trump? No doubt there was some element of rejection of Trump; but when looked at in context not really a "clear repudiation."

Who gets the money in politics? That would be the Democrats. According to the 11/9/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Democratic House candidates this cycle raised $951 million as of Oct. 17, the most recent reporting cutoff, according to figures from OpenSecrets.org" They tell us that is nearly 50% more than House Republicans raised. Billionaire Democrats? Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer. Another Democratic billionaire, J.B. Pritzker, became governor of Illinois.

I know. I'm supposed to be excited (my daughters told me) about the record number of women who will be entering Congress in January. At least 123 women. But I'm not there. I guess I should have been excited when we elected our first black president, but it was Obama - a leftist. Former Congressman Allen West or Senator Tim Scott or even Larry Elder, would be a different story. You see, I am just not interested in identity politics.

Here are four newly elected women - Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ayanna Presley (Massachusetts), and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan). At least 3 are anti-Israel, with one having mixed reviews. Perhaps my Democratic Jewish friends can explain to me why I should be happy about the election of these women, when I consider myself a pro-Israel Zionist. Ilhan Omar said she "believes in and supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement..."against Israel. She has said "Israel has hypnotized the world," and has done "evil things." Rashida Tlaib has said she favors a "one state" solution in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I suspect she hopes that the one state would be a Palestinian/Muslim state - making the 58th Muslim country and eliminating the world's one Jewish country.

Did you watch the White House press conference involving the exchange between President Trump and CNN "reporter" Jim Acosta. Acosta was quite rude and argumentative. It is expected that the White House press corps will ask questions. Instead, Acosta wanted to argue with the President by telling him the caravan was not an invasion, but just a group of migrants on their way to our border. Trump disagreed, and said he wanted people to come here legally, and through a certain process.

Acosta then wanted to move on to the Russia investigation, but the President told him "that's enough" several times. Acosta refused to yield the microphone. I missed the part where people who hold themselves out as reporters are supposed to make the news about themselves. Walter Cronkite was a newsman for many decades. Yet, it was not until he retired that we found out that he was a liberal Democrat. He did his job in a professional manner. Acosta has no clue, however. I agree with Trump's assessment, telling Acosta "you are a rude terrible person."

After Acosta had his hard pass to the White House taken from, he and CNN filed suit. Incredibly, a Judge ordered his pass be reinstated. Why any individual should have a right to access to the White House I will never understand. CNN certainly has other members of the White House press corps. If I was advising Trump, I would tell him to never call on Acosta again. And if the rest of the White House press corps refused to ask questions until Acosta was called on, I would walk out. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President hold a press conference.

Some Comments on the Events of the Last Two Months

Yesterday, an evil anti-Semitic, likely white nationalist, went into a Pittsburgh synagogue during a Shabbat service and opened fire on innocent unarmed people. Tell me how this is any different from the Nazis having Jews line up and then simply shooting them dead. Evil exists in the world, and it will not go away with wishful thinking. Therefore, all such soft targets as houses of worship need to defend themselves. It may be a sad state of affairs, but when in history has evil not existed. Think Cain and Abel.

This horrific shooting follows by days the capture of another evil man who sent packages filled with bombs to various Democratic officials and left-wing individuals. I tuned in to MSNBC only to see the moderator attempt to have every person on a panel blame President Trump for all the bomb packages, and even for the killing of the Saudi journalist Khashoggi. I blame the individual perpetrators. The mainstream media would never consider that Hillary's comment about not being civil to Republicans, or Holder's comment about "kicking them" when they're down, as possibly inciting people to violence. Or maybe being angered by a Robert De Niro feeling free to say to a national TV audience during the Tony Awards: "Fuck Trump." And then virtually the entire audience stands and applauds De Niro. The media believes that only Trump's comments may have negative consequences. I have said it before - being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.

I also tuned in to CNN. On the bottom of the screen was this "headline" or news ticker: "Manhunt for serial bomber going after Trump's targets." The clear implication is that Trump set the targets for the bomber, and the bomber complied. This is odious. They did not even say "Trump's critics." No, they wanted the viewer to associate Trump with the bomber. Is it any wonder that Trump calls them "fake news?" This blog has for years written posts on the bias of the mainstream media, beginning well before Trump entered the presidential race. (One need only scroll back to find those earlier posts.)

Much was made of Hillary's call for incivility when she said: "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." However, I find the second part of her comment far more telling: "a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." Hillary essentially opined what this blog has previously discussed - the Democrats no longer share in the basic American values, and therefore she was able to say that Republicans want to destroy what she stands for. (See the 2016 posts on why I would not vote for Hillary to see what she and the Democrats stand for.) Just one current example - immigration. The Democrats want to eliminate ICE, and some want open borders. They support the "caravan" of thousands people coming from Central America into the USA, with no concern for US laws or US sovereignty.

The Kavanaugh hearings were a disgrace. CA Senator Dianne Feinstein knew well before the hearings commenced about the allegations made by Christine Ford. She did not bother to tell Chairman Grassley. Instead, the Dems attempted to prevent the hearing from going forward, constantly interrupting the Chairman's opening comments. The Dems goal of convincing some Republicans to vote against moving Kavanaugh's nomination forward failed. He was clearly exceedingly well-qualified. It was only after the hearing closed that Feinstein came forward with Professor Ford. It was hardly coincidental that Ford's attorneys were Democratic activists who worked for free and whose names were provided to Ford by none other than Senator Feinstein. Ford claimed she did not want to travel to DC (fear of flying, even though she flew all over for work and leisure) and did not want to testify publicly. Grassley says he made three separate offers to Ford and her legal team to have her testify in her home state of California. Ford denied knowing of any such offers. Was she lying, or did her attorneys not tell her, preferring to have a political circus on national TV? I know where my money would go.

Whenever the Dems do not get their way, it's time to change the Constitution. With the Citizens United case, the Dems wanted to change the First Amendment in order to limit political speech. With Trump's victory in 2016, the Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. With Kavanaugh's confirmation by the full Senate, the Dems want to change the make-up of the Senate. Their argument - why should low population states get 2 senators when much more populated states also only get 2 senators? Good luck with that. As David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in the 10/16/18 Wall Street Journal, the "Connecticut Compromise" allowed more populated states greater representation in the House, and gave smaller States equal representation in the Senate. It had nothing to do with racism as alleged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Any change to equal representation of the States in the Senate would require agreement by all 50 states. As the WSJ writers point out, Article V provides: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

The mid-term election is only days away. The Democrats are fielding a number of anti-Israel candidates, reflecting the pro-Palestinian bias of rank and file Democrats. As reported by Gil Troy in the 11/1/18 Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) says she will oppose aid to Israel. Scott Wallace (Pennsylvania) supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. (As an aside, BDS suppotters never express concern about countries such as Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, for example. That tells me these people are fundamentally anti-Semitic.) Then we have Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) calling Israel an "apartheid" state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), admitting she is no expert on geopolitical events, referred to Israel's "occupation" of Palestine (as did Obama), and seemed to blame only Israel for deaths at the Gaza border. Then we have Leslie Cockburn (Virginia) who wrote a book claiming "that the Israeli-American connection is somewhere behind just about everything that ails us," according to a review in the liberal New York Times.

One thing should be clear to everyone. Anti-Semitism, at times disguised as "anti-Israel," is alive and well. It comes from the extreme right, and, unfortunately, it now comes from mainstream Democrats (see above paragraph). It comes from too many Muslims. I know - anti-Semitism is the oldest form of hatred based on "the other." But it is increasingly happening in what has been the safest country in history for the Jews. It is time for all Jews to stand for Israel and for Judaism. I hope that Jews in the above-referenced states do not vote for these anti-Israel candidates just because there is a "D" after their name.

Finally, I see no indication that Trump, the Democrats, or the mainstream media will stop their inflammatory speech. Therefore, it is up to each and every one of us to set the example. We need to do better.

'And a Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest..."*

(* With apologies to Paul Simon.) There is no nice way to say this. The media pushes propaganda - left-wing propaganda - and my leftist friends devour it. Here is just one example. In the race for the governorship of Florida, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R) will be running against Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum (D). Gillum is a leftist, and is supported by Bernie Sanders.

Following the recent primary election, DeSantis was on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox. DeSantis: "I'm trying to make Florida even better; he (Gillum) wants to make Florida Venezuela." But, according to the Los Angeles Times (8/30/18 edition), "DeSantis warned Floridians not to 'monkey this up' by choosing Gillum, drawing protest from Democrats who accused him of using a racially charged phrase." Said the head of Florida's Democratic Party: "It's disgusting that Ron DeSantis is launching his general election campaign with racist dog whistles."

The Huffington Post had this online headline: "Ron DeSantis Tells Florida Not to 'Monkey This Up' By Electing Andrew Gillum." The left-wing site Vox ran with this online headline: "Ron DeSantis says Andrew Gillum winning Florida would 'monkey this up.'" Never one to be outdone, CNN's online headline read: "Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up.'" CNN wanted to be sure that their readers knew Mr. Gillum is a black man, in case they were unaware of that fact.

Except, for those who may be interested, this is the full comment by DeSantis: "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state." Maybe there was more to the entire interview, but I do not see anything here about Mr. Gillum being black. But why should that matter to a media that wants to paint every Republican as being a racist (and sexist and islamophobic and homophobic and so on).

When my brother and I were kids, and we were fighting or just fooling around or just making too much noise for our Dad, he would tell us to "stop monkeying around." My father, a white man, made the comment to his two white sons. It was an expression. There was also a Yiddish expression used by our parents if we were acting up too much - they called us vilde chaya (wild animals).

The media is only too happy to depict all Republicans as being racist. And for my friends on the left who already believe it, this kind of distorted story serves only to confirm their beliefs.

Socialism?

On the first page of the "Sunday Review" (opinion) section of the New York Times is an Op-Ed by author and professor of political science at Brooklyn College and the City University of New York, Corey Robin. The article is titled: "The New Socialists," and speaks quite favorably of socialism over capitalism. Professor Robin touts the young Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who are openly socialist, and following in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders. He also seems to relish in what he calls the "skyrocketing" growth in membership of the Democratic Socialists of America, especially among the young.

The reader is told about the horrors of capitalism. "Under capitalism, we're forced to enter the market just to live." And: "Under capitalism, we're forced to submit to the boss." Of course, people might try becoming their own boss. Or, they could hope that someone just mails them a check every week. Although that really never worked for me. Or, one can play the lotto, if you don't mind really poor odds.

We are also told that "the socialist argument against capitalism, isn't that it makes us poor. It's that it makes us unfree." Old style Democrats, such as Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are not like today's socialist Democrats. "Today's young candidates of the left tell a story of personal struggle that meshes with their political vision." Interesting how the left, a la Karl Marx, equates all of life's struggles with economics. Thank you Karl Marx. Some of us have had life-long physical struggles; others, emotional struggles, family struggles, even struggles with friends. Of course, the left would find some convoluted way to connect it all to economics.

Then, we see what is perhaps the most telling comment in the article: "It's not enough to criticize Donald Trump or the Republicans; the Democrats are also complicit in the rot of American life." "The rot of American life." Wow. I am aware of various studies that do not rank the USA among the top ten countries in the world in either freedom or income; although we generally come in just over or under number 20. Those rankings get us in or near the top 10% of countries in the world. If life in the US is "rot," then what does that say about the other 90%? How comforting to know that professors such as Professor Robin get to fill young people's heads with loathing for America.

Then, the professor explains the difference between just liberals and socialists. "With their talk of Medicare for all or increasing the minimum wage, these socialist candidates sound like New Deal or Great Society liberals. There's not much discussion, yet, of classic socialist tenets like worker control or collective ownership of the means of production." (As usual, the socialists are really talking about communism, with government/worker control.) You see, "the socialist...believes that making things free makes people free." Hmmm. But who makes all the free stuff? And what motivates them to put in the hours to make free stuff?

Finally, we are told that socialists "are already debating the next steps: state ownership of certain industries, worker councils and economic cooperatives, (and) sovereign wealth funds." I am curious as to how this state ownership comes about. Do they steal companies from their rightful owners? If so, I guess that's not "freedom" for everybody. Does the government start new businesses, and undercut private businesses, putting thousands, if not millions, of people out of work? If you want to know what supermarket shelves look like in socialist countries, take a look at pictures from the Soviet Union, or more recently, Venezuela. And read the stories about how women in Venezuela have taken to prostitution in order to feed their families.

As for the so-called "socialist" countries of Scandinavia and Europe, the reality is that they are market based economies with high taxes, which allows them, in turn, to provide some of the "free" stuff that socialists think their worker collectives will provide. Actual socialist/communist countries fail - always. Which is why those that have tried it ultimately revert to capitalism - the greatest system ever devised for the creation of wealth.

Some Preliminary Thoughts and Observations

Tuesday was certainly a huge news day. Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 of 18 federal charges, including tax evasion and lying on bank loan applications. Manafort had been Trump's campaign manager for 3 months in 2016. His crimes date back years, and are unrelated to the special counsel's investigation into Russian collusion. However, Mueller's power includes the ability to pursue other charges arising from his investigation. Meanwhile, Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, entered into a plea deal with the US Attorneys from the Southern District of New York; the Cohen case having been referred there from Mueller. Cohen pleaded guilty to 5 counts of tax evasion, one count of lying on a loan application, and two counts of campaign finance violations.

I am opposed to the idea of a "special counsel." I opposed it when Ken Starr pursued Bill Clinton, and I am opposed to Mueller's investigation. Interference by the Russians, or other foreign entities, is a serious matter. That should be investigated by Congress. I am opposed to giving any prosecutor the power to pursue claims that arise from an investigation into other matters. Everyone I have asked has agreed that they would not want the full power of the federal government, with unlimited resources, investigating every corner of their lives. Why did Mueller keep the case against Manafort, as it had no relation to Russian collusion? At the least, refer it to a US Attorney's office. Mueller's mission from the outset was to get Trump - just like Starr's mission against Clinton. Sorry to disappoint all those who are celebrating Tuesday's news, but open and ongoing investigations into sitting presidents makes the US appear to be a banana republic.

Trump supporters have pointed out that Obama paid $375,000 for campaign finance violations. That was a civil fine, as there was no charge that the violations were done "knowingly," which would make it a crime. But still, why such a huge fine? The Baltimore Sun reported in 2012 that the restrictions on campaign donations has actually brought more money into politics, with Presidents spending more time out fund raising. According to the paper, had Obama accepted public funding for his campaign, he would have received about $135 million. However, with all of his fund raising, online and in person, he was able to raise $745 million. The paper noted that Obama made 220 fund raising trips during the two year campaign - compared to only 86 for Bush, 70 for Bill Clinton, 24 by G.H.W. Bush, 3 by Ronald Reagan and 25 by Jimmy Carter.

A very good argument can be made about the need to change these campaign finance laws. Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to 2 counts of violating campaign finance laws. Why? It is not obvious that any violation occurred. The plea was likely made because, with Clinton confidante and adviser Lanni Davis as his attorney, a deal was made for lesser prison time as long as Cohen would not only admit that it was a crime, but also admit that Trump had him do the alleged crime (paying off Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal) "for the purpose of influencing the election." That makes it a crime if it was unreported, but only if the sole purpose was to influence the election. Except, clearly Trump would have personal reasons as well for not wanting any affairs to be made public. And, if Trump was using his own funds, still not a crime, as there is no limit on using one's own money for the campaign. But Davis has called Trump an "illegitimate President," and has written a book advocating for Trump's impeachment. So the plea gave Davis the opportunity to announce that if Cohen admitted the payments were a crime, then Trump must be guilty of the same crime. Would that suggest collusion between between Davis and the US Attorney in order to get Trump?

So, if these undeclared payments are in fact a crime, why? Wouldn't that make Hillary Clinton's payments to Fusion GPS for the Steele dossier also be an unreported campaign contribution, and therefore a crime? Sadly, it would not make any difference to my liberal friends to point out that Obama escaped escaped impeachment over Fast and Furious. Or Benghazi, and the lies about a movie trailer. Or using the IRS to target specific conservative groups and individuals. It would make no difference that Hillary Clinton had 33,000 missing emails, because, all of us use "bleach bit" to get rid of emails which are claimed to be personal - not classified - in nature. It would make no difference to remind liberals that Timothy Geithner was, shall we say, somewhat light in paying his federal income taxes for at least four years; which apparently qualified Geithner to become Obama's Treasury Secretary, a person who also oversees the IRS (the taxing entity that he shorted). We seem to have two justice systems, one for Republican officials and one for others. We will now be seeing non-stop prosecutions of people affiliated with Trump, and other Republicans.

What about attorney-client privilege and confidentiality? I get that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, was willing to break the privilege and risk likely disbarment in order to avoid decades in prison. But is anyone else concerned that the federal prosecutor undoubtedly forced Cohen to break the privilege in order to get an opening into Trump. Is anyone else concerned that the prosecutor wrote the script for what Cohen had to say (that the payments were made "for the purpose of influencing the election"), even though Cohen had previously said just the opposite. I guess there is no line that prosecutors are not allowed to cross.

If the Democrats take back the House in November, which seems increasingly likely, then the day they are sworn in in January will be the day Articles of Impeachment are taken up by the House Judiciary Committee. The Democrats have been seeking Trump's impeachment since his inauguration. And, no doubt, they will justify their actions as payback for Clinton's impeachment. With conviction in the Senate highly unlikely, it will be yet another political charade, and a waste of taxpayer money.

Here's something to ponder: from 1790 to 1973, a period of 183 years, we had one impeachment of a president. Andrew Johnson, who was not convicted by the Senate. If we assume the Dems win the House in November, there is every indication impeachment proceedings will begin in January. That will make for 3 impeachment proceedings in the last 45 years. Nixon, who resigned before the entire House could vote on Articles of Impeachment. Clinton, who was impeached but not convicted. And Trump. If the Congress impeached at the same rate in our first 183 years, we would have had 12 impeachments during that time - not one. Here's my question: do you believe we now have more scoundrels and bad actors in modern times than before (if so, really?) - or are the two parties now using impeachment as a political weapon with no concern for the divisive impact on the country?

Which brings me to my final comment for the night. Our politicians are too concerned with their own reelections and their own power. Their egos swell with time in office. They begin to think that the people are irrelevant, that it's all about them. Previously, I opposed term limits for Congress, thinking people should be able to vote for whomever they want. But, if we can limit a president to two terms (eight years), why not limit Representatives to five terms (ten years), and Senators to two terms (twelve years). And let's have the people, at the ballot box, decide who holds political office - instead of the politicians dictating to the people, through impeachment proceedings, who gets to hold office.

Actually, one more final note. In case some of you need me to say it. No, I do not condone or excuse tax evasion or defrauding banks. Criminals should be punished. I have often said that people in office, and top level people in the world of business, sports and entertainment, do not think that the norms of society apply to them. Another reason for instituting term limits on Congress.

Democrats Will Seek to Imprison Republicans if They Win the Midterms!

What? You don't believe it? Why not? Paul Krugman is the left-wing Nobel prize winning economist and Op-Ed writer for the New York Times. In the August 18, 2018 online edition of the Times was an article by Mr. Krugman titled "The Slippery Slope of Complicity." Krugman starts out his piece by claiming that "Trump is every bit as much a menace to the republic, as some of us warned when all the cool kids were busy snarking about Clinton's emails." The "slippery slope" in his title refers to the Republicans having tolerated some of Trump's behaviors, to the point where they now "acquiesce in Trump's corruption, his incitement to violence, and his abuse of power."

Krugman then makes this outrageous assertion, based on nothing, which the New York Times - the self-described "paper of record" - happily publishes online: "Make no mistake: If Republicans hold both houses of Congress this November, Trump will go full authoritarian, abusing institutions like the I.R.S., trying to jail opponents and journalists on, er trumped-up charges, and more - and he'll do it with full support from his party." Then, Krugman went even further with this contention: "And some of them (Republicans) are making a coldblooded calculation that the demise of democracy is worth it if it means lower taxes on the rich and freedom to pollute."

It is hard to believe that this was not an "April Fool's" online edition of the Times. It was Obama who actually used the I.R.S. to target conservative 501(c)(3) organizations. It was Obama who spied on journalists, and sought to prosecute more people under the Espionage Act than other presidents. Where is Krugman's evidence that Trump wants to jail opponents and journalists? If there is no evidence, how dare he say it, and how dare the Times put it up online. And if there is evidence - and I am sure there is not - he should tell us what it is in the article.

One can only feel scorn for the claim that Republicans are willing to see an end to our democracy in exchange for lower taxes and pollution. Then again, Krugman also tells us that "Republican politicians are (not) serious, honorable people who care about policy." This sounds quite similar to Hillary's "basket of deplorables" - the racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes and Islamophobes. Only Krugman has taken it to the next level. Now, the deplorables (i.e. Republicans) want to lock up opponents, lock up journalists, and bring about an end to democracy just to get lower taxes and pollution.

In case Krugman's, and the Times, left-wing readers were not clear on the point of this trashy Op-Ed, Krugman makes it quite explicit: "democracy really could die just a few moths from now." In other words, with a Republican victory in the midterms, our democracy ends. So, Krugman, and presumably the Times, justify this garbage because the goal is to rally the base to get out and vote in order to prevent...fascism, jailing journalists, and lower taxes and pollution.

Here's how I look at it - if Krugman can make all these scurrilous comments about Trump and Republicans, then why can't I claim that Democrats will seek to imprison Republicans? Maybe Democrats will force Republicans into slavery and prostitution. Don't blame me. It's a time honored Democratic approach to the opposition - demagoguery and name-calling instead of true debate with facts and logical argument. Just ask Hillary. And Obama. And Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them.

Democratic Voices

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is seeking reelection. One of his opponents is TV star Cynthia Nixon. Nixon has called our Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a "terrorist" organization which should be abolished.

Not to be outdone, Governor Cuomo said this: "We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great." Yes, his media people tried to walk that back. But the fact that those words came out of his mouth is clearly a reflection of the left's continuing attacks on America.

Here is another. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to our criminal justice system as "racist...front to back." Didn't some recent Democratic officials high up in our government feel the same way about the police and our criminal justice system? That's right - President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.

We cannot leave Hillary Clinton out of this. When an eleven year old sixth grader in Maryland decided to take a knee during the Pledge of Allegiance, Clinton supported her. I realize that today's kids are more sophisticated and more worldly than we were at that age, but how much of this girl's actions was actually being promoted by her parents? Here's Clinton: "It takes courage to exercise your right to protest injustice, especially when you're 11. Keep up the good work..."

Is that what we want as a society? Or do we want our kids to stand and say the Pledge? Do we want to instill a love of country? A love for the Flag and what it represents? As noted in the last post, a country is held together by shared values. When those values come under constant attack, then how can anyone be surprised by how divided we are as a nation.