Stupid Abortion Tricks

It was bound to happen: If you ask enough politicians about abortion, and ask them multiple times each, eventually one of them will say something mind-numbingly stupid.

Is anyone surprised that Donald Trump should be the one to fall into this rabbit hole?

From the Associated Press:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Wednesday that women who get an abortion should receive "some form of punishment" if it is ever outlawed, drawing swift condemnation from activists on both sides of the divisive social issue.

We take a moment to give Donald the bear:

Now that we see how stupid that was, let us ask how?

Trump's original remarks about abortion came in a heated exchange with MSNBC host Chris Matthews at the Wednesday afternoon taping of a town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, scheduled to air that night. Matthews asked Trump whether he believes abortion should be outlawed. 

After an extended back-and-forth, Trump said, "you have to ban" abortion and "there has to be some form of punishment" for women who violate such a restriction. 

Pressed by Matthews on the nature of that punishment, Trump responded, "I haven't determined what the punishment should be."

Donald, you got sucked in by Chris Matthews? The guy who got "thrills" from Obama? That's just embarrassing, man.

Eat Your Meat

I think there is a reason insanity is so closely linked with humor in our culture. When insane people talk, funny things come out.

For example, consider this story from Fox News:

Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, a spiritual healer and clairvoyant who just happens to be the great-granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, says food and drink on this planet could have a major impact on whether we ever come into contact with “sky beings.”

We will take a moment to allow Dwight to roll over in his grave...Ok, now we continue:

In an interview with Vice News, Eisenhower explains that “sky beings” can be anything from extraterrestrials, to UFOs, fairies, spirit guides, elves or even angels—since people are all different, the way we perceive non-human life varies. 

“We have to understand that we are multi-dimensional beings and—based on our frequency, perceptions, and our vibratory levels that we are functioning from—we are going to see different things. It is not always going to be things that other people are capable of seeing,” explains Eisenhower. 

Uh huh...

“When you are dealing with eating animals, it is a heavier density to process in our physical bodies,” she explains. "When we eat veggies, we are lighter, so we can connect easier with higher beings. You don’t have to be vegetarian or vegan to experience sky beings, but it is a lot more appropriate for people.”

Ok, I get it now! If you don't get enough protein in your diet, you are more likely to be psychotic!

Thank you for clearing that up, Laura. I will feel so much better when I eat my next steak...

Pro-Abortion/Pro-Gay-Marriage = Anti-Religious-Liberty?

Would love to, though the Libertarian Party looks to be running an anti-religious-liberty candidate, so. https://t.co/n32oC1k46w

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) March 30, 2016

I saw the tweet above from Seth Mandel, an editor for the New York Post, and I was stunned. I have followed Gary Johnson since he ran for president in 2012, and I never once heard him opposing religious liberty. Did I miss something from Johnson?

I sent Seth a message, to which he hasn't responded, so he may yet correct me on this. But the only thing I can see is that Seth is equating Johnson's pro-abortion stance with "anti-religious-liberty". However, Johnson is only pro-choice up until viability. And by pro-choice, I don't mean requiring women to get abortions, which could legitimately be argued as an anti-religious-liberty position.

Speaking as a Christian, I don't feel my religious liberties are being threatened by Johnson's abortion stance.

Maybe Seth is equating Johnson's pro-gay-marriage stance with anti-religious-liberty? Johnson is in favor of legalizing gay marriage at the national level, but that doesn't prevent religious people from getting married under their respective religious values. Any male and female can still get married as Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, or whatever their religion happens to be.

Ultimately, the gay marriage issue is about contract law and how government views marriage. As long as contract law and the government only recognized heterosexual couples as "married", it was a civil rights issue. That leaves only two choices: One, completely remove any recognition of marriage from government laws and contract law; or two, make government and contract law recognize gay marriage equally. Note that nowhere in this are religious marriages threatened. In fact, just the opposite: If a religion were to recognize gay marriage, their rights would be trampled by laws only recognizing heterosexual marriage.

Remember, "freedom of religion" is about the government laws being restricted from favoring ANY religion. I have yet to see a stance from Gary Johnson where he supports a law that favors any religious view.

Sorry Seth. While Gary Johnson's views might not be popular with the religious crowd, he isn't suggesting anything that would infringe on their right to practice their respective religions.

The Republican Divorce

So you are getting married, and you promise to adore, cherish, etc., your wife. Most importantly, you promise to be faithful to her. Flash forward 20 years and a couple of kids later. You are doing much better in life, and it looks like she needs you more than you need her, because your success has the gold-digging bimbos flocking to you. That vow of fidelity is looking a little unnecessary now, right?

On the other hand...

So you are running for president of the United States. During the early debates, you promise to support the party nominee, no matter who it is (wink wink, nudge nudge, me right?). Flash forward 6 months and many primaries later. You are leading the race, but do you really need the party? Who is winning the race, you or the party? That promise to support the party nominee is looking a little unnecessary now, right?

Especially in light of the fact the other guys running against you refuse to support you as the party nominee.

At a GOP town hall in Wisconsin, all three of the party's presidential candidates backed off their pledge to support the party's nominee. For Ted Cruz and John Kasich, they specifically cited being unwilling to support Donald Trump. For Trump, he backed off the pledge, complaining about his treatment by the Republican National Committee.

What we are witnessing is the Republican divorce.

The first "party" in this divorce is the Trump coalition of "Reagan Republicans": Basically, middle class people who have had it with the status quo of the last 15 years. They know their marriage to the Republicans isn't working, and they wouldn't consider voting Democrat. Some of them are even former Democrats who gave up on that party. Many of them have had their jobs affected or even taken away by immigrants or free trade. They don't know what the solution is, but they know the status quo won't get them there. Think of them as the Israelites building the Golden Calf.

Speaking of religion, the second "party" in this divorce is the Ted Cruz coalition of "religionistas" (like how I made up that word?). This is the wing of the party that looks towards government to enact laws against things their religion sees as evil, with abortion usually being number one on their list of targets, but they also want their government to be Christian. First Amendment? What First Amendment? To them, "freedom of religion" usually means freedom of Christian religion. Religionistas also tend to read the Bible's "love your neighbor" law as "love your Christian neighbor, the rest can burn in Hell". Needless to say, this group won't be fleeing to the Democratic Party. To the religionistas, "Democrat" translates as "godless heathen". (Disclaimer: While I am a Christian, I recognize the folly of some of my fellow Christians. But I still love them in spite of it.)

Finally, the third "party" in  this divorce is that pitiable spouse known as the Republican establishment, and represented by candidate John Kasich. This is the group of people who are Republican first, and whose identity and politics is entirely in the party. It is also ironic that this group's candidate would even suggest not supporting the Republican nominee. If any of the three divorce "parties" is the "cheated on" spouse, it is this party. But don't feel sorry for her: She has been a domineering wife for quite awhile, insisting on her candidates (i.e. McCain and Romney), regardless of whether they were any good.

The religionistas and the Republicans should be able to make up and continue. But the Reagan Republicans are a hard-headed lot, and also the largest part of the GOP. If they leave the GOP, the GOP will be done.

While I hear the Democrats cheering in the background, I would warn them: You have your own issues with the Sanders' Socialists. Also, the Trump coalition is more likely to pull votes from your side than either of the other two GOP "parties". Be careful what you wish for...

The Hillary/Trump election isn't in the numbers

In looking over the numbers, I don't see each party's respective leader reaching the total they need to declare victory.

Starting with the Republicans, Donald "Joe Millionaire" Trump needs 1,237 delegates to declare victory. He currently has 739, with 839 remaining to be decided, meaning he needs 498 of the remaining 839, or over 59% of the remaining delegates. California stands huge, with 172 winner-take-all delegates at stake, but Trump is only ahead of Cruz by 1% in the latest California polls. Even if Cruz takes California, and wins the majority of states remaining, it is unlikely Cruz will have enough to claim victory either, since he only has 465 delegates now. My money is on the Republican nomination being up-for-grabs when they get to the convention, unless Trump can win California and pull roughly 49% of the remaining proportional states, which will be tough for him (he doesn't usually win 49% in states where he wins).

On the other hand, Democrat Hillary Goldman Clinton needs 670 delegates to win, which leaves her in the driver's seat to the convention. With 1,747 delegates remaining, Clinton can pull under 50% and still walk away winner. "Weekend at Bernie" Sanders will have a tougher time pushing Hillary for a brokered convention. My money is on Hillary winning the "D" nomination before the convention.

Expect a very interesting summer...

Sowell speaks TRUTH to power

Economist Thomas Sowell nails the whole discussion around Obama's Supreme Court nomination perfectly, in his editorial "Supreme Hypocrisy". He calls out both sides on the stalling tactic which the Republicans are currently using.

Giving one example he uses:

None of this is new. It was already well-known 40 years ago, when President Gerald Ford nominated me to become one of the commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission during the 1976 Presidential election year. 

After months passed without any hearings being held, I went to see the chief legislative aide of the committee that was responsible for confirming or denying. When the two of us were alone, he said to me, quite frankly, "We've gone over your record with a fine tooth comb and can find nothing to object to. So we are simply not going to hold hearings at all." 

"If this were not an election year," he said, "your nomination would have sailed right through. But we think our man is going to win the Presidential election this year, and we want him to nominate someone in tune with our thinking."

Sowell even manages to lay some blame for this stalling tactic at the feet of the judges themselves:

If judges confined themselves to acting like judges, instead of legislating from the bench, creating new "rights" out of thin air that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, maybe Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees would not be such bitter and ugly ideological battles.

As a rule of thumb, when you hear politicians scream "OUTRAGE!" against the other party, just check the history books. I am sure you'll find the shoe in the other mouth at some point.

TRUTH Review: Batman v. Superman

I went to see the new Batman v Superman movie last Friday. I would call it good, not great, and give it 3 1/2 stars out of 5.

First, some caveats to anyone before they go see this: You know Superman and Batman's history, right? We don't need no steenkeeng origin stories, right?




Seriously though, BvS does rely a lot on what you already know, and that is ok for most people. Both Batman and Superman are integral parts of American culture.

If anything, the movie does spend a little more time on Batman's character, since he is being introduced here. On the other hand, Superman was introduced in Man of Steel. You didn't see it? Me neither. But don't feel bad, because they basically give you the full rundown on that movie too.

The acting quality in this film is a mixed bag. Best performance goes to Ben Affleck, whose Batman was far better than I expected. A close second goes to Jeremy Irons' Alfred, who was the main comic relief in the entire film (don't expect much comic relief from this film's doom and gloom, of which there is plenty).

Worst performance goes to Henry Cavill, who was wooden in The Tudors too. I think Superman smiled twice in the movie? When an actor makes you long for the acting range of Christopher Reeve, you better check his pulse.

Second worst performance goes to Jesse Eisenberg for his Lex Luthor. I think he was trying to make Lex seem a little crazy, and that just isn't Lex. Next time, shave Daniel Craig's head, or hire Patrick Stewart, or even bring back Kevin Spacey. Jesse isn't Lex on his best day.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane? Meh. I wasn't impressed, but she wasn't bad either.

Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman? There is potential here. Unfortunately, you will have to wait for the Wonder Woman movie to find out if it is real or a mirage. BvS gives WW the gloss job, giving us a few minor scenes with her throughout the film, before letting her fight in the big battle at the end.

In the end, this movie is just one really long trailer for future movies. But the truth is, the future movie I want to see is Affleck doing Batman. With Affleck, and a bit more screen time for Jeremy Irons, that could actually be worth the price of going to see a movie.

Georgia Governor Caves to PC Forces, Sun Rises

What is more important: Freedom of religion, or freedom of sexual orientation?

That is the question behind Georgia's "religious liberty" bill. (See this article from CNN if you aren't familiar with this issue.)

Basically, Georgia legislators were saying, with this bill, that freedom of religion is more important. The "forces of political correctness", aka the Media, northeastern elitists, and progressives everywhere, think freedom of sexual orientation is more important. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal decided to side with the PC police, and will veto the bill. Is he right?

In order to decide which is more important, I decided to look at a hypothetical religion versus sexual orientation issue.

For the religion, I picked Global Warming. I know, I know, people will tell me this is a scientific issue. However, if you ask any climatologist, they will tell you that Global Warming is a "theory", not a "fact". Ergo, we have to believe the Earth will warm based on faith, not fact. Since faith is more in the realm of religion, then belief in Global Warming should be protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

For the sexual orientation, let's use the classic homosexuality, shall we? The whole religious liberty bill wouldn't have been an issue if not for the gay community, right?

And now for the hypothetical: What if a scientific study showed that homosexual "relations" produced more carbon than heterosexual "relations"?

That is a toughie. Should we allow the Global Warming theorists to show preferences to heterosexuals in that situation? Can you imagine the court case where a Global Warmist refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple?

Sorry Global Warmers, but I have to side with the gays on this one. When it comes to any kind of law, I want it based on facts, and not what a religion chooses to believe. An individual's sexual orientation is more factual than the Earth warming based on carbon in the air (as opposed to the sun which amazingly creates daily high temperatures for areas of the Earth facing it).

Returning back to the original issue, I will have to side with the Georgia governor. This is clearly a case where being gay is more important than your carbon output.

Obama: Clueless in DC

America's current president amazes me sometimes. Even with him potentially being replaced by Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, I still find myself looking forward to the replacement president, even if it ends up turning our country into a fascist or socialist nightmare, because at least the replacements can't be any more dumb than our current White House occupant.

Case in point, from the Washington Examiner:

In a brief Easter weekend radio address, President Obama vowed to decimate the self-proclaimed Islamic State, but he said the United States will do so by offering an example of freedom, tolerance and open society. 

"Our openness to refugees fleeing ISIL's violence; our determination to win the battle against ISIL's hateful and violent propaganda — a distorted view of Islam that aims to radicalize young Muslims to their cause," are paramount in the fight, Obama told Americans during his weekly radio address. 

Admitting entry to Syrian and Iraqi refugees has become a divisive issue in the U.S. as well as Europe, but Obama made clear he has no plan to back off his promise to admit 100,000 to the U.S. this year.

"We have to wield another weapon alongside our airstrikes, our military, our counterterrorism work, and our diplomacy," Obama said. "And that's the power of our example. Our openness to refugees fleeing ISIL's violence. Our determination to win the battle against ISIL's hateful and violent propaganda – a distorted view of Islam that aims to radicalize young Muslims to their cause." 

So when one of these radicalized Muslims sees the U.S. offer to let them immigrate here, he will instantly forget his desire to work with the radicals, and forget any intention of killing Americans or Westerners, and just be so appreciative that he will love America and move here?

Ask the people in Brussels how well that worked for them...

If Obama or anyone in Washington had a brain, they would see the correlation between U.S. military activity in the Middle Eastern and Asian Islamic nations, and the birth and growth of such radicalized Islamic groups like Al Qaeda and ISIL/ISIS.

Weekly Closing Post

I decided to change the "weekend open thread" to a "weekly closing post". Let's be honest, I don't get enough traffic for an open thread, although anyone is certainly welcome to comment as they wish.

For this week's closing post, I offer a piece of classical music, which holds the distinction of having been used as the theme to the old radio show Buck Rogers:



I love how Franz Liszt's Les préludes moves from calm, almost reflective moments, into sweeping heroic blasts. It is a rather stirring work.

Enjoy your weekend, and have a happy Easter!

Maybe a 3rd Party isn't so bad?

This one speaks for itself. From the Washington Times:

Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Johnson, possibly [benefiting] from dissatisfaction with the two major parties’ front-runners, is in double digits in a potential three-way race, according to a poll released Thursday. 

In a three-way contest, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton was at 42 percent, GOP front-runner Donald Trump was at 34 percent, and Mr. Johnson, who is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination, was at 11 percent, according to the Monmouth University poll.

Here is the kicker:

More than three-quarters of respondents didn’t know enough about Mr. Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and 2012 presidential candidate, to have formed an opinion. Mr. Johnson received more than 1 million votes in 2012 — a record for a Libertarian candidate — which amounted to about 1 percent of the popular vote.

Maybe this will give the people incentive to at least consider a third party candidate? You know, one party runs a fascist and the other party runs a crook, maybe a third party candidate is worth considering?

This is where I give kudos to Fox News's John Stossel, who is hosting a Libertarian presidential forum on Fox Business Network on April 1st (no joke). I won't say you will like or dislike what they have to say. Just hear them, and consider them. With the alternatives being Trump or Clinton, you better have a third choice.

Dangerously Stupid Quote of the Day

“So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate...Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works."--Barack Obama

I wonder if Obama believes in anything, or is everything just relative to him?

Fly the Friendly Skies

Some news stories just scream at me. From the Houston Chronicle:

A United Airlines pilot has been arrested and accused of running a string of brothels in apartment complexes and office buildings throughout Houston. 

Bruce Wayne Wallis, 51, was charged with aggravated promotion of prostitution and engaging in criminal activity in what officials said included about a half-dozen brothels in Galleria-area apartments and northwest Houston office buildings with six to 10 women.

It certainly adds new meaning to the old advertising phrase, "fly me"...

On a side note, what the heck is "aggravated promotion of prostitution"? It sounds like he went out and beat up customers to sell his girls.

When Clintons Attack

I have to take back what I said about Bill Clinton the other day. When he referred to the Obama presidency as an "awful legacy", he wasn't senile. He was just channeling the Clinton campaign's meme which separates them from the Obama administration.

I say this because now we have Chelsea Clinton attacking Obamacare. From the Weekly Standard:

A video shows Chelsea Clinton blasting the "crushing costs" of President Barack Obama's signature legislation. In the video, Chelsea Clinton tells a crowd that her mother, Hillary Clinton, is open to using executive action to reduce "crushing costs" of Obamacare. 

"...cap on out of pocket expenses. This was part of my mom's original plan back in '93 and '94, as well as premium costs. We can either do that directly or through tax credits. And, kind of figuring out whether she could do that through executive action, or she would need to do that through tax credits working with Congress. She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people, who even are part of the Affordable Care Act and buying insurance..."

Note how Chelsea says her mother would use executive action to fix this problem? Haven't we had enough "rule by executive fiat"? I find it worrisome that Obama has made this acceptable to the point nobody flinches when it is suggested.

Folks, while you were sleeping, the politicians in Washington moved us ever closer to a dictatorship. But what they don't know is the joke is on them. As soon as the dictator is in office, all of his/her opposition will be in front of firing squads. Be careful what you wish for...

My Favorite Leftist: Camille Paglia

If you ever want to read the thoughts and logic of a true Leftist, and by that I mean one who practices what she preaches, and doesn't support Leftists simply because they have a "D" after their name, then read Camille Paglia.

In her latest column, This is why Trump’s winning, and why I won’t vote for Hillary, she traverses the political scenery of both parties. Here is a small taste:

This week’s horrific terrorist attacks on the Brussels airport and metro raised the pressure in the already tight U.S. presidential campaign. Candidates of both parties were instantly measured against voter expectations of how a president could and should behave in a similar crisis. Meanwhile, it was jarring to see a beaming President Obama relaxing at a Cuban baseball game, while grisly photos of the wrecked terminal and dazed, bloodied victims in Belgium were on steady media feed all over the world. 

Given that most people, sequestered at their workplace, were unable to monitor the full range of responses throughout the day, the candidate who emerged on top was almost certainly Donald Trump. Despite his alarming enthusiasm for waterboarding and torture, Trump’s central campaign theme of securing the borders and more stringently vetting immigrants was strengthened by the events in Brussels, a historic city whose changing demographics he had already controversially warned about. Trump’s credibility would be enhanced if he treated the vital immigration issue in general policy terms rather than divisively singling out specific groups (Mexican, Muslim), the majority of whom are manifestly law-abiding.

While I mostly agree with her, I will take exception on one part: How could Trump bring up the vital immigration issue without singling out specific groups? When he talks about building a wall, he shouldn't mention the Mexican border? He shouldn't mention Muslims, even if that's who he plans to target?

I have to give Trump credit for at least saying what he means, rather than watering it down to the point of meaninglessness, like most politicians do. If Trump has a virtue, it is his willingness to be brutally honest on some issues.

Other than that, I recommend Miss Paglia's thought-provoking editorial to anyone, Right or Left.

Bias in Motion

Kudos to the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto for catching this opening paragraph from a CNN article (red bold added by me):

The Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has seen its fair share of challenges from likely suspects such as GOP political opponents, conservative think tanks and closely held for-profit businesses like Hobby Lobby. On Wednesday, however, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the law from unlikely quarters: an order of nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor.

"Likely suspects"? There is a damning phrase if ever I heard one. You can almost hear the writer thinking, "How dare those Republicans, conservatives, and for-profit businesses try and fight the pure and holy Affordable Care Act?! This is an outrage! And now those evil nuns are getting into the act too? OUTRAGE!"

The writer, Ariane de Vogue, needs to be informed that the ACA also protects the health insurance industry, which is also "for-profit". But like most Leftists, she will protect her political allies (i.e. Democrats) at the cost of her own beliefs.

Vincent D'Onofrio: Hollywood's Acting Kingpin

(SPOILER ALERT: If you haven't seen Daredevil on Netflix, there may be spoilers ahead. I wholeheartedly recommend you go watch both seasons of it, and come back.)

I was about halfway through the second season of Daredevil, when they show a large man, wearing the typical orange prison jumpsuit, as he lifts weights. I think to myself, "Is it him? Could it be? Please let it be?" Then he sits up, and turns around, revealing the face of Vincent D'Onofrio's Wilson Fisk, aka The Kingpin. Even in the split second before he speaks, I am already in a state of joy.

I have always had a fascination with Kingpin, even as a kid seeing him in comic books. Here is a large man who is subtly evil, almost like a devil who makes no pretense about his horns and tail. But he also has the strength to crush any average man easily, so he is as dangerous on an abvious level as he is on a subtle level. When I first saw D'Onofrio's Kingpin in the first season of Daredevil, this was a new villain, with depth and heart...and far more evil than the comics could ever envision.

In an editorial about D'Onofrio's Kingpin, Andrew Battershill channels a little Norman Mailer and Gay Talese in his essay about D'Onofrio's acting history. I recommend the essay for Battershill's writing (At least until he tries to make it some kind of big social commentary near the end, and instead ends up sounding like some politically correct twit. Sometimes, a great actor is just a great actor.).

But I do have to agree with Battershill's praise of D'Onofrio: It has been many years since I saw an actor whose work was so good that it made me want to watch everything he has done. Heck, I even re-watched Full Metal Jacket recently, where D'Onofrio played a Vietnam era Marine recruit who loses it and kills his sergeant before killing himself too.

The first actor I ever saw like D'Onofrio was Jack Nicholson. His portrayal of Jack Torrance in The Shining not only saved the movie, but showed me how a great actor can portray change in a character. Unfortunately, by the end of the 1980's, Nicholson was reduced to chewing scenery in films like Tim Burton's Batman. It was in that movie when I came to appreciate another actor, Jack Palance. I went to the movie expecting to appreciate Nicholson's Joker, but in reality it was Palance's mob boss Carl Grissom that stood out to me as scarier than Nicholson's Joker.

I still remember Palance's Dracula from when I was 9 years old. It gave me nightmares. However, as I have watched Palance over the years, I realized he was a one-trick pony, even if it was a wonderful trick. He knew how to give off an evil vibe like few other actors. He even used it for comic effect in City Slickers.

One thing I noticed about D'Onofrio's Kingpin, was how much he sounded like Jack Palance. If you had to pick a voice for Kingpin, you couldn't pick a better one than Palance. Whether that is intentional on D'Onofrio's part, I have no idea. But here is the neat part: I can't picture Palance playing Kingpin. He never had the build for it, or even the physical mannerisms.

Thank God for Vincent D'Onofrio.

There is a reason acting is considered an "art". When an actor plays a character, they can play it as everyone envisions in their own heads, or he/she can take the character and make it different. Like a painting, that difference can be good or bad. But when it works, when the actor is capable of fulfilling the vision in their own mind, and the vision is a good one, we get a walking/talking work of acting art.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to finish watching the second season of Daredevil, and then go and watch everything Vincent D'Onofrio ever made. It should be fun.

IRS loses in court

One of my favorite scandals of the past few years has been the IRS scandal, where they targeted Tea Party groups. If the IRS had acted this way under a Republican president, we would have 24/7/365 coverage of the scandal. Under Obama, not so much...

But I love stories like this, from the Washington Times:

A federal appeals court spanked the IRS Tuesday, saying it has taken laws designed to protect taxpayers from the government and turned them on their head, using them to try to protect the tax agency from the very tea party groups it targeted. 

The judges ordered the IRS to quickly turn over the full list of groups it targeted so that a class-action lawsuit, filed by the NorCal Tea Party Patriots, can proceed. The judges also accused the Justice Department lawyers, who are representing the IRS in the case, of acting in bad faith — compounding the initial targeting — by fighting the disclosure. 

“The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws — all of them, not just selective ones — in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition,” Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote in a unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. “We expect that the IRS will do better going forward.” 

...The case stems from the IRS‘ decision in 2010 to begin subjecting tea party and conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny when they applied for nonprofit status. 

An inspector general found several hundred groups were asked inappropriate questions about their members’ activities, their fundraising and their political leanings. 

The IRS has since apologized for its behavior, but insisted the targeting was a mistake born of overzealous employees confused by the law rather than a politically motivated attempt to stifle conservatives. 

Tea party groups have been trying for years to get a full list of nonprofit groups that were targeted by the IRS, but the IRS had refused, saying that even the names of those who applied or were approved are considered secret taxpayer information. The IRS said section 6103 of the tax code prevented it from releasing that information. 

Judge Kethledge, however, said that turned the law on its head. 

“Section 6103 was enacted to protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers,” he wrote.

I don't know what Judge Kethledge's views are, but based on his statements above, I would at least be happy to consider him for the Supreme Court.  

RIP Bob Ebeling

A friend sent me this NPR story, Challenger Engineer Who Warned Of Shuttle Disaster Dies, and it got me to thinking. But first, the meat of the story:

[Bob] Ebeling was one of five booster rocket engineers at NASA contractor Morton Thiokol who tried to stop the 1986 Challenger launch. They worried that cold temperatures overnight — the forecast said 18 degrees — would stiffen the rubber O-ring seals that prevent burning rocket fuel from leaking out of booster joints. 

...Ebeling was the first to sound the alarm the morning before the Challenger launch. He called his boss, Allan McDonald, who was Thiokol's representative at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. 

...Three decades ago, McDonald organized a teleconference with NASA officials, Thiokol executives and the worried engineers. 

Ebeling helped assemble the data that demonstrated the risk. [Another engineer, Roger] Boisjoly argued for a launch delay. At first, the Thiokol executives agreed and said they wouldn't approve the launch. 

"My God, Thiokol," responded Lawrence Mulloy of NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center. "When do you want me to launch? Next April?" 

Despite hours of argument and reams of data, the Thiokol executives relented. McDonald says the data were absolutely clear, but politics and pressure interfered.

(hat tip to National Geographic for the pic)

This is what happens when we let government bureaucrats and corporate executives run things: People die. Profits and CYA intentions are not valid justifications for action or inaction, especially in the face of people who know what is happening better than the bureaucrats and executives.

This is also where the Peter Principle comes into play: Failure by decision makers is evidence where people have risen to the level of their incompetence. It happens equally in government and the private sector. People like NASA's Lawrence Mulloy and Thiokol's Allan McDonald are examples of people who were successful in previous roles, so their "trial and error"-minded higher-ups assumed they could be successful with more political roles, i.e. making decisions where politics is a factor. Unfortunately, their higher-ups were politicians who only considered the human  political factors as important. Hence, the shuttle blowing up was an irrelevant factor in their decision, only the launch-or-no-launch was important.

But the human tragedy of such failures doesn't end with the people who died:

Ebeling blamed himself for failing to convince Thiokol executives and NASA to wait for warmer weather. 

"I think that was one of the mistakes God made," Ebeling told me in January. "He shouldn't have picked me for that job." 

The morning of the launch, a distraught Ebeling drove to Thiokol's remote Utah complex with his daughter. 

"He said, 'The Challenger's going to blow up. Everyone's going to die,' " Serna recalls. "And he was beating his fist on the dashboard. He was frantic." 

Serna, Ebeling and Boisjoly sat together in a crowded conference room as live video of the launch appeared on a large projection screen. When Challenger exploded, Serna says, "I could feel [Ebeling] trembling. And then he wept — loudly. And then Roger started crying."

Ebeling carried the burden of guilt, even though he wasn't responsible for the launch decision, up until shortly before his death, when many reached out to him:

But that work didn't diminish lingering pain and guilt. God "picked a loser," Ebeling said in January, thinking back to his role in the Challenger launch. 

Then Ebeling heard from hundreds of NPR readers and listeners, who responded to our January story. 

"God didn't pick a loser. He picked Bob Ebeling," said Jim Sides, a utilities engineer in North Carolina. 

"Bob Ebeling did his job that night," Sides continued. "He did the right thing, and that does not make him a loser. That makes him a winner." 

Ebeling also heard from two of the people who had overruled the engineers back in 1986. Former Thiokol executive Robert Lund and former NASA official George Hardy told him that Challenger was not his burden to bear. 

And NASA sent a statement, saying that the deaths of the seven Challenger astronauts served to remind the space agency "to remain vigilant and to listen to those like Mr. Ebeling who have the courage to speak up." 

The burden began to lift even as Ebeling's health declined. A few weeks before his death, he thanked those who reached out to him. 

"You helped bring my worrisome mind to ease," Ebeling said. "You have to have an end to everything." 

Bob Ebeling died Monday, but the legacy he leaves is a lesson to all of us: Fight for what you know to be right, and listen to those who tell you that you are wrong. God bless Bob Ebeling.

Why the Left is worse than the Right

If you ever want to consider why Leftists are, in general, worse than Rightists, you don't have to go very far. Just look at a few news stories...

Let's start with Lena Dunham, who I consider a Leftist flake of the highest magnitude. However, even she understands how kooky the Left can be. From Fox News:

“I have received more hostility for voting for a qualified female candidate than I have ever received anywhere from the American right wing,” [Lena Dunham] said at a Clinton campaign event at NeueHouse in Hollywood. 

“The fact that other members of the Democratic Party have spoken to me like I was an ill informed child for voting for someone who represents everything I think this country should be is outrageous.”

Self-righteousness is almost an innate quality of any Leftist. This also leads to Leftists doing things they claim to be against. Take this example, from Gateway Pundit (click on the link to see photos):

Up to one thousand anti-Trump protesters gathered outside of the Washington DC Convention Center for Donald Trump’s speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference. 

The AIPAC Policy Conference is the pro-Israel community’s preeminent annual gathering. The event attracts more than 16,000 community and student activists from all 50 states. 

Donald Trump is speaking at the conference on Monday night. 

...The anti-Trump protesters are taunting the Jewish audience with Nazi imagery.

Why would I assume these are Leftists?

First, Leftists have no issues with being anti-Jewish, since they like to forget history. For them, racism in defense of Leftist ideology is ok.

Second, except for radical Rightists (i.e. skinheads, Nazis, KKK members) who openly profess racism, the overwhelming majority of Rightists are pro-Israel, in addition to being anti-racism, contrary to what most on the Left think. Not to mention, none of the radical rightists would be against Trump if he were a Nazi.

Third, Leftists are violently anti-Republican, with only the barest of tolerance for when Republicans actually agree with them.

If you want to understand Leftism, just remember that Leftists pray at the altar of the all-holy government. Anything that promotes government power is good. Government will fix all of our all-too-human problems by putting us all in one box, where there is no racism allowed, and everyone makes the same amount of money, because we are all equal under government.

Unfortunately for Leftists, the great flaw in their ideology is the same one they are against: Human individualism. Government is not some all-perfect entity: It is run by individual humans, all with unique flaws of their own. The problem was best described by George Orwell in Animal Farm:

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL,
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."

In any form of government, there will always be some humans who are "more equal than others". Leftist ideology forgets this inconvenient truth.

The great hypocrisy in Leftism is that it absolves all sins in the name of itself, including any sins which it is supposedly against. How many Leftist feminists supported Bill Clinton, even after the Monica Lewinsky affair came out? How many Leftist pacifists have remained silent as President Obama has continued killing people in the Middle East? How many Leftists are against the death penalty, but are also for abortion rights?

If the Leftists aren't careful, they may just get Trump elected by making him sympathetic, as well as alienating every voter group they can with their own idiotic ideological arguments.

Bill Clinton: The Senile Years

Bill Clinton has turned into what Ross Perot once described as:

"...a crazy aunt we keep down in the basement. All the neighbors know she's there, but nobody wants to talk about her.”

The sad part for Hillary is nobody can stop talking about him, especially when he does stuff like this, from Fox News:

Former President Bill Clinton slammed what he called the "awful legacy of the last eight years" during a campaign appearance for his wife, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, in Washington state Monday.  

Clinton made the remarks at an event in Spokane ahead of Saturday's Washington state Democratic caucuses.  

"If you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us," Clinton said, "and the seven years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her." 

Pause, for the retraction...

However, a Clinton spokesman told USA Today that the former president was referring to Republicans in Congress with his "awful legacy" remark.  

"After President Obama was elected, Republicans made it their number one goal to block him at every turn," spokesman Angel Urena said. "That unprecedented obstruction these last eight years is their legacy, and the American people should reject it by electing Hillary Clinton to build on President Obama's success so we can all grow and succeed together." 

Alright Bill, time to go back in the basement...

Why do people hate Hillary?

In a CNN editorial, Jay Parini's wife asks the question, "Why do they hate Hillary Clinton so much?" I am glad you asked Mrs. Parini! Based on the article, your husband is clearly clueless, although the fact he confesses to having voted for Bernie Sanders shows his lack of any knowledge of history.

Fortunately, I am here to fill in the holes in your husband's knowledge. Here are 5 reasons to hate Hillary:

1. Contrary to your husband's glossing treatment, it looks like Hillary did break the law in the email scandal. I know progressives like to imagine a world where no law ever gets enforced (unless a Republican gets arrested), since they keep making more new obscure laws for us to break every day, but the truth is what she did was against the law (ask David Petraeus about it). For you and me, that would mean jail time, but not for Queen Hillary.

2. I still don't buy the fact that Hillary Clinton was able to make $99,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures. In 10 months, no less. It might be luck, but this is the Clintons we are discussing.

3. Her innate paranoia, best exemplified by her quote regarding allegations of her husband's infidelity, which later proved true:

"From my perspective, this is part of the continuing political campaign against my husband… I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

4. Everyone remembers President Bush's claims about chemical weapons in Iraq, but nobody remembers Hillary's same claims:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. This much is undisputed."

5. For every position she takes today, you can probably find a quote on the internet where she takes the opposite view just years ago (sometimes sooner). Mind you, she isn't the only politician with this problem (Hello, Mr. Trump!), but that shouldn't make this an acceptable practice. I can accept that politicians will evolve their views on certain subjects, but when we start seeing them flip-flop all of their views, we need to reject them.

(hat tip to Free Republic for the pic, although it is spelled "you're", not "your")

Weekend Review: The Anti-Trumpsters

While I am firmly against Donald Trump's presidential candidacy, his other opponents almost make me want to support him.

The protest in Arizona over the weekend was certainly a low-point in the anti-Trumpsters activities. Blocking traffic to a Trump event was both illegal and stupid, proving the anti-Trumpsters can be every bit as ignorant as the pro-Trumpsters.

But it doesn't stop with Americans. Now Mexico has gotten into the act. From Bloomberg:

Mexico is mounting an unprecedented effort to turn its permanent residents in the U.S. into citizens, a status that would enable them to vote -- presumably against Donald Trump. 

Officially, Mexico says it respects U.S. sovereignty and has no strategy to influence the result of the presidential race. Yet Mexican diplomats are mobilizing for the first time to assist immigrants in gaining U.S. citizenship, hosting free workshops on naturalization. 

"This is a historic moment where the Mexican consulate will open its doors to carry out these types of events in favor of the Mexican community," Adrian Sosa, a spokesman for the consulate in Chicago, said before an event on March 19. In Dallas, about 250 permanent residents attended the consulate’s first "citizenship clinic" in February and another 150 in its second in March. In Las Vegas, the turnout topped 500. 

Underscoring the fine line that separates participation from interfering in another country’s election, Sosa noted that the consulate only hosts the event but it’s community organizations who offer the advice.

Don't you love how diplomats dance around the truth, when all of us can plainly see what is happening?

And then there is this editorial from Newsweek, "DONALD TRUMP: CANDIDATE AS CANCER":

Look into the mirror, American. See there the hair that is like a wheat field whipped by the wind; the face that looks like the product of sexual congress between a tuna and a tangerine; the lips pursed in childish imitation of gravitas; the tie that is too bright and too long; the small, dull eyes of a manatee scanning adoring crowds. This is Donald Trump, American. This is you and I. 

Trump is the cancerous growth that suddenly alarms so many in the nation, Republican and Democrat alike. Do we deserve this malady? Is it somehow our fault? There must have been symptoms that we missed. There must have been preventative measures we could have taken, cures that would have worked, only it is too late now. America will be made great again, and then she will moan one last time on her gold-plated deathbed, and then she will die.  

I will say this in support of Trump: He has managed to expose the drama queens in this country.

Here is a crazy, nutty idea for all you anti-Trumpsters out there: If you don't like him, vote against him. I know, I am such a lunatic...

DD-Day: Weekend Open Thread

Welcome to DD-Day! By that I mean "Daredevil Day", as today is the release of the second season of the Daredevil tv show on Netflix.




If you haven't seen the first season, I wholeheartedly endorse it as one of the finest shows I have ever seen. I will add one disclaimer: Daredevil is also one of the bloodiest shows I have ever seen. If Sam Peckinpah did a tv show, it might have been Daredevil. However, the show is still awesome, with top-notch writing and acting.

As for this thread, feel free to comment on anything you like here, and enjoy your weekend!

Media Goes Ballistic over Trump

You can't hardly sneeze without coming across a news story or editorial about "Somebody do something about Trump! Hurry! This $#%* is serious!" Here are some examples:

Christian Science Monitor: Around world, doubts whether Trump could 'make America great again'
(We care about what the rest of the world thinks...why?)

Fox News: The new battle cry: Why can't the media 'stop' Trump?
(Maybe because the Media doesn't get to vote?)

Washington Post: To defend our democracy against Trump, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention (Because that will end well, probably with Trump taking his candidacy to a third party...)

RealClearPolitics: How Trump Can Be Stopped
(Get enough people to vote for Hillary, or a third party candidate like Gary Johnson.)

You get the idea. But what is lost in all the hyperbole is the fact Americans are fed up. Trump is the symptom, not the disease. If the Media wants to "stop Trump", they will need to change hearts and minds across the country. Unfortunately, those "hearts and minds" are angry at being given a bill of goods for the actions of both Republicans and Democrats, and those "hearts and minds" have nothing to show for it. Consider:

1. The public bought it, and put the Republican establishment in power, under Bush. Unfortunately, the Republicans proceeded to raid the public treasury like it was their parents' credit card. On top of that, Bush left office with the country in a state of economic disaster, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the malaise of the 1970's.

2. Ok, so the public bought it a second time, putting the Democratic establishment candidate Barack Obama into office. Hope and change! And he proceeded to give the American public a healthcare plan they didn't want, passing it on partisan lines. Now the American people have high deductible health insurance, with the rest covered by their health savings accounts...IF they have a job!

3. Speaking of jobs, let's not forget the trillions in dollars which both parties gave to Wall Street, and which didn't seem to find it's way to Main Street. You remember, Bernanke and Bush and Obama all agreed this money was necessary to keep the economy from collapsing? And yet we have fewer people working now than since the 1970's?

To be honest, I am amazed it has taken the American public this long to get mad. But it will take a lot more than "stop Trump" articles to assuage Americans. Remember this scene from the movie Network:



As long as the Media continues to ignore the plight of average Americans, and only continues to attack Trump, they will only speed up the death of their relevance as a factor in American thought.

The (stupid) Things We Do for Love

All men can usually claim to have done something stupid for a woman, but this story is a new one beyond anything I could ever conceive of doing. From Fox News, Captured American ISIS fighter says, 'I was not thinking straight', or as I would have titled it, "I Became a Terrorist for Love":

A Virginia man who joined ISIS and surrendered to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters earlier this week has expressed regret for entering the terror group's self-proclaimed caliphate, saying he "made a bad decision" and "was not thinking straight." 

In an interview broadcast on the Kurdistan 24 news station, Mohamad Jamal Khweis, 26, said he had made his way to the ISIS-held city of Mosul, Iraq with an unidentified woman whom he had met in Turkey while traveling.  

"We spent some time together, and she said that she is from Mosul, Iraq," Khweis said. He added the pair traveled from Istanbul to Mosul by bus and private vehicle, arriving on Jan. 16. 

"On the way there I regretted [my decision], and I wanted to go back home after things didn’t work out and saw myself living in such an environment," Khweis said. 

I know that feeling: You end up someplace really dumb with a woman, doing things you wouldn't normally do. I can only imagine waking up and being told to carry a rifle and go kill infidels. My first thought would probably be, "Huh? The sex wasn't THAT good!"

Human or robot?

After watching the video above, it occurred to me the near-future contains a critical choice for humanity's evolution: Will robots become more like humans, or vice versa?

It doesn't take much to imagine how robots can become more like humans. Our movies and tv are filled with human-like androids. But how can humans become more like robots? Implantation of devices which can communicate with our brains and muscles and body parts, to create a cybernetic organism, or cyborg for short.

The beauty of science fiction is that it has already considered both possibilities, and determined how humanity can be destroyed in either direction.

For robots taking over the world, we only have to look at the Terminator movies for that possibility. Hasta la vista, humanity!

The other side has only been hinted at in science fiction, but the hints are pretty nasty: Consider Star Trek's alien race, The Borg. While the Borg could be from any race, the implications for humanity are clear: Humanoid races, injected with nanoprobes which build cybernetic implants in the body. The implants allow the being to join the "collective" in thought, thereby losing their own individuality and merely serving whatever the collective wants. It is the perfect socialist state, although I am sure the socialists would deny it. It is the ultimate "tyranny of the majority".

My opinion is humanity will end up with some kind of implants to improve ourselves, at the very least brain implants to bring us up to speed with the most advanced androids. If we don't, we will end up as zoo exhibits for the androids to come and gawk at on their weekends.

Better to be silent and thought a fool...

Politico article: Democrats sound alarm against Trump.

Leading liberals and progressive groups are turning their gaze away from the Democratic primary and toward efforts to unite the left against Donald Trump, framing him as a dangerous and unprecedented candidate who poses an existential threat to the progressive movement and the nation. 

Ad campaigns are in the works. There are calls for massive voter mobilizations and screeds from leading donors circulating within liberal circles. Major labor groups are organizing their members on the ground in swing states. Within the Democratic Party apparatus, top elected leaders are beginning to speak out both collectively and individually in ways that reach beyond standard presidential-year posturing. The sense of urgency in some corners of the left is high enough that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a progressive icon who has gone to great lengths to avoid being part of the Democratic presidential conversation in 2016, hinted on Monday that she might soon get involved with the effort to stop Trump.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Meanwhile, conservatives watch the progressives getting their panties in a bunch, and begin to wonder, "Hmm...maybe this Trump guy isn't all that bad? If the tinfoil-capped weenies think he's a danger to society, then he must be doing something right?"

Normally, contrarian logic works with the Leftists, but this is an exception. Remember conservatives, there are still areas to the right of your political beliefs where even you don't want to go!

There's dumb, and then there's this...

From the Associated Press:

North Korea's highest court sentenced an American tourist to 15 years in prison with hard labor for subversion on Wednesday, weeks after authorities presented him to media and he tearfully confessed that he had tried to steal a propaganda banner. 

Otto Warmbier, 21, a University of Virginia undergraduate, was convicted and sentenced in a one-hour trial in North Korea's Supreme Court. He was charged with subversion under Article 60 of North Korea's criminal code.

Otto, why did you do something so incredibly stupid? Even assuming you managed to get the banner, did you think you would get out of the country without them checking your luggage? You get the bear...

Next:

Before the trial, Warmbier had said he tried to steal a propaganda banner as a trophy for an acquaintance who wanted to hang it in her church. That would be grounds in North Korea for a subversion charge. He identified the church as Friendship United Methodist Church. Meshach Kanyion, pastor of the church in Wyoming, declined to comment Wednesday.

Do I even have to get into the Christian implications of "thou shalt not steal"? Even if Otto is telling the truth on this, it never occurred to him that stealing in a foreign country could have significant repercussions? This calls for a new award, because the bear doesn't cover this level of...

(hat tip to Ethical Havoc for the pic)

Finally, let's consider the possibility that Otto is innocent, and he was framed by the North Koreans. Then we have this:

Arrests of tourists are rare but the U.S. State Department strongly advises against such travel. Further complicating matters, Washington and Pyongyang do not have diplomatic relations. The Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang acts as a go-between in consular issues when U.S. citizens run afoul of North Korean authorities.

Unfortunately, there is only one level above bear and shark, and I am afraid Otto just doesn't qualify for it yet:

(hat tip to Design Download for the pic)

However, considering Otto won't be procreating for the next 15 years, we can give him a provisional Darwin Award for staying out of the gene pool for 15 years!

Trump's Economic Plan

Back in 2012, I thought Republican Mitt Romney's economic plan carried one huge flaw: He was going to challenge China's pegging of their currency to the dollar. Basically, if China didn't stop it, he would start a trade war with them. Can you say "dangerously stupid"?

Now we have Donald Trump, and "dangerously stupid" only begins to describe his economic plan. I hope you are sitting down for this...

(Quotes below are from the CNNMoney article, Donald Trump's big economic plan: Fix U.S. trade.)

1. Dr. Trump finds cause of economic problems: Free Trade.

"The American worker is being crushed" by trade, Trump says. As proof, he cites research from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute that found America has lost 900,000 jobs to Mexico since the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in late 1993. 

The job losses are the subject of a huge debate. Other research by the right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce says 5 million U.S. jobs have been created because of NAFTA. 

Regardless, this discussion ignores the impact of technology and innovation on traditional middle class jobs.

Before you dismiss the impact of technology, I had a thought about information technology recently: When I used to create reports, the work I did would have taken an entire building of people to compile a hundred years ago. Every year, technology continues to eliminate more jobs, via computers and robots. Don't be surprised if 20 years from now, ALL the jobs are done by computers and robots. What people will do hasn't been decided.

2. Dr. Trump's plan: Economic Chaos! 

Trump solution is to renegotiate trade agreements (the U.S. currently has 20 free-trade deals in place) and put taxes (known as tariffs) on Chinese and Mexican imports. 

The idea is to make Chinese and Mexican goods more expensive so companies will start manufacturing in the U.S. again. 

The problem is China and Mexico aren't likely to send Trump a thank you note. They would probably retaliate by putting taxes on U.S. goods coming into their countries. It could cause a global trade war.

Exhibit A in "What the heck are you thinking, Donald?": The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. From Wikipedia:

Threats of retaliation began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover's administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.

It is no coincidence the 1929 stock market crash began in October, just a month after the U.S. received those protest notes.

And Donald wants us to relive that? While I accused Romney of dangerous stupidity, I have to call Trump "epically stupid".

It's (almost) final: Clinton versus Trump

Yesterday's primaries didn't cement a victory in either political party, but they certainly made clear front runners who will be hard to beat the rest of the way.

On the Democratic side, it would take overwhelming victories by Bernie Sanders for him to even have a chance at beating Hillary Clinton. Even with California and New York still to come, I just don't see it happening for Sanders. Without superdelegates, Clinton is leading with 1,074 delegates to Sanders' 762. With superdelegates, she nearly doubles his count: 1,561-800.

On the Republican side, Trump got every state except Ohio, where also-ran John Kasich won his winner-take-all home state. Now, of Kasich's 138 delegates, almost half are from Ohio. On the other hand, Kasich did better than Marco Rubio, who lost his home state Florida to Trump.

Marco at least had the brains to read the writing on the wall. From RealClearPolitics:

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio suspends his presidential [campaign] at a speech in Miami following his loss to Donald Trump. 

"Most of all, I know first hand that ours is a special nation," Rubio said. "That's how I've decided that I too can run for president of the U.S.A.... From a political standpoint, the easiest thing to do in a campaign would be to jump on all those anxieties... to make people angrier, more frustrated. But I chose a different route and I am proud of it." 

"That would have been the easiest way to win, but it is not good for America," he continued. "The politics of resentment against other people will not just leave us a fractured party, it will leave us a fractured country." 

"Where we find ourselves at this point is not surprising, the warning signs were clear for close to a decade," Rubio said. "2010 the Tea Party wave carried me and others into office because not enough was happening, and that Tea Party gave Republicans a majority in the House but nothing changed. In 2014, that wave gave Republicans a majority the Senate and still nothing changed." 

"I blame some of that on the conservative movement. A movement that is supposed to be about our ideas. But I blame most of it on our political establishment, a political establishment that for far too long has looked down at conservatives as simple minded people... as bomb throwers." 

"A political establishment that has for far too long taken conservatives' votes for granted, and that has grown to confuse cronyism for capitalism and big business for free enterprise. I endeavored to bridge this divide... America needs a vibrant conservative movement, but one that is built on principles and ideas, not on anger, not on preying on peoples' frustrations..."

I would argue this is older than a decade, going back into Bush's presidency. For too long, Republicans have been a party of fiscal irresponsibility, spending like a teenager with dad's credit card. Now dad has the bill, and he is not the least bit happy. Think of Donald Trump as "dad getting his belt".

To be honest, Rubio caught the wave, but he never understood it. Of course, I don't think the average Trump voter understands it either. They just see the mess of our economy, and illegal Mexicans standing on the corner sucking up all the jobs. Unfortunately, the Trumpsters are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 22.

The TRUTH is that the illegal Mexicans are a symptom, not the disease. The true problem is crony capitalism which has corrupted the American government to it's core. When Rubio tried to get his amnesty bill through Congress, he was doing Wall Street's bidding. They want cheap labor, and they expect Washington to provide it. That was why the GOP establishment turned to Rubio when Jeb Bush failed. He was door #2.

So where will the GOP establishment turn next? They have four options: Embrace Trump, embrace a third party candidate, embrace Hillary (Wall Street would like that), or do nothing. My money is on them doing nothing. The GOP establishment would never endorse Hillary, ever. There is too much bad blood there. If the establishment ran a third party candidate, it would be obvious, and would split up the Republican Party. Finally, the GOP establishment would never support Trump (at least not privately, and any public support would be tepid), because they are too closely related to the Democrats in their views.

This is it folks: Hillary versus The Donald. These are the two best candidates this country has to offer.

God help us all.

It's the economy, stupid!

I was watching this CNN video, where actor Kevin Spacey compares this election to 1968, specifically comparing Donald Trump to George Wallace. Then I was reminded of the variation on political analyst James Carville's quote:

It's the economy, stupid.

As the Media runs around barking about racism, they are ignoring what Trump is talking about, and why people are listening to him.

As for Spacey's 1968 comparison? The unemployment rate was 3.6%. The current U-6 unemployment rate (which includes part-time workers looking for full-time work) was 10.1% in February. George Wallace's racism was a hideous luxury in 1968. Donald Trump's racism in 2016 is a reaction to loose immigration policies which have been ignored for too long, and are now starting to show an economic effect.

Until the Media wakes up and starts hitting Trump on the economy, he will continue to roll along. The formerly middle class worker who is now poor or unemployed doesn't care about the Media's racism charges. He/she wants a job that pays enough to live, and he/she will vote for Trump because Trump isn't "generic brand politically correct politician". Don't be surprised to see large numbers of poor minorities voting for the allegedly racist Trump because of the economy.

It's the economy, stupid.

So keep throwing racism out there, and ignore the bitter truth: Our country's economic policies under the last two presidents specifically, and going back 100 years, have favored the wealthy and poor over the middle class.

The economic chickens have come home to roost. You better give them something, preferably a job, or hand the country over to Trump.

Hot Mic Alert!

I love when famous people get caught talking on a hot microphone about stuff they would NEVER say in public! Case in point: This Washington Post report of a conversation between Hillary Clinton and Christ Matthews, during an MSNBC interview:

...during a commercial break while taping an MSNBC town hall on Monday, Clinton and host Chris Matthews chatted it up about the state of the race. 

Clinton scolded the media for its constant coverage of the GOP front-runner Donald Trump, speculated about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's political future and  his motivations for endorsing Donald Trump.

"You guys can’t stop covering him," Clinton said told Matthews. "He is a dangerous presence." 

In the Media's defense, Trump is far more interesting than anyone else running. The most interesting thing from Hillary so far has been a recurring cough. With Trump, you get racism, sexism, assassination attempts, incestuous comments, and whole bunches of exciting news, usually on a daily basis. Trump spoon-feeds intellectual pablum to the Media, while Hillary makes them work for every crumb of controversy. Beer Hall Putsch versus "grass growing". I think Hillary may be smoking her own growing grass...(although I am sure she doesn't inhale!)

Matthews followed up by acknowledging that his network has "progressive leanings, obviously."

Thank you, Captain Obvious...

"But nobody can tell what people want to watch," he said.  

"People must think they want to watch him," Clinton replied. 

"They laugh at him," said Matthews.

Yes, all those people who show up at his rallies and cheer him on, are only there to laugh at him. A comedian would be lucky to pull the audiences Trump gets:

1. Jacksonville, FL

 (hat tip to The Florida Times-Union for the pic)

2. Phoenix, AZ

(hat tip to the Susan Smith Show for the pic)

3. Dallas TX

(hat tip to Twitchy for the pic)

4. Rochester, NH

(hat tip to ITV.com for the pic)

I can go on, but you get the point. Those crowds aren't there to "laugh" at Trump. 

The truth is only the progressive elites like Chris Matthews "laugh" at Trump. They haven't realized they are the joke, and Trump is laughing all the way to the polls...

Feel the Bern

Sometimes, politicians make a mistake and say something which reveals how politics really works. Like Bernie Sanders (story from The Hill):

Bernie Sanders on Monday said one of the reasons he decided to run for president as a Democrat instead of as an independent was to attract more media coverage. 

“I just happen to believe that in this moment of history, given the crises that we face, it is too late for establishment politics and establishment economics," Sanders said at an MSNBC town hall. 

“We concluded — and I think it was absolutely the right decision, that … in terms of media coverage — you have to run within the Democratic party,” Sanders said.

One thing I have always suspected was the Media doesn't have a "liberal bias", or even a "progressive bias" to be more accurate. The Media supports the Democratic Party, right or wrong. Now I have confirmation from Bernie Sanders. Thanks Bernie!

Ben Carson's Reasoning

When Ben Carson decided to endorse Donald Trump, I was floored. Fortunately, Jonathan Easley at The Hill managed to get Carson to give him the rationale behind Carson's endorsement.

Here is a point-by-point breakdown of the interview:

1. Trump is lying...

“I needed to know that he could listen to other people, that he could change his opinions, and that some of the more outlandish things that he’s said, that he didn’t really believe those things,” Carson said.

When asked which statements Trump might back away from, Carson demurred.

“I’ll let him talk about that because I don’t think it’s fair for me to relay a private conversation,” he said.

Translation: Trump is saying a lot of crap he doesn't really mean, so Carson is cool with him.

Bring out the bear for this one...

2. Trump and Carson are both outsiders...

...Carson said his path to supporting Trump began in earnest in September at the second Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, Calif. That debate took place not long after Trump had achieved front-runner status and a short time before Carson would challenge him atop the polls.

There, Carson said, the two men bonded over their shared status as outsiders who had flummoxed the media and party elites. Both also shared a strong distaste for being politically correct. The connection grew stronger as they crossed paths at subsequent debates.

“He and I have talked over for months about the fact that we had a lot of alignment and there would probably continue to be some association,” Carson said.

Having shared interests is a good basis for a friendship, but I have had lots of friends I wouldn't endorse for president. But let's move on...

3. Carson doesn't think Ted Cruz can win the general election...

“I think it would be very difficult to convince the independents and Democrats to come over and support him,” Carson said.

Carson said his decision not to support Cruz had nothing to do with the Texas senator’s campaign circulating a false story about him dropping out of the race before the Iowa caucuses.

Carson is on the mark here. As an independent with libertarian views, I consider Cruz the kind of candidate for whom I would have to hold my nose to vote.

4. Carson thinks Marco Rubio and John Kasich can't win... 

“I didn’t see a pathway for either,” Carson said. “That was the same reason I dropped out, because I didn’t see a pathway to victory for me.”

5. This is a maybe, but... 

As for the possibility of joining the ticket as a vice presidential candidate?

“I leave the door open,” Carson said.

“My primary focus is to make sure we get the kinds of policies in place that are really going to solve our problems and are going to preserve the American dream for the next generation. If serving as vice president is going to make that more likely, then I’m willing to do it.”

If number 5 turns out to be true, we can cross out the first 4.

That said, even if Carson isn't going to be Trump's veep, I wouldn't be surprised to see Carson get a cabinet-level post (Secretary of Health and Human Services maybe?). My money is on Carson getting a job somewhere in the Trump administration.

All that said, this reminds me of the following quote about honesty:

"See they conducted experiments on convicts ... I don't know on what grounds they reason a man in jail is a bigger liar than one out of jail ... The chances are telling the truth is what got him there ... It would be a big aid to humanity, but it will never be, for already the politicians are up in arms against it ... It would wreck the very foundation on which our political government is run ... If you ever injected truth into politics you'd have no politics … Even the ministers are denouncing it now … Humanity is not yet ready for either real truth or real harmony."--Will Rogers

Weekend Review

Jamie Dupree just reported this via Twitter:

From the Buckeye State - Mitt Romney to join Johh Kasich on the stump in Ohio today https://t.co/OhEgOtcFF8

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) March 14, 2016

What this means is "bye bye Marco Rubio, the GOP establishment just jumped off your bandwagon". Mind you, that doesn't mean Kasich will do any better. It just means Rubio now has one less 800 pound gorilla on his back.

Then again, there is this from Fox News:

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio has dropped to third place just days ahead of a crucial primary in his home state of Florida, according to a CBS News poll released Sunday.

On the bright side, I won't have to talk about Rubio for another 4 years, maybe longer...

In other news, Angela Merkel has learned the dangers of leaving Germany's door open:

German voters turned to the far right in droves [Saturday] in a damning verdict on Angela Merkel’s open door border policy. 

In regional elections she was humiliated by the anti-immigrant AfD – Alternative for Germany – party. 

Formed just three years ago, it has surged in popularity following Mrs Merkel’s decision to roll out the red carpet for more than a million migrants. 

Frauke Petry, who leads the Eurosceptic party, has suggested German border guards should open fire on illegal immigrants.

While I can appreciate Germans aren't fond of walls, I think shooting immigrants might be a bit overboard.

Another story from the LA Times:

What happens when a Democratic lawmaker strays from party leaders on a key piece of Gov. Jerry Brown’s policy agenda? One assemblywoman who held back support for a sweeping climate-change bill last year is starting to find out. 

Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown (D-San Bernardino) was among a group of business-aligned Democrats who objected to a provision in the bill, SB 350, that would have cut California's motor vehicle petroleum use in half by 2030. 

Now Brown, a moderate, is facing what could be a bruising reelection fight against an intraparty challenger from the left, attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes. The race raises a question: What does it mean to be a Democrat in San Bernardino, where concerns over jobs often compete with those about the environment? 

Some early signs indicate Brown could be in trouble. Protesters have shown up at her local events. Some of her supporters have defected, endorsing Reyes early in the fight. 

“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown said in a recent phone interview. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.” 

Last week, Brown's suspicions began to crystallize when a dozen students in breathing masks from San Bernardino Valley College threw themselves on the floor of a town hall meeting she hosted.

If you ever want to see how Democrats are like the Mafia, here is a great example.