Whitefish

So, there's this Nazi named Richard Spencer.  And let's be clear on this: he's a Nazi.  Not a 'neo-Nazi' --- adding the 'neo' part simply serves to distance him from his true ideological heritage, and in so doing makes his views seem slightly less horrible.

He's not a neo-Nazi: he's a Nazi.

Like all Nazis, Spencer has a mother, and she happens to live in a town called Whitefish, Montana.  I know nothing about Sherry Spencer, really, except that she owns a 'mixed-use' facility there.  She probably isn't a Nazi, but she published a letter recently which, either by accident or design, now has the Nazis of America (otherwise known as the hard-right wing of the Republican party) rather upset.  She alleges that a real estate agent named Tanya Gersh had threatened to boycott her business and draw national attention to it unless she agreed to sell out.  I know even less about Tanya Gersh than I do about Sherry Spencer, so it's entirely possible that Spencer is telling the truth.  However, it's hard to see any malicious intent in the emails Spencer published to back up her claims.  For example, this email from Gersh:

Sherry, Thank you for talking so openly with me today. I just can't imagine what you are going through. I am getting the listing agreement together and having the owner/broker of my office consult with a recommended price as well. I should have something to you later this evening. Please stay in close contact with me if you need anything or have questions at all about what is going on in the community. I put out many fires today just by mentioning the possible sale. All is very quiet right now waiting for your announcement. I will have public statement drafted shortly as well for you to review.

(I'm not linking to the emails, because they contain contact information which the Nazis are now using to harass Tanya Gersh --- but they're easy enough for interested parties to find).

This is hardly a shakedown letter.  The one thing Spencer and Gersh seem to agree on is that something was happening in Whitefish that made Spencer's continued residence there uncomfortable (the 'fires' Gersh managed to put out), and it seems likely that 'something' is genuine harassment on the part of anti-Nazi activists.  And if that is the case, shame on them.  Even if Sherry Spencer IS a Nazi --- and there seems to be no evidence that she is --- she has the right to live her life free of harassment, so long as she isn't running her business in a discriminatory manner or using it to promote a Nazi world view.

What also seems likely --- although by no means certain --- is that Spencer chose to address the problems in Whitefish by selling out, donating a portion of the proceeds to Human Rights Network, and making a public statement denouncing her son's beliefs.  Perhaps that suggestion is a complete fabrication on Gersh's part; more likely Spencer's son or some other Nazi persuaded her to change her mind.  If it's the latter, Spencer couldn't just change her mind, since even the thought of selling out would be perceived as weakness, which is why she instead turned around and accused Gersh of being the harasser.

Whatever the reality, Richard Spencer and his Nazi buddies are handling the situation with the kind of calm, reasoned restraint one might expect:

Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi who runs The Daily Stormer, a blatantly racist and anti-Semitic website, has ratcheted up his campaign of harassment against the Jewish community in and around Whitefish, Montana, including announcing an armed march in the town by white supremacists that he has scheduled for January.

And like all Republicans, these Nazis wouldn't dream of staging a protest without their precious guns.  Anglin is rubbing his hands together with glee, saying:

 Montana has extremely liberal open carry laws, so my lawyer is telling me we can easily march through the center of the town carrying high-powered rifles.

And here we see the idiocy of 'open carry' laws on full display.  The First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to peaceably assemble, and to protest.  The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, although contrary to what the Supreme Court has decided, it's obvious to me that the Second Amendment was talking about community policing, not Glocks for everyone.

Nevertheless, what Anglin and other Republicans like him are really talking about when they talk about open carry, or 'march[ing] through the center of town carrying high-powered rifles' is intimidation, something most definitely not guaranteed by the Constitution.  But this is where we've come as a society, when we have just enough gun-worshippers to defeat common-sense gun control legislation and put an orange stain in the White House.

There are now some hints that the Whitefish protest might be called off, but even if it is, we would all do well (especially Richard Spencer and the Nazis) to heed the final words on this matter from Sherry Spencer:

I strongly urge that everyone stays within the bounds of respectful, civilized discussion of this matter by refraining from abusive comments or targeted harassment of any of the parties involved, or their families. I disavow the harassment that anyone faced as a result of these events first being brought to light by the media even prior to this publication of my side of the story. After all, my own family and I have faced — and continue to face — numerous threats and bullying on social media as well.

Open Letter to the Trump Electors

I’m writing to ask you to cast your vote in the Electoral College on December 19 for anyone other than Donald Trump.

I’m sure that by now, you’ve heard plenty of reasons why Trump is a uniquely awful choice for President of our country.  He holds essentially no qualifications for the job.  He lies as easily as he breathes.  He’s thin-skinned, and more concerned with avenging (real or imagined) personal attacks than he is in promoting the good of our country.  As a serial adulterer, bully, and all around boor, he does not project a positive image of America to the world.

None of those are good qualities in a president, but even taken together, they are not sufficient to override the will of the voters in your state, who have chosen you to vote for Mr. Trump.  However, there are more serious arguments against him, arguments which in my opinion, make him completely unfit for our nation’s highest office.

First, consider how he has conducted himself in the month since the election.  He has had contact with numerous foreign leaders and businessmen, all in the context of his business as a hotel/casino magnate.  He is brazenly using the office of president for his own personal gain, and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

Next, consider the disturbing degree of Russian interference in our electoral process.  The Russians obviously wanted Trump to win the election, and they succeeded in achieving this goal by illegally hacking into computer systems of both the Democratic and Republican parties.  And there’s reason to believe that Trump and those around him have inappropriate ties to the Russian government.  Protecting America from this kind of foreign manipulation of our elections and our government is one of the reasons the Electoral College was established in the first place.

Next, consider the individuals Mr. Trump is selecting to serve in his cabinet.  How is the head of Exxon Mobil qualified to be Secretary of State?  And here again we see the troubling associations with the Russian government, as Mr. Tillerson has received Russia’s Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin.  The president of Goldman Sachs as director of the National Economic Council?  How is that draining the swamp?  And let’s not forget Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist, the leader and champion of the neo-Nazi ‘alt-right’ movement.  Conspiracy theorist Michael Flynn as NSA, Jim Crow racist Jeff Sessions as Attorney General --- the list goes on.  None of these people are suitable for the roles in government which Trump wishes to assign to them, and many have significant conflicts of interest.

Finally, I personally believe that Mr. Trump’s stated intention to bring back waterboarding and worse is tantamount to criminal behavior.  Torture is morally wrong under all circumstances, full stop.  And Trump’s further promise to ‘go after’ the families of suspected terrorists --- to ‘go after’ innocent people not even accused of any crime --- qualifies an impeachable offense in my opinion, if not a war crime.

Taken together all of these facts make what I believe is an incontrovertible case that you, as one of our nation’s 538 electors, have both a moral and a Constitutional duty to cast your electoral vote for anyone but Donald Trump.  As a lifelong Democrat, I would like that vote to go to Hillary Clinton, but I understand that you have a different political ideology.  I’m not asking you to abandon your party or your principles, and I won’t try to persuade to vote for someone who’s not a Republican.

But Donald Trump’s offenses go beyond partisan politics.  He is an abomination, and your duty to your country requires that you not vote for him.

(Addresses for Trump electors, as well as a different letter template, are available here.)

Until Proven False

Until proven false, I will report as definite fact that Michael Flynn, The Stain's choice for National Security Adviser, and his son, are operating an ISIS cell out of their Washington, D.C. townhouse, where they regularly throw parties which involve eating orphans alive while having sex with goats.

Things That Make America Great

What exactly does The Stain mean when he promises to 'Make America Great Again'?  Well, I don't believe he's ever spelled it out explicitly, but most observers believe it's a promise to return America to a time when things were better for white men without a college education --- The Stain's prime demographic.  And there's good reason to think that's what motivated that demographic to vote for him:

As for campaigns that pine for rosier economic times, in today's economy who wouldn't miss the job and income trends that prevailed from 1947 through the late 1960s? Manufacturing jobs were plentiful for young men without a college degree, and each cohort of men aged 25 to 29 earned more than three times as much as their fathers had made at a similar age. Since 1980, young men have earned less, on average, than their fathers at the same age.

There's no question that the post-WWII era through the mid-1960s was a golden age for America's working class, and specifically for the white working class.  Unfortunately, the middle class has been eroding steadily since then. And I don't blame anyone for wanting to see that trend reverse; I do, however, believe they will be sorely disappointed if they voted for The Stain thinking he's the right person to make that happen.

Many of The Stain's critics rightly point out that however rosy the 1950's may have been for the white working class, it wasn't such a great time for other groups.  Jim Crow laws were still enforcing racial segregation in the south, gays were still closeted, and women were still thought of as housewives rather than people.

There was, however, at least one other way in which the America of the 1950's was vastly preferable to today's America, and that concerns the integrity expected of public figures.

I just happened to watch the 1994 movie Quiz Show last night, about the quiz show scandals of the 1950's.  If you're not familiar with them, the short version is that in the early years of television, production companies, networks and sponsors were still defining the boundaries of what would and wouldn't fly in the new medium.  Quiz shows proved to be both wildly popular and cheap to produce, and for 3 or 4 years in the late 50's, they proliferated like bunnies.

And in the pursuit of ever-higher ratings, many shows crossed the line from honest quiz shows to scripted drama, to the point where contestants routinely received the answers to the questions before each show.

That's it.  A handful of quiz shows were rigged.  And when these facts were made public, it was considered a huge scandal.  There was a congressional investigation, and peoples' careers and reputations were ruined.  Americans actually cared that they had been lied to, and they shunned the people who told those lies.

Contrast that reaction to this from Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes:

Far from demanding honesty and integrity from public figures --- like politicians --- America has descended to the point where someone can lie with wanton abandon, and receive more than 61 million votes for president.

In this respect, at least, I agree that America needs to become great again.  Unfortunately, America has chosen the worst possible person for that job.

Memo to All Who Voted for Jill Stein

I hope your 'principles' will keep you warm for the next 4 years.  While I grudgingly give Stein some credit for taking the initiative to drive for recounts/audits in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, everyone seems to be avoiding the elephant in the room, which is this:

If everyone who voted for Stein had instead voted for Clinton, she would be the president-elect, not The Stain.  Allow me to elaborate.  These are the current vote totals in the deciding states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as I write this:

	Michigan	Pennsylvania	Wisconsin
Trump	2,279,543	2,955,671	1,409,467
Clinton	2,268,839	2,906,128	1,382,210
Trump's Margin	10,704	49,543	27,257
Stein	51,463	49,678	30,980

I wasn't planning to devote any more time to bashing Stein or her supporters, but it's now beyond doubt that those of you who voted for Stein have Nadered us again.  If you voted for Stein because you thought Hillary is just as bad as The Stain, then either you're lying to yourself or you're simply deluded.  Take a look at everything The Stain has done in just the past 24 DAYS since the election and tell me we wouldn't have been far better off with Clinton.

And no, Stein voters certainly aren't the only reason Clinton lost, but they deserve their share of the blame.  Mostly they're culpable for picking up Republican talking points and attacking Clinton with them from the left, thus persuading thousands of moderate voters who otherwise would have been happy to vote for an honest, competent, mainstream Democrat to either vote for The Stain or stay home.  There's no way to be sure, of course, but I think it's a fair estimate that for every vote Stein got, there were 3 other voters who would have voted for Clinton if Stein and her supporters hadn't been so eager to do The Stain's work for him.  If that's even close to accurate, then without Stein selling The Stain's kool-aid, Clinton not only wins but it's not all that close.

And of course, now we can see that even though relatively few people voted for Stein, that alone was enough to put The Stain in the White House.

Are those principles of yours helping you to feel good right about now?

Operation Ignore

The Stain appears to be more interested in using his office to further his business interests than he is in, say, actually trying to defeat ISIS and keep America safe:

Trump on Tuesday received only his third intelligence briefing since he won the Nov. 8 presidential election, despite an offer from President Barack Obama of daily briefings, three of the officials said.

. . .

Trump's decision to forgo daily briefings and his delay in designating more transition advisers to engage with the intelligence agencies may reflect his focus on filling the top economic positions in his administration.

However, said the senior career official, it also may reflect the disinterest and distrust in US intelligence Trump has expressed during and after his presidential campaign.

I would say that The Stain's disdain for daily intelligence briefings is unprecedented, but unfortunately it's not.  Al Franken, who is now the junior senator from the great state of Minnesota, and my preferred candidate for president in 2020, wrote a nice overview of the early days of the George W. Bush administration, in what he called 'Operation Ignore':

On its 172nd day, Operation Ignore suffered a major blow. Already, the operation was becoming more and more difficult to sustain as the intensity of terror warnings crescendoed. Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo.

Actually, that's not entirely fair. The President did follow up, a little bit. Sitting in his golf cart the next day, Bush told some reporters, "I'm working on a lot of issues, national security matters.'' Then, Bush rode off to hit the links, before dealing with a stubborn landscaping issue by clearing some brush on his property. The next day, he followed up again, telling the press, I've got a lot of national security concerns that we're working on Iraq, Macedonia, very worrisome right now."

The similarities between the ignorant and self-involved George W. Bush before 9/11 and The Stain are more than concerning, but sadly not surprising.  Anyone who was paying attention before the election knew that The Stain already thinks he knows everything there is to know about national security.   They knew that The Economist Intelligence Unit rated a Stain presidency as a top threat to global security.  They knew that 50 Republican intelligence officials believe The Stain is a risk to "our country's national security and well-being."

In short, when the next attack comes --- and there is no doubt it will come, and it will be large and it will be horrific --- the responsibility for it will belong to the attackers, of course.  And to The Stain, for his hubris and his willful ignorance and his refusal to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the threats facing America.

And The Stain's supporters will own it, too.  So when they start demanding that we round up Muslims or Mexicans or foreigners, I will respond by handing them a mirror, and asking if the price we're all paying is worth it to have The Stain in the White House just because "he tells it like it is" or whatever other ignorant excuse made them decide it was a good idea to vote for him.

On the Subject of Torture . . . .

As long as we're discussing torture, I should point out that there is a certain subset of conservative thugs who justify their support for waterboarding by insisting that waterboarding is not torture.  Personally, I'm more inclined to accept the opinion of a Republican politician who has actually been tortured, or failing that, of someone who has actually been waterboarded.

So to Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, Karl Rove, Tom Cotton and anyone else who insists waterboarding is not torture, I'd like to make a suggestion.  Arrange to have yourselves waterboarded on live television, before a bi-partisan panel of witnesses.  If you do that, I promise I will strongly consider your opinion that waterboarding is not torture.

Until then, please shut the hell up.

On Torture: An Open Letter to Mike Pence

Mr. Pence,

Today on Face the Nation, you left open the possibility that the incoming administration will use waterboarding and other forms of torture on prisoners.  You refused to contradict the statements of your profane running-mate that he would approve not only waterboarding, but "more than that", regardless of whether it is effective as an interrogation technique, because "they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing".  Torture is inherently odious and immoral, and so it is exactly what I expect from your profane running-mate, but it is especially so because he is advocating torture of prisoners WHO HAVEN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY WRONG-DOING VIA DUE PROCESS.

Apparently, despite your many years of experience in the House of Representatives, you need an ordinary citizen like me to remind you that torture is illegal under both U.S. and international law, immoral, and unconstitutional.  In January, you will take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the 8th amendment of which reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The current president, a man who is worth several thousand of you and your profane running-mate, and who is also a professor of constitutional law, understood his obligations under the Constitution, and correctly stated upon taking office:

First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture . . . . America's moral example must be the bedrock and beacon of our global leadership.

Since it seems that you don't understand this, you cannot faithfully carry out the responsibilities of the office for which you have been chosen.  I therefore urge that if you have any shred of honor, you must refuse the office of the Vice-Presidency, and you must persuade your profane running-mate to refuse the office of the Presidency as well.  I have no doubt that you will dismiss this suggestion, as I am sure you and your profane running-mate are both entirely without honor.  I also realize that it would create a constitutional crisis for our country for both the President and Vice-President elect to refuse the oath of office at this point.  However, the crisis it would cause would be far less than the crises we will face if you and your torture-loving crony are allowed to set foot in the White House.

I would further suggest that once you have left politics, that you both search for entry-level jobs in the service industry, possibly working as janitors at a halfway house or a juvenile detention facility.  You might learn some humility and some compassion for others, and whether you do or not, you would be doing more to make America great than you're likely to accomplish leading the government.

(Readers are encouraged to write their own letter to Mr. Pence, and are free to use this letter as a starting point, or copy it in its entirety.  For the next month or two, I would imagine that Mr. Pence can be contacted here.)

Surviving the Trumpocalypse: Part 1 - The Courts

Here's a study in contrasts.  In an entirely predictable development, The Stain's election victory has emboldened the more deplorable of his supporters to act on their worst impulses:

There have been 437 reported acts of verbal and physical harassment recorded by the Southern Poverty Law Center since voters elected Donald Trump president of the United States. 

 Appointments such as Steve Bannon to Trump's administration and a failure to seriously address the hateful Trump campaign rhetoric, the social justice watchdog organization says there’s no telling how high that number will grow. 

Fortunately, the Obama administration is still in office for another 62 days, which includes an Attorney General who takes the rule of law seriously:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Friday that the Justice Department is investigating whether the dozens of incidents of intimidation and harassment reported in the days since the election qualify as federal hate crimes.

“The FBI is assessing, in conjunction with federal prosecutors, whether particular incidents constitute violations of federal law,” Lynch said in a videotaped statement.

Unfortunately, more than 61 million Americans either didn't understand or didn't care that this would happen, and decided it would be a good idea to put The Stain and his cronies in charge of the U.S. government for the next 4 years.  And unless the U.S. Senate does its job, Loretta Lynch will be replaced by an Attorney General who isn't quite so concerned with civil rights:

 Sessions defended Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims from entering the United States and Trump has embraced many of Sessions’ proposals, like “canceling federal funds to sanctuary cities,” slowing legal immigration and challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. In January, a top aide to Sessions, Stephen Miller, joined the Trump campaign as senior policy adviser, and Sessions’ Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn is the executive director of Trump’s transition team.

In 1986, a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination to a federal judgeship in the midst of charges of racial bias.

No matter who replaces Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, the Muslims, blacks, Latinos, LGBTQs and others who are the targets of The Stain's deplorables will be losing a powerful ally in the legal system.  This is why the most important and effective way those of us in the reality-based community can begin to fight back against The Stain is to support independent legal organizations who will step into the void left behind when the U.S. no longer has a competent Attorney General.  My recommendations are:

• The American Civil Liberties Union
• The Southern Poverty Law Center
• The Human Rights Campaign

The ACLU and SPLC are probably the foremost legal organizations for defending civil rights in America and fighting hate.  The Human Rights Campaign also defends civil rights, but it is focused on LGBTQ rights.  Pick your favorite, or pick them all.  If you can manage it, sign on to make regular monthly donations.  For the next four years, these organizations will be the best response we have to all forms of bigotry championed by The Stain and his supporters.

Of course, fighting them in the courts is just the beginning.

Stupid

A few days ago, someone posted a link to an article in the Washington Post about a Muslim woman who voted for The Stain.  I made the comment that this particular woman is stupid, and provided reasons to support my position (I also added a particular vulgar gerund at one point).  A number of other people chastised me for this, saying that it should be possible for adults to disagree without resorting to name-calling.  And I've seen other people argue that the 'adult' thing to do is for Stain supporters and Clinton supporters to agree to disagree.

While that argument sounds polite and reasonable and all, it's completely wrong.  'Stupid' is the friendliest possible description for Stain voters, which should be obvious to anyone who's been paying attention.  But since there seem to be a lot of people who don't get it, let me remind everyone of a few of the reasons why The Stain is utterly unqualified for the job the Electoral College is about to hand him:

• He's an enthusiastic supporter of torture, promising to authorize torture "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" on suspected terrorists.
• He's an enthusiastic supporter of the murder of innocent people, if they have a family member who is a suspected terrorist.
• He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., which is unconstitutional and uncomfortably close to Nazi policies towards Jews and Catholics.
• He is a self-identified sexual predator.  And as at least 15 different women have stated, The Stain's 'grab em by the p***y' statements aren't just talk; he actually does things like this.
• Essentially every single security professional, newspaper editor, and politician who knows what the job of president requires has publicly stated that he's not qualified for the job.

If a friend or coworker expressed did any of these first four things, the appropriate response --- at a minimum --- would be to shun the person.  A more appropriate response would be to try to gently explain to them why their attitude/behavior is immoral.  To support or condone those attitudes or behaviors in any way is morally indefensible.

But roughly 60 million people did MORE than just condone these behaviors from The Stain, THEY VOTED FOR HIM TO BE PRESIDENT!!!  Especially considering his complete lack of qualifications for the job, the people who voted for The Stain are 'stupid' at best.  If he actually follows through on any of the first three items, one could argue that they are complicit in war crimes!  This isn't a simple difference of opinion; this is about a moral imperative to speak out against evil.

Now, I have the good fortune not to have any Stain supporters among my friends or family (so far as I know).  So I can't imagine how difficult it must be for someone with a close friend or relative who voted for The Stain.  So I don't fault anyone for the choice they make about how to handle that relationship --- though again, I believe the best choice is to attempt to gently bring that person around to understand just how horrible The Stain is.

At the same time, however, please don't scold me for speaking up.  Someone needs to.  The failure to do so could have profoundly awful consequences.

Medicare on the Chopping Block

Two days after the election, and already we have the first victim of the incipient presidency of The Stain.  Republican Speaker Paul Ryan is proposing to phase out Medicare as part of the promised repeal of Obamacare.

As the article notes, Obamacare has actually improved the financial picture for Medicare, and the two programs are linked.  So if the Republicans want to repeal Obamacare --- thus robbing an estimated 20 million people of health insurance --- there's no reason for Medicare to be affected at all.  But Ryan wants to push Medicare recipients into private insurance plans anyway.

Of course, president Clinton wouldn't have allowed any of this to happen.  But with The Stain in the White House --- well, I don't like the chances of 20 million of our poorest citizens, plus all of our nation's elderly, to get decent health insurance.

Making America Great!

UPDATE: President Clinton would have protected Obamacare, of course, but she also would have added a public option, which likely would have helped to keep insurance rates under control.  And far from privatizing Medicare, she actually would have given people ages 55 - 65 the option of buying into Medicare.

But remember, Clinton and The Stain were both equally terrible candidates!

The Pottery Barn Rule

Well, congratulations, Trump supporters.  It looks like you got what you wanted.  What you think you wanted, anyway.  So go ahead and celebrate.  Shoot your gun, drink some beer, grab someone by the 'whatever' --- whatever you do to celebrate.  No sense in everyone being miserable.

But when you're done celebrating, I have an important message for you: you own this.  You break it, you bought it.  It appears that a lot of you had removed yourselves from the democratic process because you didn't think any of the candidates spoke for you.  Apparently, Trump won mainly by energizing a large group of people who don't normally vote.  You're the ones I'm talking to now.

The time is coming, and it's going to be soon, when you realize that you've made a horrible, horrible mistake.  I give it a year, tops.  And when that happens, you DON'T get to go back to not caring about the system.  Like I said, YOU OWN THIS.  So in 4 years, after it's become clear that Trump has driven our country straight into oblivion, it is ON YOU to fix the mess you made.

That means voting for whoever the Democrats nominate.  And I mean WHOEVER the Democrats nominate, even if she's a transgender lesbian Mexican.  AND for every other Democrat on your ballot.

You voted for Trump because you think he'll 'shake things up', and he will.  So will an earthquake or a tornado.  So when that's over, YOU need to work with people like me to 'shake things up' in the right way by getting Trump out of the White House and getting enough Democrats in Congress to make sure she can fix everything that needs fixing.

That is all.

Closing Argument

I'll keep this as brief as possible.  With the election only 3 days away, it is imperative that you vote for a Democrat in every race on your ballot.  If you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary, then vote for the rest of the Democrats anyway.  Do NOT vote for Trump.  Here's why.

Only Two Choices
Let's get this out of the way first.  Come January, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be taking the oath of office.  Not Gary Johnson, not Jill Stein, not Evan McMullin or any other flavor-of-the-month candidate.  You may not like it, but those are the facts.  So you need to choose between Hillary and Trump; if you do anything else, you're letting other people choose for you.  And between those two candidates, the choice is blindingly obvious.

#NeverTrump
The case against Trump breaks down into three categories: his policies, his behavior, and his war against American democracy.  We will bullet-point items from the first two categories here, and discuss the last category at the end of this post.

First, his policy positions:

• He wants to torture suspected terrorists, and who knows who else.  In addition to being morally wrong and couterproductive, U.S. law has long considered the use of torture illegal.
• He has said on multiple occasions that he would kill the families of suspected terrorists.  Put bluntly, he would kill innocent people, including children, when they are related to someone America merely suspects of being a terrorist.  This would clearly be highly immoral and criminal.
• His signature issue is his desire to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.  This wall is estimated to cost the U.S. taxpayer between $15 - $25 billion, and is unlikely to have much effect on illegal immigration or drug trafficking.  (You're fooling yourself if you believe Trump's promise that Mexico will pay for it; he's not running for president of Mexico)  Additionally, it is a solution in search of a problem, as illegal immigration from Mexico has been steadily decreasing for the past decade.
• He wants to create a deportation force to deport most or all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.  In addition to the human cost of splitting up families and communities, this plan is estimated to cost up to $300 billion and drain nearly $1 trillion from the U.S. economy.
• Typical of Republican candidates, Trump would enact a huge new tax cut, the main benefit of which would go to the wealthiest Americans and to corporations, and which would increase the national debt by an estimated $7 trillion over the next decade.  We all remember how well George W. Bush's huge tax cuts supercharged the economy, don't we?
• He has called to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S., and although he has formally changed his policy since then, this seems to be mostly driven by a desire to avoid comparisons to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews, and not a change in his view of all Muslims as potential terrorists.  In effectively declaring war on Islam, there is no doubt Trump has aided ISIS in recruiting new terrorists.
• He supports the so-called "stop and frisk" policy for police, which as Jamelle Bouie explains, essentially amounts to sanctioned police harrassment of minorities.  Also, it's unconstitutional.
• Finance experts agree that Trump's policy statements about the national debt are nonsense at best, and disastrous at worst.
• He has publicly stated that as president, America might not fulfill its defense obligations to its NATO allies.
• He supports both South Korea and Japan becoming nuclear powers, and possibly Saudi Arabia as well.
• "A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit."

Next, his behavior:

• As his statements about reducing the debt, meeting our obligations to our NATO allies, and nuclear proliferation demonstrate, Trump has no idea about how the U.S. or world economies or international security works, and he has no interest in developing the expertise required to be president.
• He offers as his main qualification his alleged success as a businessman.  But he has had multiple business failures, including as recently as last week, and that doesn't even include his epic Atlantic City casino fiasco.  His record of failure is so extensive, U.S. banks will no longer work with him.
• Whatever business success he's had has come largely from running scams like Trump University, and refusing to pay people money he owes them, knowing that he has enough legal muscle to prevent most people from getting justice in court.
• But he does love tying up the courts for his personal gain.  USA Today estimates that Trump is currently involved in 4,095 lawsuits and counting.
• He has a history of racism, including his insistence on the guilt of the so-called Central Park Five after DNA tests exonerated them from any wrongdoing.  Evidence of his ongoing racism can be seen in his support for "stop and frisk" policing.
• He is a sexual predator, a fact he was caught bragging about in a 2005 recording, and corroborated by (so far) 15 different women.  Given his recent derogatory statements about Hillary, Carly Fiorina, Rosie O'Donnell and Megyn Kelly, there's no reason to believe he's changed his ways (a man with a newfound respect for women wouldn't say such things).  Indeed, Trump's good friend Howard Stern confirms "This is who Trump is".
• He is a legendary misogynist.  In addition to being a sexual predator, it seems that he got into the business of running beauty pageants mainly so he could go leer at the contestants in the dressing room, including girls as young as 15.  He also agreed with Stern that his own daughter, Ivanka, is "a piece of ass".
• He lies as easily as he breathes (warning: page takes a long time to load.  I'm not kidding).
• He poses as a generous philanthropist, even setting up the Trump Foundation, but he's not.  He only made a promised $1 million donation to a veterans' organization after he was shamed into it.
• He insults, belittles and demeans practically everyone, including women, veterans and the disabled.

The final, and really most damning, arguments against Trump have to do with his efforts to undermine American democracy, with the eager assistance of the Republican party.  But we'll get to that later.

Benghazi! And the Clinton Foundation! And Emails!

At this point, you may be persuaded that Donald Trump is the worst candidate ever nominated by a major party in U.S. history.  And you'd be right!  So go vote!

However, you may still have reservations about Clinton, due almost entirely to a massive disinformation campaign on the part of the Republican party and its various organs (FOX News and, increasingly, Breitbart).  The short answer is: there's nothing to these faux 'Clinton scandals', or at least not much.  I've written detailed explanations about Benghazi and the emails already, and I've waded through quite a bit of refuting Clinton Cash.  But what you really need to know is much simpler.

Congressional Republicans hate Hillary Clinton, and will do anything in their power to destroy her.  And it has recently come to light that some FBI agents bear this same hatred, and have been working feverishly through the Clinton Cash accusations in an effort to take her down.

And you know what they all found?  Nothing.

There is no doubt that Hillary broke State Department rules in using a private email server for official business, and she has admitted her mistake.  But the worst that can be said is that she put some low-level classified information at risk --- at risk, mind you, which is a far cry from, say, selling state secrets.  Hardly a reason to lock her up, as Trump has been calling for.

When the FBI and multiple congressional investigations spend years trying to make a case against someone, and they're unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing, do you know what you call that person?

Innocent.

#ImWithHer

So what will Hillary do as president that's so great?  I'm glad you asked.

• A former Bernie Bro explains why he's come around to supporting Clinton.
• The Nation provides a dozen reasons for backing Clinton.
• And Kevin Drum really pulls out the stops, stating that "The progressive case for Hillary Clinton is pretty overwhelming".
• She supports reproductive rights more fully than probably any candidate for president in history, and her Supreme Court nominees are likely to reflect that fact.
• She's been working to improve the health care system for at least the last 25 years, and wants to improve Obamacare by adding a public option and introducing a Medicare buy-in for people aged 55 and up.
• Her immigration policy is pretty much 180 degrees away from Trump's.
• She supports universal early childhood education, which not only benefits all of America's children, but which is an extremely cost-effective way of reducing crime rates, welfare costs, health care costs, and providing other societal benefits.
• She supports raising the federal minimum wage to $12/hour (not as good as $15/hour, but still better than Trump).
• She has plans to reduce the burden of college debt.
• She's committed to equal treatment under the law for both LGBTQ and racial minorities.
• The Clinton Foundation. Republicans have (successfully, I'm afraid) conned people into believing the whole operation is a scam, but it actually does a lot of good, and the Clintons deserve a lot of credit for creating and running it.
• Lots of other good stuff.
• She would actually PAY for her proposed policy changes by increasing taxes, primarily on the wealthiest 1%, as opposed to Trump's giveaway to the wealthiest and corporations.

What Others Are Saying

Although it seems that a lot of everyday Americans support Trump, practically no one with any depth of knowledge of the issues does, unless they work for the Republican party, the Trump campaign, or FOX or Breitbart news.

• 30 retired Republican lawmakers have signed a letter stating that Trump lacks the intelligence and temperament to be president.
• 50 Republican national security officials have signed a letter stating that a Trump presidency "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being".
• Practically all of the newspapers making an endorsement in the election have endorsed Hillary.  Many of these papers have rarely if ever before endorsed a Democrat, including the Arizona Republic, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Dallas News, and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
• Trump, on the other hand, has only received endorsements from eight traditional newspapers, plus the National Enquirer and the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan.
• Despite Trump giving Clinton the nickname of 'Crooked Hillary', and his success in persuading the public that she is somehow corrupt, all independent fact checkers find that Trump is, by far, the bigger liar.

So, you know, if you STILL think Trump is the better choice of president, you'd better go back and check your work, since a whole lot of people --- most of them probably smarter than you --- think differently.

But the Most Important Reason to Vote for Hillary (and every other Democrat you can find) is . . . .

The Republican party is actively working to disrupt and undermine American democracy.  This may sound like I've gone into tinfoil hat territory, or that I'm using hyperbole.  But the facts could not be clearer, and it's important to come to grips with that now, before it's too late.

It started with systematic voter suppression efforts early this century, under the guise of preventing vote fraud.  Although there are practically no documented cases of in-person voter fraud (someone attempting to cast a vote under another person's name), Republican legislatures in 30 states have passed laws requiring a voter to prevent some form of ID before casting a ballot.  Although this sounds like a reasonable and harmless requirement, it exists mainly to reduce voter turnout among economically disadvantaged groups --- groups who tend to vote for Democrats more than Republicans.  Of course these laws face challenges in the courts, and in some cases they have been overturned.  The most egregious of these laws is probably in North Carolina, where a federal court found that the voter ID law was enacted to suppress turnout among black voters, who were targeted "with almost surgical precision".  And there's no reason to believe the voter ID laws in other states are any better.

Ironically, despite the Republican party's efforts to rig the polls in their favor, their nominee Trump is publicly claiming exactly the opposite, that the polls are 'rigged' against him --- but never providing any proof.  Because, well, there is none.

And this isn't the only way in which Trump and the Republicans are undermining the democratic process.

In a normal election, the candidates campaign --- they campaign on the issues, and/or they attack their opponent.  And then the voters vote, and the loser graciously accepts defeat.  This has become such an ingrained part of American democracy that we take it for granted.  And we shouldn't.  People who wave the American flag --- usually Republicans --- like to remind us that our freedoms were gained at the cost of great sacrifice on the part of brave soldiers in places like Gettysburg, or Normandy, and that their sacrifice must not be forgotten.  And they're right.

At the same time, Donald Trump and the Republican party are currently shredding everything those soldiers fought for.  Trump repeatedly tells his supporters that his opponent belongs in jail, and has promised to prosecute her if elected.  He has even gone so far as to obliquely suggest she should be shot.  For months, he has been warning of a 'rigged' election, and refuses to pledge to respect the outcome should he lose.  He's even gone so far as to suggest that the election should be cancelled, and that he should just become president by fiat (or unanimous agreement or something).

Meanwhile, Republicans already in office are doing all they can to pre-emptively delegitimize a Clinton presidency.  We've already seen government shutdowns and threats of government shutdowns.  Now Republicans are promising that they will leave the vacant seat on the Supreme Court open forever if Clinton is sworn in, and they've also promised to impeach Clinton as soon as they can.  There are no charges, mind you, they name no specific 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.  Presumably they'll impeach her first and figure out what her exact crime was later.  But this is what one expects from a banana republic, not the country we proudly think of as the example of democracy for the world.

But it gets worse.  As noted above, we now know that certain agents in the FBI have been pursuing an investigation into the Clinton Foundation for partisan reasons.  And of course the FBI director himself, James Comey --- in breach of long-standing Justice Department protocol --- sent a letter to Congress last week suggesting that there was new evidence in the interminable investigation into Clinton's emails, even though no new evidence exists.  What we have is the nation's top law enforcement agency abusing its power in an effort to influence an election.  And there's reason to believe these actions took place in coordination with the Trump campaign.

But it gets even worse! There are credible reports that Trump's whole campaign has coordinated with Moscow to discredit Clinton, including carefully timed email dumps from Wikileaks to keep the whole 'Crooked Hillary' narrative alive for the past 8 months.  Republican patron saint Ronald Reagan once made America swoon by referring to Russia as the 'evil empire', but now it seems that the Republicans are perfectly happy to let the Russians meddle in American politics, and hack American web servers as much as they like, so long as it helps Trump get elected.

None of this is normal.  It is very serious, and very dangerous.  And no matter what you think of Hillary, or Democratic policies or Democrats in general, it must be met with the starkest rejection possible.  This is why no one should vote for a Republican for any office.  The Republican party has become corrupt down to its roots, and the only way to address it is to make sure no one carrying the stench of Trump holds any elected office, ever.

In Conclusion

Clinton is clearly far superior to Trump on the merits, and even if that weren't true, a Trump presidency promises to bring with it corruption and abuse of power on an unprecedented scale.  It's time to teach the Republican party a lesson, that those who run for office should be concerned mainly with serving their country and promoting democracy, rather than with playing dangerous games which undermine it.  There is no better way to teach them that lesson than at the ballot box on Tuesday.

Richard Campbell is Deplorable

Actually, "deplorable" isn't really a strong enough word.  I think "felon" is more appropriate.  As everyone knows, it's wrong to punch someone in the face, save for self-defense.  It's especially wrong to punch a 69-year-old woman who needs an oxygen tank to breathe:

69 year old Shirley Teeter, who wears an oxygen mask and lugs around a tank to support it, was protesting outside a Trump rally in North Carolina when a feral Trump turned on her and punched her right in the face. Cold-cocked her, as Shirley put it.

Deplorable Trump Supporter in Kansas

Okay, this article is from March, but it still proves Hillary's point that a big chunk of Trump's supporters are "deplorable" (assholes):

A Muslim student at Wichita State University says he and a Hispanic friend, who also is a student, were attacked over the weekend by a man who shouted racial epithets and “Trump, Trump, Trump” before riding away on his motorcycle.

Search the internet for others! You'll be shocked and disgusted by what you find!

The Final Word on Hillary's Emails

As you may have heard by now, Hillary Clinton used a private email server to do her job when she was America's Secretary of State from 2009-2013.  A lot of people are upset about this, insisting that she broke the law somehow, saying things like "What's she trying to hide?  I can't believe she's still a free woman!  If anyone else had done this, they'd be in jail!!!"

Ladies and gentlemen, meet another former Secretary of State: Colin Powell:

That's a picture of Mr. Powell on Februrary 5, 2003, lying to the United Nations about the threat Iraq posed to the world.  That little vial in his hand is supposed to represent the anthrax virus, a biological weapon which the Iraqis didn't have.  It turns out, of course, that Iraq didn't have any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction', but Powell and the Bush administration lied to the American people and the world to justify invading Iraq just a few days later.

This has nothing to do with Hillary's email server, or Benghazi!, or any of the other nefarious things Hillary has been accused of.  I mention it only to point out that there are worse things a person can do as Secretary of State than to break the rules about how email is handled.

However, as it turns out, Mr. Powell actually IS relevant to a discussion of Hillary's email server, because you see he also used a private email address to conduct government business while he served as Secretary of State.

In fact, what Powell did was one step worse than what Clinton did.  Clinton turned over her server and everything on it when the State Department and FBI requested it.  Yes, she had deleted SOME emails, because that's how email works.  You read it, and when you don't need it any more, you delete it.  But the point is, when the State Department asked for her emails, she turned over everything she had.

When the State Department asked Powell to turn over his emails, he blew them off.  From a May report by the State Department Office of Inspector General:

At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell’s "internet service or email provider" to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers. The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell’s representative conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative. 

Strangely, I have read no recent accounts of anyone demanding that Colin Powell be locked up --- or worse yet, executed --- because he lied us into the Iraq War.  And not because he used a personal email account to conduct government business, either.

So let's treat Hillary the same way we treat Colin Powell.  Don't lock her up, and don't say mean things about her.  Instead, think of her as a beloved elder statesman.  For some reason, that's how many people look at Powell.

Trump Jr and Roger Stone Agree: Yes, We're Deplorable!

Wow.  When Hillary called a big chunk of Trump supporters "a basket of deplorables", I thought it would be a major issue for the rest of the campaign.  Hell, the Trump campaign is already running an ad attacking Clinton for saying it.

But apparently Donald Jr and Trump's long-time confidante Roger Stone didn't get the memo, because they got on social media and sent out an image basically confirming that Clinton is right:

From left to right, that's Roger Stone; former Republican candidate for president and all-around know-nothing neurosurgeon Ben Carson; loudmouth, bully, corrupt New Jersey governor and Trump eunuch Chris Christie; Eric Trump; vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence; Trump; Pepe the Frog; former New York Mayor, 9/11 opportunist and conspiracy theorist Rudy Giuliani; Donald Trump, Jr.; right-wing nutjob and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones; and different right-wing nutjob Milo Yiannopoulos.  At a minimum, Stone, Giuliani, Jones and Yiannopoulos fit Clinton's definition of "deplorable".  And that's not even taking into account Pepe the Frog.

Pepe has been around for more than a decade, but in the last year he has become the unofficial mascot of the white supremacist movement.  Trump Jr. and Stone know this (or damn well should).  Pepe represents the worst America has to offer in bigotry, the neo-Nazi movement, and straight-up racism.  In other words, he represents EXACTLY the kind of people Clinton meant when she talked about "deplorable" Trump supporters.

Understand, this image didn't come from some crazed Clinton supporter trying to do a hatchet job on Trump.  And it didn't come from the Trump campaign, either.  Its origin is unclear.  But what's so damning about it is that Trump Jr. and Roger Stone both EMBRACED it.  Trump Jr said he was "honored" to be in this group, and Stone said he was "proud".  Which proves that Clinton got it exactly right.

Emirjeta Xhelili is Deplorable

Trump and Republicans generally are pretending to be shocked and insulted that Hillary has pointed out that a large chunk of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" (a nice word for "assholes").  Their faux outrage would be more credible if it weren't for people like Emirjeta Xhelili:

Emirjeta Xhelili, 32, hurled Islamophobic insults as she pounced on the two victims near her Bath Beach home about 1:30 p.m. Thursday, authorities said.

“Get the f--k out of here,” Xhelili, 32, allegedly yelled at the pair, according to prosecutors. “Get the f--k out of America, b-----s.”

As she punched the 23-year-old women in the face and kicked them in their legs, she tried to rip the traditional Muslim veils off their heads at Bay 20th St. and Cropsey Aves., police sources said.

She also tried to knock over a stroller carrying a 15-month old.

Anyway.  There's ONE deplorable who loves Trump.

A Presidential Look

A few days ago, Donald Trump said he doesn't think Hillary has a presidential look.  Seriously.

THIS GUY thinks he's in a position to tell someone else they don't look presidential.  Okay then.

Basket of Deplorables

On Friday, Hillary Clinton told the truth (as she almost always does):

"You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.  Right?" she said to applause and laughter.  "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic --- you name it.  And unfortunately there are people like that.  And he has lifted them up."

On Saturday, she clarified her comments, indicating that it's not really important whether the proportion of Trump's supporters who are "deplorable" is exactly half:

But let's be clear, what's really "deplorable" is that Donald Trump hired a major advocate for the so-called "alt-right" movement to run his campaign and that David Duke and other white supremacists see him as a champion of their values. It's deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people. It's deplorable that he's attacked a federal judge for his "Mexican heritage," bullied a Gold Star family because of their Muslim faith, and promoted the lie that our first black President is not a true American. So I won't stop calling out bigotry and racist rhetoric in this campaign.

For the record, on both occasions she classified the remaining Trump supporters as hard-working Americans who just don't feel like the economy or our political system are working for them, and people with whom we must empathize.  But for now, I'm focusing on the controversial part of her statement; that a large chunk of Trump's supporters are basically assholes.

There is data to back up this claim:

Now, everyone knows that your race doesn't determine your intelligence, work ethic, manners, or your tendency toward violence or lawlessness.  And it's disappointing to see that even some Clinton supporters admit to harboring racist beliefs.  But Trump's supporters are far and away the worst in this regard.

That's deplorable.

Trump Isn't Trying to Win

Trump isn't trying to win.  That should be obvious by now, considering his habit of insulting the media, women, and other prominent Republicans.  In fact, for someone who claims to be a 'uniter' who gets along well with people, the list of people and organizations he's insulted is quite spectacular.  We can also see that he's not trying to win by the way he actively courts the support of known white supremacists.  And the fact that he's now on his third campaign manager.  And the fact that he has essentially no campaign organization or ground game.  And the fact that he only recently started advertising on TV.

You know what Trump IS doing, though?  He's fundraising.  And where is that fundraising money going?  As we noted, it's not going to pay for field offices, or office staff, or to GOTV (get out the vote) operations.  But some of it is going right into Donald Trump's pocket, in the form of rent that the Trump campaign is paying Trump Towers for rent in the office space it's using.  The funny thing is, the campaign is now paying more than four times as much for this office space than it was back in April.

Do you know who profits when Trump Towers raises its rent?  Donald Trump.  If he were running a serious campaign where he cared about winning, he could, maybe, let his campaign use that office space FOR FREE.  But instead, he makes the campaign pay AND raises the rent!

I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't support Trump for president.  But if I did, and if I had donated some of my heard-earned money to a campaign where it seems like he's not even trying to win, and pocketing a bigger and bigger share of each donation, I might consider staying home on election day.  Or voting for the other guy woman.

But you know, that's just me.

And Another Thing: Hillary is Much More Honest Than Trump

It's late, I'm supposed to be on vacation, so I'm phoning this one in.  But Robert Mann has an awesome chart, based on data from Politifact:

I Can't Question Trump's Ethics, Because I'm Unable to Find Them

Let's start with the facts about Captain Humayun Khan:

In 2004, Captain Khan was deployed from Germany to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, despite the fact that his four years of required service had technically been completed. Then on June 8th, four months into his tour of duty, Khan was inspecting soldiers on guard duty when a suspicious vehicle approached the gate of his compound at high speed. Khan ordered his fellow soldiers to stay back, as he took 10 steps toward the car with his arm outstretched. The car then exploded, killing Khan, but its improvised explosive device detonated before it could reach the gates and the nearby mess hall where hundreds of Khan's fellow soldiers were eating breakfast.

There's a word for people who do the kind of things Humayun Khan did: hero.  And anyone who doubts that either has some very good reason to doubt that the above story is true, or they have a very twisted standard for measuring morality.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be the parent of such a hero, and I hope I never find out.  But when your child sacrifices his life for others this way, one thing is beyond dispute: you get to say whatever the hell you want about the people running for president, and everyone else has to shut up and respect it.  Just like when Pat Smith, whose son Sean died in Benghazi in 2012, stood up at the Republican National Convention to tell the world that she blames 'Hillary Clinton personally' for her son's death.  Hillary could have attacked Pat Smith for saying this, and so could the Clinton campaign or other high-profile Democrats.

Only they haven't, you see, because all of them --- including Hillary, especially Hillary --- have at least some amount of integrity, and they understand that Pat Smith gets to say whatever she wants.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn't understand this, because Donald Trump is a man without integrity, honor or ethics.  That's why when Khizr Khan, Captain Khan's father, stood up at the Democratic National Convention to tell the world that Trump has 'sacrificed nothing' and questioned whether Trump had ever read the Constitution, Trump didn't just ignore him.  Instead, he attacked him:

"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son," he added, "Mr. Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things."

Yes, he does, Donald.  That's how it works.  For one thing, he said nothing inaccurate: you really haven't sacrificed anything.  And for another, when your child dies heroically on the field of battle, you can criticize the president, or anyone running for president, however you damn well please.

This initial reaction was bad enough, but Trump being an asshole pandering to assholes, and surrounded, supported and enabled by assholes, has taken things to the inevitable next level:

Amid Donald Trump's ongoing attacks on the family of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim-American solider who was killed fighting in Iraq, a number of his supporters latched onto a conspiracy theory that Khan's father is a "Muslim Brotherhood agent" and his son was on an "Islamist mission."

Their evidence for these accusations more or less boils down to: "Trump is awesome and you're a nasty Muslim who said bad things about Trump so you're a terrorist, shut up and go away terrorist."  No, the accusations aren't coming from Trump himself, but they're coming from his close associate Roger Stone, which is the same thing.  Google up the relationship between Trump and Stone, and you'll realize that Stone wouldn't be saying these things without Trump's approval.

I know that 25 years of smears and attacks has a lot of people thinking that Hillary is corrupt, etc.  That's tremendously overblown, but no matter how compromised her ethics may be, at least they're not zero.  That territory is reserved for Trump, Stone, and their white-supremacist, misogynist, Muslim-bashing supporters.