Wishing you had a slurpee?

7-Eleven just delivered some slurpees, chicken sandwiches, donuts, hot coffee, and candy to someone who lives a mile away from a 7-eleven in Reno, Nevada. What makes it remarkable is that they used a drone. Jonathan Vanian reports for Fortune,

The company partnered with drone startup Flirtey for the delivery, which the companies said was the first time a drone has legally delivered a package to a U.S. resident who placed an order from a retailer.

...It took two drone flights to deliver all of the items ordered, the companies said. The drone flew autonomously for one mile from the 7-Eleven store in Reno on July 11 to the family’s house using GPS.

After the drone reached the house, it hovered above while lowering the container to the family’s backyard using a rope.

...Many companies, like Amazon AMZN 0.06% and Google GOOG 0.56% , are exploring using drones for delivering packages. But strict Federal Aviation Administration drone regulations, they say, have pushed them to do a lot of the testing overseas in countries like the Netherlands and Canada.

Read more here.

Cherish every second of your life!

h/t 90 Miles from Tyranny

Incompetent...and the Democrat nominee

h/t 90 Miles from Tyranny

Winners and losers

I don't know if this is a brilliant prediction, or just wishful thinking. I keep seeing this year's election as similar to 1972. The Watergate story broke that summer, but Nixon won every state except Mondale's Minnesota. Then, for the next year and a half, the Watergate hearings and journalists like Woodward and Bernstein relentlessly gave us a glimpse into the corruption of Nixon and his team, culminating in Nixon's resignation in August of 1974.

The same could happen this year. The next Clinton scandal to be uncovered may be the Clinton Foundation. Are there any Woodwards and Bernsteins still out there?

Tire those muscles out!

Gretchen Reynolds reports in the New York Times that lifting lighter weights can be just as effective as heavier ones. The key is lifting until you really tire out the muscles. Read about a scientific research study on the subject here.

The Founders' government has been displaced by the Administrative State

What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State — a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.

Accordingly, he got Congress to create executive-branch administrative agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to do the job. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proliferated such agencies, from the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Housing Administration to the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to put the New Deal into effect. Before they could do so, though, FDR had to scare the Supreme Court into stretching the Constitution’s Commerce Clause beyond recognition, putting the federal government in charge of all economic activity, not just interstate transactions. He also had to pressure the justices to allow Congress to delegate legislative power—which is, in effect, what the lawmakers did by setting up agencies with the power to make binding rules. The Constitution, of course, vests all legislative power in Congress, empowering it to make laws, not to make legislators.

...Adding insult to injury, Wilson, his allies, and their current followers call themselves “progressives,” a fatuous boast implying that they are the embodiments and chosen instruments of the spirit of an ever-improving, irresistible future. In tune with the German idealist philosophy that Wilson and his circle studied, they claim to be marching toward an as-yet-unrealized goal of human perfection. But that perfection, the German philosophers believed, would look something like Prussia’s enlightened despotism. For Americans to think that it is progress to move from the Founders’ revolutionary achievement—a nation of free citizens, endowed with natural rights, living under laws that they themselves have made, pursuing their own vision of happiness in their own way and free to develop as fully as they can whatever talent or genius lies within them—to a regime in which individuals derive such rights as they have from a government superior to them is contemptible. How is a return to subjection an advance on freedom? No lover of liberty should ever call such left-wing statism “progressive.” In historical terms, this elevation of state power over individual freedom is not even “liberal” but quite the reverse.

As these agencies have metastasized, they have borne out not a single premise that justified their creation, and their increasingly glaring failure has drawn citizens’ angry attention to them. Expert? As a New Deal congressman immediately recognized with shock, many of those who staffed the Administrative State were kids just out of law school, with zero real-world experience or technical knowledge. Efficient? Can-do America, which built the Empire State Building in 11 months and ramped up airplane production during World War II from 2,000 in 1939 to nearly 100,000 in 1944, now takes years of bureaucratic EPA busywork to repair a bridge or lay a pipeline, and who knows how many businesses never expand or even start because the maze of government regulation is too daunting and costly to navigate? Only last year, EPA “experts” fecklessly stood by as workers under their supervision accidentally dumped 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into the Colorado River, and the agency vouchsafed not a word of warning to downstream Colorado and New Mexico officials for an entire day before the poisonous, fluorescent-orange flood hit them. Over at Veterans Affairs, those who’ve fought for their country die in droves while waiting for medical care.

Read much more here.

Hillary picks Tim Kaine

Hillary has picked Virginia Senator Tim Kaine as her Vice Presidential running mate. The New York Times has (of course) a very favorable review of Kaine here.

Today's shooting in Munich.

The latest toll of dead people in today's shooting in Munich, Germany is nine, according to BBCToday's shooting in Munich. The shooting occurred at a shopping mall, and a manhunt is ongoing to apprehend the terrorists.

From the Daily Mail:

Gunman shouting 'Allahu Akbar' executed children in Munich McDonald's before rampaging through mall killing NINE with police now hunting three attackers.

The missing ingredient

Ann Voskamp writes at A Holy experience,

...catastrophizing is how we make our own soul-cages. That fear’s always the flee ahead.

...Sometimes in living your best life, the most missed ingredient — is to live obedient to God.

...That’s the only rhythm that can make music: to do the will of the One whose heart beats at the center of the cosmos.

...Maybe the genuine followers of Christ always march to their own drum —

Thrum: I will walk with God. Thrum: Even if I walk different than everyone else.

...That who answers God’s call loses nothing, but a life deaf to God’s call loses everything?

Read more here.

Capitulation, appeasement, submission? No!

Stuart Schneiderman on Ted Cruz's refusal to endorse Trump:

Let’s see: Trump called Cruz a liar, over and over again. He maligned and insulted Cruz’s wife. He defamed Cruz’s father by saying that he was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. In so doing, he relieved Cruz of the obligation to keep his pledge. You are not obliged to keep a pledge to someone who treats you like garbage.

Had Cruz endorsed Trump, it would have counted as an abject capitulation, an appeasement and a submission. At a time when we have all come to see the Obama administration as supine and submissive on the world stage, Republican candidates should not set an example of caving in to a bully.

Writing in the London Telegraph Tim Stanley describes the Marco Rubio video:

He [Trump] once met a guy called Marco Rubio when running for the nomination – “little Marco”, he called him – and so Rubio was asked to give an endorsement, too. He did so via a video. So tawdry was Marco’s humiliation, so abject, that he decided it was best to deliver it as far away from the convention as possible.

If Cruz had endorsed Trump, you would have read the same lines, with his name put in place of Rubio's.

In purely psychological terms, it is bad to kowtow to a bully. It is bad to give the impression, in any way, that you accept the role that you have been cast in. People have been saying that Trump was magnanimous in giving Cruz a prime time speaking slot, but Trump also orchestrated the boos and tried to steal the stage by walking into the convention as Cruz closed his speech. If you think that Trump was not trying to rub his defeated rival’s face in the mud, you do not understand very much.

Who is at fault for the Cruz non-endorsement. Donald Trump, that's who. If Trump wanted an endorsement, he should have been magnanimous in victory and taken back the flood of insults that were directed against all of the candidates, but most viciously against Ted Cruz. He should have apologized. When he did not, Cruz could not have endorsed Trump without accepting the caricature that Trump had established.

If someone is bullying you, the one thing you cannot do is to give in and to accept the role he is casting you in.

When Trump did not take back his slanders, he left Cruz no other choice but to set an example by standing up to a bully. Others who have suffered the wrath of Trump did not show up. Others who made the pledge do not feel bound by it.

Of course, the New York delegation had been told to boo Ted Cruz. While many commentators have declared that Cruz put an end to his political career, the verdict is still out. Writing in the Weekly Standard, John McCormack offers a different angle:

But the booing and atrocious treatment Cruz and his wife received after the speech made Cruz's remarks seem downright courageous. CNN reported that Heidi Cruz had to be escorted out of the event by security, as one man screamed "Goldman Sachs!" in the investment manager's face.

That treatment, which Cruz has been receiving from Trump supporters as well as from establishment Republicans like John Boehner and Peter King, has put him in the position where going along with the majority feels like a capitulation. Keep in mind, the one person the Republican establishment did not want to see as the party standard bearer was not Donald Trump: it was Ted Cruz.

...If the nominee does not reach out, does not apologize for the torrent of insults he shot out at all his serious opponents, he has relieved them of their obligation to keep their pledge. For all I know, Trump might have found a winning strategy. Many people do not understand that the inability to apologize is a sign of weakness, not strength. How many there are, we do not yet know.

Read more here.

Two African Americans who deserve national recognition

Daniel Greenfield writes at Doug Ross @ Journal,

...the media that helped cause the Baltimore riots with their non-stop coverage of the Freddie Gray death haven’t been covering the trials.

Not only is their Freddie Gray hoax being destroyed, trial by trial, based on the lack of evidence, but the destroyer is an articulate and principled African-American judge. Worse still, Judge Williams had prosecuted police misconduct cases for the Justice Department. And when he takes apart the Gray hoax, as he has done in multiple trials, it’s from the standpoint of a uniquely qualified expert.



You can see why the media is staying away.

...Judge Williams has destroyed the Freddie Gray hoax by asking one question after another. By demanding to see the evidence and by following the law. Despite his devastating statements in court, he has sought no publicity and done no interviews on the case. Instead he did something that is at once ordinary and extraordinary. He did his job.

It’s why he will never be a national figure.

But Judge Williams is not the only African-American hero who shut down the Freddie Gray hoax. There was yet another courageous figure who will also never achieve a national profile because she did the right thing.



Detective Dawnyell Taylor was the lead detective in the Freddie Gray investigation. The prosecution handed her four pages to read to the grand jury right before her appearance. Detective Taylor found inaccurate and distorted statements there. Prosecutors then prevented her from answering questions and didn’t want her case notes on the investigation. So she turned them over to the defense.

The notes included a medical examiner’s statement to her that Freddie Gray’s death was a “freakish accident, and that no human hands can cause this” despite claiming at trial that it was homicide.

The prosecution attempted to silence her again, but Judge Williams allowed her to testify.

In a disturbing moment in the courtroom, a member of the prosecution team insisted that she had been removed from the investigation. Detective Taylor replied, “You made the request, but you don't have the authority to remove me.” That moment summed up the corrupt machinery at work in Baltimore.

The Freddie Gray hoax was a rigged game. It took courage to expose it. And that’s what Judge Williams and Detective Taylor did. Despite the threat of riots and warnings of more violence, they did their jobs. Despite the damage to their careers for opposing the agenda of the national and local governments, they stood up for the truth. Despite the encouragement of the media, they did what was right.

The Freddie Gray hoax has made national figures out of hacks like Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, but has left the heroes like Judge Barry Williams and Detective Dawnyell Taylor in the dark. And that is something that we should remedy.

Despite the claims of racism, the Freddie Gray hoax was fought in a mostly black city between black officials. Even half the police officers charged in the case were black. The Freddie Gray case came down not to black or white, but to telling the truth and doing the right thing. And we should remember that despite what we often see on the news, despite the riots and the murders of police officers, there were African-American heroes in Baltimore who stood between the #BlackLivesMatter lynch mob and the police.

Read more here.

Weakness to be exploited, rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated: the dreamy Obama approach to terrorism has proved a nightmare

Victor Davis Hanson writes at Town Hall about Obama's efforts to appease Islamists.

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama's outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic "violent extremism."

...The president often blamed the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for needlessly provoking Islam. Obama said that terrorist dangers were no more deadly than falls in bathtubs. He wrote off the Islamic State as an inept jayvee squad, assuring that they posed no existential threat. He campaigned on the premise that al-Qaida was on the run. Obama pulled all troops out of Iraq, which instantly degenerated into chaos.

...Obama kept insisting that guns, not Islamic terrorists, were the real danger -- even as assassins used bombs from Boston to Paris, knives from California to Oklahoma, and, most recently, a truck to run over innocents in Nice, France.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies got the message and worried more about charges of "Islamophobia" than preempting deadly terrorist attacks. Authorities had either interviewed and then ignored the Boston, Fort Hood, San Bernardino and Orlando terrorists, or they had blindly ignored their brazen social media threats.

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants -- even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.
Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.

For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil -- even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America's lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East. Jihadists try to convince the Arab street that returning to religious fundamentalism and exporting jihad will empower Muslims to recapture lost primacy over a decadent and guilty West, just as in the mythical glory days of the caliphate.

In truth, religious intolerance, gender apartheid, illiteracy, autocracy, statism, tribalism and religious fundamentalism all guarantee poverty, economic stagnation and scapegoating. While much of Asia and Latin America progressed through reform, the Middle East blame-gamed its miseries on affluent Western nations and on Israel.
More disturbing, millions of Middle Easterners fled to the safety of Europe and the United States -- but on occasion, only to resist assimilation and show ingratitude once they got there.

In short, the dreamy Obama approach to terrorism has proved a nightmare -- and it is not over yet.

Read more here.

Putting racism under new management

At Town Hall, Thomas Sowell writes about the war on cops.

There was never a more appropriately named book than "The War on Cops" by Heather Mac Donald, published a few weeks ago, on the eve of the greatest escalation of that war by the ambush murders of five policemen in Dallas.
Nor is this war against the police confined to Dallas. It is occurring across the country. Who is to blame?

There is a ton of blame, more than enough to go around to the wide range of people and institutions that have contributed to these disasters. In addition to the murderers who have killed people they don't even know, there are those who created the atmosphere of blind hatred in which such killers flourish.

Chief among those who generate this poisonous atmosphere are career race hustlers like Al Sharpton and racist institutions like the "Black Lives Matter" movement. All such demagogues need is a situation where there has been a confrontation where someone was white and someone else was black. The facts don't matter to them.

The same is true of the more upscale, genteel and sophisticated race panderers, including the President of the United States. During his first year in the White House, Barack Obama chastised a white policeman over his handling of an incident with a black professor at Harvard -- after admitting that he didn't know the specific facts.

Nor did he know the specifics when he publicly announced that, if he had a son, that son would look like Trayvon Martin. Are we to decide who is right and who is wrong on the basis of skin color? There was a long history of that in the days of the old Jim Crow South. Are we fighting against racism today or do we just want to put it under new management?

No one should imagine that any of this is helping the black community. The surge in murder rates across the country, in the wake of the anarchy unleashed after the Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore riots, has taken a wholly disproportionate number of black lives.

But, to the race hustlers, black lives don't really matter nearly as much as their chance to get publicity, power, money, votes or whatever else serves their own interests.

The mainstream media play a large, and largely irresponsible, role in the creation and maintenance of a poisonous racial atmosphere that has claimed the lives of policemen around the country.

That same poisoned atmosphere has claimed the lives of even more blacks, who have been victims of violence by thugs and criminals who have had fewer restrictions as the police have pulled back, or have been pulled back, under political pressure.

The media provide the publicity on which career race hustlers thrive. It is a symbiotic relationship, in which turmoil in the streets gives the media something exciting to attract viewers. In return, the media give those behind this turmoil millions of dollars' worth of free publicity to spread their poison.

...The media have also actively promoted the anti-police propaganda by the way they present the news. This goes all the way back to the Rodney King riots of 1992. Television stations all across the country repeatedly played a selectively edited fraction of a videotape covering the encounter between the police and Rodney King, who had been stopped after a wild, high-speed chase.

The great majority of that video never saw the light of day on the TV networks that incessantly played the selectively edited fraction.

When the police were charged with excessive violence in overcoming Rodney King's resistance to arrest, the jury saw the whole video -- and refused to convict the policemen. That is when people who had seen only what the media showed them rioted after the jury verdict.

Today, the media keep repeating the mantra that there was a "peaceful demonstration," even when it ends in violence. How many people have to die in "peaceful demonstrations" before the media admit that those who promote mob disruptions have to know what is likely to happen when you put mobs in the streets at night?

Mob rule is not democracy. It threatens democracy, as it threatens lives -- black or white -- and all lives should matter.

Read more here.

There's a reason we have a greeting card business!

Ann Coulter writes at Breitbart,

...If you’re on MSNBC and traffic in outrage and sanctimony every day, you can lose your bearings and not even realize what an idiot you’ve become.

Ann is referring to the nonstop outrage at MSNBC and other media outlets about Melania Trump's speech containing plagiarisms of Michelle Obama's 2008 speech.

The similar passages were:

— The only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams!

— Your word is your bond!

— May your tomorrows be brighter than your yesterdays!

— From tiny acorns great oaks grow!

Huffington Post, Gawker and Jezebel pulled all-nighters to hoot and sneer at the prospective first lady’s speech. The following day, Andrea Mitchell devoted half her show to Melania’s “plagiarism.”

Listen to yourselves, MSNBC! Your obsession with the “theft” of these saccharine sentiments only reminds people how trite Michelle Obama’s speech was. (Which you adored.)

...Obviously, Melania’s speechwriter didn’t think up those words — and neither did Michelle’s. You can hear the same thing at any third-rate college commencement, at Orientation Day at Excel academies, at motivational speakers’ corporate events, and right now, in the greeting card aisle of your local Rite Aid.

Not even Hallmark cards could claim authorship because there were probably caveman drawings with rainbows that said, “You can achieve anything you set your mind to!”

If I were giving a speech and suddenly burst into, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets …” you’d have a right to say, “Um — Ann, did you write that part about fighting on the beaches yourself?

But if I say: “The only limit to your achievement is your dreams!” no one can claim the rights to those words because they’re insipid nothings.

No one invented “the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams,” anymore than I invented “Hey — how you doing?” There’s nothing there! These are phrases designed to allow you to make sounds while moving your mouth.

People who wanted to hate Melania thought her speech was godawful, and the ones who like her thought it was awesome and are now requesting copies of the speech to use at the office.

Some people like this stuff. There’s a reason we have a greeting card business.

Read more here.

America's missile defense system is unable to protect us!

Do you think America's missile defense system would protect us if Iran or North Korea decided to fire nuclear missiles at us? David Willman reports at the LA Times,

e system designed to defend American cities and towns against a nuclear attack by North Korea is “simply unable to protect the U.S. public” and will remain ineffective unless Congress exerts rigorous oversight, according to a new report.

The report, to be released Thursday by the Union of Concerned Scientists, recommends that the Obama administration halt the expansion of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, known as GMD, until its technical problems have been solved.

“The story of this system is a cautionary tale about how the lack of appropriate oversight of a politically charged missile defense program has led to a system in tatters,” said the report, written by three physicists with expertise in missile defense.

“Despite more than a decade of development and a bill of $40 billion, the GMD system is simply unable to protect the U.S. public,’’ the authors wrote.

The GMD system is intended to thwart a “limited” nuclear strike by a non-superpower adversary, such as North Korea or Iran.

In the event of an attack, rocket interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County and Ft. Greely, Alaska, would be launched from underground silos. Once in space, the interceptors would separate from their booster rockets and attempt to slam into and “kill” enemy warheads.

The report notes that in “heavily scripted” flight tests that are “set up for success,” GMD interceptors have often failed to hit mock enemy warheads. In the seven most recent tests, interceptors destroyed their targets just three times, the report says -- a finding consistent with conclusions of the Pentagon’s operational test and evaluation office.

Personnel conducting the tests know the speed, location and trajectory of the target ahead of time, as well as when it will be launched – information they would not have in a real attack.

Read more here.

No, Hillary...you're the problem!

You want to hear a fabulous speech by a gorgeous woman? This is the most important election since 1980. Hillary? A bad joke, like skinny jeans or a man bun on men! We're not your servants...you're ours! The phonies have gone uncovered and unexposed for too long! Donald Trump called them out, not the men and women of the media. Do your job, members of the media!

"I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father."

Not a servile puppy dog. Right and wrong matters!

Brazil arrests ten suspected of planning terrorist attacks

CNN reports from Rio de Janeiro,

Brazilian police have arrested 10 people suspected of planning terrorist acts during next month's Rio Olympics, Brazil's Justice Ministry said Thursday.

The group was inspired by ISIS and mostly organized online, Justice Minister Alexandre de Moraes said.
He said no specific targets were mentioned, but the Justice Ministry is still investigating the suspects' computers and cell phones to learn more about the possible plans.
De Moraes said the suspects are all Brazilian nationals, and that one minor was mentioned in the conversations.

Read more here.

Stopped in their tracks by ice

Craig Boudreau reports at Climate Depot,

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

Read more here.

All choices have consequences.

Ace of Spades tells #NeverTrumpers that they are responsible if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency.

Sorry, I was on Twitter. I felt it was necessary to dispel the widely-held myth, adored by #NeverTrumpers, that somehow attacking Trump relentlessly does not aid Hillary Clinton, and that they are not choosing Hillary Clinton by choosing to be NeverTrump.

All choices have consequences. By supporting Trump, I am responsible for the consequences of a Trump victory -- and those consequences could indeed be dire.

But a childish morally-unserious fantasy has infected the #NeverTrump not-so-intellgentsia, that they can agitate for Hillary Clinton -- by relentlessly disparaging Trump -- and somehow, they are not responsible for the consequences of the Hillary presidency they are bucking for.

...I tried to explain to them that there is no such thing as a consequence-free choice -- all choices have consequences, both on the upside and the downside -- and both the upside and downswide consequences must be considered by any adult, intellectually-serious person in making his choice.

Yet the #NeverTrumpers claim that the obvious, inescapable outcome of their position -- that Hillary Clinton will be the president -- is not their responsibility, just because they didn't intend that as a pirmary matter.

No, but they were completely aware it was the natural and inevitable consequence of their position.

So why would a Trump supporter be responsible for a foreign policy catastrophe he didn't even know for a fact would happen, when a #NeverTrumper claims to be innocent of the Hillary Presidency they know beyond a shadow of any doubt is the direct and inescapable consequence of the NeverTrump posiition?

They're responsible for it. They don't want to be, but they are.

I don't particularly want to be on the hook for a Trump presidency, but, being a morally serious person who has not yet delegated my thinking to the Twitter Hivemind, I recognize that by taking the action of lending him my support, I am responsible for the conseqyences of that act.

...I understand the #NeverTrump impulse. I've expressed it myself. After Trump's boorish, vulgar, half-insane attack on Cruz's wife, I announced "I'm done" with Trump and vowed to never vote for him.

I understand #NeverTrump, emotionally. I think there's merit in the position.

However, we have difficult choices to make. And difficult choices should be treated as what they are -- difficult, hard choices requiring moral seriousness and rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

Read more here.