The nadir of the amoral egotism of what might broadly be called “Me-ism” has been reached by the avant garde of the Democratic Party in their race to the bottom of the electoral depths. The renunciation of any notions of sacrifice, patriotic pride, the spirituality of life, or the recognition of anything except the smash-and-grab politics of endless atomized grievances and instant gratification of convenience, has reached what must, in its way, be the end of history.
The governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurologist, led the way downwards with an unctuous statement on the virtues of delivering children, assuring their survival as live babies, and then determining in discussion with the mother (of course) whether they deserved to be allowed to survive.
This was an attitude that appalled a large section of opinion in 5th century B.C. Athens. In espousing it, far more than the utter moral vacuity of the cutting edge of the Democratic Party has been exposed. When running for governor, Northam called his opponent a racist and President Trump a “narcissistic maniac.”
The Bigger Fight
The informal, spontaneous, emergent strategy of the Democrats is finally erupting and foaming from the mouths and nostrils of their legislators and candidates in a mighty outburst of opportunistic consciousness. This is a delayed reaction to the destruction of their monopoly on political power by the Trump phenomenon, compounded by the recognition that Trump can’t be impeached and will do everything he promised if he can get a firm enough grip on the apparatus of political power.
The supreme struggle for the commanding heights of American politics, the battle of Verdun or of Stalingrad, has come over immigration. The decades-old understanding between machine Democrats vacuuming up easy Latino votes and largely Republican employers exploiting the cheap labor of illegal Latino immigrants enabled Donald Trump to forge a new coalition of the threatened working class, the middle class exhausted by more than a decade of flat-lined purchasing power, the silent majority of disinterested patriotic Americans, and the legitimate immigrants who do not want their ability to climb the socio-economic ladder as American immigrants have done for 240 years to be undercut by swarms of illegal migrants with no sense of choosing a new country and determining to accept that country’s values and work within them.
Democrats rejoice in proclaiming that Trump didn’t drain much of the swamp when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. They know perfectly well that the Republicans in the Congress were NeverTrumpers. The only senator Trump had at the outset was the subsequently hopeless attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who could not have done more to assist the cover-up of Democratic skullduggery if he had co-authored the Steele dossier.
Now Trump has banished the worst of the NeverTrumpers from the congressional Republican delegation, and won the rest over by friendly persuasion—except for Mitt Romney, who virtually terminated his useful career as a senator two days before he was sworn in with an article on the president’s character. The piece confirmed about Romney what his predecessor from Utah, Orrin Hatch, had called him: “a well-oiled weather vane.” It showed, too, that he was a treacherous one. Despite Romney and the chronically bumptious Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Trump’s allies are now in control of the Senate and its committees and the unearthing of the misconduct of the Obama Justice Department, intelligence services, and the Clinton campaign—as the attorney general-designate has pledged—are about to begin.
Democrats Backed Into a Corner
The Democratic House of Representatives has taken its stand on immigration. Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), they claim to favor border security but are reluctant to do anything to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. The entire Democratic media echo chamber has gone to maximum decibel levels denouncing the time-honored solution of an “immoral” wall, and claiming the problem is wildly exaggerated and chiefly occurs at airports. They are backing themselves into the corner of “sanctuary cities” where police are instructed to ignore federal immigration laws and census-takers are enjoined from asking the citizenship of the country’s residents, as the Constitution requires.
This is insurrection and the pervasion of the immigration question, around 20 million people who entered the United States illegally, has corrupted the Democratic Party as its leaders balk at rational solutions. These include the establishment of a border, the deportation of serious law-breakers illegally present in the United States, a generous treatment for the people who entered blamelessly as children, and an expedited path to citizenship for the great majority of illegal entrants who have been constructive and law-abiding residents.
With battle joined on immigration, the Democrats have lashed out at the rich, including the close pals of the Clintons and Obamas in Wall Street and Hollywood, and are calling for a return to pre-LBJ, almost World War II-level tax rates, (of the confiscatory levels that drove Ronald Reagan into the Republican Party). La Pasionaria of the movement, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and the modern Herbert Marcuse, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are both calling for top tax rates in the neighborhood of 70 percent. Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, junior U.S. senator from California, surged to the fore by calling for the nationalization of the entire health insurance industry, and, effectively of the entire gigantic field of health care. Never mind single-payer healthcare, this is no-payer health care. Doctors of America would become de facto federal employees.
The Democratic train is now roaring off the tracks and down the third rail which politicians used not to touch, out of a lingering sense of self-preservation. The logical coruscation of this dispersal—this flight from the political center to the left, to stage a goal-line stand of the die-hards against the Trump ogre, grinding relentlessly forward, heedless of the semi-daily announcements by most of the national media of his imminent collapse in legal shambles, is to repurpose abortion as the end of the policy rainbow.
Abortion is too intrusive, too inconvenient; let the children be born and then the mother can decide whether she wants to be a mother after all, or kill the child, or give it up for adoption.
This was the logical end of the nonsensical Roe v. Wade decision that childbirth is exclusively a matter of a woman’s control over her body: it decided correctly that the state does not have the power and should not seek the power to inflict childbirth on a woman who does not want to have a child. But it ignored the real question of when the unborn attain to the rights of a person. That is why the decision is vulnerable and the Democrats, in cold terror that it could be overturned, are in panic and are moving the battle-lines forward to the position of Ralph Northam, far from a natural oracle of moral opinion this past week.
To hell with control over their own bodies! Women will decide in post-natal calm whether to kill the child. It is to this unspeakable assault on every principle and value that has guided, inspired, and undergirded American civilization, where the Democrats are arriving at their last post.
#MeToo was justice by denunciation. Senator and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Dr. Christine Blasey Ford had to be believed over Judge Brett Kavanaugh because she was a woman. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) saved the balance of evidence and of probabilities, and rebutted justice by mere unsubstantiated denunciation. The Democrats are moving on: women will not only cause the rejection of male candidates for high positions, but have them prosecuted, which in the corrupt American justice system in 95 percent of cases means imprisoned. For good measure, the warrior-queen sisterhood will also decide, after birth, whether their children will be allowed to survive. Life is not remotely sacred, it is to be encouraged if convenient and snuffed out if not.
A Frenzy of Extremism
Donald Trump’s greatest achievement may be the total annihilation of the Democratic Party in its present mutated and degraded form. The Democrats have been allowed to slither to their present state of moral degradation with the witless and spineless collaboration of look-alike Republicans who are easy to defeat, like McCain and Romney, or can be survived, like Reagan and the Bushes, or destroyed, like Nixon.
Faced with a Trump they could not defeat and cannot destroy, Democrats appear to be entering a frenzy of primal extremism. If the Democrats go to the voters next year as the party of infanticide, open borders, a 70 percent top personal income tax rate, and the practical abolition of private health care, they will vanish more quickly, and with less distinction, than the Whigs, who at least had serious leaders like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln before their party imploded. This thronging riff-raff of Democratic presidential aspirants couldn’t lead the country across Washington’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, and won’t get an invitation to try.
Much of the noise accompanying President Trump’s partial justification for a wall concerns the veracity of a general threat: that Islamist terror travelers in the flow of “special interest aliens” (SIAs) might easier breach the southern border without one.
Critics in the media vehemently argue that the administration is trafficking in ridiculous, baseless fearmongering. After President Trump said Muslim prayer rugs were intercepted at the border, one Vox article said migration from Muslim-majority countries only happened at “vanishingly small rates.” Another, in The Washington Post, called southern border migration from Muslim countries a “conspiracy theory.”
But perhaps the most influentially misleading article on the subject came from The New York Times. On January 18, The Times published a “Fact Check” column by Linda Qiu titled “Trump’s Baseless Claim About Prayer Rugs Found at the Border.” It essentially concluded that migration from Muslim-majority countries is an unproven conspiracy theory and, even if it did happen, no one could consider it a security threat.
The column contained numerous errors and inaccurately cited two government reports to support the story’s weak contentions. This sort of recurring problem in the media must finally be called out.
Thousands of migrants from countries of terrorism concern do reach the southern border every year; whether they leave prayer rugs behind is irrelevant. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) professionals have, for many years, regarded this migrant traffic as a higher threat, so much so that public funds have long been earmarked for special vetting, investigation, and intelligence work.
Thefirst error fromQui comes when she states: “Nowhere in the White House’s 25-page counterterrorism policy, released in October, was the threat of terrorists infiltrating the nation’s southwest border raised.” In fact, the White House’s “National Strategy for Counterterrorism” includes pointed information on the threat of terrorists infiltrating the border.
The document Qui insists makes no mention of our borders says: “Europe’s struggle to screen the people crossing its borders highlights the importance of ensuring strong United States borders so that terrorists cannot enter the United States.” It then goes on to list “priority actions” about disrupting terrorist travel and securing the border from terrorist threats. One is by sharing intelligence information with our partners, and by helping foreign law enforcement agencies arrest and prosecute them.
Did Qui even read it?
Misleading By Omission
Qui then misleadingly cited another government report that many others have now cited, the State Department’s annual “Country Reports on Terrorism 2017.” She cited the report to support the theory that no one believes there’s a terror threat inherent in this migrant flow. “And the State Department, in a September report, said there was ‘no credible evidence’ that terrorist groups had sent operatives to enter the United States through Mexico,” she wrote.
In reality, the report clearly states and preserves the idea that the border does indeed remain vulnerable to terrorist infiltration, even if in 2017 no organized group deployed over it. This nuance is always tactically truncated (by Fox News’s Chris Wallace and many others) to support a very different narrative. It says that “The U.S. southern border remains vulnerable to potential terrorist transit, although terrorist groups likely seek other means of trying to enter the United States.”
Elsewhere, the report (p.194 for those who are curious) again states the border’s vulnerability: “In addition, many Latin American countries have porous borders, limited law enforcement capabilities, and established smuggling routes. These vulnerabilities offer opportunities to foreign terrorist groups, but there have been no cases of terrorist groups exploiting these gaps to move operations through the region.”
To cite this report as only saying no terrorists have crossed from Mexico in the year 2017 — and never that it also says the southern border remained vulnerable to terrorist infiltration despite all of that — misleads by substantial omission.
Also worth noting is that the State Department is addressing organized terror groups, not lone offenders and small cells that no group can deploy, and only covers the year 2017. Other news outlets have reported migrants on terrorist watchlists being apprehended at the border in the first half of 2018, and intelligence community sources have told me more than 100 reached the border or were en route between 2012 and 2017. None of this is reflected in The Times’report.
Next, the Qiu article, in its headline, characterizes Islamic migration to the border as an “unproved rumor,” when the opposite is true. This is similar to the claims made by Vox, MSNBC, and CNN commentators, and The Washington Post.
I have met actual migrants from Islamic countries who make the journey. In my capacity both as a former journalist and as an intelligence practitioner, I have photographed and videotaped them at the border after they have crossed and while they were en route through Latin America. I have interviewed them in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention and while they were still on the routes coming in. Meanwhile, thousands of court case records from two dozen smuggling prosecutions are available, in which sworn federal officers discuss how the migrants and their smugglers do it.
No Security Threat?
Most confusingly, Qui makes the assertion that such Islamic migration, even if it did exist, presents no security threat. Yet congressional testimony is readily available in which many high-ranking DHS officials over the years have discussed land-border migration from Islamic countries as a unique homeland threat, long before Donald Trump.
The Democratic likes of DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson regarded this completely undisputed migration as such a serious homeland security threat as recently as 2016 that he called for a whole-government program to counter it. Most of the signature homeland security legislation following 9/11 explicitly refers to border infiltration as a terror threat to counter, as to this day do annual strategic plans of DHS component agencies. Like this border patrol plan––from the Obama years––that lists as its top priority the prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering between ports of entry.
It would be one thing if Qui’s column were anomalous, but the reality is that journalists continue to dismiss these terror concerns based on incomplete research, misreadings (or no readings) of primary source documents, and mendacious omissions of vast publicly available evidence.
Meanwhile, well-trained and experienced homeland security professionals, like Johnson and those who write the nation’s homeland security strategic plans that cite terrorist border infiltration as a major threat problem, are never cited. Writers need to overcome their personal disdain for the president and seek out the other voices and facts available to them. They also need to simply work hard.
I’m not holding out hope for improvement on either count.
Todd Bensman is a Texas-based senior national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies and a writing fellow for the Middle East Forum. For nearly a decade, Bensman led counterterrorism-related intelligence efforts for the Texas Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. Follow him on Twitter @BensmanTodd. Bensman also worked for The Dallas Morning News, CBS, and Hearst Newspapers. He reported extensively on national security and border issues after 9/11 and worked from more than 25 countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
“America will never be a socialist country,” President Trump boldly told a room of socialists dressed in their Klan whites.
The State of the Union began with a living history lesson. It ended with a call to greatness.
The American past, present and future appeared before a weary nation, from the soldiers who braved the beaches of Normandy, racing under the shadow of bullets and shells, to Buzz Aldrin, one of the first two men to walk on the moon, to the police officers and ICE agents fighting terrorism and illegal alien crime today, to the children defying disease and bullying who will define our tomorrows.
And President Trump asked the members of a Democrat House majority and a watching nation catching a glimpse of the truth past the blurry filters of the mainstream media, whether they wanted more.
Obama often told Americans who they were. Tonight, President Trump actually showed us.
The State of the Union was a celebration of ordinary heroism, from the police officer dashing under fire to stop a Neo-Nazi killer massacring Jews in a Pittsburgh house of worship to the Holocaust survivor helping the American G.I. who liberated his concentration camp back into his seat. It honored three generations, the daughter, granddaughter and great-granddaughter of a loving couple murdered by an illegal alien in Reno and an immigrant fighting sex trafficking with the ICE.
And it was also a call to champion the policies that honor their heroism, from resisting the modern Nazis of Iran, who like the Hitlerian hordes plot the mass murder of millions of Jews, to building a wall that ends the abuse of Americans through an endless traffic in illegal aliens, and in crime and violence.
And the Democrats met these calls to courage and decency with stone faces and folded hands.
There were smirks, boos and paper shuffling. Once again, new lows of unemployment for African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans were met with sullen silence. The Democrats even boycotted the call to choose national greatness because they don’t believe that America is or should be great.
And yet the State of the Union was a celebration of the legacy of that greatness. And a call for more.
But it was also a warning not to take that greatness for granted.
“The Congress has 10 days left to pass a bill that will fund our Government, protect our homeland, and secure our southern border,” President Trump warned.
Everyone knows are that the odds are it won’t.
President Trump made an extensive and compelling case for immigration enforcement and the border wall. He used the First Step Act, a measure that helps criminals and is popular with Democrats, as a build up to a call to cooperate on immigration security. But there were no takers. Debra Bissell, and Heather and Madison, three generations of American women traumatized by a horrifying illegal alien crime had been invited as guests of the First Family only to be met with blank stares and cold denial.
The same Democrats who wore white to celebrate feminism remained silent in the face of these strong women who are still dealing with the aftermath of the horrifying murder of Gerald and Sharon David.
Trump showed the damage that illegal migration does to American families, to working class wages, to the Americans who become addicted and die of the illegal drugs being smuggled across the border, to the chronic crime wave caused by MS-13 and its ruthless members. But the Democrats still have no interest whatsoever in securing the border with a wall or doing anything to stop illegal migration.
When the Democrats booed loudly during President Trump’s mention of the illegal alien caravans headed our way, they weren’t jeering the caravans, they were jeering Trump for mentioning them. While fighting illegal migration has been a key priority for Trump, supporting it and resisting any mention of it has been an equally key priority for House Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats.
The State of the Union had already been cancelled once due to a government shutdown by Speaker Pelosi caused by her fear that President Trump would get up there and make the common sense case for border security. As she sat there loudly shuffling papers every time he launched into a subject that bothered her, withdrawing behind a paper wall of her own making to resist a physical wall, the same “resistance” that he had condemned was occupying a high place of honor during the State of Union.
“We must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution,” Trump had begun. “And embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good.”
But it was hard to see any rejection of revenge and resistance from the white caucus which wore its identity politics tokens, from its Klan blouses to its African scarves to its Indian blankets proudly. Even as President Trump urged unity, the Democrats stood by their divisiveness. It wasn’t unity or the welfare of the Union, whose economic health and power he touted, that they were after.
And that was the essential conflict at the heart of the State of the Union.
President Trump was using American history to make a case for American greatness. But the Democrats believe that American history is a record of American crimes. And that America, in the words of Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, “was never that great”.
By the current patriotic standards of the Democrats, that’s practically a 4th of July fireworks display.
President Trump had lifted the shadow of Obama’s State of the Union addresses, which invoked American history as a prisoner of a dark past requiring reform and repentance, but the shadow of that hatred still lingered in the divisive identity politics of the Democrats which put particularism above the common good, and the resentments embodied by their identity politics ahead of the Union.
When the Democrats did applaud President Trump, it was usually in support of an individual accomplishment (by someone not named Trump) or a policy aspiration, not a call to national greatness. After Obama, the Democrats appear to have become incapable of applauding America and its greatness.
Or the future.
President Trump briefly touched on the scandal that has dominated the news cycle.
"Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother's womb moments before birth," he declared. "And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he basically stated he would execute a baby after birth."
It is no coincidence that the Governor of New York signed a bill legalizing infanticide even as he ridiculed the idea of American greatness. Or that the Governor of Virginia supported euthanizing babies after birth and has been allegedly caught dressing up like a Klansman. The lack of faith in America’s future is rooted in a contempt for her past. The murder of the children who are her future is the natural response by a radical political movement that does not believe that this country has anything to offer the world.
President Trump was offering a history lesson to a political movement that no longer believes in history. He was issuing a call to work toward a better future to Democrats who want to kill the American future. Not just metaphorically, but as literally as in the legislative infanticide efforts in Virginia and New York.
American history was born in these two states. Now the American future is being murdered there.
The State of the Union was a call to life, for the country and for the future of its economy, its children, its national security and its borders. But the Democrats have become a party of American death.
President Trump laid out how he had grown the economy, strengthened our military, taken on adversaries like Russia, China and ISIS, fulfilled the promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem, fought the exploitation of migrant women, planned the exploration of space, and they sat there resentfully.
"We must keep America first in our hearts. We must keep freedom alive in our souls. And we must always keep faith in America's destiny," President Trump urged.
The State of the Union was a triumph. Not because it convinced the Democrats to put America first, in either their mouths or their hearts. But because it revealed that the country is not polarized between Republicans and Democrats, but between those who believe in America and those socialists who do not.
Patriots head coach Bill Belichick celebrates with his granddaughter after the team's Super Bowl win over the Rams. (Patrick Semansky/Associated Press)
Tom Brady did it again. He won another Super Bowl on Sunday.
You’ll be hearing that a lot in the coming days if you haven’t already. People will be telling their grandchildren about the time the Greatest Team Athlete in North American history held one of the highest-scoring teams in the league to three points.
He now has “won” six Super Bowls.
And, oh, by the way, so has his coach, Bill Belichick.
There are people out there, some of them with high-paying jobs in the media, who believe Belichick would be nothing without Brady. Belichick is a genius, and he would be the first to tell you — probably privately — Brady is a great quarterback but also a product of a great system. Brady probably would be the second to tell you.
Did you see how often Brady had wide-open receivers waiting for his throws during the New England Patriots’ 13-3 victory over the Los Angeles Rams? It happens all the time. Julian Edelman had a quiet night and ended up with 10 catches for 141 yards and the MVP. Do you remember seeing him having to fight for any 50/50 balls? Rob Gronkowski had eight catches for 87 yards, including 29 yards off a nice throw that set up the only touchdown of the game. He was wide-open on at least six of his eight catches.
The Rams did a good job pressuring Brady and actually sacked him once. That was the only time he was sacked in the postseason. Once in 125 pass attempts. Would you say that’s a pretty good offensive line, or was it Brady’s amazing ability to escape the rush?
Do you know who led the Patriots in receptions in the regular season? James White with 83. He’s a running back. Do you know how many catches he had against the Rams? One. For 5 yards. There’s a pretty good chance Belichick figured the Rams would be looking for him to be catching a lot of balls out of the backfield.
If you’d like to give Brady most of the credit for the Patriots’ success, be my guest. I’m going with Belichick. He leaves no stone unturned, and that includes unturning illegal stones.
Did you know he makes Brady sit in on special teams meetings? He makes every player sit in on tape sessions involving all three phases. Did you know Belichick always has had a left-footed punter because he learned a long time ago return men have more trouble with a punt spinning off a lefty’s foot?
Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post revealed that last week. Special-teamer Matthew Slater, who has been with the Patriots for 11 years, told Kilgore why Belichick makes the full squad review tape of all three phases together: “That sends a message to the entire organization that, ‘Hey, this is something that’s important to us, and this is something that’s going to help us win football games.’ It kind of gets a buy in.”
Do you think the Steelers have done a lot of buying in lately?
Another story from Kilgore sums up why Belichick is the mad scientist behind the greatest dynasty in NFL history. Ray Perkins was head coach of the New York Giants, and he needed a special teams coach. Belichick had been a special teams intern with three teams, so Perkins gave him a shot. Belichick spotted a flaw in the Eagles’ kick-return formation, and he convinced Perkins to try an onside kick.
On the opening kickoff.
In the first game of the season.
The Giants recovered and scored a touchdown on their first possession.
In the future, Andy Warhol predicted, everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. In this era of the Social Media Cultural Revolution, we can add everyone will also be denounced -- have a figurative dunce cap on his or her head -- for at least those fifteen minutes, probably a good deal longer, and possibly for life.
I've had my share of brushes with this state of affairs, but my most recent -- not much, as these things go, but illustrative of the times in which we live-- occurred a couple of days ago. I had written an article for this site ("Howard Schultz Could Actually Win the Presidency") that was linked by Drudge and got a certain amount of play, enough so Schultz himself must have read it. He tweeted as follows.
I was impressed, especially since I had criticized Schultz's actions over the bathroom issue, and thanked him.
But don't look for the Starbucks founder's tweet online because the presidential candidate-in-waiting deleted it within hours. The ever-present Twitter posse had already decided that I--and by extension Schultz for acknowledging me--had committed a cardinal sin. In modern parlance, I threw shade on two women in the most sexist manner in my column, calling Kamala Harris "shrill" (also a "quasi-socialist," but that didn't seem to stick in as many craws) and disparaging Sen Elizabeth Warren as "Fauxcohontas." (I am about the twelfth millionth to have done that.)
Schultz, clearly panicked for his nascent campaign, hit the delete button. I was, in the potential candidate's view, playing "revenge politics" -- at least that's what he implied when interviewed about my article by CNN's Anderson Cooper. (I was frankly astonished this exceptionally minor kerfuffle merited such attention, but, as they say, all publicity is good publicity. On the other hand, the Dems want Schultz out -- now! -- by any means necessary.) The businessman also asserted--Cooper appeared to be helping him out here-- that he had not noticed the aspersions in my "thoughtful analysis." I'm skeptical about that, but I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
Okay, so am I really a sexist pig á la Harvey Weinstein and will I be excommunicated by Hollywood for that? Well, I was already excommunicated by them on political grounds. Can you be excommunicated twice?
But more seriously, my evaluation of Harris was, to me, an understatement. Calling her "shrill" wasn't sexist in my view. It could almost be called chivalrous (I know -- that's sexist now) or euphemistic compared to what I really think of her. And it has nothing to do with her sex and everything to do with her behavior and politics. The Kavanaugh hearings revealed who she is -- a vindictive, hypocritical opportunist and past master of the politics of personal destruction. This is a woman who, despite her having been district attorney of San Francisco, would have indeed sunk Judge Kavanaugh "by any means necessary" without the slightest need for evidence or the rule of law. Even more, she did her best to destroy him for unproven allegations while his daughters were sitting there --how feminist! This behavior came from a woman whose ambitious affair with the married Willie Brown (and Brown's subsequent avowal he was used politically) is known to anyone paying attention. "Shrill"? Yes, it was euphemism. And how. If you want to call me a sexist, go ahead. Just don't get me started on Senator Blumenthal. He's worse (though less dangerous at the moment). Then I'll be a misandrist too.
Regarding my comments about Warren, she's done enough to destroy herself and poses no threat to the presidency or much else.
After all all this--although, as most readers know, I favor Trump--I still very much want Schultz to run, and not just for the benefit of Donald. Call me an old timer who is sentimental about the two-party system, but I don't want to see the Democrats turn into an American version of the Labor Party of Albania with a soupçon of anti-Semitism thrown in, as they now seem hellbent on doing. Even if they careen off a cliff from their left-wing lurch, it's bad for all of us. And if they don't, it's worse.
The one thing we don't need (nobody does) is socialism--quasi or otherwise. How many more lessons do we have to have? Weren't the tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of deaths ascribed to that system in China, the Soviet Union and Cambodia enough? There's nothing remotely like it in human history. But no. Students--indoctrinated in socialism by their professors who pay no attention to what's happening in front of their noses in Venezuela--are being turned out of our schools by the millions. What that's going to do to our society in the future, no one knows. But it doesn't look good.
Our country cannot afford the pseudo-idealistic nonsense being proffered by Harris, Warren, et al. Keep plugging, Schultzie. I'm still behind you, in my way, even if you delete me. You can even unfriend me on Facebook. I'm still with you. Keep on truckin'.
Roger L. Simon-- co-founder and CEO Emeritus of PJ Media--is an award-winning author and and an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter.