Hey Liberal Progressive Elitists - Meet Normal Americans

Reboot America: Step Back From The Brink Before It’s Too Late

7/11/2016 - Kurt Schlichter Townhall.com

Welcome to 1968 2.0, the new and improved chaos, featuring a cutting edge assault on our foundational principles by an idiot elite that thinks it can gut the rule of law without consequence. Time to reboot, to wipe the hard drive and reload the factory software coded two-plus centuries ago by those dead white male geniuses.

Except I don’t think this country’s elite has the character, nor understands our constitutional technology enough, to do it. I think it fails to appreciate what is going on outside its cloisters, among those weird, patriotic, religious, and – significantly – armed people living in uncool places between the coasts. I think it believes this anger is a passing fad, that it can bluff and bully its way through it the way it did to previous challenges to its rule.

Obama and the progressive elite were not satisfied merely with exonerating the clearly guilty Hillary Clinton of charges that would have sent any mere mortal to the slammer. They had to shove it in our faces. The AG met with Bill Clinton. Then the FBI director laid out a devastating case, followed by an “and…nope.” Then President Faily McWorsethancarter swept her away in Air Force One – at our expense – to campaign with her and even placed her at a podium with the presidential seal while the liberal media thrilled and quivered. This is beyond mere corruption. This is them gloating over what they see as their unassailable power. This is them laughing at us.

Then Obama made yet another speech telling us how cops are racist. Understand that his attacks on cops are an attack on all of us normal Americans. Like soldiers, the police come from the ranks of us normal Americans, not the elite. And just as with soldiers, we normals revere cops as symbolic of the best of how we see ourselves – loyal, brave, patriotic protectors of order and decency. Obama – the guy who immediately assumed a Cambridge cop acted “stupidly” – as well as Hillary Clinton and the liberal elite, attacked cops as racist and evil as surrogates for attacking us as racist and evil.

And then yet another racial malcontent went on a shooting spree. The Los Angeles cop killer, the Virginia TV reporter, and now this creep in Dallas, all full of racist hate, and not one damn word about it from the elite. The motive hurt the narrative; they wanted to talk about cops oppressing people, so the elite simply lied by its silence about the Dallas killer’s expressly racist motive. And their media love-slaves obliged; when it became clear that this clown who couldn’t make E4 after six years was essentially just a Black Lives Matter supporter in a hurry, the story faded away.

But the lies did not fade away. Obama came out, feigned ignorance about motive (“We many never know what motivated the guy who expressly said that he was motivated by a desire to murder white cops.”), and blamed us yet again – this time for our stubborn refusal to disarm ourselves to please people who hate us and who refuse to acknowledge what drives those who say outright that they intend to murder us.

Did Obama try unity? Of course not – he divided Americans into the good ones who agree with him and us bad ones who refuse to kneel and bow. Leftists don’t want unity and they don’t want peace. Community organizers succeed when they divide; they need discord and hate to survive. Understand that all this discord and hate is not a bug. To them, it is a feature.

And this strategy is really, really dumb. It’s dumb because this country is not one big Chicago. It’s not one discrete, dysfunctional tumor surrounded by healthy tissue. The progressives can afford to play their games in the Chicagos and Austins and Berkeleys because outside the city limits there are normals of every race, color, and creed whose work feeds and powers and defends the elite’s urban petri dishes of blue model failure. They can live out their lefty fantasies because we normals subsidize them through our normalcy, like parents from Orange County paying tuition at Oberlin so their blonde daughter can learn how there’s no such thing as gender while she majors in Anti-Colonialist Pottery.

But what happens when they try to do that to the whole country? This time, the normals can’t just move away. Instead of driving them out, now the elite has to suppress normal Americans in place. They don’t realize that they are putting our backs against the wall.

And you have to wonder – have the elites considered their endgame? Because they may have learned the wrong lesson when they drove all the normals out of the Chicagos and Austins and Berkeleys. They may actually believe that normal Americans can just be bullied and badgered into submission. This is a very, very, very dangerous notion.

Have you elitists ever met normal Americans? Try this little experiment. Jump in your Prius and drive to, say, Oklahoma. Go ahead, Google it – I’ll wait. Then find a bar and go in after work. Look for a guy at a table in boots and jeans and a work shirt enjoying a Coors or some other non-craft, non-pumpkin-infused beer. Then tell him this:

“Hey stupid, you’re dumb because your parents couldn’t send you to college. You’re also dumb for believing in Jesus. You’re a sucker and a baby killer for joining the Army and fighting in Iraq. Plus, you have privilege because your great-great-great-great grandfather came from Glasgow. So I’m going to tell you what to do from now on. I’m your boss and moral superior. You’re going to let any dude dressed like a woman into the bathroom with your daughter. You’re going to turn in your global warming-causing pick-up truck. You’re going to be out of your job when we finish off the oil industry. You’re going to give up your guns. And I don’t care what you say about any of it. You don’t matter. You don’t get a say. Also, you’re racist.”

See how that works out, but check your dental coverage first. Now, think about how that strategy is going to work out in our country as a whole.

What’s the endgame here, liberals? Do you see over half the country just . . . giving up? Surrendering? Throwing in the towel once you have sufficiently nagged and insulted them? Or do you see them getting mad? Your media lackeys keep attributing phenomena like Trump and even Sanders to “anger.” Well, yeah. Right now, they are expressing that anger through legitimate means, at the ballot box. But what happens when you decide you’re going to step outside the law once again to ensure that their lawful expression of that anger is silenced?

Do you expect that normals will just shrug and submit? What if they don’t? How many of the 60,000-70,000 guns Americans buy every single day do you elites purchase?

What’s the endgame? What happens when – and the day will come – the normals say “No?” Does the elite try force? There’s no doubt it would if it could, but in the end, it needs to ask itself another question: Exactly who is willing to fight and die for their liberal Utopia? The elitists themselves? Their snowflakey kids Kaden and Ashleigh? Do they think they can pay enough people to suit up and go make people conform? How much money will you need to pay somebody to risk his skin to go down to Texas and try to take those Lone Star knuckle-draggers’ guns?

Oh, this is crazy talk! Hey, another right winger threatening rebellion! You know, the elite’s tactics of attacking straw men and deliberately lying about political opponents pioneered by Obama and the Jon Stewart clones makes reasoned discussion almost impossible, and the malicious dishonesty underlying these ploys only ratchets up the anger. Eliminate the legitimate modes of opposition and you’ll leave only illegitimate modes of opposition.

I am not advocating the consequences that I see coming from the elite’s actions; to say so is a lie, though I suspect that will not stop them from lying about this column in the comments and elsewhere. I am only predicting the likely consequences of the elite’s unwise and malicious campaign against those it hates and seeks to rule.

But here is another way. Step back from the brink and reboot. Stop the corruption. Embrace the rule of law. Listen to those you have ignored. Hear what they say. Drop the divisive initiatives designed to humiliate and bring normals to heel – the gun grabs, the bathroom edicts, the Christian cake baker pogroms.

But if you can’t do that, if you can’t give up the money and the power, if the joy of inflicting petty oppressions and humiliations upon the people you look down on is just too satisfying to pass up, then ask yourself: What is your endgame?

Everywhere - Refugee Resettlement is Insanity!

Europe Reaping What it Sowed With Open Borders Policy for Muslim Refugees

12/27/2016 - Rachel Alexander Townhall.com

No one could have predicted that left-leaning German Chancellor Angela Merkel would call for banning hijabs. The open borders policy European countries have taken toward refugees fleeing the Middle East due to ISIS has resulted in violence increasing in those countries, with ISIS infiltrating the refugees. Facing a tough reelection next year as a result of allowing over a million refugees into the country, Merkel finally reversed her position. In November, she called on the EU to start turning back boats full of refugees as they cross the Mediterranean.

The terrorist attacks by refugees are continuing. On December 19, a radical Islamist refugee drove a truck into a market in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 48 others. The refugees are raping women and destroying property. In Italy, for example, “for the first time, the crime rate in the north of Italy, which has the highest concentration of immigrants and asylum seekers, is surpassing that of the south,” Breitbart reported. A study in Italy found that where the immigrant population increases by 1 percent, the crime rate goes up 0.4 percent. Italian businesses have lost billions of dollars due to refugee related problems such as counterfeiting, shoplifting and illegal vendors.

Many of the refugees don’t have jobs, putting a strain on government budgets. Only 34,000 of the 1.2 million refugees in Germany have found jobs. Shariah law is gradually being implemented in some of the countries, as officials accommodate their intolerant religious views.

The European Union set up a quota system requiring member countries to accept a certain number of refugees. The refugees mostly arrive by boat in Turkey, Greece or Italy, and then disperse throughout Europe. They are not screened; there is no way to determine their true nationality or names. The number of refugees is likely to increase, as the atrocities in Aleppo, Syria, continue escalating.

News of the free welfare from Europe’s socialist and borderline socialist countries has spread to Africa, and so migrants from that continent – not even refugees fleeing persecution – are now flooding the shores of Italy even more than Greece. The Balkans closed its borders in March, but smugglers are still getting the refugees to western Europe.

Professor Anna Bono of the University of Turin, an expert in African migration, revealed, “In the countries of sub-Saharan Africa there are advertisements inciting people to go to Italy, explaining that everything here is free.” Half of the prostitutes in Italy are Nigerian.

Obama is following suit, allowing thousands of refugees into the U.S. Each one costs taxpayers $64,370 for their first five years here; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Of the total 85,000 refugees admitted into the U.S. last year, a record 38,901 were Muslims, a higher number than Christians admitted. There were 12,587 refugees from Syria alone, 99 percent who were Muslims.

In contrast, a country very similar to us, Australia, announced in October that it would not be accepting any refugees, with few exceptions. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, no conservative, had reportedly been turning away refugee boats that arrived on the country’s shores previous to the announcement. Instead, he has agreed to take refugees from Central America who are not Muslim.

Several central European countries have objected to the resettlements, filing lawsuits against the U.N. The Schengen Agreement abolished border checks between European countries, which some countries are defying by erecting border fences. Opposition to the open borders policy is high, with 94 percent of Greeks disapproving.

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico said earlier this year that Slovakia would accept a small number of Christian refugees but not Muslims “who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values of the state.” Czech President Miloš Zeman, who is a social democrat (and former communist), no right winger, has been the most scathing leader. He denounced the prime minister’s plan to allow a mere 80 refugees from Syria into the country, saying it would result in “barbaric attacks.” He said even moderate Muslims could be radicalized to commit terrorist acts similar to how regular Germans went along with the Nazi regime. He sweepingly condemned Islam, “The attitude of Islam – I do not speak about jihadists, I speak about Islam – towards women, half of the population. As you know, in the Qur’an, women is something like the inferior part of mankind.” However, Zeman’s position is mostly ceremonial.

The refugee crisis has sparked the rise of populist movements across Europe. Right wing Marine Le Pen has a shot at a presidential bid in France, as does Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. In a moment of irony, the open borders organization Doctors Without Borders announced in March that it would no longer assist refugees at a center on the Greek island of Lesbos, due to the inability of the government to properly accommodate them all.

France 24 reported that at least 3,800 migrants died in the Mediterranean Sea between January and October attempting to reach Europe, making it the deadliest year in the Mediterranean. A realistic solution would have been to create a temporary place for the refugees near their home countries, such as in Jordan. These people love their countries and their culture. Where were leaders with the guts to implement this?

Will this massive migration from poorer countries lead to the destruction of Western civilization as laid out in the 1973 dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints? In the book, all countries are forced to open their borders, resulting in rape and ruin. The title is a reference to Revelation 20:9, “They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.” There is no divine intervention in the book. While the allusion to Western civilization as God’s people came under fire as racist, journalist Lionel Shriver admitted the book was “prescient.” Another reviewer wrote that Raspail “was neither a prophet nor a visionary novelist, but simply a relentless historian of our future.”

The left-leaning European leaders who authorized the flood of refugees in the interests of forced “diversity” are now experiencing the consequences. Compelling two cultures to merge, where one’s holy book instructs its believers to destroy nonbelievers, will ultimately destroy Western civilization.

It's Always About The Money!

Are Sanctuary Cities Legal?

12/8/2016 - Judge Andrew Napolitano Townhall.com

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump re-emphasized the approach he will take in enforcing the nation's immigration laws, which is much different from the manner of enforcement utilized by President Barack Obama. The latter pointedly declined to deport the 5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who are the parents of children born here -- children who, by virtue of birth, are American citizens. Trump has made known his intention to deport all undocumented people, irrespective of family relationships, starting with those who have committed crimes.

In response to Trump's stated intentions, many cities -- including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco -- have offered sanctuary to those whose presence has been jeopardized by the president-elect's plan. Can they do this?

Here is the back story.

Under the Constitution, the president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. Though the president's job is to enforce all federal laws, as a practical matter, the federal government lacks the resources to do that. As well, the president is vested with what is known as prosecutorial discretion. That enables him to place priority on the enforcement of certain federal laws and put the enforcement of others on the back burner.

Over time -- and with more than 4,000 criminal laws in the United States Code -- Congress and the courts have simply deferred to the president and permitted him to enforce what he wants and not enforce what he doesn't want. Until now.

Earlier this year, two federal courts enjoined President Obama -- and the Supreme Court, in a tie vote, declined to interfere with those injunctions -- from establishing a formal program whereby undocumented people who are the parents of natural-born citizens may lawfully remain here. It is one thing, the courts ruled, for the president to prioritize federal law enforcement; it is quite another for him to attempt to rewrite the laws and put them at odds with what Congress has written. It is one thing for the president, for humanitarian reasons or because of a lack of resources, to look the other way in the face of unenforced federal law. It is another for him to claim that by doing so, he may constitutionally change federal law.

Trump brilliantly seized upon this -- and the electorate's general below-the-radar-screen disenchantment with it -- during his successful presidential campaign by promising to deport all 13 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, though he later reduced that promise so as to cover only the 2 million among them who have been convicted in the United States of violating state or federal laws.

Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds -- or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

The term "sanctuary cities" is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them -- including the case of Chicago's offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states -- and thus the municipalities in them -- to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

The high court has also prohibited the federal government from "commandeering" the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor. He cannot use a stick to bend the governments of sanctuary cities to his will, but he can use a carrot. He can ask Congress for legislative grants of funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with certain federal immigration laws.

All of this is part of our constitutional republic. By dividing powers between the feds and the states -- and by separating federal powers among the president, Congress and the courts -- our system intentionally makes the exercise of governmental power cumbersome by diffusing it. And since government is essentially the negation of freedom, the diffusion of governmental powers helps to maximize personal liberty.

Let's HOPE Sanity Rules Next Year

Sure, Let Them All In and Make Them Legal

12/11/2016 - Bruce Bialosky Townhall.com

There are many unhinged things about the reaction of the Democrats after their disastrous presidential candidate lost, but the one that irks me beyond despair is their immediate and fierce defense of people they apparently know who are in our country illegally.

There have been many reasons to dream that federal authorities would arrest these irresponsible elected officials. The worst being the arrogant and incompetent (the same combo Rob Ford displayed) Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. This guy is presiding over a city that is beyond bankrupt and a murder zone like areas of Iraq. Yet he has decided to take a stand on defending illegal aliens living in his city, taking jobs from his legal residents and draining community resources they don’t have. This is despite President-elect Trump stating he wants to throw out the criminal element of these illegal aliens.

Can you imagine what the illegal alien gang members would be thinking when the Chicago cops are defending them against the federal immigration authorities deporting them? The ones from south of our border would say “I told you these gringos are loco.” The Eastern European gang members will talk about how stupid we are in Russian, Ukrainian or Albanian.

But my home area has gone even further than that. Are you shocked the Left Coast would do such a thing? We have plenty of challenges here in Los Angeles as you can imagine about any major city in the U.S. After all, they are almost exclusively run by Democrats and public employee unions. Here is a problem to focus on for our civic leadership – millennials are fleeing Los Angeles at the third highest rate in the country. In fact, 7.4% of millennials have relocated over the last 10 years. The housing costs and lack of jobs have them moving to Austin, Charlotte and elsewhere. The cool, young and hip apparently don’t think L.A. is so cool, young and hip.

Yet our civic leaders have a fully-organized plan within a little over a week post-election to protect illegal aliens living in the city from the federal authorities. The Los Angeles Times reported the Los Angeles City Council voted to put this plan together and at the same time request additional funds for transportation and homelessness. You have to admit these city council members have spunk.

They are even going further than that. Council President Herb Wesson said he will move toward hiring an immigrants’ advocate. That would be all well and good if he were referring to helping legal immigrants assimilate into our city and country. Instead, what this “advocate’s” job will be is to obstruct the immigration laws of the United States. What Wesson said was they were going to work on strategies to keep Los Angeles residents from being deported. No one who is here legally need worry. Wesson is defending the ‘rights’ of illegals.

Let us remind you that Trump specifically stated at this time they would be looking to deport illegals who had done illegal acts here. Gang members and drug dealers would be the kinds of people targeted. Maybe Wesson’s plan will protect them.

The Democrats attacked Trump when he recently stated there was extensive illegal voting. By early 2016, 605,000 driver’s licenses had been issued to illegal immigrants in California. That was just in the first year. Figures have not been issued for 2016 yet. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla scorned Trump for his statements, but he knows many of these people voted because there was nothing to stop them once they had a driver’s license. They could easily register to vote, but no one cares to even analyze whether they did, which is Padilla’s job. Just another aspect of making these illegal aliens de facto citizens.

We have fought this fight before with the Democrats. They are the ones across the country arguing to continue Sanctuary City status even after the election of Trump who promised to end the practice.

You may remember that after the Supreme Court ruling in 1954 (Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas), a fight broke out across the United States. This culminated in 1957 when Orval Faubus, the Democratic governor of Arkansas, attempted to stop the integration of Little Rock Central High School. The governor sent in the Arkansas National Guard to stop the integration. This caused the now-famous order from President Eisenhower to send in federal troops to escort the black students into the school.

Scenes like this spread throughout the South led by Democrats resisting federal law. Another Democrat, George Wallace, actually personally stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to stop integration of that school.

Fifty years later we have a series of Democrats, principally mayors, making their own national immigration policy. Stopping any enforcement of federal law regarding people admittedly here illegally. They believe in their cause just as righteously as George Wallace standing in that school house door.

The Immigration Act of 1986 legalized a group of people who had entered our country illegally. We were promised that they would enforce the laws thereafter and protect the border. That was either a lie or a complete failure. Now we have lawless Democrats defending illegals again to feather their own voting rolls … while we all pay.

President-elect Trump stated he wants removal of the gang members, drug dealers and criminal element. Yet, Democrats cannot abide that. It is high time we do something to protect our national integrity.

Thank Heaven For 50 Million Deplorables!

All The President’s Migrants

10/24/2016 - Katie Kieffer Townhall.com

Migrants from China (2,130); Russia (1,863) and Armenia (448) were caught at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2016—and President Obama is priming them—along with migrants from Syria and South America, to vote for Hillary. 

$10 million in taxpayer dollars were recently repackaged by the Obama administration’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) into “citizenship integration grants.” The funds were distributed to various organizations that help register migrant voters, including in the key swing states of Florida and Ohio, reported Judicial Watch. 

The Obama administration also expanded the unconstitutional Central American Minors (CAM) program to include protection from deportment for individuals who are not children, such as someone who identifies as a child’s “caretaker.” 

CAM offers illegal immigrants “parole,” which is defined as follows by the federal government: “Parole allows individuals who may be otherwise inadmissible to come to the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. …[Parole] allow[s] an individual to be lawfully present in the U.S. temporarily and to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD).”

USCIS and CAM programs appear oriented towards the goal of enabling non-U.S. citizens to vote. After all, Democrats know that immigrants tend to vote for the political party they believe helped them enter our country.

Texas, for example, is a hotbed for illegal immigration, since so many migrants enter the U.S. by slipping from Mexico into the Lone Star State. This month, USCIS used taxpayer resources to place a notice in the largest newspaper in San Antonio: 

“Those in need of emergency immigrations services can contact USCIS at 1-800-375-5283.” 

Correction: undocumented immigrants are not in an emergency simply because they chose to break U.S. law. If I enter Mexico without proper papers, I’m not in an emergency. I’m a trespasser.

If anyone is in an emergency, it’s the American citizens being forced to subsidize the housing, career counseling, medical care, English classes, and now even the votes of illegal immigrants. Especially when migrant pools include migrants from terror hotbeds like Syria and criminals like those who killed Millennials Sarah Root and Kate Steinle. 

In August, Obama’s 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that Texas’ voting rules were “discriminatory”—just in time to give Hillary a boost in a state that historically leans Republican. 

It’s now easier for an immigrant to vote in Texas than to get into a bar for a pint of Guinness. All she needs to do is proffer a paycheck or utility bill and sign an oath claiming an “undue burden.” Obviously, utility bills and paychecks can be obtained (or forged) without being a citizen and anyone can claim an undue burden.

It’s (Not) For the Children

“I am not going to slam the door on women and children,” Hillary sniffed during last week’s presidential debate against Donald Trump. 

No, she’s not. Primarily because the average Syrian or Iraqi refugee—according to the United Nations—is male. 

So when Hillary says she plans to exceed Obama’s record of accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees by about 550% to 65,000, she’s not speaking as an advocate for homeless mothers and children. She’s speaking as a politician who knows that just one year after the United States grants a refugee “asylum,” they may seek “permanent residency” status and five years after receiving asylum they may apply for U.S. citizenship.

Loose immigration policies enable the trafficking of humans, drugs, weapons, diseases and terror into our country—and show disrespect to immigrants who do abide by our laws. Democrats don’t seem to care. After all, a 2014 study by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed that immigration has reconstructed “the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.”

President Sends Sheriff to Prison

Less than one month before the presidential election, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice announced criminal proceedings against Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio without criminal charges. Arpaio is a popular sheriff who has served six terms in Maricopa County. He now faces up to six months in prison for using “immigration patrols” that were supposedly discriminatory.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi at his side for moral support, President Obama held a Rose Garden press conference last week where he laughed off Donald Trump’s allegations of voter fraud and scoffed at the prospect of a “rigged election.” 

“Bridges, not walls!” Renzi chirped in agreement—like a doll programed to blurt Pope Francis’ worst catchphrases. (Vogue recently did a story on Renzi, revealing his obsession with snapping selfies; monitoring his Twitter and Facebook followings; and keeping a stuffed owl in his office to remind him of his enemies. Confidence is not Renzi’s forte, which explains his willingness to be Obama’s yes-man).

When a sitting president threatens a law-abiding sheriff with imprisonment for enforcing our country’s immigration laws without sound evidence—while illegal immigrants are awarded subsidized services enabling them to live and even vote like normal citizens—and—if such behavior escalates on the eve of a presidential election, then… 

Trump is right. Our election is rigged.