. . . where Alderman Napolitano has called a rally.

Which explains their cutting off investigation of Mateen after two interrogations?

Former FBI Agent John Guandolo said the FBI mistakenly closed its investigation because it had no idea how to respond to jihadist threats because the bureau does not teach agents about Islamist doctrine, such as Sharia law, that is used as a guide for terrorist operations and activities.
“This investigation was closed because FBI leadership has systematically refused to look at and teach Sharia to its agents because it is getting its advice on Islam from Muslims who are hostile to us and our system of government,” Guandolo said.

Serious charge, reflecting Obama’s see-no-evil approach to never-named Islamic terrorism.  

As in this:

In the hours after the rampage, President Barack Obama claimed that Mateen’s motives are “unclear,” even though he admitted that the carnage was an “act of terror.”

He moved to blame the national debate on the Second Amendment and possession of firearms by citizens, however, saying “we have to decide if this [an American with guns] is the kind of country we want to be.”

If agents ignore Islamic motivations, they miss a lot. There’s a refusal to connect dots here?

And guns are a favorite with him. (Thank God for the NRA, he says to himself. It’s always there when I need a bad guy.)

So hold yr hats, yet another exercise of cynicism about separation of powers is on its way!

. . . the witness stand

Stout as in gutsy. Ladies and gentlemen, Stacy Dash.

. . . Did nothing because he was Muslim.

Such is the toxicity of today’s fear of offending.

Doing very cool things.

He’ll be missed in cool circles.

That would be newspapers and TV news shows.

Before blogs there were letters to the editor. Some very good ones at Wall St. Journal today, such as this one:

Trump, the ‘Mexican’ Judge and Wise Latinas
Why is it so offensive when Donald Trump equates ethnicity with judicial bias but it’s fine when Sonia Sotomayor does?

Why indeed? Follow-through:

In a speech given at the UC Berkeley School of Law (Oct. 26, 2001) on the effect of gender and ethnicity on judging, the future Supreme Court justice spoke about the influence her Latina identity had on her presence on the bench.

Her remarks were far more diplomatic than Mr. Trump’s, but she reached virtually the same conclusion.

Some examples from the speech: “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” . . . “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” . . . “But I accept there will be some [difference] based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

Finally, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

So do not oppose Trump to at least one Obama appointee, at least not on this point.

About the Orlando massacre, speaking this afternoon:

“This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon . . .

How easily did the shooter get his hands on his weapons?

The boss man knows?

Additionally, is it not a further reminder of the Islamic threat?