More On Rick Saccone (The Trump And "P-G" Endorsements)

Tomorrow is the day voters in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional district choose which candidate:

• Conor Lamb, the Democrat - a retired Marine Corps officer and former federal prosecutor
• Rick Saccone, The Republican - a torture supporter and religious zealot

will fill out disgraced Republican Tim Murphy's term in the House of Representatives.

In the past few hours, there's been some fallout from the events of this weekend:

• The endorsement by the Toledo Block Bugler (formerly known as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• The endorsement by pussy-grabber in chief, Donald J Trump

First there's this from the Washington Post about the Bugler's endorsement:

The largest newspaper in southwest Pennsylvania endorsed the Republican candidate ahead of Tuesday’s special congressional election with a rationale unlike any cited in other races: Democratic control of the House would hurt the country by setting the stage for a presidential impeachment.

I didn't write about that angle in my own analysis of the endorsement yesterday but it certainly fits with a publisher who's doing what he can to make nice with the orange vulgarity now sitting in the Oval Office.

The ridiculousness of the Bugler's endorsement is shown by these two snippets from The WaPost:

Neither Rick Saccone nor Conor Lamb, the Republican and Democratic nominees in the 18th Congressional District, has talked about impeachment during the campaign.

And:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who would chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party won a majority, told The Washington Post this year that impeachment would not be pursued unless both parties agreed to it, as removal of the president would require a supermajority vote in the Senate.

And yet the Bugler's endorser says it's a reason to back Saccone.

Driving the point home, the endorsement goes on:

The prospect of a Democratic House may please partisans, but it might be bad for the country. The Democrats in the House have only one agenda item at the moment, and it isn’t health care or jobs. It is impeachment. Regardless of whether one likes this president or his policies, one must ask what the consequence for the country will be if we dive into so great a distraction.

Yes, so if Trump colluded with the Russians for a win and/or if he then covered up whatever happened and/or if he's obstructing the subsequent investigation in any way and/or if he violated FEC laws by paying off the pornstar he schtupped (repeatedly) to keep her quiet, that should all be ignored because it will be a distraction for the country.  Rule of law be damned.

Then there's this from inside the White House itself:

There's a reason Trump said hardly anything about Republican candidate Rick Saccone during a rally in Pennsylvania on Saturday night that was supposed to promote his candidacy.

And this is it:

Trump thinks Saccone is a terrible, "weak" candidate, according to four sources who've spoken to the president about him.

So if Saccone wins, Trump takes the credit. If Saccone loses, he's already prepared the narrative that it's not Trump's fault.

Questions Conor Lamb Should Ask Rick Saccone

We've written about PA State Representative Rick Saccone a few times. As I've written before, that's one of the good things about having a long-running blog: its history. What that means is that when researching some politico in South Western PA, chances are I don't have to do as much cold research - I can just dip into what's already been posted here.

Neat, huh?

Anyway, in case you missed it, Rick Saccone is running for disgraced former member House member Tim Murphy's Congressional seat. Saccone's a crazy-ass republican, Murphy's an ever so slightly less crazy-ass republican and the district (PA-18) went for the little-handed pussy grabber (and porn star boinker) by 20 points.  So the race should be easy, huh?

I should note that while the district's voters did know about the pussy grabbing, they didn't know about the porn star boinking due to a Trump-lawyer paying her for her silence with $130,000 just days before the election.

While the race should be easy for the family values Republicans, there's poll data showing that the race is tighter than Trump's 20 points.

That being said, here are a few questions that Conor Lamb should ask Rick Saccone were the two to debate:

1. Representative Saccone, in 2012 you sponsored legislation declaring that year to be "The Year Of The Bible" and in 2011 you co-sponsored an Islamophobic "Sharia Law" bill. Given that the Pennsylvania Constitution states:

   ...no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

   How can you square your obvious preference for one religion over another with what's clearly spelled out in the state Constitution (and this doesn't even being to touch the US Constitution).


2. Representative Saccone, you've defended waterboarding and said that interrogation techniques should be legal:

   ...short of those that leave long-lasting or permanent physical harm.

   The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as:

   ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed...

   You'll note that it says nothing about "long-lasting" or "permanent" harm just "severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental." Given all that, how can you in all good conscience advocate a war crime? Because that's what torture is - a war crime.

I'm sure there's more to discuss with Rick Saccone but that's a good start, I suppose.

Hmm...They've Been Busy.

Remember our friends the Freedom From Religion Foundation?

They're the folks who're looking to get the New Kensington-Arnold school district to remove the (obviously unconstitutional) Ten Commandments Monument from school property.

(And if there's anyone who agrees with the FFRF and who actually lives IN New Kensington who is reading this, the FFRF wants to hear from you.)

But this isn't about that.  This is about the Pennsylvania House declaration of 2012 as "The Year of the Bible".

I didn't like it, thought it was unconstitutional (by both state and federal constitutions) and so, apparently, does the FFRF.

The Post-Gazette Endorses...RICK SACCONE

Think back to when we were a world-class republic (it was only a little more than one year ago) and then remember that there was this raging election going on for the future of the country. One candidate (the Democrat - a woman) had a great deal of governmental experience (with a resume that included Secretary of State) and the other (the Republican - a man) was an admitted harasser of women who lied/misspoke/got things factually wrong more often than he pumped his orange hair solid with hairspray.

Hundreds of newspapers endorsed the former. Six endorsed the latter. One-two-three-four-five-six.

Showing the first signs of being infected with teh crazie, once left-of-center Post-Gazette published an editorial that went a different route. They went all-neutral and refused to endorse either candidate.

To paraphrase Archbishop Desmond Tutu:

If you are neutral in situations of sexual harassment, you have chosen the side of the harasser. If the elephant has admitted to some non-consensual pussy-grabbing and you say that you are neutral, no one should appreciate your neutrality.

Then there was this lil bit o'racism that was so nasty the Pittsburgh Foundation and Heinz Endowments felt compelled to respond with this:

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has done our community and the cause of justice a grave disservice with its lead editorial, “Reason as Racism,” published of all days on Martin Luther King Day, when we as a nation commemorate the ongoing fight to end racism in our country.

Repeated verbatim from an opinion piece printed Saturday in its sister publication the Toledo Blade, the editorial is a silly mix of deflection and distortion that provides cover for racist rhetoric while masquerading as a defense of decency. It is unworthy of a proud paper and an embarrassment to Pittsburgh.

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum. In Pittsburgh, with the passing of one ultra-rich right-wing nutjob (Richard Mellon Scaife) and the shrinkage of his media outlet - the Tribune-Review - from national to regional importance, I suppose that left open room for another ultra rich right-wing nutjob (John Block) to expand his media outlet - the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - into the political vacuum of thus created.

 And so, we can see today's endorsement of Rick Saccone.

Let's see what the Toledo Block Bugler has to say about Tim Murphy, the guy they want Saccone to replace. If you don't get the reference, that's ok google it. The right wing Tribune-Review editorial board used to taunt the P-G by calling it the "Block Bugler" because John Block owned both the Toledo Blade AND the Post-Gazette. Now back to our story:

It was pragmatic, moderate conservatism — not extremism — that sustained Mr. Murphy for almost 15 years in office. The issues he pursued, such as an overhaul of mental health law and saving the national veterans cemetery in Cecil, had practical benefits for his constituents.

Hmm...they think Murphy was a moderate conservative. I wonder how they'd explain these ratings:

• 100% rating from the National Right To Life Committee (exceptionally ironic considering how and why Murphy was forced to resign) 
• 60% rating from the John Birch Society (60%! - from The BIRCHERS!)
• 100% rating from the Family Resource Council (again, ironic considering the affair and the talk of abortion)
• 93% rating from the NRA

This is a moderate conservative to the Toledo Block Bugler?  Evidence that the frame itself has already silently skewed rightward.

When describing Saccone, they go with:

A former Air Force counterintelligence officer who later worked in North Korea and studied the Middle East in Egypt, Mr. Saccone would bring a valuable resume to Congress. He is also a college professor and a four-term state legislator. Given his time of life, he is 60, and varied background, he is equipped to be a strong and independent voice for the 18th.

Independent voice? Look at what they leave out of Saccone's experience.  A decade ago he wrote:

Our politicians should support coerced interrogations and stop demagoguing the issue. Respectable newspapers should refuse to print stories, such as the one about the three young men and only continue to blur the debate.

And by "coerced interrogations" he meant waterboarding, but only when done by trained professionals and fall "short of those that leave long-lasting or permanent physical harm."

Seven years ago he said:

Basically, torture is an act intentionally intended to inflict severe and long-lasting physical and mental pain, including amputation, scarring, burning, maiming, mutilation. Coercion means a much lower threshold of pain or discomfort such as stress positions, pushing, temperature change, meal manipulation, loud music, exploiting phobias, trickery, yelling, etc. If done skillfully and in the right circumstances, water-boarding or WB is very effective and causes no long-lasting damage. It is used to train our special forces so I don't consider it torture.

Too bad that Rick Saccone doesn't get to define "torture" as it's defined by UN Convention and US Law and it's always a war crime:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Then there's this lil bit o'crazie - legislating 2012 as the year of The Bible while at roughly the same time co-sponsoring Anti-Sharia legislation .  So I guess the "good" religion can be lauded while the "bad" religion can be banned.

How is any of that constitutional?

And this is the guy the Toledo Block Bugler thinks would be a better representative than Conor Lamb.

This is not the Post-Gazette we knew.

This is the new right wing Toledo Block Bugler.

More On Rick Saccone

One of the benefits, I suppose, of writing for an old blog (and the one you're reading is more than 13 years old - that's 91 in dog years) is having a history of writing about the same person/idea.

Something familiar (something peculiar...) bubbles up in the news and I get to ask myself, "Hey, have we written about this before?"

Where am I going with this?

Here - from Potter of the P-G:

Over 500 Democratic committee members gathered in Washington, Pa., on Sunday to pick former federal prosecutor Conor Lamb, who has never run for office before, to be their champion in a special election for the 18th Congressional District to replace Tim Murphy.

“There’s a long road ahead,” Mr. Lamb told the audience gathered inside the Washington High School gym after he earned a majority of votes on the second ballot. “There will be no doubt at the end of these next few months who represents the families of this district.”

The state party’s executive committee must ratify the committee’s pick this week. But barring extraordinary circumstances, Mr. Lamb will face state Rep. Rick Saccone, who Republican leaders picked as their champion last weekend, in a March 16 special election.

Conor Lamb is going up against Rick Saccone.

I'll leave it to others to debate the choice of Lamb as I don't know much about him at all.

But Rick Saccone. Well, we have been here before.

Rick Saccone (R-Elizabeth) is the guy who introduced legislation looking to declare 2012 "The Year of The Bible" while also supporting some rather nasty "anti-Sharia" legislation.

Apart from the unconstitutionality of each, does anyone not see the logical inconsistency here?

He's also in favor of waterboarding, which is torture, which makes it a war crime:

Basically, torture is an act intentionally intended to inflict severe and long-lasting physical and mental pain, including amputation, scarring, burning, maiming, mutilation. Coercion means a much lower threshold of pain or discomfort such as stress positions, pushing, temperature change, meal manipulation, loud music, exploiting phobias, trickery, yelling, etc. If done skillfully and in the right circumstances, water-boarding or WB is very effective and causes no long-lasting damage. It is used to train our special forces so I don't consider it torture. The untrained should not try it. Appendectomies are simple procedures for a doctor but I do not want my neighbor performing one on me. In fact, the 911 Commission documented we have only used WB three times in Iraq and those are spelled out in the book for those who want the truth.[Emphasis added.]

This is who Conor Lamb is running against.

More On Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth

An astute reader drew my attention this morning to some recently introduced business of super-duper-uber imporance to the Commonwealth, a Resolution declaring 2012 as the "Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania.

This hypocritical and unconstitutional resolution is from the legislative desk of State Representative Rick Saccone (R-Elizabeth).  Who's a very interesting fellow, indeed.

More On Rick Saccone (R-Elizabeth)

I haven't written about State Representative Rick Saccone for a while. There's just been too many other things to write about, what with a little-handed pussy grabber inhabiting the office once occupied by Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

But yesterday, the OPJ informed me about this story:

A state representative from Allegheny County has filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission signalling a run for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. Robert Casey Jr.

Rep. Rick Saccone, a Republican from Elizabeth, told PennLive Thursday he will formally announce his bid later this month. He becomes the first candidate to take official steps to challenge Casey, who will be up for a third term in 2018.

"I thought our country was going in the wrong direction, and I was going to step up and do something about it," Saccone said. "I want to be there to help our new president secure the agenda that our people voted for."

"Our people" Rick?  Who do you mean by "our people"?

Before we begin to ponder who Rick is referencing there, let's remind everyone of the some of the times Rick showed up on this blog:

• January 28, 2012 - Rick introduced legislation making 2012 "The Year Of The Bible."
• October 27, 2013 - Rick proposed a bill requiring Pennsylvania public schools to post "In God We Trust" on every school building.

Neither passes constitutional muster, by the way.  That old First Amendment establishment clause and what not.

As I wrote in 2012, Rick's also a cosponsor of an anti-Sharia law law.  And so this means that:I guess this means that faith written into legislation is acceptable if it's the good faith, unacceptable if it's the bad faith.

He's also a fan of waterboarding (which is a war crime).

More On Rick Saccone

This made it to my Facebook account the other day:

Pennsylvania public school districts would be required to post “In God We Trust” in every school building under legislation that advanced out of a committee in the state House of Representatives this week.

The bill sponsored by Rep. Rick Saccone...

Ok, we need to stop here for a second or two.  Remember Rick Saccone?  He's this guy - the Bible-loving, Sharia-hating, torture-excusing Rick Saccone.

Here's the bill, by the way.

And, although I am not a lawyer, I have to guess that it's probably unconstitutional.  And here's why.

We'll start with the Pennsylvania Constitution.  Section 3 states:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

Take a look at that last phrase.  By slapping the motto on the walls of every public school that's exactly what the outcome.  While the bill does state that:

The Federal 5th, 9th and 10th Circuit Courts have ruled that displaying the national motto passes constitutional muster so long as the purpose of the display is to advance or endorse the national motto rather than a particular religious belief or practice.

Do we really think that Pennsylvania's "Year of the Bible" legislator wants "In God We Trust" posted in every public school as anything other than an endorsement of a set of religious beliefs?

For that we have Torcaso v Watkins (1961) a Supreme Court decision from a little more than a half century ago that included this handy paragraph:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

And Lee v Weisman (1992):

In religious debate or expression, the government is not a prime participant, for the Framers deemed religious establishment antithetical to the freedom of all. The Free Exercise Clause embraces a freedom of conscience and worship that has close parallels in the speech provisions of the First Amendment, but the Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition on forms of state intervention in religious affairs, with no precise counterpart in the speech provisions.  The explanation lies in the lesson of history that was and is the inspiration for the Establishment Clause, the lesson that, in the hands of government, what might begin as a tolerant expression of religious views may end in a policy to indoctrinate and coerce. A state-created orthodoxy puts at grave risk that freedom of belief and conscience which are the sole assurance that religious faith is real, not imposed.

The lessons of the First Amendment are as urgent in the modern world as in the 18th century, when it was written. One timeless lesson is that, if citizens are subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises, the State disavows its own duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people.[Emphasis added.]

What else could it be than a "state-created orthodoxy" in a public school when a sign that reads "In God We Trust" for all the students to read and to digest?

And who, in fact, are the "we" in this anyway?

Rick Saccone Was Quoted In The Trib And In ONE SENTENCE Showed His Disrespect

Take a look at this from The Trib:

He (Conor Lamb) has really no life experience at all. He has one political appointee job. He never worked in the private sector. I've had 40 years of life experience in education, diplomacy, the military, government and international business. There is no match for that. If this were any other race than a special election, there would be no contest. [Emphasis added.]

Let's look at Conor Lamb's "life experience" shall we?

Since Saccone's quoted in The Trib, let's start with what the Trib has to say about Lamb's bio, shall we?  Here it is:

Lamb graduated from Central Catholic High School in 2002 and the University of Pennsylvania in 2006. He earned his law degree from Penn in 2009.

Lamb served in the U.S. Marine Corps prior to being appointed as an assistant U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh in 2014. He worked in that office for three years.

That's five years in the Marine Corps.

Mt Lebanon Democrats have more:

Prior to his appointment as a federal prosecutor, Lamb was a Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. He completed active duty service in 2013 and joined the Marine Corps Reserves.

A Marine Corps Officer - now in the Marine Corps Reserves.

And this is how Rick Saccone described that time: "REALLY NO LIFE EXPERIENCE AT ALL."

What Do You Mean "We"? Who Is the "We" Here?

I've been meaning to write about this story for some time.  In case you missed them, here are the details:

Allegheny County Council will get its turn to decide if its quarters in the County Courthouse should display the words “In God We Trust.”

At a Committee on Government Reform meeting Thursday night, the group decided 5-1 to present council at its Sept. 9 meeting with an amended resolution that would display that motto, among others, on a plaque in the Gold Room, located on the fourth floor of the courthouse, 436 Grant St.

The other mottoes, as added by amendment, are:

• E Pluribus Unum (Latin for "out of many, one".  This was the de facto motto of the United States before "In God We Trust" was enacted in 1956)
• Virtue, Liberty and Independence (This is Pennsylvania's official motto)

The resolution can be found here.

The P-G, this morning, thinks this resolution is a bad idea:

To be sure, “In God We Trust” has been the nation’s motto since 1956 and there’s no suggestion that it be stricken from the currency or otherwise banished. But to introduce it now in an age much more pluralistic is to invite discord.

Americans understand well enough that while “In God We Trust” seems inclusive of other monotheistic religions, its wellspring is the politically charged notion that this is a “Christian nation.”

And the offense to those who will object is not mitigated by hiding the religious message among the clutter of other slogans. Sometimes the best slogan is “Leave well enough alone.”

The FFRF has entered the story:

The Allegheny County Council in Pittsburgh, Pa., will vote on Sept. 9 on whether to post a plaque declaring “In God We Trust” in the Gold Room of the County Courthouse.

This proposal is the brainchild of State Rep. Rick Saccone, who wants the motto to appear in public buildings, including schools, throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. FFRF filed a previous suit challenging Saccone when he declared to the Pennsylvania House that 2012 was “The Year of the Bible.”

The proposal is sponsored by Councilwoman Sue Means, who insists that the motto is “patriotic,” thereby inappropriately suggesting a religious litmus test for good citizenship.

Ah, Rick Saccone.  Remember him?  He wanted to pass a law stating that 2012 was, for Pennsylvania, The Year Of The Bible.  He also thinks waterboarding's a grand idea.

So now we know with what we are dealing.

All that being said, my question here is, "Who are they referencing in the motto 'In God We Trust' - for whom, exactly, does the motto speak?

• All the citizens of Allegheny County?
• Allegheny County Council?
• The individual members of the council who sponsored the resolution?

Let's take it one at a time.  In a recent report out of Trinity College in Hartford, CT states:

One of the most widely noted findings from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008), which was released in March 2009, was the substantial increase in the No Religion segment of the U.S. population, whom we designate as “Nones.” The Nones increased from 8.1% of the U.S. adult population in 1990 to 15% in 2008 and from 14 to 34 million adults. Their numbers far exceed the combined total of all the non-Christian religious groups in the U.S.

Who exactly are the Nones? “None” is not a movement, but a label for a diverse group of people who do not identify with any of the myriad of religious options in the American religious marketplace – the irreligious, the unreligious, the anti-religious, and the anti-clerical. Some believe in God; some do not. Some may participate occasionally in religious rituals; others never will.

Nones are easily misunderstood. On the one hand, only a small minority are atheists. On the other hand, it is also not correct to describe them as “unchurched” or “unaffiliated” on the assumption that they are mainly theists and religious searchers who are temporarily between congregations. Yet another incorrect assumption is that large proportions of Nones are anti-rationalist proponents of New Age and supernatural ideas. As we will show, they are more likely to be rational skeptics.

So what are the numbers involved here?  The above says that report estimates that 15% of the population are "nones."  On page 11 of the report, it says that 42% of that 15% is either "atheist" "hard agnostic" or "soft agnostic" (defined as "there is no such thing [as God]", "there is no way to know [if there is a God]", or "I'm not sure [if there is a God]", respectively).  Page 19 of the report says that Pennsylvania is about in line with the percentage of "nones" in the state compared to the overall United States (15%).  If we can extrapolate, that means that there's a pretty good chance that a little more than 6.3% (42% of 15%) of Pennsylvanians do not hold the belief that there is a God (they either know there isn't or aren't sure there is).

If the population of Allegheny County is 1.23 million and the percentage of 6.3% of non-theists holds true, then about seventy-seven thousand Allegheny County citizens simply aren't represented in the "we" of "In God We Trust."  That's more than would fit into Heinz Field.  In fact it's about double the number of people who would fit in PNC Park.

So it can't be representative of ALL of Allegheny County, can it?  And yet it's to be nailed to the wall of the County's legislative body.

So is it just the council?  But then why attach it to the wall for all citizens to see?  For the non-theists of the county (and I count myself as one of them) would we be truly welcome as a full citizen in council chambers?

Remember the State Constitution says:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. [Emphasis added.]

Tell me again how declaring "In God We Trust" doesn't interfere with a non-believer's right to conscience?

UPDATE:From Sue, over at Pghlesbian.com:

Stop focusing on signage and instead focus on being people of good conscience who act according to their personal values – practice Christianity all you want, feed the hungry, heal the sick, answer your email, etc. But please stop imposing Christianity on your non-Christian constituents simply because they are a numerical minority. That is wrong.

Yes, it is.

Maybe You CAN Tell Alot About A Guy (Reschenthaler)...From His Friends

In her blog post yesterday about Heather Arnet, the OPJ had a good run-down of her opponent, Guy Reschenthaler:

But you can get to where he stands on some issues by looking at his endorsements which include an anti-choice group and, not one, but two separate pro gun groups (just in case you didn't already know he was a Republican).

But take a look at who else our Guy's been palling around with: Rose Tennant, Rick Saccone, and Sue Means.

Let's go one by one:

• Rose Tennant - She one "jokingly" wondered if President Obama was the devil.
• Rick Saccone - He of the "Year of the Bible" legislation.
• Sue Means - Who wanted to post "In God We Trust" on the wall of Allegheny Council.

Does Guy Reschenthaler support all these crazie religious ideas?  And if he does, do we really think he can represent all of the people of his district?  Christian AND non-Christian?  Believer AND non-believer?

One voter (and that would be me) would like to know.

More On Saccone's "The Year Of The Bible" Resolution

Remember this?

In late January, we blogged on local waterboard-endorsing, sharia-hating Republican legislator, Rick Saccone (R-Elizabeth) and his "Year of the Bible" resolution passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Well, some of those legislators want to take it back.

A Lawsuit Filed Against The Treason-adjacent Mastriano and Perry!

Last night, Pennlive reported:

A Lycoming County resident is challenging the right of two conservative Republicans to be on next month’s primary ballot because of their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection and their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Jeffrey D. Hill of Muncy, a registered Democrat, in documents filed Friday and Monday in U.S. Middle District Court, claims actions taken by state Sen. Doug Mastriano and U.S. Rep. Scott Perry disqualify them under the state constitution. Mastriano is one of nine GOP candidates running for governor.

He contends the two violated their oaths to support the U.S. Constitution by engaging in subversive activities leading up to the storming of the Capitol and the violence that ensued.

I so need to find a copy of this lawsuit!

Pennlive continues:

These are among the reasons Hill claims Mastriano, a state senator from Franklin County, should be disqualified.

• Chartered bases at his expense to transport people to then President Trump’s rally that preceded the riot at the Capitol.
• He and his wife were photographed at the Capitol as rioters were breaching police lines.
• Was with former state Rep. Rick Saccone when the latter encouraged insurrections to storm the Capitol.
• Joined a Republican delegation that met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss overturning the election after Joe Biden had been certified the winner.
• Considers far-right groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys as patriots.

Yea, I really need to see this lawsuit.

I can buy the "violated their oaths" argument 100%. The others, if the reporting is accurate, not so much.

Here's why.  This is the Oath that Rep Perry took:

I...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

There was no evidence of voter fraud and Trump's mob was looking to stop the Constitutionally described transfer of power to the winner of the 2020 election, Joe Biden. This makes them enemies of The Constitution. Something Rep. Scott Perry should have been defending, as per his oath.

He did not. However deeply he's involved in Trump's coup attempt, he's that much in violation of his oath.

We've already looked at the various oaths State Senator Doug Mastriano's taken. This is the oath he took when he was seated as a Pennsylvania State Senator:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.

Part of that oath is to "obey and defend the Constitution" and being part of an attempted coup obviously violates that oath.

Some of Hill's other arguments (the charge that Mastriano considers the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys to be patriots, for example) just don't fly.

As with Rep Perry, to the extent that he's involved with Trump's attempted coup, that's how much he's in violation of his oath of office. And if he's in violation of his oath of office, he's disqualified from holding it - or any other.

Let me just add that refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection would certainly qualify, in my mind at least - but then again I'm not an attorney, as an oath violation, to be sure.

If anyone comes across a PDF of Hill's lawsuit, please send it in. I really want to see it.

I'll keep looking for it as well.

Hill v. Mastriano 4:22-cv-00556

Well, I've seen it.

An astute reader was kind enough to email a PDF of the lawsuit in.

Let me frame this in the usual caveats. I am not an attorney. I've never taken a law course, opened a law book or studied to be a lawyer/legal assistant/paralegal/legal secretary in anyway. Aside from one very short stint on a jury in the mid-90s, I have no experience whatsoever as a lawyer.

I've never even played one on TV.

Anyway, back to Hill v Mastriano.

This is the cover sheet:

Yea. Hill's heart is certainly in the right place but I can't see this going anywhere.

For example, he flubs a reference to the PA Constitution:

Pursuant to Amendment 14, Section 3 - PA Constitution, Pennsylvania state Senator Doug Mastriano should be barred from running for Pennsylvania governor in 2022...

That's in the first page. He's referencing the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, though he gets the reference right on the fourth but still it's not a good way to open a lawsuit.

Hill does have a point, of course. That section of the US Constitution reads:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.[Emphasis added.]

Hill then lists all the stuff we already know about; Mastriano lied about how long he wandered around the Capitol that day, Mastriano's office chartered buses to the January 6 rally, Mastriano had his picture taken with fellow RWNJ Rick Saccone and so on.

All of these things are very very bad politically. I'm just not so sure they're enough to bounce him from the primary ballot.

But at the heart of the matter is this: to the extent that PA State Senator Doug Mastriano was involved in Trump's attempted coup, he's disqualified from running for public office, any public office, ever again.

Senator, any word on when you'll comment about that congressional subpoena you received?

More On Rick Saccone's "Year Of The Bible"

Hey, you remember this, right?

Our good friends at the Freedom From Religion Foundation brought suit against the resolution back in April, saying:

HR 535 improperly proclaims the bible to be ‘the word of God,’ . . . the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has no such authority or right to determine what is ‘the word of God,’ or if there is a ‘word of God,’ or if there is a ‘God’

A few days ago, the suit was dismissed by U.S. Middle District Judge Christopher C. Conner:

The judge dismissed the suit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation after concluding that House members have "absolute legislative immunity" in passing such measures.

However, he's quite adamant in his decision about some other things:

However, the court’s determination that the defendants engaged in a “legislative act” for purposes of immunity should not be viewed as judicial endorsement of this resolution. It most certainly is not. At best, H.R. 535 is a benign attempt to reaffirm the underlying principles of the Reagan proclamation of 1983. At worst, it is premeditated pandering designed to provide a reelection sound bite for use by members of the General Assembly. But regardless of the motivation behind H.R. 535, its express language is proselytizing and exclusionary (e.g., “Renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through holy scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people”). The court is compelled to shine a clear, bright light on this resolution because it pushes the Establishment Clause envelope behind the safety glass of legislative immunity. That it passed unanimously is even more alarming. This judicial rebuke of the resolution is not intended to impugn the religious beliefs of any citizen. To the contrary, the court’s disapprobation is directed to the blatant use of legislative resources in contravention of the spirit – if not the letter – of the Establishment Clause. At a time when the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania faces massive public policy challenges, these resources would be far better utilized in meaningful legislative efforts for the benefit all of the citizens of the Commonwealth, regardless of their religious beliefs.

So the legislature has the authority to pass such resolutions, but it probably shouldn't have.

By the way U.S. Middle District Judge Christopher C. Conner is a George W. Bush nominee.

Doug Mastriano and the Appeal to Heaven Flag

So much happening.

Let's start here:

Last summer, two years after an upside-down American flag was flown outside the Virginia home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., another provocative symbol was displayed at his vacation house in New Jersey, according to interviews and photographs.

This time, it was the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which, like the inverted U.S. flag, was carried by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Also known as the Pine Tree flag, it dates back to the Revolutionary War, but largely fell into obscurity until recent years and is now a symbol of support for former President Donald J. Trump, for a religious strand of the “Stop the Steal” campaign and for a push to remake American government in Christian terms.

Alito should recuse. 

But that's not why we're here.

This is:

You can watch the video here. See what's over Doug's left shoulder?  An "Appeal to Heaven" flag.

BTW, at about 2:50 in, Doug calls the events of January 6 "a form of terrorism" and "un-American."

He also says (3:28 in) that the violence was "a threat to the men and women in blue." He also said that instigating violence to push a political agenda is never acceptable.

Good to have heard him say it at some point, I suppose.

There's also this:

The “Appeal to Heaven” rhetoric and flag are an integral part of Christian Nationalism, as seen in that important report. Mastriano frequently appears in videos with the Appeal to Heaven flag behind him, including in the video in which he threatens the New Yorker journalist. pic.twitter.com/hL0F9aK2Yl

— Andrew L. Seidel (@AndrewLSeidel) May 18, 2022

Whah??  But isn't "threaten(ing) the New Yorker journalist" um instigating violence to push a political agenda?

Then there's this:

In video found by @7im, PA Gov. nom Doug Mastriano (R) prays with Christian Nationalists in Dec. ‘20: “I pray… we’ll seize the power… given to us by the Constitution, as well by you, providentially… that leaders in the federal government… on the 6th of January will rise up.” pic.twitter.com/s3KCZTOUMH

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) September 9, 2022

In the prayer, he mentions an "Esther moment" and in his testimony to the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 attach, Andrew Seidel explains Doug's use of the phrase:

Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano is a front- runner for governor in the 2022 race, having answered "God's calling" asking him to run. Mastriano and Saccone posed for a photo together outside the Capitol on January 6th. First elected in 2019, Mastriano humbly compared his political motivations to the biblical figure Queen Esther, who stopped the ancient Persians from massacring the Israelites. Mastriano reportedly stated that "if we get the call, we're not going to stand away from our Esther moment." The story of Esther ends with sons impaled on poles, 300 executions, and 75,000 enemies slaughtered, shading Mastriano's "Esther moment" with bloody violence. A day before the insurrection, Mastriano noted that Republicans "were in a death match" with Democrats. Nothing suggests that he personally entered the Capitol, but he was just outside the building and declared that he was "really praying that God will pour His Spirit upon Washington, D.C., like we've never seen before." He joined several public prayer calls after the election, including one to "pray that we'll take responsibility, we'll seize the power that we had given to us by the Constitution and as well by you providentially. I pray for the leaders also in the federal government, God, on the sixth of January that they will rise up with boldness."

But wait, Doug. I thought that using violence for a political end was never acceptable?

If you believe that, then what the hell are you going on about our "Esther moment?"

Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano Announces For Governor!

Look how many people where there!

Doug Mastriano for PA Governor rally today. Packing them indoors, not one mask, don’t count on many being vaxxed either. Seems like he’s going to need these people to be around to vote. pic.twitter.com/7In587Maxi

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 8, 2022

And look how many are masked!

Hey, look who was there!

pic.twitter.com/CPYZ4eo7gj

— Doug Mastriano (@dougmastriano) January 9, 2022

Um, isn't that Wendy Bell and her husband Dr. Joe O'Toole?

Is there any verifying video of Dr. Joe being by Wendy's side at this Mastriano superspreader event?

Yes, there is:

After presenting Doug Mastriano with one of Wendy’s favorite props-a defaced flag- the close out music COULD NOT be more appropriate. pic.twitter.com/NKKOecgjDC

— JON (@JonInPGH) January 8, 2022

Praising Doug Mastriano's honesty is a stretch, don't you think, Dr Joe? I mean there's this:

Internet sleuths have unearthed video from the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that appears to show Pennsylvania State Sen. Doug Mastriano was much closer to clashes with police than earlier statements about his whereabouts that day indicated. 

And:

After photos emerged of Mastriano posing on Capitol grounds with former State Rep. Rick Saccone not long before the breach, the senator was quick to state that he had personally steered clear of police barricades and left soon afterward.

“When it was apparent that this was no longer a peaceful protest, my wife and I left the area and made our way out of the area,” Mastriano said. “At no point did we enter the Capitol building, walk on the Capitol steps, or go beyond police lines.” 

And:

Yet over the weekend, individuals using the hashtag “#SeditionHunters,” which has been used to crowdsource information about the riot from social media and many hours of streamed video, uncovered screenshots that appear to show Mastriano much closer to the action.

In one, he is visible standing on the Capitol lawn with his wife. In another, Mastriano appears poised to stroll past police barricades as rioters push past them. 

Um, doesn't this mean that Doug Mastriano lied?

Didn't Doug also take an oath to "obey and defend" The Constitution? How do you call him "honest" when he, in violation of that oath actively participated in Trump's attempts to overturn the election?  

And Dr O'Toole, does UPMC know that you were there, maskless, at what certainly looks like a Covid superspreader event?

So who else was there?

The York Daily Record has some info:

Mastriano is part of a cadre of military men who have worked to convince Americans the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. He was flanked at his Saturday announcement by former Army Gen. Michael Flynn, who peddled unproven conspiracy theories that voting machines were hacked by the Chinese government to make Trump lose. Jenna Ellis, a Trump attorney who worked to overturn election results, also appeared with Mastriano.

 That would be one-time QAnon supporter Mike Flynn who admitted to lying to the FBI. And I say "one-time QAnon supporter" because:

Michael Flynn, who once filmed his family at a July 4 barbecue saying the QAnon oath, “Where we go one, we go all,” said in private that the Q conspiracy theory was “total nonsense” and a “disinformation campaign created by the left.”

In a recording of a phone call purportedly between Trump lawyer Lin Wood and Flynn released late Saturday night, Trump’s disgraced former national security advisor said of QAnon, “I think it’s a disinformation campaign that the CIA created. That’s what I believe. Now, I don’t know that for a fact, but that’s what I think it is. I think it’s a disinformation campaign.”

Did everyone at that Mastriano Superspreader event know that Mike Flynn thinks that QAnon is nonsense?

Finally there's this:

Ivan Raiklin posted to his Telegram from the Dog Mastriano rally.

Next to him sits the leadership of the Patriot Caucus, which @EverettStern1 has pointed to as a group willing to commit acts of political violence and chaos to advance their goals.
H/t @clayberg pic.twitter.com/2bOjbo8wwo

— MINDF©️K (@gal_suburban) January 8, 2022

If you needed a refresher in what Everett Stern said about the Patriot Caucus, go here.

If you needed an update on all the "cadre of military men" involved with the Trump-coup go here. 

But one point to reiterate: Does the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) know that one of their doctors (cardiologist Joe O'Toole, MD) was at what looks like a huge (and thus quite dangerous) indoor Covid superspreader event? Do the other doctors and nurses and various aides who work along side him know?

Just asking.

This Afternoon...(will Doug Mastriano Be Watching The Hearings?)

From CNN:

The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will treat its Thursday hearing as a closing argument ahead of the November midterms, which will seek to hammer home that former President Donald Trump remains a clear and present danger to democracy, particularly in the context of the upcoming 2024 presidential election, multiple sources tell CNN.

Although there will not be witnesses appearing in-person on Thursday, sources say, the hearing will feature new testimony and evidence that the committee has uncovered. Since its last hearing in July, the committee has interviewed more former members of Trump’s cabinet, received more than a million communications from the Secret Service from the lead-up to the riot, and sat down with Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“We discovered through our work through this summer what the President’s intentions were, what he knew, what he did, what others did,” committee member Rep. Zoe Lofgren told CNN on Tuesday evening, referring to the material gathered since the panel’s last hearing in July.

The NYTimes: 

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is planning on Thursday to present a sweeping summation of its case against former President Donald J. Trump at what could be its final public hearing, seeking to reveal damning new evidence about Mr. Trump’s state of mind and his central role in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

And:

The panel is attempting to refocus the country’s attention on Mr. Trump’s central role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, including how he encouraged his supporters to congregate in Washington; agitated them and directed them to the Capitol even though he knew they were armed and threatening violence; and then did nothing to stop the violence for hours.

And let's never ever forget who was there wandering around The Capitol while Trump's mob was storming the building in order to overturn the 2020 election.

Doug Mastriano (seen here with fellow insurrectionist Rick Saccone):

Doug Mastriano (seen here walking past the Capitol steps - Rebbie, his wife, is with him):

Doug Mastriano (seen here - with wife Rebbie - walking through the police barricades):

It was State Senator (and now GOP candidate for Pennsylvania Governor) Doug Mastriano.

Will you be watching today's hearings, Senator? 

You're part of the plot to overturn the election. You know that, right?

So How Far DID State Senator Mastriano Get On January 6?

I stumbled across an interesting tweet this afternoon.

Take a look:

PA State Sen. Mastriano taking his wife on an insurrection tour of the NW Lawn. #Mastriano #SenMastriano #SeditionHasConsequences pic.twitter.com/FXkzqAzYhZ

— K2theSky (@K2theSky) May 22, 2021

Note: PA Representative Brian Simms retweeted this earlier today.

For reference, this is what Doug Mastriano looked like on January 6:

Doug is on the left ("...on the left" Ha! I made a funny!) and the shorter, older guy in the blue Trump had is Rick Saccone, the Bible-loving, Sharia hating, waterboard supporting former Pennsylvania State legislator.

Back to Doug. Look at the hat and the coat and the scarf in the pictures below and above. Is this him?

It looks an awful lot like him. I'm just saying.

Anyway, back to Doug. If that's not enough for you, K2theSky also snagged this image from an Instagram video:

The person in the yellow oval is reportedly Mastriano's wife. If you need some help, take a look at this:

You see that guy in the lower right hand corner of the image? With the chin beard and the cap with the red brim?

In the video, he's removing the barricades (marked with "Property of US Capitol Police") from the walkway. If you watch the video carefully there's a guy who looks an awful lot like State Senator Doug Mastriano (see the yellow circle on the left) among the surging throng of Trump supporters. This guy  watches the many assaults on the Capitol Police and then, after the path cleared by the guy with a "Free Kyle" hoodie, walks right on through.

Of course, the "Free Kyle" on that hoodie would refer to Kyle Rittenhouse - alleged killer of two during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin this past summer.

Anyway, back to Doug, the guy who looks conspicuously like State Senator Doug Mastriano who's seen walking past the moved barricades.

But let's remember what he told The Pittsburgh City Paper:

Later in the day on Jan. 6, Mastriano posted an official statement saying that while he and his wife were in D.C. to attend the rally, but that they both left the area when "it was apparent that this was no longer a peaceful protest." He added that "those who violated those laws must be prosecuted.”

 “As a military veteran and retired colonel, I do not – nor would I ever – condone the violence we saw today. I join with all patriotic Americans in condemning what occurred in the Capitol," said Mastriano in a statement. “My position on lawlessness is equally as clear. When it was apparent that this was no longer a peaceful protest, my wife and I left the area and made our way out of the area. At no point did we enter the Capitol building, walk on the Capitol steps or go beyond police lines."[Emphasis added.]

Sorry, but it looks an awful lot like he did. And he did so willingly.

Those who violated the laws must be prosecuted.

David Shribman: President Trump Normalizer

First let me say that based on the P-G's endorsements of Senator Pat Toomey, Representative Rick Saccone (remember him?  He wanted 2012 to be "The Year of The Bible"), State House Speaker Mike Turzai (ALEC member and voter-fraud conspiracy theorist) and their Clinton/Trump non-endorsement (beautifully deconstructed by the OPJ here), I have a feeling I'll be spending more time fact-checking the once proud Post-Gazette editorial board in the coming months and years - I mean now that the Trib's gone paperless something has to fill the conservative vacuum in town, right?  How long until John Block forces a climate denial editorial on us?

Anyway, back to the blog.  I haven't posted much anything of substance since this posting the day after the election.  There were a few things here and there but if you'll take a closer look, you'll see that most of what I posted consists of statements and pleas for donations from some very important organizations (ACLU, NARAL, HRC, and NAACP) - organizations that, over the next few years, will be needing a great deal of help to counter the coming assault on our freedoms and on our national decency.

I took a short break because I felt I needed some time for the enormity of the outcome of the election to settle in.  Even now with a few days off it's becoming clear to me that the task before us is still daunting and nearly impossible to imagine - like trying to wrap your arms around the Great Pyramid of Giza just so you can lift it up and move it a few (just a few) inches to the left.

Take for example what happened yesterday.

Donald J. Trump has reversed course and agreed on Friday to pay $25 million to settle a series of lawsuits stemming from his defunct for-profit education venture, Trump University, finally putting to rest fraud allegations by former students, which have dogged him for years and hampered his presidential campaign.

Did you know that the fraud trial was scheduled to begin between the election and inauguration?

Imagine what the past few months would have looked like if either Clinton was facing a fraud trial.  Imagine if they settled the case for $25 mil.  Now ponder the concept of "a liberal media watchdog."
Anyway Senator Elizabeth Warren (racistly referred to as "Pocahontas" by our President-Elect) tweeted of the settlement:

.@realDonaldTrump swindled thousands of students at his sham “Trump University.” That’s not up for debate anymore – that’s a fact.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) November 18, 2016

And you'll remember this detail of the case:

The judge overseeing the two California cases, Gonzalo Curiel, was thrust into the limelight of the campaign in May when Mr. Trump spent several minutes at a rally denouncing the judge’s decisions in the case, calling him a “hater” and questioning his impartiality because of his Mexican Heritage.

Something the Speaker of The House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, at one point denounced as "the textbook definition of a racist comment."

Well, few days ago, this is what Paul Ryan said:

Every member of the House Republican conference found a traditional red “Make America Great Again” hat waiting on their seats Tuesday morning before a Capitol Hill meeting. “Welcome to the dawn of a new unified Republican government,” Ryan announced at a news conference. “This will be a government focused on turning President-elect Trump’s victory into real progress for the American people.”

I haven't even mentioned how seemingly acceptable the Trump Foundation slush fund is these days, or his calls for war crimes, or his unsolicited pussy-grabbing and beauty pageant-peeping seems to be with American conservatives, voters and the news media in general.

But, on the other hand, we had a (losing) candidate who got pneumonia on 9/11 and used a private email server, so it all balances out, right?

See what I mean about trying to wrap your arms around the Great Pyramid?

For me it's resisting the normalization of Donald Trump.  I touched on it yesterday.

We must not normalize this man or his actions - even sitting in the Oval Office, he's guilty of some gross violations of human decency.  Winning the election didn't change any of that.

Unfortunately "normalization" is what David Shribman, executive editor of the once centrist/left Pittsburgh Post-Gazette did this past week.  He describes our President-Elect thusly:

So it was Tuesday night, when Manhattan businessman Donald J. Trump — a political outsider, possessed of daunting ambition, audacity and an acute sense of the American political climate — emerged as the winner of a raucous presidential election.

An American original — a casino and real-estate magnate with an uncanny ability to read the public mood and an unerring ability to discern his rivals’ vulnerabilities — Mr. Trump now takes on his biggest task.

And on the negative?

Sometimes vulgar, always voluble, Mr. Trump ran against the political establishment of the Republican Party, against the customs of political life, and against the principal elements of American life

Sometimes vulgar?  Mr Shribman?  Sometimes?  Vulgar is spitting in public.  Vulgar is burping out loud at a fancy restaurant (and then laughing about the moist bits now dotting in your date's eyeglasses).  Bragging about being able to "grab them by the pussy" is actually (and I can't believe I have to tell you this, Dave) illegal.

And:

In winning one of the wildest, least predictable presidential elections of the age, Mr. Trump prevailed despite a fusillade of complaints about his conduct with women; repeated stories detailing irregular business practices; an unusual number of party apostates who declared they would never vote for him; and criticism that he hadn’t paid federal income taxes for about two decades.

Ah, Dave - you're normalizing by downplaying.  You see that, right?  That "fusillade of complaints"?  Take a look.  How much of what was described is actually illegal?  Irregular business practices?  We could just stop at the $25 million to make the Trump "University" fraud cases go away but if we wanted to, we could look at the hundreds stiffed in the past by our future president. And on those unpaid taxes?  It would be one thing if his tax dodging were completely within bounds.  But why, Dave, did you fail to mention that Trump's own attorneys told him that what he was planning to do was likely to trigger an IRS audit?  Or that, even if he was completely within the law, he was writing off millions by "deducting someone else's losses"?  What a genius! What a man for the people!

No.  You reduced the extent of Trump's pre-Presidential corruption down to one easy to swallow lump of lark's vomit lovingly garnished with this:

The man who vowed to make America great again now faces great challenges. But against all the experts and all the expectations he fashioned a great upset, a great comeback, and a great achievement.

Dave, you might think it's a great achievement but Trump's still a sexist, racist, corrupt demagogue.  Sitting at Resolute Desk simply can't change that.

Or don't you think so?  Let me know.

I, for one, will not adapt to this new normal.  I will not normalize this behavior.