What are the odds of such a “coincidence”?? It’s amazing!

As mentioned earlier here, the Times held a big [...]]]> Speaking of leftist media strategies to sink President Trump in 2020, both the New York Times and Washington Post had front-page Sunday stories about presidential advisor Stephen Miller. Both had similar small headshot photos of Miller.

What are the odds of such a “coincidence”?? It’s amazing!

As mentioned earlier here, the Times held a big strategy meeting recently to switch the lies against Trump from the failed Russia hoax to the more easily administered accusation of “Racist!” Apparently the Post has signed on as well, since both articles included unproven charges against Miller.

Such allegations take little effort to deliver since the leftist media assumes anyone who objects to lawless open borders is of course a racist. Why else would a government official want to protect America from criminals, terrorists and job thieves?

Here’s the Times example:

How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House, New York Times, August 18, 2019

WASHINGTON — When historians try to explain how opponents of immigration captured the Republican Party, they may turn to the spring of 2007, when President George W. Bush threw his waning powers behind a legalization plan and conservative populists buried it in scorn.

Mr. Bush was so taken aback, he said he worried about America “losing its soul,” and immigration politics have never been the same.

That spring was significant for another reason, too: An intense young man with wary, hooded eyes and fiercely anti-immigrant views graduated from college and began a meteoric rise as a Republican operative. With the timing of a screenplay, the man and the moment converged.

Stephen Miller was 22 and looking for work in Washington. He lacked government experience but had media appearances on talk radio and Fox News and a history of pushing causes like “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.” A first-term congresswoman from Minnesota offered him a job interview and discovered they were reading the same book: a polemic warning that Muslim immigration could mean “the end of the world as we know it.”  [. . .]

Some of Mr. Miller’s Latino classmates say his comments made them feel personally attacked. In an interview, Jason Islas said Mr. Miller told him he was ending their friendship for reasons that included “my Latino heritage.” He added, “I think he is a racist.”

The Post started with a portrait of Miller as a puppet-master, but at least had the decency to allow him a response to the racism allegation:

How Stephen Miller authors Trump’s immigration policy, Washington Post, August 18, 2019

At President Trump’s speeches and rallies, Stephen Miller often can be found backstage, watching the teleprompter operator. As other White House staffers chat or look at their phones, Miller’s attention remains glued to the controls.

The energy and crowd-thrilling parts of Trump’s speeches usually happen during his impromptu diversions from the planned address. When Trump veers, colleagues say, Miller sometimes directs the operator to scroll higher or lower through the speech, so when the president is ready to pick it up again, he will hit those passages and make those points.

Miller knows where he wants the president to go.  [. . .]

Among Miller’s co-workers are a few who believe he harbors racist views. “I don’t know what other principle could animate such a laserlike focus,” said one former career official at DHS.

Miller bristled at the claim, calling anyone who labels him a racist “an ignorant fool, a liar and a reprobate who has no place in civilized society.”

“It is a scurrilous and scandalous lie born of a complete and total lack of understanding of the harms done by uncontrolled migration to people of all backgrounds, and born of a contempt for this nation, for our law enforcement officers and for the citizens who live here — and oftentimes, I might add, born of a personal grudge against this administration,” Miller said, without pause.

It goes without saying that the leftist media purveyors despise Trump voters as well as pro-sovereignty government.

Let’s consider. For years, persons concerned about the mass [...]]]> The Washington Post cranks out a lot of objectionable ideas, but its Sunday front page story portraying the sharia murder of two young Scandinavian women as an opportunity for the “far right” went way too far on so many levels, beginning with accuracy and fairness.

Let’s consider. For years, persons concerned about the mass immigration of hostile muslims have pointed out that the “religion” of Islam is more correctly understood as an all-encompassing political system. Dutch political leader Geert Wilders lives under 24/7 security because jihadist thugs in Europe have decided he needs to be murdered due to his resistance to the ideology. When Wilders gave a 2015 speech in Garland, Texas, he had a SWAT team of eight well armed men guarding him.

Wilders discussed the political nature of Islam in a 2017 interview, reviewed in Breitbart.com: Geert Wilders: Islam Is Not a Religion, It’s a Totalitarian Ideology:

GEERT WILDERS: Islam as an ideology does not allow freedom. Look at almost all the countries in the world where Islam is dominant — you see a total lack of civil society, of rule of law, of freedom for journalists, women, Christians, or even somebody who wants to leave Islam, an apostate.

You are allowed to leave Christianity or Judaism and become an atheist or the follower of another religion; you are not allowed to leave fascism, you are not allowed to leave Communism. And still today in Holland, in Germany, in the Arab world, the penalty is death if you want to leave Islam.

And let’s not forget the extreme violence, the murders where muslims kill nonbelievers because the koran says to do so in over 100 verses. There are so many examples — like the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3000.

It was so shocking that America pledged never to forget.

But the Washington Post has forgotten that Islam is a historic opponent of the West, and the paper should not condemn those of us who do remember and name the enemies of free people.

Perhaps if the press were not so politically correct in protecting the reputation of hostile Islam, the two young women would have thought twice about a hiking trip in Morocco (99 percent muslim). The media adoration of diversity uber alles does not stand up under scrutiny.

Below, Norwegian Maren Ueland (left) and Dane Louisa Vesterager Jespersen were murdered in Morocco by jihadists.

Murder in the Atlas Mountains, Washington Post, June 21, 2019

In a crime apparently intended to impress the Islamic State, two Scandinavian women were brutally slain in Morocco. The killings were seized on by the far right to attack Islam.

MARRAKESH, Morocco — Their screams must have carried for miles in the thin air of the Atlas Mountains, anguished sounds of a terrorist attack that no one was there to hear, see or stop.

Maren Ueland, 28, and Louisa Jespersen, 24, Scandinavian students who revered the outdoors, were descending North Africa’s highest peak in December when they encountered four men searching for Westerners to kill.

The men waited until after nightfall, then approached the women’s tent with knives and misplaced hopes of becoming Islamist heroes. They attacked Ueland, a Norwegian, and her Danish friend, Jespersen, in their sleeping bags, stabbed them until their bodies went limp and severed their heads in a ghastly sequence recorded on a cellphone.

The December 2018 attack, like so many in this age of mass killings and social media, was an act of senseless and performative violence. The killers, poor and uneducated, became absorbed in a violent Islamist universe they saw on the screens of their cellphones, then sought their own place in it. Their overriding aim was to impress the Islamic State, earn the status of soldiers in its apocalyptic struggle and see their own recording distributed across the group’s propaganda platforms.

Reality didn’t follow that script. The targeting of defenseless women and the abysmal quality of the recording managed to violate the standards of a terrorist group not known for having any. The Islamic State did not distribute the video, refused to acknowledge the attack and to this day has ignored the Moroccans’ pledges of loyalty.

The video went viral nonetheless. An attack that had gone unheard and unseen ended up being viewed millions of times by Islamic State supporters who didn’t share the group’s selectivity, by dark-Web bottom dwellers devoted to gore and by the morbidly curious.

The most alarming audience, however, was one that the attackers had not envisioned. Within days, the one-minute, 16-second recording spread rapidly across networks associated with the far-right and white-nationalist movements. Extremists posted gruesome scenes of the women’s deaths on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms alongside condemnations of Islam and calls for a civilizational clash.

“Look at this video of the one girl being decapitated alive,” wrote a far-right figure in Norway as he posted a link to his Twitter account. “It’s God awakening us Germanic men to action. It’s enough now. It’s enough.”

When officials in Norway and Denmark pleaded with the public to stop sharing the video, that effort was denounced by far-right groups as a betrayal of religion and race — censorship of content that revealed the true nature of Islam.

For families of the victims, the aftermath compounded the pain. Their mothers were inundated with messages on Facebook. Many were expressions of condolences, but some were gestures of astonishing cruelty, saying their daughters deserved to die and attaching links to the video of their slaughter.

The attack in Morocco was not of the same magnitude as the mass shooting that killed 51 people at mosques in New Zealand three months later, or the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka five weeks after that, when more than 200 people attending church services were killed. But all are part of a pattern of violence and viral incitement in which the extremes of intolerance react to and further radicalize one another online.

In the Moroccan case, a video that was created to strike a blow for Islamism was almost immediately repurposed and weaponized by those who consider the religion an existential threat to the ethnic and cultural identity of Northern Europe.

The victims were caught between warring ideologies that they had rejected in life. In the days after the attack, far-right activists scoured the women’s social media accounts and mocked them for their tolerant views.

“It is obvious to point out the naivete of the two deceased, but they are, as all, a product of their upbringing,” said an entry on Uriasposten, a Danish, anti-Islamic website. “Perhaps the eternal struggle against ‘prejudice’ has unpleasant side effects.”

This account of the attack in Morocco and its aftermath online is based on Moroccan court records including statements from the suspects; interviews with officials in Morocco, Norway, Denmark and the United States; and friends and relatives of the victims and of the suspects in their deaths. (Continues)

Here’s a trailer:

The upshot is this: in 1969, a young Ted Kennedy drove a car off a narrow wooden bridge on [...]]]> The much publicized Chappaquiddick movie is set to open in a couple weeks, and from all accounts, it will add a big punch to the years-long deflation of the Kennedy dynasty myth.

Here’s a trailer:

The upshot is this: in 1969, a young Ted Kennedy drove a car off a narrow wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, just off of Martha’s Vineyard, landing upside down in a pond leaving campaign worker Mary Jo Kopechne trapped inside to die. Kennedy escaped, but did not report the accident to police until 10 hours later. The Kennedy family fought back with a cacophony of lies to fool the idiot press and save the cowardly Kennedy.

If the liberal media had not been so credulous and fawning about the Kennedys, it’s possible Teddy would not have later become the “lion of the Senate” — although the scandal did fortunately scuttle his presidential ambitions. But Senator Kennedy did go on to accumulate a mountain of liberal legislation, the worst of which was certainly his massive immigration bill that changed America forever.

If Kennedy had not been allowed to skate on allowing Mary Jo to die, history might have taken a different turn. There’s no way to know.

But we can remember the lies he spouted to pass the anti-American Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, as briefly listed in the 2015 Breitbart article Ted Kennedy’s Real Legacy: 50 Years of Ruinous Immigration Law:

SENATOR TED KENNEDY: “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…

Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset… Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…

In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think… The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Below, President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 Immigration Act as Ted and Robert Kennedy looked on.

Back to the movie, Fox News’ Shannon Bream had a good explainer segment a few days ago:

Notably, many of the victims were white — did that spoil the narrative for the press, which loves the idea of a diverse state filled [...]]]> The tragic stories of American death and the vast physical devastation still fill the media in northern California, where 42 people died and an estimated 6700 homes were destroyed.

Notably, many of the victims were white — did that spoil the narrative for the press, which loves the idea of a diverse state filled with non-white foreigners who bring their cuisines and cultures while not assimilating to American society?

Perhaps that’s the reason for highlighting illegal alien sob stories, as was done by the New York Times on October 17 and also on Saturday by the San Francisco Chronicle which gave unlawful foreigners front-page billing:

Interestingly, the illegal alien Mexican arrested a few days ago for arson in Sonoma County hasn’t gotten any front page attention that I have seen.

The Chron story focused on illegal alien Senor Javier, who gave no first name — all the better to avoid ICE deporters. Before the fire, he had done well in this country, having a rented house, a job and two DACA sons further mooching jobs and/or education from America. He could of course return to Honduras, where it’s likely the disastrous hurricane damage he fled two decades ago has been repaired, but that possibility is not mentioned.

The article notes that illegals aren’t eligible for federal aid. But I imagine that Gov. Jerry Brown will somehow figure out some freebies for his beloved lawbreaker base in the sanctuary state.

Undocumented immigrants face challenges after Wine Country fires, San Francisco Chronicle, October 20, 2017

Javier wanted to see it with his own eyes, to confirm that the neighborhood where he’d raised his two sons, Santa Rosa’s Coffey Park, was no longer there.

Nearly two decades ago, he fled Honduras for America after a hurricane destroyed his business and livelihood. He built a life with his wife and children in the middle-class neighborhood that was rather ordinary — except, perhaps, for his lack of U.S. citizenship.

But as the 51-year-old man turned down the road leading to his rented home on Oct. 9, he wasn’t prepared for the sight of rows of flattened houses, still smoldering a day after the deadly Tubbs Fire swept through. He got out of the car and held his wife and 20-year-old son.

Moving forward from the Wine Country fires will be challenging for thousands of people who lost loves ones, homes, schools, workplaces or other things. But undocumented immigrants like Javier face special hardships due to their status, advocates said.

Javier, a service-industry worker who asked to be identified only by his first name because he is fearful of being targeted for deportation, cannot seek most traditional federal disaster aid to cope with the loss of his home and possessions. Meanwhile, some undocumented residents have lost out on work because of the fires, and cannot apply for benefits designed for this scenario.

Javier knew all this when he returned to the ruins of his home, but tried to muster an inspirational message. After all, he’d restarted his life once before, albeit as a much younger man. [. . .]

In disasters like this month’s wildfires, the Federal Emergency Management Agency provides money to citizens and certain immigrants to, among other things, obtain short-term lodging, replace essential property and rent a new home. The money — which can in some cases amount to tens of thousands of dollars — is for items not covered by individual insurance.

Undocumented residents who have a U.S. citizen in their household are granted an exception and can apply for aid. But that doesn’t apply to Javier, whose two adult children have protection under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Trump is phasing out.

(Continues)

Interestingly, the paper noted, “Immigration [...]]]> Tucker Carlson began his Friday show by remarking on a new analysis about media reporting of President Trump, and of course it almost entirely negative. The report is from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, titled “News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days”.

Interestingly, the paper noted, “Immigration was, at once, both the most heavily covered topic in U.S. news outlets and the topic that drew the most negative coverage.”

That outcome should not be surprising, since the occupation of Journalist is unique in that it has no corresponding employment visa: as a result, members of the scribbler class never face the possibility of being replaced by a cheaper immigrant worker and have little apparent sympathy for those who do. If the thousands crossing the border included skilled reporters and editors rather than being mostly strawberry pickers, immigration coverage would certainly change: sob stories of “immigrant” suffering would be balanced by the crushing cost of open borders to Americans in terms of jobs lost, schools flooded with non-English speakers and healthcare overwhelmed.

Let’s have more immigration diversity in the newsroom by Congress creating a Journalist Visa! There’s nothing like more open borders in one’s own profession to clear the mind and increase compassion for those similarly afflicted.

Back to Tucker Carlson and his observations about media malfeasance. . .

TUCKER CARLSON: The news media are liberal: if you grew up in this country, you probably have known that for quite a while. It’s obvious in the stories they choose and maybe even more evident in the ones they ignore. About the only people who deny widespread media bias these days are the people who are directly benefiting from it and that would include progressive activists posing as reporters and the Democratic politicians whose water they carry, but exactly how liberal and how biased is the press? Well, for the answer to that we have to go to social science. and now for the first time in a while we actually have some some real data.

A new study from researchers at Harvard University looked at 10 major news outlets and found the overwhelming majority of their coverage of the new administration’s first 100 days was hostile. At CNN and NBC, both purportedly straight news outlets, 93 percent of the stories were negative which is remarkable considering that there’s no way that 93 percent of their stories about — I don’t know, pick someone — Fidel Castro were negative. Ninety-three percent is a lot. In fact it’s not only news coverage at that point: it’s advocacy. So the press doesn’t like Trump; we knew that, but it’s not just Trump, it’s the issues that Trump’s voters favor. The media disagree with those too, and they skew their coverage accordingly.

Take immigration for example. Now there many sides to that issue but most Americans believe it ought to be illegal to come to our country without permission. That’s why the Congress has made it illegal. But that’s not how the people who work in the media think: they believe that defending the border is an act of bigotry, and so that’s how they have portrayed it with no other side represented at all most of the time. The Harvard study found that of stories on Trump’s immigration policies, fully 96 percent were negative. There was more diversity in the Romanian media under Ceausescu. That’s no diversity at all.

Now if you’ve read a newspaper lately, you’ve seen it. Here’s the New York Times for example: “Immigrants Hide, Fearing Capture on Any Corner.” The LA Times: “Trump’s crackdown sparks fear and anger among immigrants here illegally” and of course, America’s least honest newspaper The Washington Post which wrote in a headline: “Immigrants are now canceling their food stamps for fear that Trump will deport them.”

Where are the stories about Americans hurt by illegal immigration? Well, you’d have to wait an awful long time to see those. There aren’t many, if any. If anything, most television news is even more distorted than this.

SCOTT PELLEY: President Trump drew an X today through the welcoming words of the nearby Statue of Liberty.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Trump has always trafficked in fear-mongering; this time to stoke those fears and present himself as the country’s protector. He chose to punish ordinary men women and children who are fleeing terrorism and violence.

JIM AVILA: This is just a proposal, but already immigration attorneys are telling me it’s harsh and un-American.

CARLSON: Un-American. Well that’s news with a message at its core, just like in a political campaign which in many ways is exactly what this.

The recent weeks’ shrieking about the rights [...]]]> Today’s anti-American mainstream media is a far cry from the patriotic press that boosted US efforts during WWII. The current crop of journalists live in thrall of diversity ideology, even when the foreigners in question have been the historic enemy of Western civilization for over a thousand years.

The recent weeks’ shrieking about the rights of unscreened Muslims to enter America at will were particularly disturbing. President Trump was bashed by the media for protecting national security with his time-out for immigrants and visitors from several sketchy Islamic nations. For example on January 28, the New York Times editorial board opined, Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Cowardly and Dangerous.

The pause wasn’t a Muslim ban, since it didn’t effect the vast majority of allah acolytes across the globe. But what would be wrong with a Muslim ban anyway? America didn’t have German immigrants during WWII even though not every German was a Nazi. And make no mistake, jihadist Islam is at war with us.

Don’t New York City scribblers ever reflect upon the big hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood? Can they not remember that the 2001 attack that took nearly 3,000 lives was an act sanctioned by Islamic scripture? (Perhaps the next jihad will hit the New York Times building.)

Robert Spencer recently considered the state of media today, when the jihadist enemy facing civilization is every bit as evil as the Nazi one of the previous century. Would the New York Times have fretted about anti-Nazi bigotry among xenophobic Americans then? Probably.

Winston Churchill, Anti-German Hate Group Leader, PJMedia, By Robert Spencer, February 7, 2017

What if World War II had been reported the way the establishment media writes about the global jihad today? The question is pertinent in light of the ongoing demonization of Trump adviser Steven K. Bannon, who is now being vilified by establishment media for a ten-year-old unproduced film project discussing the jihad threat.

Matea Gold of the Washington Post described the film in lurid terms:

The flag fluttering above the U.S. Capitol is emblazoned with a crescent and star. Chants of “Allahu Akbar” rise from inside the building.

That’s the provocative opening scene of a documentary-style movie outlined 10 years ago by Stephen K. Bannon that envisioned radical Muslims taking over the country and remaking it into the “Islamic States of America,” according to a document describing the project obtained by The Washington Post.

Hate-mongering! Fear-mongering!

Right?

Well, Matea Gold didn’t bother to ask Omar Ahmad what he thought of this. Ahmad, the cofounder and long-time board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), once said:

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Ahmad now denies saying those words, but the original reporter still stands by her story. And CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper once said:

I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

Meanwhile, according to a captured internal document, the Muslim Brotherhood (to which all major Muslim groups in the U.S. are linked) is dedicated to:

… eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house … so that it falls, and Allah’s religion is victorious over other religions.

Then there is the Washington, D.C. imam who wants to:

… establish an Islamic State of America by 2050.

Gold mentions none of this. Steve Bannon actually did his homework, and for this he is described as a bigoted Islamophobe.

Gold adds:

The proposal names two dozen conservative writers and terrorism experts who could serve as potential on-screen guests,
including Robert Spencer, director of the Jihad Watch website, who is labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Muslim “propagandist.”

Am I, now?

Imagine if this were 1930, and the Southern Poverty Law Center existed, and it issued a lavishly illustrated, meticulously “documented” report on critics of the Nazis, dubbing them “anti-German hate group leaders.”

They would include profiles of Winston Churchill, Edgar Mowrer, and other early critics of Hitler, noting when each had made false claims about Hitler — false, that is, according to the Nazis — and charging them with “hate” and “anti-German bias.”

This kind of coverage would be universal: critics of Nazism would never described in the mainstream media in anything but pejorative terms. Whenever they receive media attention, they would be challenged to respond to charges that they were “anti-German” and “spreading hate.” Their views would more often be presented by the SPLC, and others who dubbed them “anti-German,” than by themselves.

The leading authorities the media consulted about Hitler and Nazism would be favorable to both, and opposed only to excessive violence by the Brownshirts, which they describe as inconsistent with the spirit of Nazism. Meanwhile, the critics would be constantly vilified, ridiculed, and likened to the Ku Klux Klan and other genuinely hateful groups. People would write that they wanted to attack them physically, and that it would be legitimate to do so.

Imagine that this situation prevailed, without any cracks in the edifice, for five years. Ten years. Fifteen years.

Imagine that it prevailed as Hitler came to power, as he began persecuting the Jews, as he began his rearmament of Germany, as he bullied weak Western leaders, who were anxious to appease him anyway, into allowing him to take Austria and Czechoslovakia, and finally as he invaded Poland and the Western powers finally decided to fight back.

Imagine that every step Britain, France, and ultimately the Soviet Union and the United States took to defend themselves against Hitler and the Nazis was decried by the mainstream media and a huge segment of the American public as “anti-German,” as a manifestation of hatred and bigotry. If every step FDR took to prosecute the war was denounced and even voided by federal court orders; if he was derided as a fool, a criminal, an authoritarian ruler, and there were open calls not only for his impeachment, but for a coup to remove him from power, and even numerous calls for his assassination.

In that scenario, which side do you think would have won the war?

One can [...]]]> FBI Director Comey’s weekend decision not to pursue crooked Hillary for her mishandling of secret government emails was a startling acquiescence to the White House position: In a letter to Congress, Comey said that Clinton should not face criminal charges on the basis of newly discovered State Department emails on a non-secure device.

One can imagine that the FBI Director was ferociously pressured to back down from his earlier accusations. And the switch created the desired headlines one day before the election that concerned voters could safely choose Hillary: she won’t be dragged from the Oval Office to be tried as a criminal!

The Sacramento Bee had a nicely artistic presentation:

The liberal press all headlined with the same not-so-subliminal message — Vote Democrat:

FBI SAYS REVIEW CLEARS CLINTON IN EMAIL INQUIRY
— New York Times

FBI won’t pursue charges against Clinton
— Washington Post

FBI Affirms No Clinton Charges
—Wall Street Journal

FBI clears Clinton but Anger Persists
— Los Angeles Times

Clinton cleared in late twist
— Chicago Tribune

FBI clears Clinton in email case
— Houston Chronicle

Again, no FBI e-mail charge
— Denver Post

So five out of eight newspapers (chosen by me as being typical major publications) used the verb “clear” which is broad and has the air of finality.

However, the truth is more complex than a brief headline can convey: Hillary may get a temporary reprieve on the email case now, but that doesn’t mean she is off the hook. As Congressman Trey Gowdy (a former prosecutor) remarked on Sunday, “Investigations are never over unless a statute of limitations has expired or unless jeopardy has attached.”

So if something more incriminating turns up, it’s game on.

Plus, the Clinton Foundation remains an object of FBI investigation and is rumored to be a stronger case. In fact, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer appeared on a Fox Business show Monday and remarked, “The way it’s been explained to me by people in the FBI sphere is that basically they’re going to get one bite at this apple, so if you bring an email case prosecution, or were to do that and were to fail, the Clinton Foundation investigation just politically would be too much.”

Certainly the wikileaks story that Chelsea’s deluxe wedding was financed by the Foundation has refocused attention on family’s corrupt slush fund disguised as a do-gooder organization.

So Hillary in prison orange remains a possibility, albeit an unlikely one.

Oddly enough, the Times news article had no mention of Democrat operatives hiring provocateurs to create [...]]]> There’s an interesting front-page item from the liberal flagship: two diverse men in a physical altercation at the notorious San Jose Trump rally where a young woman wearing a Trump jersey was egged by a mob of men.

Oddly enough, the Times news article had no mention of Democrat operatives hiring provocateurs to create violent incidents at Trump rallies to sully the candidate. James O’Keefe of Project Veritas went undercover and filmed the Democrats admitting to things like targeting the elderly and disabled with violence to maximize shock value. Scott Foval, national field director of Americans United for Change, was recorded saying, “We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f–ing assholes for 50 years.”

The San Jose event was violent and police protection was minimal.

But the Times article was not curious whether the man accused of vandalism, battery and the attempted theft of a Trump supporter’s sign was a paid agitator or was inspired to physical confrontation by provocateurs around him.

Instead, the Times is sad about how unkind we Americans have become in our politics.

Trump rally skirmish reveals what a divided nation shares, New York Times News Service, October 24, 2016

SAN JOSE, Calif. — It was a fleeting confrontation between two strangers that might have otherwise been forgotten.

But the tussle over a Donald Trump campaign sign after a June rally in San Jose, California, has sent one man, Anthony McBride, to jail for six days, and left another, Steven Tong, lamenting the loss of civility in our democracy.

The rally where these two lives collided by happenstance erupted into one of the most violent episodes of this contentious presidential election. Video footage of protesters punching, egging and tackling Trump supporters went viral, sparking outrage among Republicans and soul-searching among Democrats.

Today, the clashes between ordinary people like McBride and Tong are playing out in the California courts, in a series of criminal prosecutions brought about as Republican officials accused a city led by Democrats of failing to protect Trump supporters at the rally.

The San Jose rally and its aftermath may be the most powerful illustrations of the dangerous polarization that has gripped the country during the 2016 election.

But a closer look at Tong, one of rally’s 24 victims, and McBride, one of 22 people charged with crimes after the event, suggests there is much the two men share. The economic struggles and personal dreams that guided them that day are not so different.

On June 2, Tong woke up in his parents’ house, where he has lived for three years, unable to afford a place of his own.

He is 46. He had dreamed of becoming a product designer and starting his own company. But art school was too expensive, and he left after a year.

Tong’s faith in the American dream has been shaken. But he had a ticket to see Trump speak.

That same morning, Anthony McBride, who is anti-Trump, woke up in the apartment of his friend’s mother, where he has lived for three years, unable to afford a place of his own.

He is 21. He dreams of being a fashion designer and starting his own company. But art school is too expensive. He works two jobs to save for it.

McBride’s faith in the American dream remains intact, but it is marred by the bigotry he sees as a product of Trump’s campaign.

Like many Asians in San Jose, Tong was born in Vietnam. He was 4 when communists captured Saigon. Officials forced Tong’s family to move to a remote hut.

When he was 9, his family made it to California. They embraced the Republican Party’s strong anti-communism stance.

Tong considers himself a moderate. He once cast a ballot for Bill Clinton. He says he does not agree with Trump’s remarks about immigrants and Mexicans.

Tong once felt boundless optimism about the United States. His parents, who worked entry-level jobs in electronics, had been able to buy a three-bedroom home. But now Tong cannot afford to rent a home of his own. He was drawn to the June rally by Trump’s promise to make America as strong as it was when Tong arrived.

Tong left the rally clutching a sign: “The silent majority stands with Trump.”

He walked back to his car, chatting with a teenager from Mexico who held a sign opposing Trump. They joked about trading signs. Nothing seemed threatening. But when Tong reached the parking garage, he witnessed protesters trying to steal Trump hats off the heads of an older Hispanic couple.

“I said, ‘Come on, guys,’” Tong recalled. “That’s when the crowd started turning on me. “

Tong ran into the garage. He noticed a tall black man coming behind him.

“It was a Tuesday, my day off,” McBride recalled. While checking Twitter, he noticed that Trump was coming to town.

McBride hoped to get into the rally “to go experience what he says for myself,” he said. But police officers blocked the entrance. So he drifted to the “free speech” area, where protesters gathered.

McBride considers himself a moderate. He opposes amnesty for undocumented immigrants. He believes the entrepreneurial spirit should be rewarded. But it is racism — not government regulation of the economy — that worries him. The son of an African-American father and an Irish mother, McBride blames the recent racial unrest on injustice.

To McBride’s generation, the spate of police killings of black people shows the limits of politics and the need for activism. Protests — not the election of a black president — have brought a modicum of justice.

Joining the gathering crowd outside the convention center, McBride felt he had justice on his side. But then the rally inside ended. Trump supporters poured out. Protesters chanted obscenities at them. They hurled insults back.

A black female protester burning an American flag got into a shoving match with a white female Trump supporter. A first-generation Mexican who opposes Trump punched in the nose a third-generation Mexican who supports him.

McBride admits he got angry that day. He says Trump supporters mistook him for Mexican and shouted insults.

He followed a wave of protesters into a parking garage. That’s where he spotted an Asian man with a Trump sign.

“I was kind of disappointed in him,” McBride recalled. “He’s a minority, and I didn’t see why he’s supporting Trump.”

McBride snatched Tong’s sign. Tong grabbed it back. They held it together, in a tug of war. McBride could see the fear in Tong’s eyes. McBride thinks back on that moment and regrets being the source of Tong’s fear.

But two weeks after the rally, police asked McBride to answer questions. McBride, who has no criminal record, cooperated. He did not ask for a lawyer. “I wasn’t scared because I didn’t do anything,” he said.

Afterward, he expected to be allowed to go home. Instead, they took him to jail, where he remained for six days, accused of vandalism, battery and the attempted theft of Tong’s sign.

Now McBride, who cannot afford a lawyer, is not sure if he should plead guilty to a crime he doesn’t feel he committed, or fight the charges. He thinks when he grabbed Tong’s sign, and about what made him let go.

“I realized it was stupid,” he recalled. “If it was on a different street, at a different time, I probably would have just talked to him about why he was supporting Trump. But it was not a regular day.”