http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

For years the Middle East has been chaos – a chaotic morass! The Syrian Civil War has been going on for eight years with Assad and his Russian partner now close to waltzing to an Assad victory and a Russian Mediterranean seaport. “Red lines” came and went, while for years Obama tangoed with ISIS on the eastern Syrian dance-floor. In 2017 President Trump cut in and like Dick Clark turned it into a successful American Bandstand as ISIS is no longer a significant threat. Despite that the Middle East is still a quagmire. It is difficult to separate the players as some are Sunni (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) and some Shia (Iraq, Lebanon, Iran). And then there is Syria, and of course, Israel . . . i.e. still a chaotic morass.

President Trump has long called for the U.S. to leave the Middle East. On the campaign trail, he said the region was a “total and complete mess” and wished the government had spent the trillions of dollars in the U.S. instead. In 2013, long before he was elected, he said the U.S. should “stay the hell out” of the Syrian war. We did not stay out. After Trump was elected it was only a matter of time before the US military was pulled out of the chaos that is Syria, as Russian and Iranian influence over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was far too great to be effectively countered by a small U.S. presence in eastern Syria. In March of 2018 President Trump stated that the U.S. would be getting out of Syria very soon, but nothing happened until fortuitously on December 14, in his phone call with President Donald Trump, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly promised that Turkey would take responsibility for finishing off the Islamic State if the U.S. pulled out of Syria, a senior White House official told NBC News. Erdogan reportedly said to the president, “In fact, as your friend, I give you my word in this,” an official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to disclose details of a presidential phone call.

A way out of the chaotic morass of the Middle East? Strange things happen in strange ways. After asking John Bolton if a pullout was feasible, President Trump decided to pull the US military out of Syria. Of course, there are differing opinions on pulling out of this mess. For me, a U.S. withdrawal won’t turn Syria over to Russia because the Russians already own it. We finally have a chance to escape the chaotic morass of the Middle East, and as a bonus, Turkey now owes us.

What about Afghanistan? It is another morass, that is also chaos . . . one that has been going on for 17 years, the longest war in U.S. history. Before he ran for president President Trump talked of an end to U.S. military deployments overseas. In 2013, he tweeted: “Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.”  Getting the U.S. out of non-winnable wars became a campaign promise of Mr. Trump. In 2017, 17 members of the U.S. military were killed in Afghanistan, bringing the total to 2297 since the U.S. entered this quagmire back in 2002. Last week President Trump acted on another of his campaign promises, and as Commander-in-Chief he is cutting the U.S. presence in half from 14,000 to approximately 7,000. Of course, there was a difference of opinion on this decision. A statement by Daniel Davis, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Defense Priorities think tank and a retired lieutenant colonel, sums up my feelings on Afghanistan. He said, “As important as it is for the U.S. military to withdraw from Syria, it is even more critical that President Trump end the 17-year war in Afghanistan to focus on higher priorities, like deterring great power conflict,”  in reference to heightened tensions between the U.S. and its top military rivals Russia and China.

As a footnote, I need to address the resignation of James Mattis, the 26th Secretary of Defense, and a retired 4-star Marine General. I have nothing but the greatest respect for James Mattis. As a military man he did not agree with pulling out of Syria  or cutting back troop strength in Afghanistan. He did what he thought he needed to do, and he resigned. One has to admire his standing on principle, but remember, he was but an adviser to the President. Despite what CNN, WaPo, and the NYT say, he was not the Commander-in-Chief that the people elected.

Well it’s happened again!  Last week before Christmas, Gustavo Garcia, an illegal, who could have been/should have been turned over to ICE, was released from custody because of our sanctuary state policy (SB54). He killed at least one and injured four more within 24 hours of his release. The sheriff of Tulare County blamed California’s sanctuary state policy for this senseless tragedy. Now within days following Christmas another illegal, Gustavo Perez Arriaga, has killed another person in Newman, a small town of about 10,000 in Stanislaus County, California. What makes this tragic is that the victim, Cpl. Ronil Singh, was a police officer with a five month old son. What makes this ironic is that Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant from Fiji, was fulfilling his lifelong dream of becoming a police officer.

Sheriff Adam Christianson said Perez Arriaga publicized his gang affiliation and had been arrested twice for driving under the influence, but because of California’s sanctuary law, local authorities were prevented from reporting Perez Arriaga to U.S. immigration officials. “Law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh,” Christianson said. “I’m suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasn’t restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.” 

Predictably, former state Sen. Kevin de Leon, the Democrat who wrote the sanctuary state legislation, said it’s “highly irresponsible” to blame the law for the officer’s death. Kevin, we are at two and counting! I think that it was “highly irresponsible” to pass that sanctuary state legislation, as anybody with half-a-brain could have predicted that there would be multiple senseless tragedies as a result. The aforementioned two examples are merely the beginning. These are not unforeseen consequences, but rather foreseen, predictable consequences. Now lest anyone be offended by my “half-a-brain” comment, let me go on record that I meant exactly what I said! 

Now I am not a lawyer (although I once did stay at a Holiday Inn Express), but it seems to me that in the last two weeks there are two dead individuals as a consequence of California’s sanctuary state legislation. I have always thought that immigration was under the purview of the federal government, and California’s sanctuary state laws seem to be direct opposition to federal laws on this issue. The two families of the murdered individuals now have “legal standing,” as they have suffered as a result of these two illegals having been released when they should have been turned over to I.C.E. Who is responsible for the deaths of these two people? . . . two and counting! It seems to me that all of those legislators who voted for AB54, the sanctuary state law in California, are at least partially responsible! Yes, yes, I know that legislators are not supposed to be legally responsible for the bad consequences of their laws . . . but, here, is SB54 actually an illegal law because it is in opposition to Federal law? If so, I would love to see the families of these two murdered individuals bring suit against the State of California, all of the individual legislators who voted for AB54, and Governor Jerry Brown who signed the “death warrant” into law.

Happy New Year!

Some people in Tulare County are having a happy new year, because they are happy to still be alive, whereas others in Tulare County are not having a happy new year because their friend or family member is dead because of Gustavo Garcia and California’s sanctuary state law. Have you heard of Gustavo Garcia? If you live in San Diego and possibly in other areas of California that have liberal newspapers, you probably have not, because the story of Mr. Garcia goes against the religion of leftism that is prevalent in many areas of California. (I sent a letter to the editor about the hell that broke loose in Tulare  County as a result of California’s sanctuary state policy and Gustavo Garcia. Of course now 1 week later, it has not been printed . . .  no surprise!) Gustavo Garcia was an illegal. However, not only was he an illegal, but he had been deported  twice, and also had a prior felony conviction for which he served time over fifteen years ago. After his last arrest in 2014, he was deported . . . but wallah, he was back in California, and was arrested in Tulare County on 12/13/18 because he was behaving erratically. ICE learned he was in custody and issued an immigration hold. However, even though he tested positive for a controlled substance, he was released after ten hours.

Why? Because in 2017 the Democrats in Sacramento passed SB54 and the Democratic Governor, Jerry Brown, signed it into law . . . effectively making California a “sanctuary state.” Before S.B.54 Mr. Garcia would have been turned over to ICE, but as the Tulare County Sheriff stated, “After S.B.54 we no longer have the power to do that.”Now to me this dude is a bad dude. He is not your run-of-the-mill innocent hard working illegal who was arrested for some minor offense. He is not some “good Joe” (or perhaps, I should say, “good Jose”), who was arrested merely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Gustavo Garcia is a bad dude. However because he was arrested for a misdemeanor, those lawmakers who authored S.B.54 ( inexplicably named “California Values Act”) deemed it best to release this type of individual, bad dude or not!

Within 24 hours of his release Mr. Garcia would shoot and kill a man in Visalia, rob a convenience store of $2000 while firing several shots, steal a GMC truck, fire shots at a patrol car, and lead police on a high speed chase at speeds over 100 mph, and while driving the wrong way on Hwy. 65, smashing into multiple cars, injuring four people who were subsequently hospitalized. Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux placed the blame for this senseless carnage on S.B.54. “The tool (of coordinating with ICE) has been removed from our hands. And because of that our county was shot-up by a violent criminal.”

Now I can almost hear Governor Brown and his Democratic cronies say that “nothing is perfect, and there will always be some unforeseen consequences!” However what we will never hear from these liberal lawmakers is an apology. A Christmas apology to the friends and family of the dead man in Visalia, and likewise we will never hear anything close to an apology to those injured in Tulare County because their “California Values Act” allowed Gustavo Garcia to be set free instead of being turned over to I.C.E!

How hard should it be to say something nice about another person at Christmastime?

A New York Times article was titled “President Trump Makes Surprise Visit to American Troops in Iraq,” but the article spoke mostly about pulling troops from Syria, the border wall, and the shutdown. To me this seemed like an example of “bait and switch,” but then I guess that the liberal NYT finds it difficult, even at Christmas, to say anything nice about our President.

On 12/26 NBCNews criticized the President because he had not gone to see the troops at Christmas. When it turned out that they were wrong, they changed the headline to read “Trump becomes first president since 2002 not to visit troops on or before Christmas.”  A lame attempt at an apology. I guess that the liberal NBCNews finds it difficult, even at Christmas, to say anything nice about our President.

But compared to CNN both the NYT and NBCNews at least made an attempt to be close to civil. CNN’s Don Lemon on the other hand doubled down on incivility when he called our President “The Grinch” for visiting the troops, and a CNN news analyst said that Donald Trump “stole Christmas!”(by visiting the troops in a dangerous area??!!). I guess that CNN finds it difficult to say anything nice about Donald Trump, and instead seemingly goes out of it’s way to say nasty things about our President . . . Christmas be damned!

Did President and Mrs. Trump have a merry Christmas? What did President Trump and Melania do over the Christmas holiday? I had a difficult time finding out this info, although I admit that I did not watch CNN or NBCNews! However, I was able to scrape up a few details about how they spent Christmas.

On Christmas Eve both the President and Mrs. Trump spoke to children on the phone in conjunction with the traditional NORAD tracking of Santa. They both talked to children, and asked them questions about Santa. Melania called it one of her favorite things to do, and I call it a nice thing for both of them to do. The next morning they both attended a Christmas service at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. During the day President Trump made a series of separate video calls from the Oval Office. He tele-conferenced with troops in Guam, Bahrain, Qater, and Juneau, Alaska. He thanked the troops for their service, success, and sacrifice before wishing them all a Merry Christmas. A nice thing for the President to do, especially on Christmas Day.

Then at around midnight on Christmas night he and Melania made history when they flew together into a war zone. They flew secretly into the combat zone to visit the military men and women in the dining hall at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. The troops chanted, “USA! USA! USA!…” when President Trump and Melania Trump took the stage to a standing ovation. After thanking them all for what they do, he wished them a Merry Christmas, signed at least one Make America Great Again hat, and was in a number of selfies taken by the individual airmen and airwomen. One soldier told the Commander in Chief, “I came back into the military because of you.” President Trump responded, “And I am here because of you.”An extremely dangerous and very nice thing to do.

After taking off from Iraq, and before returning home, he and Melania stopped at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. There he again thanked the troops for their service and wished them a Merry Christmas. This was an unnecessary, but thoughtful stop, en route to arriving safely back to the U.S.A. the next day. A nice thing to do.

To me that all sounds like President Trump and Melania had an extremely full and patriotic Christmas with a large part of his day devoted to the military. Yes, the past two presidents visited some of our troops at Christmastime . . . in Hawaii and in Washington D.C. As best I can tell none of the liberal media commented that this president, in contra-distinction to the past two, made a Christmas visit to troops that were in a place that was actually a war zone. It is difficult, if not impossible, for them to say anything nice about this president. As opposed to the NYT, NBCNews, and CNN, however, I have no trouble saying nice things about our President’s use of his time at Christmas, and I echo “USA! USA! USA!”

Some things make me scratch my head, but no matter how much scratching I do, I still do not understand why. Yesterday a friend sent me an article from CNSNews.com that was about the educational achievements in different U.S. states. This new data, some of which was surprising and some expected, was from the Census Bureau. 

The two things that this article focused on were: 1) Percentage of residents 25 and older who never finished ninth grade. 2) High school graduates
In terms of completing ninth grade 9.7 percent of California residents 25 and older, the Census Bureau says, have never completed ninth grade. This embarrassing 9.7 % puts California on the top of this list! This did not make me scratch my head. In California, according to the Census Bureau’s five-year estimates, the resident population 25 and older was 25,950,818. Of those individuals, 2,510,370—or 9.7 percent–never completed ninth grade! Nationwide, 5.4 percent of residents 25 and older have never finished ninth grade, according to the latest five-year estimates. For comparison Wyoming has only 1.8%, and Montana 2.1% that have not completed ninth grade. Additional random scanning of list of dubious distinction has Ohio at 2.9% and Massachusetts at 4.6%. The part of this list that I am scratching my head about is the position of Texas, as for the most part California and Texas are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but yet Texas is the only state can comes close to California. Texas is second on this list with 8.7% of its residents having failed to complete ninth grade. (FYI: New York and New Mexico are tied for third with a distant 6.5%)
In terms of high school graduates, California finished last, number 50, with only 82.5 percent of its residents having graduated from high school. What makes this stat even more amazing is that in California children are required to attend school from six years of age until they are 18. “California’s compulsory education laws require children between six and eighteen years of age to attend school, with a limited number of exceptions,” says the California Legislative Analyst’s  Office, an agency of the California state government. Rhetorically I might scratch my head and ask, “what are these non-graduating eighteen year olds doing in school if they are not graduating”? However, again the part that has me scratching my head is the position of Texas on this list. Texas is a close second at 82.8 . . . meaning that only 82.8% of Texas residents ha have graduated from high school. Mississippi, Louisiana, and New Mexico close out the bottom five, while the national average is 87.3.
While these statistics are interesting and depressing at the same time, I believe that they have some interesting political implications. “How so?”, you might ask. 
From my perspective, if one hasn’t completed ninth grade, then his/her ability to read and to understand what they have read, is suspect. This makes the results of  California ballot propositions very imperfect. If 9.7% cannot truly understand what the ballot proposition means, what are they actually voting on? Similarly with only 82.5% of Californians with high school degrees, it is improbable that Republicans will be elected to statewide offices any time soon, as the majority of the 17+% without a high school diploma will be voting Democratic for a variety ofreasons.However, on the national scene the results from Texas are very worrisome, as 8.7% of its residents have failed to complete the ninth grade. The emergence of Democrat Beto O’Rourke could well be the canary in the coal mine for Texas. The recent Senate race in Texas implies that most of those 8.7% voted for O’Rourke, and recall that those states that rank the 3rd and the 4th worst on the “finishing of ninth grade” stats are both heavily Democratic (New York and New Mexico).Could it be that the Dems are keenly aware of these statistics and their implications? And could it be that is why they do not seem very motivated to remedy poorly performing schools? About this, I do not need to scratch my head!

“I know what you’re thinking: what a bastard I am. And you’re right. But the vast majority of successful people don’t become bastards, we were bastards long before. That’s why we’ve become successful.”This is a passage from “The Deal of a Lifetime,” a novella by Fredrik Bachman, the Swedish author who wrote A Man Called Ove. (BTW: If you have not read A Man Called Ove, I highly recommend it.)Initially when I read this passage my mind wandered to our President. Could this have been his apropos response to any of the multiple insults thrown at him from the left? Is Donald Trump a bastard? Was he always? Is what you see today, the real Mr. Trump or has he changed since he was elected? To help answer that question I am going to refer to Mr. Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal,” initially published in 1987.

How many of you have read The Art of the Deal? Yes, of course I have read it, and no, I do not recommend it. For those of us who do not or have not lived in New York City, the local geography, the references to different buildings and parts of the city, as well as the complexity of the local politics all make for tedious reading. However what is fascinating are many of Mr. Trump’s basic  philosophies (chapter 2) which have, indeed, morphed into his basic philosophies in his running the country.

The following are direct quotes from The Art of the Deal:

– “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is to seem desperate to make it. The best thing you can do is to deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength that you have.”

– “If you are a little different or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”

– “You cannot con people, at least not for long. If you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”

– “I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration – and a very effective form of promotion.”

And finally:

– “Much as it pays to emphasize the positive, there are times when the only choice is confrontation. In most cases I am very easy to get along with. I am good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back, very hard!”

I do not think that Mr.Trump has essentially changed since he wrote “The Art of the Deal” over thirty years ago, and even though he probably would never be my best friend, I am glad that the bastard is in my President!

The headline read: California’s Move to Earlier Primary Reshapes Strategies. 

This piece was not solely about California, as the presidential primary dates in multiple states have been adjusted. As I read the article I wondered if this moving forward of the dates of some of these primaries would benefit any party in particular, and I was especially querulous about what the effect would be of the moving up of the California primary. For years California held its primary in June, and in 2020 the California primary will be held on March 3. The reason for this movement forward is so that californians can have “more influence in picking presidential nominees.” Since I would assume that this would be the goal of every state, one wonders why all of the states don’t hold their presidential primaries on the same day. If all of these primaries were held simultaneously, then each state would have the same set of candidates to pick from. Now, by the time some of the states vote, a number of potential candidates have already been essentially eliminated. Be that as it may, let’s get back to California.

For the Republican Party the earlier primary date makes no difference. First off, in 2020 Donald Trump is going to be the nominee, and for at least another decade the Democrat’s nominee for president will win California’s electoral votes. The Democrats could run Joe Schmo for President and still win in California!

However for the Democratic Party what will be the effect? In order to try to prognosticate, first we should look at some of the people that the glorious state of California has elected and continues to elect. Only a partial list is necessary in order to make a point: Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Kampala Harris, Dianne Feinstein. Other than Sen. Feinstein all of the others are ultra-liberal and some of them have been in office for upwards of 20-30 years. So if one would have to predict which presidential candidate will be the favorite in the now much earlier  California presidential primary, the money would necessarily have to be on a very liberal candidate. California will indeed possibly have a “very significant influence on picking the nominee.” Okay good for the Democrats in California, but does that translate into being good for the Democrats in the rest of the country? 

My answer to that question, “No!” Why is it not good? The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind; the answer is blowin’ in the wind” . . . the rest of the country is not ready to elect an ultra-liberal. That ultra-liberal candidate will win California, no matter what, but can such a candidate win in the heartland of America? (Think George McGovern versus Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter versus Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale versus Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis versus George H.W. Bush, Al Gore versus George Bush, John Kerry versus George Bush). 

So who will benefit from moving the California presidential primary to an earlier date? I think that it will benefit the Republicans come November, 2020, because the odds are that an ultra-liberal will be the Democratic presidential candidate – thanks in large part to California. 

Maybe we can convince the powers to be to move the presidential primaries in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut all earlier . . . for the benefit of whom?

Most of us remember Mission Impossible with the catch phrase, “your mission should you choose to accept it.” Hold that thought! On 12/15/18 in my local newspaper there were two articles that dealt with illegal immigration. One was written by Gustavo Solis, presumably a local writer, and the other by Ron Nixon who writes for the N.Y. Times. The piece titled, “Activists Call On Democrats to Fund Border Wall” was written by Mr. Solis; let’s call this exhibit A. The other one was titled “Immigration Arrests, Deportations on the Rise” was written by Mr. Nixon; let’s call this exhibit B. One of these was on the front page and the other was on page 10. Similar to Mission Impossible, your mission should you choose to accept it, is to identify which story was on the front page and which was on page 10. I will do my best to summarize each.The subtitle of exhibit A was “Support for Trump’s plan at San Ysidro news conference.” (San Ysidro is the country’s busiest port of entry.) The news conference featured four “Angel Mothers,” women whose children have been killed by unauthorized immigrants or who died in accidents involving people who were in the country illegally. The mothers feel that a border wall would go a long way to protecting Americans from dangerous illegals. “If we do not do something now, how much further is this going to go,” said Catherine Hall from Colorado Springs. “My daughter was 18. She had dreams. She had a life.” One of the mother’s, Angie Morfin-Vargas, who son, Reuben, age 13, was killed by a gang member, described her meeting with candidate Trump. “He held my hand and told me that everything was going to be OK. I know that he is here to fight for the American people.”Several of the Angel Mothers, who had driven from as far as Colorado, said that Democratic politicians ignore their concerns. One of the spokes-persons for the group went so far as to call Democrats domestic enemies of the American people.
Exhibit B was the piece by Mr. Nixon of the N.Y. Times.  He noted that ICE said that it had arrested about 59,000 foreigners in fiscal 2018, an 11% increase over the year before. On 12/14 the agency apparently attributed this increase to Trump’s executive order that rescinded a prior policy that prioritized arrests and deportations to those with criminal records, or those who posed a threat to public safety. Mr. Nixon states that critics are unhappy that unauthorized immigrants who pose no security threat have been arrested for minor violations. In this article there was a number of quotes from Mary Bauer, deputy legal director of The Southern Poverty Law Center. She was quoted as saying that it is “appalling and morally unconscionable that this is the place that we find ourselves” – deporting people “without a sense of priorities.” Ms. Bauer added that under the Trump administration there has been a sense that officials are “looking for everyone,” and this has created “fear and terror” in immigrant communities. I have tried to be as objective as possible in describing the two articles. Since you have read everything thus far, I am assuming that you chose to accept the mission, and so you must answer these questions:

Did exhibit A or exhibit B appear on the front page?

 Which of these two articles was hidden on page 10?

Is there any doubt as to which side of the political spectrum my local paper falls?

Would you call their coverage “fair and balanced?”

I did something today that I am not proud of. Once or perhaps even a few times in everyone’s life, circumstances are such that there are few options and so . . . each of us may be forced to do something that under ordinary circumstances we would not usually consider, and if our kids did the same thing they would certainly need some significant parental education! Often we might try to conceal these embarrassing acts, and certainly we do not go out of our way to tell friends or family that we have strayed from the straight and narrow, but I have decided that “honesty, etc.”Today I watched MSNBC! Mea culpa! I am told that catharsis is good for the soul, so here goes: While I am not trying to make excuses, please let me explain. I was at the gym and got on a treadmill while there was a commercial on the T.V. directly in front of me. When the commercial was over, I was well into my short workout and on the T.V. directly in front of me was MSNBC! Against my better judgement I did not change to a different treadmill. For the record, I am not proud of my actions, perhaps more precisely, my inaction.I exercised and thus watched MSNBC for 20 minutes total. Not once during the “discussion” on three different subjects was anything remotely positive said about our President. Panelists were from The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and Move-On.org. and they were especially brutal and insensitive when referencing Mr. Trump’s insensitivity! For me today’s workout was very painful! However I have learned an important lesson, and will not in the future let myself be coerced into doing something that I would not want others to know about.Please forgive me!

P.S. Since that traumatic day, I have discovered the treadmill that is directly in front of the T.V. that is tuned into Fox News . . . whew!

One of my liberal friends sent me an article from Politico on 12/10/18 that summarized the opinions of 44 ex-senators who warned current and future members of the Senate about their “political and ideological bickering.” One of the 44 was quoted as saying, “We were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies.” Who were these 44 who warned that the U.S. was entering a dangerous period, and urged them to “defend America’s democracy rather than political ideologies.” The 44 were made up of 32 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 2 Independents ( most likely 2 Independents that vote with the Democrats.) I found this to be particularly interesting because this was sent to me by a liberal friend. In my opinion, this predominately Democrat, although technically “bipartisan” group, could only have been aiming their remarks at the Democrats in the Senate after the recent Kavanaugh debacle orchestrated by left-wing Senate Democrats. It was an embarrassment to the Senate itself. As I review the statements at these hearings there appeared to be multiple examples of “political and ideological bickering.” Who does not recall the Spartacus comment of Cory Booker (D,NJ), and  doesn’t everyone remember Sheldon Whitehouse (D,RI) who said those values that “Republicans supposedly care for in Supreme Court cases – judicial modesty, originalism, respect for precedent – all go out the window if they come up against corporate interests or Republican partisan interests.” To my ear this certainly sounds like “political and ideological bickering!” Senators Hirono (D,HI), Blumenthal (D,CT), and Harris (D,CA) were not shy about throwing stones at their Republican counterparts. All of these Democrat Senators did not appear to be “defending America’s democracy”, but rather appeared to be just spouting “political ideologies!”Just to be certain that I was not misinterpreting the conclusion and the subsequent advice of these past Senators, I reviewed the confirmation votes of all the present Supreme Court Justices to see if the recent Kavanaugh confirmation vote was an outlier, or if it was reflective of the Senate votes over the last 30 years or so. The following are the nine present Supreme Court Justices and the “votes for” their confirmation:Ginsberg – 96 votes for; Breyer – 87; Roberts – 78; Sotomayor – 68; Kagan – 63; Alito – 58; Gorsuch – 54; Thomas – 52; Kavanaugh – 50 . . . which means that four of the top five vote getters were nominated by Democratic presidents, and had a significant number of Republican votes. Similarly, all of the lowest four vote-getters were nominated by Republican presidents and garnered very few Democrat votes. This suggests that in the past, Democrat Senators were not as non-political as they remember themselves to have been! Could this be an example of “the pot calling the kettle black? – with the kettle now generating much more steam!