The coming long hot summer

By 103 Comments 2,598 views

trump rally mex flag


Violence broke out at a Trump rally yesterday- again. Trump supporters were attacked- pelted with eggs and bottles- and physically assaulted.

A woman Trump supporter was hunted down, cornered, harassed and assaulted by person brandishing Mexican flags and shirts:

The cops frequently stood by and watched

All while the cretins were chanting “Stop the Hate!”


The Mayor of San Jose found the violence justified:

The mayor of San Jose, Democrat Sam Liccardo, reacted angrily to the events. Not that he was particularly upset at the violent mob that attacked innocent Americans, of course. No, his ire was directed at Mr. Trump. “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” the mayor said. Apparently it was downright “irresponsible” of Trump to even set foot in California’s third largest city.

This opens the door for more violence:

Mayor Liccardo justified committing violence against people with whom he disagrees politically. That’s an attack on the very foundation of our system of government and the First Amendment, and a very dangerous one.

One wonders if Liccardo realizes that he’s just condoned violence against both Clinton and Sanders supporters. Violence against women for political reasons now seems permissible.

Nothing says I love America more than disrespecting its laws.

Nothing says I want to be an America more than sticking a Mexican flag in the faces of Americans.

Nothing says I love America more than burning a US flag.

Nothing says stop the hate more than hunting down and physically assaulting those with whom you disagree.

Nothing says we love this country than trashing the rights of others.

Quick- when was the last time Trump supporters went to a Clinton rally and attacked her supporters?

We’ve previously noted the violence visited upon Trump supporters. This violence will bolster support for Trump, not disabuse it. The actions of these animals vindicate Trump’s words. It is troubling that the cops did not act more promptly in many of the attacks, perhaps due to the Ferguson Effect.  Exactly what makes people think they’re entitled to act this way? This violence is un-American but I have a feeling that we’re going to see a lot more of it over the next few months.

Who will be to blame when someone under attack pulls out his or her concealed carry?

It’s going to be a long hot summer.


Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

This is terrorism.


Tweets and images courtesy of Breitbart, RCP , Fox News and Mediaite


Nothing says I want to be an American more than this:

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

103 Responses to “The coming long hot summer”

  1. 101



    I posted this elsewhere but since Rich brought it up here also:

    La Raza Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the Hispanic National Bar Association…

    The curriculum vitae of Trump University Judge Gonzalo Curiel specifically mentions his affiliation with the Hispanic National Bar Association, or HNBA.

    The Hispanic National Bar Association published a press release on July 2nd 2015 which specifically stated their intention to target the “business interests” of Donald Trump:

    Full July 2nd Press Release available HERE

    Now, I doubt you could find a more conformational reason for Donald Trump to be concerned about a Judge overseeing the Trump University lawsuit, which everyone admits is based on some sketchy legal standing, than Judge Curiel specifically belonging to a legal enterprise of affiliates who have clearly stated their intent to target Trump’s business interests.


    * The attorney group leading the lawsuit against Trump are heavily involved in Democrat politics and have paid Bill and Hillary Clinton $675,000 for “speeches”. (link)

    * The Judge in the lawsuit is an open borders immigration activist with direct ties to San Diego La Raza, and has openly engaged with them on their political endeavors. (link) and (link) including scholarships for illegal aliens.

    * The Trump lawsuit relies (in part) on testimony from a former disgruntled employee of the Trump Organization who went to work for notorious #NeverTrump activist Glenn Beck. (link)

    * The Judge then “accidentally” releases court records which provides the media with the names, locations, and contact information of the plaintiffs and witnesses in the case, which fuels the media narrative. (link)

    * After the “mistaken” release, Judge Curiel reseals the court records. (link)

    * The Judge is a member of an ethnic legal group, HNBA, whose specific and publicly expressed intentions are to target Donald Trump’s business interests (link)

    The Judge clearly should recuse himself simply on the grounds that he has a conflict of interest that justifiably raises the question of bias and conflict of interest.

    Judicial Disqualification Resource Center:
    Grounds for Recusal

    Motions to recuse or disqualify judges and other adjudicators have been made for all sorts of reasons. Most commonly such motions are predicated upon a claim that the judge is biased in favor of one party, or against another, or that a reasonable objective observer would think he might be. But such motions are also made on many other grounds, including the challenged judge’s:

    ● Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it

    Background or experience, such as the judge’s prior work as a lawyer

    Personal knowledge about the parties or the facts of the case

    Ex parte communications with lawyers or non-lawyers

    ● Rulings, comments or conduct

    In some jurisdictions the ability of a judge to recuse himself is constrained by the so-called “duty to sit doctrine”. According to this doctrine, unless a judge is required by law to disqualify himself he cannot simply choose to recuse himself, but must remain on the case.

    In most American jurisdictions a judge may only be disqualified “for cause.” In other words, a person who would like a new judge to preside over her case is required to show either that a basis for disqualification exists that is expressly enumerated in A disqualification statute; or that, for some other reason, a reasonable person would question the judge’s ability to be impartial in the case. But many (mostly western and mid-western) jurisdictions have laws on the books which authorize parties to seek disqualification on a “peremptory” basis, without making any showing of cause. This is referred to as “peremptory disqualification,” or making a “peremptory challenge” . In such jurisdictions, as long as the challenge is timely filed, and the prescribed procedure is complied with, the judge has no discretion to determine whether he should recuse himself; rather, he is disqualified automatically.


    Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest, a judge may
    be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified. Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not to be, recusal is necessary. To promote the goal of judicial impartiality, most states have adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct.’ The Code prescribes disqualification for judges who recognize the existence of a conflict of interest, or who encounter allegations
    of a conflict of interest in a motion to disqualify.

    Justice must be blind and impartial to be fair and just.

  2. 102


    Donald Trump Beats Own Campaign Prediction, Reaching 1,536 Delegates

    After the final five state Republican primaries on Tuesday night, Trump stands at 1,536 delegates.

    In April, Trump’s campaign predicted it would reach 1,400 delegates ahead of the convention to meet the threshold delegate requirement of 1,237 in order to clinch the nomination on the first ballot.

    Trump broke the Republican primary record by 1.4 million votes, according to the conservative blog site, The Gateway Pundit.

    Trump Scores Historic 13 Million GOP Primary Vote Blowout with California Win

    Trump’s total is 13,266,277 according to the RealClearPolitics vote count as of Wednesday morning. That count didn’t appear to include the most recent totals for California which they listed at 1,146,548. As of Wednesday morning, the California Secretary of State’s website reported a slightly higher 1,173,893 votes for Trump with 99.7 percent of precincts reporting.

    So how did Hillary do?

    Hillary Clinton Received 1.5 Million FEWER Votes in 2016 than in 2008 — Democrats Down 7 Million Votes

    It was another rough primary season for Hillary.
    Even after California primary Hillary Clinton STILL does not have enough pledged delegates to win the Democratic primary.

    As of Tuesday night Hillary Clinton has 2,203 pledged delegates.
    But she does have 574 super-delegates.

    She needs 2.383 delegates to win the nomination.

    Hillary received 15,899,116 votes this year.
    Bernie Sanders received 12,193,152 votes.

    Hillary and Bernie received 28,092,268 total primary votes this year.

    In 2008 Hillary Clinton received 17,493,836 primary votes.

    So this year Hillary received 1,594,720 FEWER primary votes than in 2008.
    And she lost in 2008!

    More than 35,029,294 votes were cast in the 2008 Democratic primary.

    So Democrats lost nearly 7 million primary votes this year compared to 2008.

    This is devastating news for the Democrats.

  3. 103


    Meanwhile, Democrats continue their assault on the Bill of Rights.

    Brady Campaign Boasts: Gun Control a Central Plank of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

    Gross wrote:

    Hillary Clinton was with us when the Brady Bill was signed. She was with us at the Million Mom March. She was with us in the Senate to fight the corporate gun lobby. She was with us in Charleston. She wore orange with us on Gun Violence Awareness Day and she’s been with us and our 94 chapters every step of her campaign. And that’s why we’re with her.

    On June 5 Clinton told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that government has “a right” to regulate the Second Amendment.

    Gun Owners of America (GOA) released a June 7 statement alerting Americans that Obama is trying to take guns from grandparents.

    GOA makes this assertion based on Obama’s executive gun controls, which include a gun ban for some Social Security beneficiaries, and the actual federal registry announcement showing that an overview of the Social Security gun ban has been “formally published” by the Social Security Administration (SSA).

    Breitbart News previously reported that the SSA’s overview of the ban contains details making it clear that beneficiaries who do not receive benefits themselves, but have them sent to someone who manages finances for them, take the risk of running afoul of the SSA and being prohibited from purchasing guns.


    Now GOA is explaining how this Social Security gun ban works itself out in real life–namely, by depriving grandpa of the ability to legally purchase a firearm.

    GOA put it this way:

    If you are on Social Security disability by reason of a mental health impairment, then your gun rights are gone. Period.

    The regulation promises to aggressively search for and take away the gun rights of Social Security Disability recipients with PTSD, ADHD, post partem [sic] depression, Alzheimer’s, etc.

    But understand this: Some parts of the regulation, like the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” in proposed CFR 421.105, are applicable to all Title II recipients, including old-age programs. Thus, under this language, if you are a senior and can’t “manage [your] own affairs,” you are specifically acknowledged by the Social Security Administration as being a “mental defective” for purposes of making you a prohibited person.

    DNC Platform Committee Member: Nobody Should Own a Gun

    DNC Platform Committee member Bonnie Schaefer says she does not believe “anyone should have a gun.”

    She said this in a video aired by CSPAN and released on June 8.

    Schaefer said the focus has to go beyond “keeping the guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and criminals.” She added, “I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun. That’s just my own philosophy.”

    The video of Schaefer decrying private gun ownership comes just three days after presumptive Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton refused to answer George Stephanopoulos’ question as to whether the right to bear arms is constitutional.

    Stephanopoulos asked the question twice and both times Clinton avoided answering it. The closest she came to answering it was when she said, “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulation.”

    Hillary Clinton – Gun Grabber In Chief

    According to Mad World News, Stephanopoulis asked Clinton, “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right — that it’s not linked to service in a militia?”

    Here’s how she responded:

    “I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures, consistent with the Second Amendment.

    California Introduces Law To Jail Anyone Who Questions Man-Made Climate Change: “First Amendment Now Dead”

    The first-of-its-kind legislation — Senate Bill 1161, or the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 — is scheduled for floor action Thursday after clearing Senate committees in April and May.

    The measure would allow state and local prosecutors to pursue claims against climate-change skepticism as a violation of the state’s Unfair Competition Law [UCL], as well as extend the four-year statute of limitations for such claims retroactively to Jan. 1, 2021.

    “This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis.

    While the measure enjoys broad support by a bevy of environmental groups, the bill has also been described as an effort to ban free speech on climate change as well as chill donations to free-market groups.

    Stephen Frank, editor of the conservative California Political Review, called the bill a “totalitarian statement by Democrats that the First Amendment is now dead.”

    Seriously. No Joke. Speaking of jokes:

    Dems on FEC vote to regulate political jokes

    Over mocking objections from their own staff, two top Democrats on the politically divided Federal Election Commission voted to investigate one-time Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee for joking that he hoped supporters would shower him with million dollar contributions.

    In the latest display of FEC Democratic efforts to regulate speech and target Republicans, Commissioners Ann Ravel and Ellen Weintraub backed a complaint against Huckabee, who made the joke during his May 2015 presidential candidacy announcement.

    e later told the FEC it was a joke, and the FEC staff report on the issue noted that Huckabee even changed his demeanor when he said it to reinforce that he wasn’t serious.

    “We conclude that an objective listener would not reasonably have understood that Huckabee in fact solicited million-dollar contributions. Rather, he appeared, to be making a humorous aside in the course of his speech,” said the just released staff report that recommended that a complaint against the former Arkansas governor be dismissed.

    But when the vote — also just released — was taken, Ravel and Weintraub balked. All three Republicans and the third Democrat on the FEC voted to dismiss the complaint.

    The two Democrats backed legal enforcement of the claim that Huckabee was actively urging supporters to contribute more than the legal limits of $2,700. The complaint against Huckabee said that he was actually soliciting big dollar contributions for an affiliated political action committee, but he never mentioned it in his speech.

    In mocking language, the FEC staff noted in its report how it was clearly a joke. Said the report:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *